Keon March 17

Regarding the reading, McLuhan states the “content” of any medium is always another medium, when referring to an electric light and its varying forms of usage. There is a conspicuous duty but a number of entailed usages with the electric light. McLuhan points out “The content of writing is speech, just as the written word is the content of print, and print is the content of the telegraph.” and “it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action.” No matter what its use is, the medium is the message. Using the electric light as an example, whether its used for lighting the street or to light a sign, the ‘use’ is the purpose of seeing much more clearly.

Technological progress most certainly has its strong points, but it is not without its faults and entailed hazards to those individuals in the “electric age” or even the current age.  McLuhan points out a quote made by Sarnoff, and refutes it heavily, with the fact that it bears hypocrisy.”General David Sarnoff made this statement: “We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used to determine their value.”” McLuhan refuted this by bringing up disease and gun laws in the format of Sarnoff’s bombastic quote, showing it’s degree of untruth. It doesn’t matter how it’s used, if it’s harmful it’s just harmful. A hazard of today’s society would be to remain ignorant to the aforementioned point. 

“The medium is the message” is an enduring phrase nonetheless, more specifically in how it pertains to artists and designers alike. McLuhan sees Cubism as an art movement that conforms to the idea of the medium being the message. Additionally to address the point of missing the actual media at hand, McLuhan scrutinized the issue heavily stating “Is it not evident that the moment that sequence yields to the simultaneous, one is in the world of the structure and configuration?” Essentially suggesting one perspective of a design is the physical appearance, while the other lies in the idea behind it. However, as addressed throughout the reading, many people ignore the multiple aspects, only taking something for what it appears as.