Ubiquitous Media has regularly forced me to rethink my position and explore new ideas. It’s been challenging, but rewarding, even when I’ve had to grapple with what the heck dasein means.
It’s those arduous but otherwise agreeable theorists – the Luhmanns and the Heideggers – that have given me the most food for thought. Thinking about the nature of our interaction with technology and the types of interconnections between media are fundamental to analyses of ubiquitous media. These two theorists encapsulate these threads, contributing useful analytical frameworks to my Media 2.0 toolkit that I will be able to apply to my research on media as an ecosystem (it’s like a jungle sometimes).
Did we overlook anything? Perhaps ways that gender and race are sometimes ‘hardwired’ into technology. Lorna Roth investigates how “Shirley” colour balance cards took white skin tone as a normative reference for film and photography – shouldn’t we analyse App stores, Jibos and 3D printing in a similar way?
Nonetheless, our varied backgrounds and interests ensured that we covered plenty of ground. And I’ve been listening! It’s thanks to you that I’m wondering how Auckland Transport’s new surveillance package might discriminate against the poor, reminding myself that New Zealand’s mediascape differs from China and the Philippines, challenging my opinions on immersion, being mindful of the political and economic machines that turn in the background, and living in fear of the Robo-Craig apocalypse (more opportunities for creative application of theory please!).
“The medium is the message.” Maybe people are catching onto McLuhan. All this nude photo Cloud hacking – iCloud, Snapchat, FengKuang LaiWang – that’s got people thinking about the medium, surely? Or are we too caught up in moral panics about content and security? Shouldn’t we think about who is shaping our media and how we interact with it?
Dasein is to be, to be is to question, and I choose to question the medium.
I think I’ve got the message.