MEDIA: PAMPHLET SKETCH 2

Times have shifted considerably since the 50's, including the media. It is strange how the media has become a cliche in various discourses, but it nonetheless is still a crucial and important aspect of the human condition. What most notably has evolved out of the media evolution is to broadcast one's self around the world, and the ability to some degree around the world, to choose "who or what you follow" (twitter reference). But the question now becomes what is the reality? Who do we follow and what are we doing in this new branch of media broadcasting? The answer to this question I wish was that we, the majority, all follow true amnesty causes for social and political change, but I would argue, and I think this is evident, that this is not the case, since the first news feed that "most" these day receive is the fact that your distant friend somewhere in the world has just woken up with a massive hangover from their reckless night out on the town (doing nothing really socially constructive for humanity). One might think that with the new revolutionary ability to CHOOSE what information is received, the world would likewise experience a world wide revolution to change everything that was/is "bad" in the world. Although there has been social change around the world, I feel that is far less and below the potential.

Even with all this new revolutionary technology, what has not changed, and has rather been enhanced, is the pervasiveness of the frivolous and all of its narcissistic desires and habits. As a result millions around the world feel the need to tell the world what they are watching on TV, or that that they are bored. This narcissism stemming from the media is not necessarily bad, but it is when the majority of these technologies have been hijacked for the race in social status, in attempt to some degree being "famous" and relevant.

-Thomas Zukowski