when i woke up this morning the first thing to go through my head was "...i only have dry pasta and jello to eat..."
BUT!
since it's sunday, i get to go have aunt food today!
after the food thought, i drifted back to my question about whether or not the content of a message is better transmitted in a 2 or 3 dimensional sense. i can see how a McLuhanist would answer that, that since the medium is the message that the message conveyance is more important in terms of which medium it's presented in. while i agree that the medium is an important aspect, McLuhan's theory in my mind is saying that how a message is transmitted, whether through television or print or whatever, is the most important factor to consider. the same news story on tv won't come across the same in a newspaper. but i don't think that this takes into account the actual content of the message. since you can't really manipulate the actual message, it has to be a 2 dimensional object. you can manipulate the medium in which the message is in, so it's 3 dimensional. sooooo...which one has more effect?
come on people! you're reading this! are the words on your screen more important than the fact that you're reading this on a computer screen???
ok...so, most people probably aren't studying this kind of thing, and are probably shaking their head and going 'wtf???' right now.
to those people i say this:
LOOK!!! A ROOSTER WEARING A TIE!!!
current mood: "Touché" by Godsmack
who the fuck is goose?
i took over the world at 11:16 AM
2 Comments:
...You're weird you know that?
i know im weird. known it a loooooooong time.
about the printing of online things:
based on what i suggest i think that this fits more in the 3D medium than the 2D. if you print them off, you're altering the medium in which you read the message. therefore, the concern there is based more on the hands-on, real life aspect, and not the ephemeral content that lies within the message.
Post a Comment