Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Should Awesome Content Endure ?

At what point is a blog post, for example, something less like a production of limited life, and something more like a piece of media, which may have a life as long as any other piece of media. That is, can new media output be regarded as self limited to some extent, presently.

It does seem that the potential for discovery, and the capacity to keep posts there on a site, which lives even if the posts are not so vibrantly alive, may actually predispose new media posts to the capacity for longevity, but a very adaptive longevity. To this might be added that potential property of stranding - where the post, even if buried in the past, lives anew in developing strands throughout the post or the new media site.

That is they can come alive or disappear, with equal facility, thus protecting themselves from a normal sense of fading (for example dated material, or material which goes out of fashion).

But a potential for a very fine grain capacity to live and fade and live again, may make for a subtle capacity for life in a new media text, for example, something for the Internet to catch hold of, which is perhaps a strong feature of it.

But is it a potential or is it already existing. It may require creatively driven material, simply because this kind of content may have a reach beyond the kind of immediate material which lives and fades quickly, and it meant to. But it may need creative material which can fade and then come to life, which may be related to topic or a set of topics, whether it does or not may be a function of tech.

In tech terms, seeing content as product, is it possible to make material which is naturalistic to a need for immediate material in new media and also has a capacity to endure. Put it this way, in tech terms: awesome content which stays awesome, or perhaps more realistically which can become awesome again and again, with facility and a kind of responsiveness. But not media which is dated or has gone out of fashion and comes back in again, so much as material which is obscured by the nature of the Internet and can get serendipitously rediscovered.

As a matter of fact, one can see in the way content is found on a site, that posts do come alive again, not merely in their shadowy, if vital, existence in newer content. This discovery gives a sense of new media validation to an act of perhaps years ago, and also validates an idea of a long term site (in relative new media terms). This is a different idea of validation, not based around immediacy, but then value in content is not necessarily an immediate realisation.

The tech concept of awesome seems tied into immediacy though; is rediscovered content really awesome in this sense. But an idea of value is not necessarily tied into immediacy, and indeed one could see that enduring value may comes from longevity and persistence. In all events it is probably necessary to have both the potential for longevity and immediacy in new media. The medium demands immediacy, as a consequence perhaps of the capacity it gives to browsing and moving on to the next.

The power of tech is perhaps that is can help cohere products with content to potentially enhance content, and perhaps enable a capacity to create this kind of longevity. So the potential is in the tech and the creation of the content. But the realisation of this may require content which can fulfill this potential, so it may become a matter of production and a matter of creation, but creation connected with its production, in a wide sense, and not so deterministic on it, as this may impede the creative element. So it is not so much should awesome content endure, but how does it, if it can.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

The Capacity of New Media Development

To what extent can content be of an explorative, even novel nature in new media content. That is, content which does not create a response or inform, but rather content which...well, in new media it is a key question, what is it that one can do beyond even this.

It is new, so it also carries at least a suggestion that it can produce something new on content. There does seem at least to be a necessity to translate content into new media. It may be it is only a new way of delivering and publishing content. But really the sense of it is that it is more than this. I have explored some ways of its novelty, re: content. That sense of development of expression over time, the development, shifting and coexistence of themes, delivered in a way immediate and adaptive.

All enabled by the 'new' of delivery, platforms, publishing and indeed presentation, using emerging technologies to do with design and delivery on devices.

So to what extent does this produce something new ? Well, if one could see technology here as enhancing at the level of the production of expression, then it may enable something new. But whether it does may depend on whether this enabling may produce something new.

My feeling is that it either is enabling or will enable the new, even if it is a small incremental change. However small incremental changes are the kind of changes which can produce something new, as structured creative difference piles on difference, supported by a facility to do this.

The thing about the internet is that it structures, it hides or absorbs the edges, indeed, the formlessness, that may precede change in forms. But it does not mean it is not happening. This is what is intriguing to me about new media - it provides a new way of enabling the source of development, difference. As to whether anything gets produced which is different is another matter, but it may provide a platform to find this if it exists, or can exist, at least.

It may be that is could speed up the time taken to produce such content. This is a mechanistic view of content (like the time expected before a machine with a desired function may be built), but indeed it does tend to be viewed in such a way on the internet, and here I am looking at the new, the creative, the future of it, as another mechanistic form to be developed.

The difference is, the function is not necessarily clear, nor its description, except as something new in content, so it may have to emerge, in a platform or set of platforms which enable it. But like the machine example, if the function is not something radically new, if new media is close to old media, it may either, not emerge or may emerge with some facility, but may not be so startling in its novelty, yet sustained nonetheless by a sense of difference.

It might be said though about new media that it is constantly new, like the technology it resides in, and to an extent is. In that ferment, like a continuing renaissance, the new may not be so obvious, especially the more it is tech, with a functional life, but it may emerge from it.

To utilise the capacity of new media development, content may actually need sometimes to be closer to functional rather than expressive aims. Not to constrain content, but to free its potential. But it still retains the power of expressive forms, in this may be something new.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Topic Choice and Strands of Development in New Media

How is it possible to help content development. Consider that content may developed by a) simply the act of producing it, in a way which may be helped by the structures within new media or b) by the activity of working on various strands of potential development which may emerge from this content.

Would it be the case that these strands emerge from a) and are then developed by b). Thus b) is both a necessary step in certain kinds of content and an enhancing process within it. But can strands emerge from b). Well, other topics can be found this way, but can content develop in such a way.

It is an important issue with a content driven website, as one wonders to what extent one is constrained by the way topics are covered on a Site. To me it is this: is it better to start a new topic, or to let a topic develop.

Topics may organically develop from topic development, and pages may contain multiple strands, that have developed within the topic. Is this better than a more mechanistic development and separation of topics.

It may be more naturalistic to the way content may develop in new media, as it has the capacity to have delicate inter-content development, as a consequence of the way content can be optimised over time. So it is a matter of making use of the capacity of this new media, if desired.

But at some stage must separation take place - not necessarily. It may be the case that the initial topic choice is where the obvious separation, the genesis of strands of content takes place, and the task is to develop within this structure. Why, because new media can enable a kind of development which can add something new to the way content is addressed and strands of this developed.

Underlying all of the above is this: that to actually develop content is I might hazard a long complex process, which may be potentiated by new media. This may put new media on a par with other developmental processes, at least potentially.

Of course this puts a lot of onus on the initial topic choice. But that may be the case with any expressive form. New media gives a flexibility to then alter and expand and contract and reform those topics over time, in a sensitive response to the content itself, and the context within which this development takes place, whilst keeping the topic as well. What this may do is expand the potential of initial topic choice, as new media can take it places. It is also an idea of a new media creation which has potential that is hidden to some extent at a given time.