The Groundhog of Technology Saw Its Shadow
When we jumped from radio to TV, that was an instant advancement.
When we flickered back and forth between TV and the internet, it was us questioning what the advancement was exactly. The benefit wasn’t immediate. Certain enlightened folks got in there first, and slowly made things that garnered a wider acceptance. It was a new civilization that needed building.
But I don’t think the transformation in near completion yet.
What is the stand alone benefit of this technology? There is something interactive now, and something about endless possibilities. But there is no core singular benefit. Yet we are relying wholly on the power we claim this digital realm has. The belief has come well ahead of collective understanding. Hence the confusion?
Hence ‘internet radio’ and ‘internet TV.’
But, what is the internet on its own? Why does it always need an additional metaphor for it to make sense to us? Or is it less a format and more the most comprehensive way to archive media to date?
Connection is a benefit, but does it render moving pictures irrelevant, the way radio formats were killed off by the advent of television?
Or is the internet more akin to a new postal service? The mode and method of connecting and transferring information, but not a pure replacement of what we can gain and experience from the quote unquote traditional media?
Traditional media is collapsing, but is it being replaced by a meaty enough alternative? Are we losing value and something human by encouraging a full switch to digital? What does that even mean? Does anyone know the implications?
I long for the charm of analog, and the not instantly connected. I long for the charm of human discovering, offline experience. I long for deep understanding, not just instant wiki-like access.
Was radio completely killed by TV the way they suspected? No, it evolved. It got more interactive, compelling and multi-dimensional. The same is needed of today’s media formats. How can a newspaper or print magazine reinvent what it does and offers, be enhanced by the inclusion of digital thinking?
Let’s enhance, not replace, where we can. Less of a restart and more of an evolution. More touchy feely, and less clickety clack.
John Maeda pointed out in a recent talk at Wieden+Kennedy Tokyo, that technology has expanded exponentially as we all know, but that our lives remain largely unchanged. He said we were stuck in a Groundhog Day. Reliving the same day, with superficial advances in technology tricking us into thinking everything has changed. How do we break free of this repetitive loop and forge new ground? How do we get to new places if the technology has limited us to certain predictable outcomes? Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator make good examples. How much have those programs evolved and led to new means of creation? Or how much does an Illustrator piece of art largely look the same as it did five years ago? Things like this have become less a tool and more a style.
Let’s try new things. New combinations. Not just use the repetitive and predictable function of technology today. How can we use it in a new way? Can it make the human experience better? More textured?
We are all connected, and that seems positive. I’m interested in how this instant connection can lead to new collaborations. Collaborating across time and space. Ideas mixing from different cultures. We have the access and the bandwidth to do this. What new things could be make together?
Let’s take this connection and make some new stuff. Some new stuff that exists physically maybe. Things that live in this world, that are impermanent and beautiful in their fleeting, analog way. Let’s leave an evidence of our ideas together. Let’s take this world to new places and fill it with new thoughts.
(Sometimes you just wake up in a really philosophical place)
How do you make your digital a little more analog?