Andy’s New Media Blog

I think one of the most interesting aspects of considering computers as a creative medium is the fact that unlike other creative mediums, it is also a highly commercial product.  It’s true that books, magazines etc. are commercial products as well, but the computer is the first medium that allows me to read/watch/hear about something, buy it and have it sent anywhere I want without having to stand up.  That’s why I thought it was interesting how McLuhan links the progress of literature and media to the progress of technology and industry.  Until he pointed it out in his essay, I never really considered the Gutenberg press as being a fundamentally mechanical way of expressing ideas, but looking at it in this way makes reading the printed page seem just as remote and technical as a computer screen.

This is really interesting because computers could potentially be the medium that alters the creative direction of humanity in the same way the written word did.  McLuhan makes a good point when he says that the potential is there, but I think at this point we have to agree that its mostly still just potential.  I feel that one of the main hindrances to the fulfillment of this potential is the fact that computers are complex mechanical and commercial products that are still constrained .  As it stands right now, I feel that computers are essentially just taking past media and making it more convenient to access and enjoy.  The fact that I can quickly access information from Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that is far larger than any that could possibly exist in print is an obvious example.  I can also quickly watch television shows, listen to music, write a document with perfect handwriting, but these are just extensions of things I can do without a computer.  I’m not suggesting that there haven’t been innovations, the internet alone is a massive leap forward, but I definitely don’t think we’ve seen the full creative potential of computers realized yet.

Although most of the people we’ve read thus far in the semester have had some interesting insights into the future of computing, many of which are currently in common use.  That said, one thing that I’ve noticed a lot, especially with the new reading by Kay/Goldberg is that they seem to put a high premium on user’s ability to make personalized and useful programs for themselves.  It would be unfair to say that this turned out to be completely untrue since it is technically possible to use a computer to make whatever kind of program you want, but I think by and large the average computer user is not innovating their computer experience in any way.

For instance, one of the draws of the Dynabook is the ability to use it to make programs that can assist musicians.  I suppose it would be possible now to do something like that with enough training, but 99.9% of computer users are just going to get on Google and download Audacity.  I guess it’s worth pointing out that someone out there had to make that program and that proves that people are really making innovative software on their own, but that doesn’t change the fact that very few people are truly making new and useful things with their computers.  I don’t think this is a problem of creativity, but rather one of complexity.  So many of the mainstay programs that we use (including our operating systems themselves) are made by massive teams of programmers and are far more complicated than anything  even a star computer science student could do on his or her own.  As a result, it seems like the small projects we’re seeing the most of are small things that add on to already massive projects such as Firefox add-ons, or Facebook apps.  It will be interesting to see whether some of the things Dr. Campbell showed us in class such as Yahoo Pipes do anything to change this pattern.

It’s hard to sit here at my desktop computer and not be struck by not only how much more technologically advanced it is than anything in Engelbart’s research center, but also how ridiculously common this technology is. Still, despite the fact that Engelbart was still limited by the technology of his time, it still seems like the research center was an incredible achievement. What I found most interesting while reading the article wasn’t any one aspect of the center, but rather the fact that so many disparate parts and ideas were all brought together so successfully. It’s even more awe inspiring when you think that a good amount of the things he describes all had to be invented and created separately, but also are integral to the overall success of the project. One particularly cool part of the reading was the television that essentially allowed for computing and video chat simultaneously. This is something that is only now coming into regular use, so it’s cool to see how Engelbart’s ideas are still being mined by the computer manufacturing and software companies.