Media Taxonomy
After stressing out about this assignment for a week I came to the realization that the creation of an all-inclusive media taxonomy is an impossible task. This is not to say that there are no differences between media types. These are in fact quite easy to mentally define. Once these differences are known it should be a simple task to use them as distinguishing criteria in some sort of linear, rational taxonomy. But as soon as the differences between media were transferred from my mind to the paper, and especially when these differences were linked together, an enormously muddled, multi-dimensional web of words and lines would appear. Trying to convey the taxonomy exclusively with images was just as inconceivable. Yet the entire time I was able to grasp the linked differences together in my mind without much difficulty. The hubris of the task lies in attempting to define media with media. I hope to alleviate this as much as possible by sticking to written verbal communication and asking the reader to form a mental picture based on my distinctions between media.
Ideas are alive within the mind. They must be killed and mounted as an object to become media. Think of the concept 'word'. Internally it designates many more things than what WORD as a transferor implies through social convention. What WORD fails to designate is all the subtlety of previous experience the individual consciousness that initiated the idea of word has had with its concept. Similarly the individual encountering and decoding the word WORD understand what the object implies first through 'objective' sociological meaning (Peirce's 'index') and then through 'subjective' previous experience. WORD is a static object (exemplitive of the medium of written language). It is only through its decoding that it stands for something. Paradoxically this something is an idea (which is not an object).
The conventional definition of media most pertinent to this project is 'as an intervening agency, means, or instrument by which something is conveyed'. There is an enormous temptation to physically draw this definition rather than write it. But if I stick with what I opened with it should not make any difference- the idea of it is constant. From this definition there are two fundamental parts as it relates with the preceding paragraph. First, that a medium is a connector (physical object). Second, that this objective 'medium' connects to consciousness(es) (something cannot be 'conveyed' to something nonsentient). The initiating and receiving consciousness do not have to be separate. How often do you reread something you have written? What about look at a sketch you are drawing? Once this connection is made ideas may be transferred or created. It is not mandatory that this take place, or that it take place in the way that was intended or wanted. The content lies outside of the medium inside the realm of the mind. The medium (at least with this definition) is autonomous from content and is only the bridge to a consciousness.
Media are distinct because they are objects. All media are objects, but only some objects are media. To create a taxonomy of media one really needs to find a way to differentiate objects from one another. Some objects hide their objectness. Light exists as electromagnetic radiation. Sound exists as vibration. We should not let their seemingly mystic etherealness obstruct their objectness. These 'waves,' and all more conventional media such as painting, need two things in which to exist: time and space. One cannot stop a wave from moving by confining it into a smaller volume. One also cannot stop a wave from moving by trapping it in a specific time. Either case would cease the wave from existing. Most media are conveyed through these two types of waves which are picked up by the senses. Their differences as objects come across through variations of time/space transmission.
The other three senses also exist as objects but in a way that is more readily apparent. However, I do not wish to classify the senses, but to organize media. I only bring the senses up as we as humans are only able to 'know' the world through them. This disqualifies much natural phenomena from being media. All objects are connected to one another through some physical means. But only some are connected to sentient life. These are the objects which 'convey' to consciousnesses. The ancient Greeks had three Fates which determined the course of human life. I would like to propose a transposition of these Fates onto media in order to distinguish them from objects that are not media. The first Fate was named Klotho. She was responsible for the birth of the thread of life. I would like to assign her the author function in a media taxonomy. The second Fate was Lachesis. She was the drawer of the thread of life. I'll put her in charge of determining the time and position in space of the object-media. The last was named Atropos. She cut the thread of life and thus caused death. This trinity corresponds to the birth, transmission, and death which are the constituent parts of media.
In my media taxonomy Klotho is similar to the author function. However, multiple authors are allowed as is no author (rather the media being born from the natural world and ending as an idea in a consciousness- media as the Klotho for another media is also allowed). Lachesis corresponds to the physical time and space of the media which cause it to be transmitted. Media can be partially distinguished by the path of motion through time and space. Painting moves linearly through time (cinema, television, video, and music change as time progresses due to their wave qualities). Once a painting is placed into a museum it would move little in terms of space. In order for it to work as a medium a spectator must confront the object directly in order to set up communication between the Klotho (author/phenomena) and Atropos (spectator/receiver). This is different from a 'picture' of the painting which could be reproduced digitally or in textbooks. It is not the content (idea) that is being reproduced as much as the electromagnetic radiation emanating from the original canvas. Thus the Klotho of a photograph of a painting is not the photographer but the camera. However, reproductions are different from photography as an art form. The liberties the photographer takes while taking the picture (focus, lighting, position) are the Klotho of a new medium. Here the photographer is the Klotho. The Lachesis of this reproduction transmits the original painting medium as well as the medium of photography. When a spectator paging through a book comes across the reproduction both media confront her. She is indisputably the Atropos because she ends the conveyance. She ends two simultaneously- the painting and the photographic media. The Atropos MUST be a sentient entity. As previously stated, an idea cannot be conveyed to an inanimate object. Media cannot stop other media. They can only take up and further transfer what already exists as a medium.
To clarify this metaphor, which has become quite complicated, I will turn once more to the ancient Greeks. The Fates constructed the thread of life. Similarly it would be helpful if we could think of media as strings. Klotho as a sentient being, or natural phenomena, is the start of the string. If a sentient being, the medium is closed (self-referential idea). If a natural phenomena, the medium is open (ties together with all other natural phenomena somehow and conveys a discovery, or new idea) and there is no end of the string, it just emerges from the massive conglomerate of all other natural phenomena to which it connects. Lachesis is responsible for the oscillations in the string (when it occurs) and its position (where it occurs). The Atropos of the string is when it is picked up by a sentient consciousness within which an idea forms. The string then ceases to be an object and becomes an idea. The object-media, the string, conveys something (idea or discovery) through time and space.
If this string could be observed it would tell every detail about the media that could be used to differentiate it from all others. Related media are connected to other media- the string branches off into two parts before it is cut/received. All media are unique, but the general position of the string allows them to be grouped as different types. If the string is static it could be a painting, or if it is moving it could be television/cinema. Every time an idea or discovery is conveyed 'the three Fates' are involved. It is only that an idea/discovery is conveyed that makes the connection media, not what the idea/discovery is. Thus the position of the media string in time and space is autonomous from content. It is the transmission itself that distinguishes media from each other.
Above is a summery of the contextual media taxonomy. This is an oversimplification. One uses the taxonomy to form a string that either linearly goes from left to right or branches out from left to multiple modes of transmission and all of these go right. A string could also be made from the left to the middle and back to the left (through media) and so on. I admit that the system eliminates much of what is so cavalierly given the title 'media.' I see most of these as either determined by content (which is simply conveyed by media, not determined by it) or as some sort of combination of the activities below. Again, all media consists of a different connection to a consciousness and is thus unique. But if the relative position of the relationships between are maintained, the same media type is being utilized.
Justin Cassidy
Winter 2003
After stressing out about this assignment for a week I came to the realization that the creation of an all-inclusive media taxonomy is an impossible task. This is not to say that there are no differences between media types. These are in fact quite easy to mentally define. Once these differences are known it should be a simple task to use them as distinguishing criteria in some sort of linear, rational taxonomy. But as soon as the differences between media were transferred from my mind to the paper, and especially when these differences were linked together, an enormously muddled, multi-dimensional web of words and lines would appear. Trying to convey the taxonomy exclusively with images was just as inconceivable. Yet the entire time I was able to grasp the linked differences together in my mind without much difficulty. The hubris of the task lies in attempting to define media with media. I hope to alleviate this as much as possible by sticking to written verbal communication and asking the reader to form a mental picture based on my distinctions between media.
Ideas are alive within the mind. They must be killed and mounted as an object to become media. Think of the concept 'word'. Internally it designates many more things than what WORD as a transferor implies through social convention. What WORD fails to designate is all the subtlety of previous experience the individual consciousness that initiated the idea of word has had with its concept. Similarly the individual encountering and decoding the word WORD understand what the object implies first through 'objective' sociological meaning (Peirce's 'index') and then through 'subjective' previous experience. WORD is a static object (exemplitive of the medium of written language). It is only through its decoding that it stands for something. Paradoxically this something is an idea (which is not an object).
The conventional definition of media most pertinent to this project is 'as an intervening agency, means, or instrument by which something is conveyed'. There is an enormous temptation to physically draw this definition rather than write it. But if I stick with what I opened with it should not make any difference- the idea of it is constant. From this definition there are two fundamental parts as it relates with the preceding paragraph. First, that a medium is a connector (physical object). Second, that this objective 'medium' connects to consciousness(es) (something cannot be 'conveyed' to something nonsentient). The initiating and receiving consciousness do not have to be separate. How often do you reread something you have written? What about look at a sketch you are drawing? Once this connection is made ideas may be transferred or created. It is not mandatory that this take place, or that it take place in the way that was intended or wanted. The content lies outside of the medium inside the realm of the mind. The medium (at least with this definition) is autonomous from content and is only the bridge to a consciousness.
Media are distinct because they are objects. All media are objects, but only some objects are media. To create a taxonomy of media one really needs to find a way to differentiate objects from one another. Some objects hide their objectness. Light exists as electromagnetic radiation. Sound exists as vibration. We should not let their seemingly mystic etherealness obstruct their objectness. These 'waves,' and all more conventional media such as painting, need two things in which to exist: time and space. One cannot stop a wave from moving by confining it into a smaller volume. One also cannot stop a wave from moving by trapping it in a specific time. Either case would cease the wave from existing. Most media are conveyed through these two types of waves which are picked up by the senses. Their differences as objects come across through variations of time/space transmission.
The other three senses also exist as objects but in a way that is more readily apparent. However, I do not wish to classify the senses, but to organize media. I only bring the senses up as we as humans are only able to 'know' the world through them. This disqualifies much natural phenomena from being media. All objects are connected to one another through some physical means. But only some are connected to sentient life. These are the objects which 'convey' to consciousnesses. The ancient Greeks had three Fates which determined the course of human life. I would like to propose a transposition of these Fates onto media in order to distinguish them from objects that are not media. The first Fate was named Klotho. She was responsible for the birth of the thread of life. I would like to assign her the author function in a media taxonomy. The second Fate was Lachesis. She was the drawer of the thread of life. I'll put her in charge of determining the time and position in space of the object-media. The last was named Atropos. She cut the thread of life and thus caused death. This trinity corresponds to the birth, transmission, and death which are the constituent parts of media.
In my media taxonomy Klotho is similar to the author function. However, multiple authors are allowed as is no author (rather the media being born from the natural world and ending as an idea in a consciousness- media as the Klotho for another media is also allowed). Lachesis corresponds to the physical time and space of the media which cause it to be transmitted. Media can be partially distinguished by the path of motion through time and space. Painting moves linearly through time (cinema, television, video, and music change as time progresses due to their wave qualities). Once a painting is placed into a museum it would move little in terms of space. In order for it to work as a medium a spectator must confront the object directly in order to set up communication between the Klotho (author/phenomena) and Atropos (spectator/receiver). This is different from a 'picture' of the painting which could be reproduced digitally or in textbooks. It is not the content (idea) that is being reproduced as much as the electromagnetic radiation emanating from the original canvas. Thus the Klotho of a photograph of a painting is not the photographer but the camera. However, reproductions are different from photography as an art form. The liberties the photographer takes while taking the picture (focus, lighting, position) are the Klotho of a new medium. Here the photographer is the Klotho. The Lachesis of this reproduction transmits the original painting medium as well as the medium of photography. When a spectator paging through a book comes across the reproduction both media confront her. She is indisputably the Atropos because she ends the conveyance. She ends two simultaneously- the painting and the photographic media. The Atropos MUST be a sentient entity. As previously stated, an idea cannot be conveyed to an inanimate object. Media cannot stop other media. They can only take up and further transfer what already exists as a medium.
To clarify this metaphor, which has become quite complicated, I will turn once more to the ancient Greeks. The Fates constructed the thread of life. Similarly it would be helpful if we could think of media as strings. Klotho as a sentient being, or natural phenomena, is the start of the string. If a sentient being, the medium is closed (self-referential idea). If a natural phenomena, the medium is open (ties together with all other natural phenomena somehow and conveys a discovery, or new idea) and there is no end of the string, it just emerges from the massive conglomerate of all other natural phenomena to which it connects. Lachesis is responsible for the oscillations in the string (when it occurs) and its position (where it occurs). The Atropos of the string is when it is picked up by a sentient consciousness within which an idea forms. The string then ceases to be an object and becomes an idea. The object-media, the string, conveys something (idea or discovery) through time and space.
If this string could be observed it would tell every detail about the media that could be used to differentiate it from all others. Related media are connected to other media- the string branches off into two parts before it is cut/received. All media are unique, but the general position of the string allows them to be grouped as different types. If the string is static it could be a painting, or if it is moving it could be television/cinema. Every time an idea or discovery is conveyed 'the three Fates' are involved. It is only that an idea/discovery is conveyed that makes the connection media, not what the idea/discovery is. Thus the position of the media string in time and space is autonomous from content. It is the transmission itself that distinguishes media from each other.
Above is a summery of the contextual media taxonomy. This is an oversimplification. One uses the taxonomy to form a string that either linearly goes from left to right or branches out from left to multiple modes of transmission and all of these go right. A string could also be made from the left to the middle and back to the left (through media) and so on. I admit that the system eliminates much of what is so cavalierly given the title 'media.' I see most of these as either determined by content (which is simply conveyed by media, not determined by it) or as some sort of combination of the activities below. Again, all media consists of a different connection to a consciousness and is thus unique. But if the relative position of the relationships between are maintained, the same media type is being utilized.
Justin Cassidy
Winter 2003