By Bara and Allie<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the Author, Bill Brown<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The author of our chapter, Bill Brown, is a critical theory scholar and professor of English language and literature. His major theoretical work is on Thing theory that makes a distinction between a thing and an object, and observes their roles in modern culture. In his book \u201cA Sense of Things\u201d, Brown focuses on how objects are represented in 19th century American literature. For his chapter on materiality, he focuses on the physicality of media and the effects of our conversion to the abstract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Materiality<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Materiality, to put it simply, is not something easy to define concretely, but we can view it as a diverse spectrum. For example, to say your new sweater \u2018lacks the materiality\u2019 of your previous one, it doesn\u2019t assert the sweater\u2019s intangibility. More likely, we mean that the new sweater may be somewhat stiff and doesn\u2019t smell like our laundry detergent, or is made of 100% wool, which is itchy and uncomfortable (that\u2019s why we prefer a wool mix). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Materiality is defined by far more than just the tangibility of an object – it is also about the physical qualities of this object, about how we experience it and life in general. We know life<\/em>, says Bill Brown, only as it is mediated by the senses<\/em>. This means life is in the smell of a freshly bought book, in your controller vibrating after you finish a level in Lego Star Wars, and in when you squat in front of a painting to see it at a different angle because now the light is different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Digitization is in opposition to materiality by turning the tangible into the intangible. Some media theorists are concerned that the digitization of media can compromise its tangibility and therefore our physical experience of it. To help visualize, Bill Brown quotes Friedrich Kittler\u2019s passage where he declares digitalization erases the differences between individual media, since inside the computer, everything is reduced to numbers. In his \u201cThe Last Mixtape\u201d, Seth Long describes how the music industry went through the process of gradual digitization with the development of newer technologies. Later, he also recalls how the way people related to music fundamentally changed after the switch due to the difference in mediums\u2019 affordabilities: physical media created challenges (in finding, curating, listening to music) that allowed for a deeper emotional relation to the process. Listening to music became less intentional, less personal, and less ritualistic once it became digital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why care?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Next time as you are creating or analysing media, ask yourself: If the medium is the message, how does the message change depending on the materiality of the media? How does the experience of reading a web-comic differ from reading a physical copy? Does digital media feel \u2018less real\u2019 due to its immateriality, or does the physical experience lure us away from objectivity?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Conversion to the Digital<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The chapter discusses the idea that the evolution of our material surroundings and the relationships we have with them have become less tangible; this is the \u201cdigital threat\u201d, or the fear of \u201cabstraction\u201d in our modernizing age. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As we have revolutionized technology, Colin Renfrew suggests there has been a separation of \u201ccommunication and substance\u201d, or rather, that our conversion towards the digital is making our world less tangible, and thereby, our associations to \u201cmeaning\u201d are threatened. If you, for example, were to take a picture of your childhood stuffed animal, upload it to a program and model it exactly as it is in real life, there is no symbolic relationship between you and the object any longer, as it exists digitally. We can even understand \u201ctouch\u201d as being a privileged way in which we as humans interact with the world around us. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Will stripping our society away from its physical qualities not abstract our relationships, our culture, our lives? While these concerns are within our human nature, so are now our relationship with the intangible, be it Tamagochi or the Sewaddle I caught in Pokemon Go<\/em> last week. Media evolves because of us, alongside us, and even evolves us back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The author invokes the ideas of both Marx and Benjamin in order to explain; as human relationships have become increasingly complex with their interactions with media, the relationships between previously privileged elements such as \u201cform\u201d and \u201csubstance\u201d have been abstracted. For example, systems of money have become increasingly distinct from their material forms. Photography has long been \u201cdivorcing form from matter\u201d. To some, this sounds like an understandable threat. However, even Benjamin believed that these new technologies can enrich our perception and reveal to us truths hidden to the human eye. Even as most forms of media are being \u201chomogenized\u201d into the digital, this is an incredibly complex and interdependent relationship that means humans are evolving in a way, too. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Body and Meaning <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In the closing section of \u201cMateriality\u201d<\/em> from Critical Terms for Media Theory<\/em>, Bill Brown turns to the body as the ultimate site where materiality asserts itself. Throughout the chapter, he stresses that materiality is what resists or exceeds meaning\u2014the stubborn \u201cstuff\u201d that literary, cultural, and media theory often try to interpret away. By ending with the body, Brown emphasizes that it is not simply an object to be represented, but both a medium of representation and a lived, physical thing, which is explored deeper by our colleagues\u2019 report on the Biomedia <\/em>chapter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Drawing on Merleau-Ponty and Kant, Brown highlights the body as the very ground of perception, the pre-condition for experiencing and making sense of the world. This leads him to the idea of the human as a kind of network of information; the body provides the \u201cframing function\u201d that gives form to otherwise formless data. In this sense, the human body becomes the source for giving \u201cbody\u201d to digital media. Information, whether sensory or computational, only becomes meaningful through embodied experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet Brown warns against reducing the body to mere signification. He points to how technology pervades embodiment, blurring any clear divide between body and media. You can think of a person using a smartphone\u2019s health tracker; the body\u2019s steps, heartbeat, and sleep patterns are turned into data, while the body itself is shaped by that data\u2014prompted to walk more, rest differently, or change behaviors in other ways. Here, body and technology are inseparable, each creating meaning and as such, meaningful action, for the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The general idea, then, is that materiality is not opposed to meaning, but is that which <\/p>\n\n\n\n meaning depends on and yet cannot fully contain. The body is transitional and evolving: it is both medium and a message, symbol and substance. Brown emphasizes that materiality is not simply \u201cout there\u201d as physical or tangible things, but is embedded in lived experiences that challenges and reshapes how we define media and media relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Resurgence of Physical Media\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In recent years, public interest in physical media rose: you might have (or be) a friend collecting DVDs or burning your own CDs. One of my closest friends bought herself a Nintendo DS this summer, preferring it to the digital emulators. Businesses slowly but surely feel this tendency and acted accordingly: Sony has recently come out with a new Blu-Ray player – the first in over five years. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Last Mixtape\u201d, by Seth Long, describes the difference between physical media as \u2018allowing for ownership\u2019 and digital media as \u2018allowing access\u2019. When we as a society trusted digital subscriptions to provide us with media, we did not expect them to take our favourite movies down. But in these later years, more and more streaming services have failed to renew licensing agreements for many beloved movies: in fact, last month, iconic movies like The Notebook, Anchorman franchise and, worst of all, the Bee Movie, left Netflix. People are paying the same subscription price, but have access to content they don\u2019t care about. In most of these cases, the solution for this would be to own the movie yourself. Having a DVD of your favourite movie is a tangible experience of ownership, while a Netflix subscription doesn\u2019t provide the same level of accessibility anymore. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Another factor in the rise of physical media is, of course, nostalgia. Early 2000s trends are all the rage again, bringing back skirts over jeans, butterfly clips and flipphones. When we dissect this fallback to trending fashion of the early millennium, we uncover that this style embodies a specific feeling, a set of approaches and attitudes of the times. This, of course, includes the now forgotten due to AI-powered oversaturation feeling of excitement over technology. Not technology like cybertruck, but tech focused on entertainment – like an iPod, a furby or\u2026 literally anything in clear plastic casing. In the early 2000s, media technologies were going through massive transformations, both exciting and physical: people bedazzled their flipphones and rented movies on DVDs for the weekends from the same places they borrowed cassettes from in the 90s. From these observations we can conclude that people who feel nostalgic about a certain time or period of their lives will seek the same feelings and experiences of interaction through physical media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While digital media has a vast potential for user\u2019s experience, tangible media will always be able to offer different affordances. The smell of a book you left notes in, the safety of spacious, but your own DVDs collection, the little imperfections of vinyl that make your <\/em>ABBA sound a little different from your mom\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similarly, businesses based on physical media continue to thrive thanks to the experiences unavailable to digital users. In their article \u201cDeath by streaming or vinyl revival?\u201d Hracs and Jansson explore how independent record shops in Stockholm use the physicality of their spaces to their business advantage. These stores curate their collections, cultivate the in-store experience filled with meanings and rituals and create value through product rotation \u2013 something that would\u2019ve been impossible to engage on the same level with in the digital realm. Hracs and Jansson emphasize: these stores are still open because of their mediums affordances, not despite them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If we know life by how it is mediated through our senses, a material media will be more memorable, more real, and even more lovable than its digital counterpart. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So what?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Both physical and digital media and experiences have their own affordances, and it is important for us as media theorists to keep in mind the role of physical media, even (or especially) if their digital counterparts seem more convenient, more modern and more global. Material media is not dead, but an important tool that allows us to consider and critique the conversion of our world to the abstract, and understand how this affects our human experience. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Keywords and Definitions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Abstraction: <\/strong>in the context of this article, abstraction<\/em> refers to the idea that our relationship with media (such as communication technologies) has evolved to become less physical and tangible, and more so based on abstract understandings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dematerialization hypothesis:<\/strong> the idea that digital conversion is affecting the meaningful relationships between humans and tangible experiences.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hegemony of the digital:<\/strong> the conversion of medias into digital forms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Materiality: \u2026 <\/strong>did you read the piece? We recommend the start, middle, and end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Source<\/strong> Materials<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00a0Brown, B. (2010). Materiality<\/em>. In W. J. T. Mitchell & M. B. N. Hansen (Eds.), Critical terms for Media Studies (pp. 49-65). The University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Long, S. (2025). The last mixtape: Physical media and nostalgic cycles<\/em> (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hracs, B. J., & Jansson, J. (2017). Death by streaming or vinyl revival? Exploring the spatial dynamics and value-creating strategies of independent record shops in Stockholm. Journal of Consumer Culture<\/em>, 20<\/em>(4), 478-497. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1469540517745703<\/a> (Original work published 2020) By Bara and Allie On the Author, Bill Brown The author of our chapter, Bill Brown, is a critical theory scholar and professor of English language and literature. His major theoretical work is on Thing theory that makes a distinction between a thing and an object, and observes their roles in modern culture. In his … Continue reading Materiality and the Resurgence of Physical Media<\/span>
Cover Image created by Bara<\/em>, Written by Bara and Allie<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"