In his book The Language of the New Media, Manovich says that the popular understanding of new media identifies it with the use of a computer for distribution and exhibition rather than production. For example, photographs on a display are considered new media, whereas those printed in a book are not. Manovich thinks it is too limiting to privilege the computer over other media. He thinks the fundamental difference between the new and old media is that the process of the old media tends to be continuous, while the new media can be both continuous and discrete. Since new media can often be edited digitally, the data that made up the new media art could be sampled, quantified, and discrete in various ways, which old media could never do. 

Another difference between old and new media is that new media can be copied endlessly without degradation, while old media loses quality with each successive copy. Old media can also be converted into a numerical representation and turned into new media in a process called digitalization. However, this digitalization has a drawback: it causes a loss of information and usually contains a fixed amount of information.

Personally, I really like what he says at the end of the chapter, “interactive computer media perfectly fits this trend to externalize and objectify the mind’s operations.” The idea that brings the unobservable and interior processes of creating art to the public is what makes the new media charming. I think it’s because of this discrete characteristic of new media, which allows us to reassemble our mindedness process and place it outside. New media becomes a new language that help us to speak out the stuff that were never reveal in the past human history. I want to end this blog with another quote: “Mental processes of reflection, problem-solving, recall, and association are externalized, equated with following a link, moving to a new page, choosing a new image, or a new scene.” We are now entering into a new phase, where people are free to share their minds and story with no boundreis and limits. 

After reading these two articles, the first thing that came to mind was that art should never be confined to specific categories or terminology. As Quaranta mentioned at the end of the chapter, “They want to be understood as art, not as New Media Art.” People often focus more on the mediums and materials used in media art rather than on the messages or stories behind the artworks. The fame of the label “media art” can overshadow the art itself. Diaz shared a similar perspective in her article “A Lexicon of the Indigenous Body: Images of Autonomy and Desire.” Regardless of how Western academics label their art—whether as folk art, primitive art, street art, outsider art, political art, or incendiary art—it does not alter its intrinsic value and beauty. However, these definitions can create biases. 

I actually admire Diaz’s confidence in her culture and the art that has been a part of it for hundreds of years. My passion for art also began with a rather minor culture. I remember when I was in elementary school, my family had many Chinese picture books, which were quite different from comics; they were more like murals, with one image following another. I was particularly fascinated by the stories composed of these exquisite little images, which led me to fall in love with Japanese manga. What started as individual images evolved into something more continuous and narrative. This eventually led me to develop a love for anime. However, my enthusiasm was gradually dampened because many people did not consider these forms as true art, viewing them instead as commercial products with commercial value, and thus as vulgar art compared to traditional oil paintings and sculptures. As a child, I didn’t know how to counter this perspective and could only continue forward with disappointment and a sense of being misunderstood. 

However, as I grew older, I realized that the medium does not determine the quality or value of art. In my understanding, as Diaz says, “lexicon does not mean the static system of symbols elicited and studied by Western-educated linguists and ethnographers for centuries.” This lexicon encompasses what people wish to express, transcending media, text, and written form. It can be embodied in physical movements, parts of the body, digital formats, or any medium you can imagine. Just like that urinal we talked about in the last class, as long as someone thinks he has meaning, no matter what anyone else thinks, know that for that person, that is art.