Media Taxonomy
Obviously, this is not a comprehensive taxonomy of media. I initially wanted to create a taxonomy that, while not necessarily all-encompassing (that would be impossible), conveyed the sense of the diversity of the categories of the medium, from the biological to the technological, and not soley focusing on the arts.
While not apparent from my taxonomy, I found the diversity of the categories of medium overwhelming dense. A medium can be an action, a material, or even a concept, and in each of these categories once medium ruptures into a complex of more mediums.
In order to more efficiently manifest in what sense we are speaking of amedium, can there be even a rudimentary establishment of categorization for all the different "senses" we speak of the medium? Would it be logically correct if we spoke of blood as a medium in the same sense we speak of a political assassination as a medium? What is the relationship between the different "senses" of the medium?
The inclusivity which I speak of "medium" hinges, of course, on the way I liberally allowed it to be defined. Anything that served as a function to an objective I allowed to be defined as a "medium." Even temporarily ignoring the fact that functions can serve multiple objectives, this explains the overwhelming proliferation of "medium" — virtually everything can be considered a medium, then, under this definition — and leaves me with the question, where do we stop? Or, more explicitly, what is a medium?
I will not touch upon the philosophical issues or the categorical overlappings that have arisen out of this exercise. My taxonomy is far from successful in organizinginto categories "medium," and disregards countless nuances. In retrospect, perhaps what I should have done was begin by accessing the different "senses" of medium — as a material, as an action, as a concept, etc, and subsequently make a taxonomy of each of these. Within each taxonomy, perhaps I could find the most efficiently distinguishing differences (the most efficiently distinguishing difference not ncessarily the same as the defining difference, which is near impossible to ascertain in many fields) and categorize accordingly. It will not be comprehensive or perfect, but at least distinctions themselves would be better clarified.
The benefit of taxonomy I have made is that it has given me a sense of the diversity of what could be considered as medium, as well as what has been referred to and accepted as medium.
Ling Ma
Winter 2003
Obviously, this is not a comprehensive taxonomy of media. I initially wanted to create a taxonomy that, while not necessarily all-encompassing (that would be impossible), conveyed the sense of the diversity of the categories of the medium, from the biological to the technological, and not soley focusing on the arts.
While not apparent from my taxonomy, I found the diversity of the categories of medium overwhelming dense. A medium can be an action, a material, or even a concept, and in each of these categories once medium ruptures into a complex of more mediums.
In order to more efficiently manifest in what sense we are speaking of amedium, can there be even a rudimentary establishment of categorization for all the different "senses" we speak of the medium? Would it be logically correct if we spoke of blood as a medium in the same sense we speak of a political assassination as a medium? What is the relationship between the different "senses" of the medium?
The inclusivity which I speak of "medium" hinges, of course, on the way I liberally allowed it to be defined. Anything that served as a function to an objective I allowed to be defined as a "medium." Even temporarily ignoring the fact that functions can serve multiple objectives, this explains the overwhelming proliferation of "medium" — virtually everything can be considered a medium, then, under this definition — and leaves me with the question, where do we stop? Or, more explicitly, what is a medium?
I will not touch upon the philosophical issues or the categorical overlappings that have arisen out of this exercise. My taxonomy is far from successful in organizinginto categories "medium," and disregards countless nuances. In retrospect, perhaps what I should have done was begin by accessing the different "senses" of medium — as a material, as an action, as a concept, etc, and subsequently make a taxonomy of each of these. Within each taxonomy, perhaps I could find the most efficiently distinguishing differences (the most efficiently distinguishing difference not ncessarily the same as the defining difference, which is near impossible to ascertain in many fields) and categorize accordingly. It will not be comprehensive or perfect, but at least distinctions themselves would be better clarified.
The benefit of taxonomy I have made is that it has given me a sense of the diversity of what could be considered as medium, as well as what has been referred to and accepted as medium.
Ling Ma
Winter 2003