I'd like to talk about Marshall Macluhan's defining of different mediums as hot and cold.
Is his insistence that TV is a cool medium based on an outdated version of what TV was?
If we take his general definition of hot media as that which requires little audience participation and a cool medium as one that requires high audience participation I think TV should be considered right there with film as a generally hot medium.
I think his assertion may be based on the somewhat educational nature of early TV prior to the dominance of either sensationalist news or network television.
Obviously cool examples can exist in hot mediums as many art house films require much more audience participation than a marvel movie, but I think in general TV would have to be considered a hot medium in its current form.
Now for a bigger question, is the internet hot or cold?
That's his worst idea. I refuse to explain it to you because that shit should be laid to rest.
>>8138594
So what's his best idea because I thought his explanation of how otherization is a function of the minority group's literacy in with world and customs of the dominant group was pretty interesting.
>the most important thinker since Newton, Darwin, Freud, Einstein and Pavlov
I agree with >>8138594 that this idea is terrible. It has aged terribly in comparison to most everything else in that seemingly prophetic book. Whatever ideas McLuhan had in mind in regards to hot and cool media were based on different information systems then those we have today. I like to think that the hot/cool media classification would be obvious to a person living when the book was published, but who knows?
>>8138602
His best idea, that can actually be extended beyond his historical moment is that the form of older media become the content of newer media. I.e. Newspapers are constellations of book pages. Screenplays became the content of film and radio-dramas. Video clips became part of the content of the internet, etc.
>>8138624
for as dudeweedlol ayyfuturelmao as mcluhan can be, there's some crazy interesting ideas in his stuff
>>8138632
It will be fun in vr to walk aroud multiple 3d webspaces, collaged together like jello
>>8138633
I can't disagree but I would be embarrassed to have something like that printed on the cover of my book.
>>8138642
desu I would be embarrassed to have a book printed
>>8138632
I mean, that is interesting but seems to limited in scope to be considered by me his "best" idea. Maybe his most demonstrably true but I still think the hot/cold dichotomy is more interesting even if it is on some level outdated.
It says something quantifiable about how information is consumed by different peoples and I find specifically the notion of something that is hot as being something that requires high cultural literacy to be appreciated as interesting.
I'm just working through his ideas though. He's a lot more engaging than I thought he would be.
the internet is obviously a cool medium.
and yes, TV is now a hot medium unless youre watcihng shit like the shopping network.
TV at the time of the publication was much more stale
I think the internet is overall a cold medium just because of social sites like Facebook or this site requiring user input and attention but sites like YouTube are obviously hot, as are porn sites and anything related to instant gratification.
>>8138633
Like what you faggot? Stop making asinine content-devoid posts
>>8138632
yeah, this. McLuhan is plauged by universalizing, synchronic concepts like the one OP is interested in for some reason. He's at his best when he tries to address change over time, which is exceedingly rare for him.
>>8141456
Like yours? You're the cancer killing this website. Fuck you /lit/. I'll try discussing here again next year.
>>8138673
You like McLuhan because he was a jazz fan? Hot bop vs cool jazz.
>>8138562
he belongs to trashbin of popsci along with french 'philosophy' of xx cent
seriously, i have never read him and wouldn't even back then as soon as he came out with hot and cold bullshit
>>8138632
>his best idea
>his
such astute observator
>>8138562
Has anyone in this thread actually read this book? He also defines the hot and cold dichotomy based off of the amount of senses engaged, how the medium progresses, if it is exclusive or inclusive, and its role in the social sphere. The internet is undoubtedly "cool" when you go through every classification
Why would you even need to classify a medium as "hot" or "cold"? what is the purpose?
Also, any medium can be hot or cold. it varies a lot
>>8141794
Uh huh. We'll see you next year buddy. Meanwhile maybe you can figure out how to synthesize some of the "books you read" into useful posts.
>>8138562
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJ8tKRlW3E
>>8143671
>You mean my whole fallacy is wrong
what did he mean by this?
>>8142767
>useful posts
those don't exist
