What's new or not so new....

Flurry of activity all around surrounding our readings for this week. David had an epic piece that rivaled the works of Homer and Dante. Julie had a most insightful post on the nature of the medium (though I agreed with much of what Jenna responded with). Ying-sin spoke of interactivity and how that facet appealed to her as a representation of new media. I cackled at Steve-o's wicked references (Menna and Meffrey - too funny) - all in all, it was exhausting to keep up with the crazy people in my class. After being critted by the massive wall of text (I apologise for the gamespeak, but it's the 'new'), I wonder if it really matters. The only constant theme in human life is change. What was new will be old, and what is old sometimes becomes new (Retro mmmm).

Amidst all the discussion of new versus old, I never felt as if there was much of an issue. Perhaps the media theorists and historians will hang me for thinking so. It seems to me that the discussion seems to center around how individuals and society deal with changes. So why the distinction between the old and the new? We can never leave what we know about the past, the knowledge is necessary to help inform/how to deal with unknown (or if we must, new) entities and experiences we encounter. I'd rather think of it as building blocks of knowledge - a constant synthesis of everything that goes on around us. Maybe I don't get it, or maybe I'm just too lazy to reflect on this properly. Maybe today's class discussion will help me ponder on the matter more - but as this juncture, this concern seems trite. New media is old, much of it is at least twenty years old, some are even middle-aged. Perhaps we should just leave the categories be. It's sorta old news.