I chose to compare the articles written by Geert Lovink and Sean Cubbit, which discuss the impact that Youtube has had on society's understanding and use of Media. Both writers key in on the idea that Youtube is a database of wide-ranging media rather than the traditional model of meticulously constructed and chosen media. Lovink focuses on how these databases mean that we are "no longer at the mercy of mono-cultural multiplexes," and consequently are given a sense of more freedom over what we choose to watch. But Levink is skeptical of the benefits of this freedom. For one, the sense of freedom may be somewhat unmerited, because what we watch is still guided and determined by the keywords others have selected. But what Levink seems most concerned about is the loss of a "Grand Narrative." Fewer people seem interested in reading books and watching television. The focus is now on "lame entertainment" and "random junk." Although Levink is quick to add that this banal media touches at "the essence of cultural technology," like cinema verité, it realizes a desire to turn the camera into a pen, a tool for the masses.
Sean Cubitt seems to have a more stark, negative view of Youtube. In Cubitt's opinion, what makes a good youtube video is not aesthetics, humor, politics, or even ethics, but rather the speed of connection/download, and the presence of interference/grain. Cubbit calls Youtube "Art without hope" because the low-res nature latent in youtube's coding denies the media from reaching the potential of high quality film. A similar idea to Levink's article, Cubitt discusses how Youtube gives the user the impression of being constantly connected to others. As he puts it "You are never alone on the network."
No comments:
Post a Comment