The Future of Media!

If you could pick a point in time to live in, when would it be? Unfortunately you're probably wrong regardless of what you answered. Too far back and it's unlikely that you will be able to eat or drink anything with that feeble 21st century immune system that you're styling. Go even further back and you're just asking for trouble- you don't know how to hunt!

So, what about the future? Well, there is the chance that things will continue to get worse. Drug resistant pathogens may win out in the immunity arms race, global warming might make it hard to support our current population. North Korea might only pretend to be comedically hermetic because they are secretly technologically advanced; fearing that other countries would use their technology for war; but are unfortunately found out by a certain superpower that nukes the world back into the stone age. What was I on about? Oh yeah, well, assuming that doesn't happen and first world problems continue to exist here's one you haven't considered. There will be way too much media.

Think about it. Look at a list of 100 critically acclaimed films from the past 100ish years of commercial cinema. In the lifespan of one generation that list would double. Then consider how your favourite film, say, the first live-action "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" movie might not even be on that list. As a matter of point, how can you discount the incredible entertainment value of films that would be on the inverse list? Films such as "Carnasaur", "Dungeons and Dragons" and "Titanic"?

How large is your itunes library? Assuming you actually like all of that music and, unlike me, you don't have music that you only put on for comedic value (you know, Scatman John, Rick Astley etc.) that's probably a lot of music that you like. Multiply that by a bajillion- there's already thousands of bands that you would probably like but haven't heard of. Music's a lot easier to produce than films at this point in time, and thanks to the internet anyone can distribute it. Popular recorded music has been about since the early 1900's with wax cylinders but, like populations, recordings have exploded in number over the years. What's the big deal you think? Don't we have this situation when it comes to books?  To that I say: "I dunno, I don't think so.".

Yes, the written word has been around for a very long time. The Egyptians had one of the earliest written languages and they were around 5000 years ago (just think about that for a second). Even before the invention of the printing press when all documents were replicated using the now antiquated monk.0 software system there were a lot of very culturally significant things being written down. Haven't we already reached the point of too much literature based media and isn't the effect of this negligible?

I don't think it's the same. When it comes to literature we have many summations. Literature, though indispensable, is quite a bulky way of recording information- this is because it can be impeccably precise. It's the high resolution image of data storage, I suppose. Whether its a natural human pursuit or a modern development I do not know but the streamlining and want to make more efficient is a prevalent impulse. Literature is a very time consuming medium so I think humans continuously trim the ephemera from it. Like a bustling hive mind we store what is important and discard what is, well, ephemeral. This might be because the application of literature is so much more prominent in our consumption of the medium compared to film and music. Film is mostly in my opinion a feast for the eyes and is augmented through sound. Music is food for the ears. Literature is food for the brain. Everything is simulated; the onus is heavily placed on the consumer and if you decide that the "author is dead" it results in a book being highly ambiguous and therefore a highly intellectually stimulating task should you choose it to be.

Furthermore books are very well labelled. They tend to be about a certain subject or idea. Though the same could be said about films and music the director or producer or advertiser does not or cannot make that subject as clear as a front cover, title, authors note and blurb can. Language is precise like that.

Maybe I'm right, I personally think that I'm striking the nail with glancing blows. Perhaps my literature vs. other media argument is flawed but the point remains- in the future (depending on how far you go of course) there will be many many more hit films and musicians than there are now. How many films can you truly "see before you die" and will we lose anything when eventually films such as "Shawshank Redemption" or "The Deer Hunter" or "*that film you really like*" are left on the wayside of cinematic history? What about when the standard increases so much that Nirvana and The Beatles are comparatively close in impact and message?

Looking for more food for the brain? Tune in for Part Deux!

Part 2-  http://heywhateveridunno.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-future-of-media-part-deux.html

Josh.