-
“cultural critics of media continuously take for granted that all media are hegemonic: “they look for examples of new media forms that can be characterized as mass media, because they feel comfortable with the broadcast model in which the control of the media form is centralized” (2003, p.22). The “old” mass media is replaced with the new, “digital mass media” which following this tenet somewhat artificially extends and expands the validity and applicability of old models for media analysis and what it implies, the relevance of the media effect as a determining concern of media research at large.” -> ⤴️
-
“As opposed to being seen as effects of the working of media, attitudes to media are formed in relation to an interplay of numerous circumstances, symbolic realities, presence of others.” -> ⤴️
-
“reception and perception of media is a result of a dialogical, multi-directional process.” -> ⤴️
-
“these constellation of material and symbolic realities that media messages enter as well as the presence of others who influence the way that these messages are read” -> ⤴️
-
(Couldry, 2012), specific media practises, but too social constructionist - media practise is too unstable for this ^b12797
- “media (e.g. social media services and affordances they engender) are constructively woven into a generation of new types of social practices (e.g. presencing, tracking, searching [ibid. p.50]) or particular reconfiguration of existing cultural practices such as personal archiving [ibid., p.51]).” -> ⤴️
- “However, a strong social constructionist perspective that transpires in Couldry’s discussion on mediation makes him remain relatively distant to questions regarding the material, technological and generative side of media practices taking place outside of proprietary services and frameworks, and which will be of interest here. … he tends to acknowledge them as somewhat stable, one could even say, determining elements of today’s media landscape in accordance to which people arrange their daily life practices.” -> ⤴️
- “Couldry implicitly seems to replace these missing institutions with dominant social media infrastructures,” -> ⤴️
- “even though Couldry advocates to seek alternative practices that can further contest the idea of power concentrated in media institutions (and hence ideas of hegemony and media effect), he limits this search to the scope of dominant infrastructures (social media), and effectively, by doing so he establishes a gravitational force within which the discussion on media practices (and so digital archiving) is bound to.” -> ⤴️
- “Couldry’s social constructionist perspective makes him overlook other types of archiving practices in which individuals might be intervening not only into the processual (e.g. software), but also material (e.g. hardware) underpinnings of media technologies.” -> ⤴️
-
“Culture has typically been defined as a dynamic constellation of conduct, social behavior, practices of everyday life, values, and beliefs that represent a collective (Clifford, 1988, p.12). Media technologies can be seen as important cultural players, in that they actively participate in negotiating and mediating the dynamics within and between these cultural dimensions.” -> ⤴️
-
“one aspect of culture, dominance of one kind of medium over others at a given moment in history” -> ⤴️
-
“shift from one mode and regime of communicating to another” -> ⤴️
-
“Less medium specific concepts pointing at a complex interplay between different media, such as convergence culture (Jenkins, 2006), have also been discussed recently.” -> ⤴️
-
“this plurality of positions towards such a broader understanding of the term media” … “de Certeau whose scholarship, especially in relation to the question of a position of individual in relation to dominant power structure seems to reflect quite strongly Hall’s diffraction of the earlier, monolithic approach to studying life with media.”
-
“Especially Hall’s third position seems to be much in synchrony with de Certeau’s attendance to everyday life as an arena of cultural inventiveness in attending to various social, technical and cultural frameworks that one voluntarily and involuntary traverses on a daily basis.”
-
“for a scholarship that opens up to see media landscape as a “theatre-as-it-could-be.” This concept cuts into the here and now of the media technology landscape; it is an intentional, performative diversion from the prevailing norms and patterns of the mainstream media landscape. It is a risk taken to recombine and rewire established modes of living with media technologies, to demonstrate and test alternative possibilities. While the Kember and Zylinska’s intent is primarily to raise the significance of the performative in knowledge-making and media scholarship, it can also be seen as an inspiration to recognize the performative, and thus the inventive side of everyday living with technologies.” ⤴️
-
“One of the main objectives of creative media manifesto is to establish a stronger correspondence between distanced, analytic approaches to studying media and an “inside-out perspective,” by which we can also understand an engaged, hands-on, material approach to analyzing media technologies while actively composing relationships with them.” ⤴️