Just wrote this for Ryerson University. Would appreciate some feedback please :) Thank you very much.
In his groundbreaking book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964) Marshall McLuhan famously stated that the medium is the message. In essence, this famous phrase means that the content that a medium carries is not the totality of its message. This is especially true today, where there are many mediums capable of delivering information, each one vastly colouring how a message is perceived by its audience. However, the true value of a medium is how can it be used to enhance our collective experience as a society. Some mediums allow us to grow and flourish as a population, and others do just the opposite.
A medium that has disputably stunted human interaction in a social setting is television. McLuhan argued that the rise of the television turned the family circle into a semi-circle. What does this mean? Take the family circle, before everyone had a television. With no mediator, two way communication between humans was bountiful. After the television was introduced into homes, it greatly reduced the communication between humans. People adjusted to one way communication between a screen and themselves. Even if other family members were in the same room, communication between each other was greatly reduced.
Of course, an argument for the other side can also be made, that television has amplified the way we connect as a society. Sporting events such as hockey, football and even the Olympics can bring people together, whether it be in a bar or with a couple friends over at home. In the past few years a sport called UFC has risen to fame, offering large scale fighting between two contenders. It's creators opted for the program to only be available on a pay-per-view channel for the seemingly ridiculous price of $50 for a single 3 hour program. Hidden beneath the surface however, is an ingenious marketing tactic. With such a high price, it forces people to gather together, pooling there money and watching the show together. Soon people begin to associate memories they received from the heightened social bonding that the program commands with the content of the program, but the real secret to its success is the medium in which it is presented.
With the age of the Internet upon us, McLuhan's family circle has taken yet another hit. Now everyone has a communication medium in front of them. Whether it is a cell phone, tablet, MP3 player or laptop, they are all connected to others who are also mediated by a screen. It can be debated that this breeds a more introverted population who has been primarily trained in social interactions electronically. As a result, they lack the skills necessary for effective face-to-face communication. This is an excellent example of McLuhan's suggestion that the medium is more important that the message it carries. While the content of a conversation carried out between two individuals will be the same regardless of the way it is delivered, the medium dictates the social implications and side effects.
We also see evidence of this aphorism in the way we listen, experience and discover music. Compare a listening experience on vinyl to the same album on an iPod, and this becomes apparent. With vinyl, the listener can physically hold the music in their hands, admire the cover art and have a genuine sense of owning the product. Vinyl also forces the consumer to listen actively. They have to get up every 20 minutes to flip sides or change records. This causes the listeners to be more involved in the experience, as oppose to having it on in the background while they partake in another primary activity.
A stark contrast to the experience a record provides is the one that can be achieved using an MP3 player, such as an Ipod. What portable music players lack in a physical sense, they make up in convenience, often a sought after advantage in todays fast paced world. A consumer listening on an iPod often has access to thousands of songs, and the ability to purchase more anywhere he pleases. This consumer can shut out the world and replace it with any song desired, anywhere. In fact, he could be listening to the exact same song that he listened to earlier that day on vinyl in his house, and be having a completely different experience right on his iPod. Even though the listener was hearing the exact same guitar chords, exact same lyrics and exact same drum hits, different mediums convey completely different messages, and in a subject as opinionated as music, it can be the difference between loving and hating a track.
Marshall McLuhan was a man certainly ahead of his time. This famous phrase is more true today than it ever has been. With the growth of the Internet, dozens of available mediums have shot off and grown at an unprecedented rate, each adding there own piece of the experience to the content. In a world with so many choices in the way we perceive and experience each other, the medium truly is the message.
Braedon Saunders
In his groundbreaking book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964) Marshall McLuhan famously stated that the medium is the message. In essence, this famous phrase means that the content that a medium carries is not the totality of its message. This is especially true today, where there are many mediums capable of delivering information, each one vastly colouring how a message is perceived by its audience. However, the true value of a medium is how can it be used to enhance our collective experience as a society. Some mediums allow us to grow and flourish as a population, and others do just the opposite.
A medium that has disputably stunted human interaction in a social setting is television. McLuhan argued that the rise of the television turned the family circle into a semi-circle. What does this mean? Take the family circle, before everyone had a television. With no mediator, two way communication between humans was bountiful. After the television was introduced into homes, it greatly reduced the communication between humans. People adjusted to one way communication between a screen and themselves. Even if other family members were in the same room, communication between each other was greatly reduced.
Of course, an argument for the other side can also be made, that television has amplified the way we connect as a society. Sporting events such as hockey, football and even the Olympics can bring people together, whether it be in a bar or with a couple friends over at home. In the past few years a sport called UFC has risen to fame, offering large scale fighting between two contenders. It's creators opted for the program to only be available on a pay-per-view channel for the seemingly ridiculous price of $50 for a single 3 hour program. Hidden beneath the surface however, is an ingenious marketing tactic. With such a high price, it forces people to gather together, pooling there money and watching the show together. Soon people begin to associate memories they received from the heightened social bonding that the program commands with the content of the program, but the real secret to its success is the medium in which it is presented.
With the age of the Internet upon us, McLuhan's family circle has taken yet another hit. Now everyone has a communication medium in front of them. Whether it is a cell phone, tablet, MP3 player or laptop, they are all connected to others who are also mediated by a screen. It can be debated that this breeds a more introverted population who has been primarily trained in social interactions electronically. As a result, they lack the skills necessary for effective face-to-face communication. This is an excellent example of McLuhan's suggestion that the medium is more important that the message it carries. While the content of a conversation carried out between two individuals will be the same regardless of the way it is delivered, the medium dictates the social implications and side effects.
We also see evidence of this aphorism in the way we listen, experience and discover music. Compare a listening experience on vinyl to the same album on an iPod, and this becomes apparent. With vinyl, the listener can physically hold the music in their hands, admire the cover art and have a genuine sense of owning the product. Vinyl also forces the consumer to listen actively. They have to get up every 20 minutes to flip sides or change records. This causes the listeners to be more involved in the experience, as oppose to having it on in the background while they partake in another primary activity.
A stark contrast to the experience a record provides is the one that can be achieved using an MP3 player, such as an Ipod. What portable music players lack in a physical sense, they make up in convenience, often a sought after advantage in todays fast paced world. A consumer listening on an iPod often has access to thousands of songs, and the ability to purchase more anywhere he pleases. This consumer can shut out the world and replace it with any song desired, anywhere. In fact, he could be listening to the exact same song that he listened to earlier that day on vinyl in his house, and be having a completely different experience right on his iPod. Even though the listener was hearing the exact same guitar chords, exact same lyrics and exact same drum hits, different mediums convey completely different messages, and in a subject as opinionated as music, it can be the difference between loving and hating a track.
Marshall McLuhan was a man certainly ahead of his time. This famous phrase is more true today than it ever has been. With the growth of the Internet, dozens of available mediums have shot off and grown at an unprecedented rate, each adding there own piece of the experience to the content. In a world with so many choices in the way we perceive and experience each other, the medium truly is the message.
Braedon Saunders