Response to McLuhan & Hall : Alex, Alexina, Emmanuel

Marshall McLuhan explains that it is impossible to transmit a message without a medium. A video clip is itself a medium, but it can be transmitted through different media such as the television, where the mind will be less involved, or the computer monitor, which tends to be an area where, because we choose what we will view, we become more involved. This variation of perception is an inevitable byproduct of media since they are an extension of our senses. It is essential for creators of "content" to choose their medium and encode their message carefully so that it is not misunderstood. Stuart Hall's take is that readers/listeners/viewers may adopt different stances when trying to understand a text/movie/etc. Some might understand the message (a word, even) implicitly because their social situation is close to that of the creator. Others might negotiate the message in a slightly different way because their social situation is slightly different, and others might understand the message completely differently because of a totally different social situation (i.e. rich vs. poor). A meaning, or message, is not individual. That is why pictograms, or international codes, must be designed carefully so that a greater number of people can decode them. Certain other codes may be interpreted in a way that is more natural for humans, like learning to walk. That is to say that the meaning of this message possesses a clear symbolism.

Although some may say that the interpretation of the message embodied within a film versus a book is dramatically different, we believe that this is mostly not the case. It is possible to extract specific scenes from movies while maintaining their integral idea. The same is applicable for books. Contrarily, some books and films become more of a personal experience, suggesting that the reader should not takes pieces of these works independently for fear of distorting the creator's intention. It is important not to neglect that the medium dictates what it contains. The viewer of a television program is also its source because her or his perception and interpretation becomes part of decisions made by the producer before outputting or "encoding" his creation. A newspaper's article is a medium in and of itself; what completes it (an image, for example) is a medium which becomes another medium when incorporated in conjunction with written word. In addition, the gun was created in the first place for feeding needs; the Internet was created for military needs... Do we still use them in the same way? We can therefore say that the creation of media is independent of intention. It solely depends on its use. Another equally important point that we wish to raise is the concept of chronology regarding mechanization came before the machine, or vice versa. Our take is that mechanization and the machine are two completely different things. Such as in relation to the movie La Jetée: events are separate as they occure in completely different times. Events pass and they can never be retransmitted in their original form. Take, for example, the photo of 9/11 presented in class: we cannot feel the same emotions as those who lived through the horrendous event.

What is the extent at which it is possible to manipulate the medium so that the latter is able to transmit the intended message?