Henry Jenkins' New Media Definition

a. How does capstone measure up according to the definition proposed in Henry Jenkins' "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"? 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 Jenkins' definition, and why?

Like Manovich's definition, Jenkins' definition of New Media features multiple different principles. However, none of Jenkins' principles are the same as Manovich's. Oh, and there are eight of them this time--to qualify as "new media", it must be: innovative, convergent, everyday, appropriative, networked, global, generational, and unequal. Out of the three New Media big-wigs, Jenkins does the best at tearing apart at my animation idea, so I suppose I'll start with the principle that fits the worst with my idea. I believe "generational" might be the worst, but I think the principle itself is an odd term--yes, I do realize that cultural norms have been changing so fast that our parents are vastly culturally different from us, and new media is partially to blame for it, but that doesn't seem to describe new media itself as much as new media's consequences, so it might be best for me to ignore that term and pick a different one to call my worst: innovative. I'm not sure if creation of a storyline for an animation by the masses (as opposed from one or two individuals) is innovative or not, but I know that a 3-D animation itself isn't. There have been 3-D animations being made for a few decades now, and even though artists are getting better working with this new method, it's mostly not "new" nowadays. My best of Jenkins' principles is "networked", which the premise of the storyline creation process relies on; the network allows anybody from anywhere in the world to assist in creating the story.

Do I agree with Jenkins' definition? Again, as it turns out, the answer is yes and no. Mostly no. I've already mentioned earlier how I felt that "generational" doesn't exactly belong in the definition as I see it. But ignoring that, I also don't agree too much with innovative, as I don't believe that something needs to be totally unique for it to fall under new media. To me, new media is an art. Innovation does occur in art from time to time (take Jackson Pollock's style of art, for instance), but it's far from required for the piece to be successful. Most of the other principles I do agree with on varying levels, but I feel like Jenkins' article isn't trying to define the term New Media so much as it's trying to define the effects of New Media on our culture (which fits better with the title of the article, Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape). I am curious if anyone else felt this way about this article, or if I am just being naive.

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.

Vin Crosbie's New Media Definition

I'm going to try to develop my animation idea further by reading how three of the big heads of New Media define the term "New Media" (of course, it's different for each of them). Hopefully after I've read each of their definitions and have compared what they wrote to what I've been thinking about doing, I might be able to add to my idea (or come up with something better). My first post is in regards to Vin Crosbie's definition.

a. How does your capstone measure up according to the definition proposed in Vin Crosbie's "What Is New Media?" How might you alter your project to fit better?

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

Vin Crosbie described the three communications media as "one-to-one" (Interpersonal Media), "one-to-many" (Mass Media), and "many-to-many". The last one is the newest, therefore "New Media". It's pretty difficult for me to measure up how a 3-D computer-generated animation fits Crosbie's proposed definition, as he thoroughly pointed out that there is a clear distinction between "medium" and "vehicle" (ie., the world wide web is not a medium, but a vehicle used in conjunction to the medium). There is only one "new medium", in terms of communications media, and everything else that manifests within it is simply a vehicle. The personalized website is a vehicle, and so are computer games. If those two are considered by Crosbie to fall under "new media", then an animation that has been created using the computer also fits the bill. In fact, not much altering would be required in order to make my project fit his definition better; I could place my finished animation online (perhaps on a personalized website?), and include a "Play" button at the start so that the viewer had control over when the animation begins to play, and already it's chock full o' New Media.

Now for part B of the assignment, I have to say I only partially agree with his definition. Many of his examples do fit my opinion about "new media", but I also think that new media is not solely confined to technology. Granted, his article was written in 1998--almost a decade ago--and many things have changed since then, so I can't hold it against the man. One thing that I felt needed more elaboration in his article was one of his examples: "Some computer games, such as Myst, are New Medium vehicles". What qualifies "some" computer games as New Medium vehicles, and others not? And his example doesn't clarify it any--what makes Myst any more "new media" than, say, Zork? The only major difference in gameplay is Myst uses sounds and images instead of text (The original Zork was released in 1979, compared to Myst's 1993--fourteen years later--so the gameplay itself isn't exactly "new"). Perhaps if Crosbie gave us an example of a computer game that was not new media, including an explanation for his choice, then perhaps I could better agree with his definition.