Blog 5

Manovich has a very innovative viewpoint that I've never considered before reading his book. I've always known how dependent we are on software culturally, but Manovich (with inspiration from Alan Kay) takes this idea to a new level and claims that this "metamedium" will be one of the most, if not the most, influential component of our future. While I agree with many of his points, it's impossible to know exactly how influential software will be. To quote Alan Kay, "the best way to predict the future is to invent it"; fortunately, the "metamedium" we know as software will allow us to build upon the media we already have, become more accessible and easier to use, and will allow us to create extraordinary things.

He describes the computer's shift from being virtually non-existent to an essential "engine of culture" by explaining its history, which he believes to be much more important than our society thinks. When the computer was first created, its purpose wasn't for personal use whatsoever. Today, almost all jobs require the use of software on a computer, in addition to the personal features it offers (search engines, e-mail, social networking tools like Facebook) which seem necessary to us now. He refers to our society as a "software society," completely dependent on it, but simultaneously utilizing its applications to help it grow. Manovich brings light to this drastic change - from our culture before the computer was invented to our present day "software society."

A few inventors of computational media, according to Manovich, are Liicklider, Sutherland, Nelson, Engelbart, and the featured "inventor" in the first chapter, Alan Kay. These are highly unrecognizable names to the normal person, and Manovich believes their names should be much more distinct. There could be many reasons why we don't know much about these people, and I think there are two fundamental explanations. "Software study," the title coined by Manovich, has not been around long enough for people to recognize how important the history is to our current society. I do believe software is a key component to our lives, but because it is constantly changing, it's difficult to track exactly who "invented" what. In the future, these names could very well be more recognizable than they are today. My second reason is simple: the average person doesn't know enough about software to be interested in its history. They know how to use basic features such as a web browser, but does the average Joe know how to make a Flash video or type in HTML code?

The "metamedia" that these people have helped to build has created a culture that is experimental, interactive and completely unfixed. The wonderful thing about the software available to us is that it includes media and information that already exists plus the programs and systems needed to continue developing even more media and data. I thought his example of Google Earth was very fitting: he called it an "interactive document" that is constantly changing. The fact that our media has become such a tremendous part of the software we use was the most interesting point in this book. Art and design versus software and technology studies: these are two completely different concepts, but they are merging together. The ever-changing world of software is such a key factor of our highly visual and powerful media.