McCluhan is an important figure in 20th century media theory, who is best known for coining the term ‘the medium is the message.’ Brian, in the Lectorial, described his writing as ‘associative,’ jumping from idea to idea. So, as he’s deemed to be an influential media theorist, I decided to watch one of his lectures to see what he’s all about.
The introducer of the lecture interestingly, and almost presciently, mentions that 21st century academics will look back on Mcluhan’s statement ‘the medium is the message’ and view it was provocative and outrageous. Certainly, it is a loaded statement to unpack, but I do see its relevance to modern understanding and theories about the media.
Mcluhan states in the lecture, as an example “what you print is nothing compared to the effect of the printed word.” We know that the printing press revolutionised communication, and so did the advent of the telephone, television, and the internet. These technologies and mediums have shown to have significant effect on society and the way we communicate. I can therefore accept this part of Mcluhan’s argument: mediums are powerful, and capable of sending messages.
However, I’m hesitant to agree with Mcluhan on his argument that, for example, TV is the message, and the ‘affect of the program is incidental.’ Maybe TV sends a message, but the program determines the kind of message the medium is sending out. A blank canvas is void of meaning until a painter creates an artwork on it.
I did like that he described TV as a ‘popular folk art.’ If he was around today, I think that he would also give this term to the content people are able to produce with social media, like blogs and vlogs. They are perhaps even more folk art than TV – created by the people, for the people.