Marshall McCluhan in his article, The Medium is the Message, is primarily arguing that invented technology, from painting to electricity and typography, are the messages themselves, not the content of the communication. For example, rather than artists using a canvas as a medium for a certain message, the actual message is the paint itself, rather than the intention. The author refers to electric light quite a bit to explain this phenomenon. He claims that light is not noticed until it is used to spell out a brand name. Here, light is the medium.
The message of the electric light is like the message of electric power in industry, totally radical, pervasive, and decentralized... [electric light and power] eliminate time and space factors in human association exactly as do radio, telegraph, telephone, and TV, creating involvement in depth.
I disagree with these claims that the medium is THE message in that I believe it can be PART of the message, but it is not the message as a whole. For example, an artist may choose a medium that suits the message they are portraying, but this is only part of their intention. The way in which they design this medium is completely inseparable from the message. This idea is very new to me in that I had always been trained to use media as a vehicle to portray a message, rather than making the medium the message itself. I do think the idea of a medium holding significance is very important for students to internalize. Often students will choose a particular medium because they feel most comfortable using it. However, it is important to understand what implications a medium will give to your message.
McCluhan also states that the products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value. I do not yet have an opinion about this statement, but I do believe that this would be an interesting topic to dissect in an art class. He gives the example of firearms, which is a controversial topic right now. Some people will blame the instrument for the danger it causes, while others will blame the handler. This could be true with other technology as well. Students should care about this debate because it affects them now, and will continue to affects them their whole lives.
I disagree with these claims that the medium is THE message in that I believe it can be PART of the message, but it is not the message as a whole. For example, an artist may choose a medium that suits the message they are portraying, but this is only part of their intention. The way in which they design this medium is completely inseparable from the message. This idea is very new to me in that I had always been trained to use media as a vehicle to portray a message, rather than making the medium the message itself. I do think the idea of a medium holding significance is very important for students to internalize. Often students will choose a particular medium because they feel most comfortable using it. However, it is important to understand what implications a medium will give to your message.
McCluhan also states that the products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value. I do not yet have an opinion about this statement, but I do believe that this would be an interesting topic to dissect in an art class. He gives the example of firearms, which is a controversial topic right now. Some people will blame the instrument for the danger it causes, while others will blame the handler. This could be true with other technology as well. Students should care about this debate because it affects them now, and will continue to affects them their whole lives.