Skip navigation

Tag Archives: McLuhan

Tirado de um puta post do Noah Brier sobre o centenário de McLuhan.

Marshall was also encountering a response that would tail him the rest of his life: the incorrect belief that he liked the new world he was describing. In fact, he didn’t ascribe any moral or value dimensions to it at all–he simply kept on pointing out the effects of new media on the individual. And what makes him fresh and relevant now is the fact that (unlike so much other new thinking of the time) he always did focus on the individual in society, rather than on the mass of society as an entity unto itself. It was Marshall’s embrace of the individual–a poetic and artistic, highly humane embrace–that has allowed the reader (then and now) to enter his universe. There are, perhaps, no practical political, religious, or financial applications to Marshall’s work. It could even be argued that it should be seen as a rarefied artifact unto itself, an intricate and fantastically ornate artwork that creates its own language and then writes poetry with it. And what would be wrong with that? Art is art. And an artist, according to Marshall, is someone on the frontiers of perception, who looks at information overload with the goal of pattern recognition, to see things before anyone else.

“The wheel is an extension of the foot. The book is an extension of the eye. Clothing, an extension of the skin. Electronic circuitry, an extension of the central nervous system. Media, by altering the environment, evoke in us unique ratios of sense perceptions. … When these ratios change, men change.”

Achei essa citação no excelente blog da Berg.

Descobri um raro áudio de Marshall McLuhan, sujeito que faz qualquer profissional de comunicação se sentir um completo idiota. Ouça, pois.

I rescued from cassette this talk that Marshall McLuhan gave at Johns Hopkins University in the mid 1970s. I have not found an audio file of this talk anywhere online. So far as I know it’s an original contribution to the archive of McLuhan audio. Enjoy.

Como eu nunca vou conseguir colocar a porra do player de áudio aqui, contente-se com o link.

“To perfect things, speed is a unifying force,” the race-car driver Michael Schumacher has said. “To imperfect things, speed is a destructive force.”

Schumacher tirando onda! Li isso em uma boa matéria do Wall Street Journal, “A Manifesto for Slow Comunication“:

The boundlessness of the Internet always runs into the hard fact of our animal nature, our physical limits, the dimensions of our cognitive present, the overheated capac­ity of our minds.

Progress, since the dawn of the Industrial Age, is supposed to be a linear upward progression; graphs with upward slopes are a good sign.

O problema é que nosso cérebro não respeita a mesma progressão geométrica:

But only two things grow indefinitely or have indefinite growth firmly ensconced at the heart of their being: cancer and the cor­poration. For everything else, especially in nature, the consum­ing fires eventually come and force a starting over.

In the past two decades, we have witnessed one of the greatest breakdowns of the barrier between our work and per­sonal lives since the notion of leisure time emerged in Victorian Britain as a result of the Industrial Age. It has put us under great physical and mental strain, altering our brain chemistry and daily needs. It has isolated us from the people with whom we live, siphoning us away from real-world places where we gather. It has encouraged flotillas of unnecessary jabbering, making it difficult to tell signal from noise. It has made it more difficult to read slowly and enjoy it, hastening the already declining rates of literacy. It has made it harder to listen and mean it, to be idle and not fidget.

Many of the values of the Internet are social improvements—it can be a great platform for solidarity, it rewards curiosity, it enables convenience. This is not the mani­festo of a Luddite, this is a human manifesto. If the technology is to be used for the betterment of human life, we must reassert that the Internet and its virtual information space is not a world unto itself but a supplement to our existing world, where the following three statements are self-evident.

There is a paradox here, though. The Internet has provided us with an almost unlimited amount of information, but the speed at which it works—and we work through it—has deprived us of its benefits.

Aí vem um parágrafo que precede as aspas do Schumacher:

The speed at which we do something—anything—changes our experience of it. Words and communication are not immune to this fundamental truth. The faster we talk and chat and type over tools such as email and text messages, the more our com­munication will resemble traveling at great speed. Bumped and jostled, queasy from the constant ocular and muscular adjust­ments our body must make to keep up, we will live in a constant state of digital jet lag.

Catastrófico, né? E verossímil também. O artigo termina com uma sugestão:

To do this, we need to uncouple our idea of progress from speed, separate the idea of speed from effi­ciency, pause and step back enough to realize that efficiency may be good for business and governments but does not always lead to mindfulness and sustainable, rewarding relationships.

Porra, isso é MUITO FODA:

To do this, we need to uncouple our idea of progress from speed, separate the idea of speed from effi­ciency

Noah Brier comentou em seu site uma entrevista de Bil Wasik, autor do livro “And The There’s This: How storie lives and dies in Viral Culture”

Our meta-analyses of culture (tipping points, long tails, crossing the chasms, ideaviruses) have come to seem more relevant and vital than the content of culture itself.” That one made my head spin a little. It’s so true. As a culture we’ve become more obsessed with understanding how things spread than the things themselves. The model itself is the content. (Or, as McLuhan would say, the medium is the message.)

Noah Brier em um artigo

“The rise of social communications tools, from email to Twitter, has made this distinction quite a bit more problematic. That’s because we’re left with this funny in-between space where individuals are able to communicate with large groups but keep the intimacy of an interpersonal exchange. For lack of a better name, I’ve been thinking of this type of communication as interpersonal communication with scale. Blogs are a perfect example: individuals can talk to groups of hundreds, even thousands, with many in the audience feeling as though they’ve had a personal exchange.”

Muito foda, isso é o que dá ficar lendo Mcluhan. Você nunca leu, né? Pois é, eu também não. E nós dois devemos profundamente nos punir por isso.

E pra fechar, uma comparação do Noah Brier que dá muita raiva:

As a side note, I’ve been noticing that when I write I use a lot more parentheses than ever before, especially in print. I kind of think this is in place of hyperlinks”

Porra, é uma ordem: usem parênteses! Enriqueçam seus textos.