Lev Manovich's New Media Definition

a. How does capstone measure up according to the definition proposed in Lev Manovich's "What Is New Media?" For this entry, describe the principle that your project fits best and the one it fits worst. How might you alter your project to fit better?

b. Do you agree or disagree with Manovich's definition, and why?

Manovich's definition, even more so than Crosbie's, favors a 3-D computer-generated animation as New Media. In fact, the hardest part about Part A of this assignment might be finding which principle fits the worst, as they all fit to some degree. Manovich defined New Media as following five principles: numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding. For a computer animation, I believe the strongest principle it fits under is numerical representation--essentially, that a new media object can be defined mathematically, and that the object is subject to algorithmic manipulation. On a computer, 3-D shapes are created through highly complex mathematical formulas (usually in the form of polygons or NURBS), and animating said shapes requires hefty formula manipulation. The 3-D modeling and animation program Maya handles all these formulas internally, so the artist doesn't require a masters degree in mathematics in order to create a sphere, but the math is still present. Even after the animation is finished, mathematics are present in simply being able to watch the finished product (whether on a computer or with the aid of a DVD player). So which principle does this fit the worst? This is a tough one, but I think "automation" barely wins the title. Automation deals mostly with artificial intelligence and letting the computer automatically generate objects. The animation relies heavily on automatically generating objects (I can create a perfect sphere simply by pressing one button, instead of trying to carefully shape polygons and vertices by hand), but artificial intelligence, even though surprisingly present, plays a relatively small role in comparison.

So, Part B. Do I agree with this definition? Again, like Crosbie's definition, yes and no. Manovich's definition restricts some aspects that I feel qualify as "new media" too much, while at the same time opening it up too wide for objects I don't believe are "new media". Using his definition as a framework, I can explain how a normal .jpeg image is new media--not as easily as I could explain an animation, however, but many of the basics are present: it comprises of mathematical formulas, is structured (different pixels making up one image), can be created and altered automatically (such as with filters in Photoshop), can exist in many versions, and is machine-readable. I could explain it further if I felt like it, but I am pressed for time. So if a simple .jpeg image can easily fit into Manovich's definition, then a series of multiple .jpeg images being rapidly played in succession (ie., a film or animation) also fits the bill.