{"id":421,"date":"2025-10-11T19:53:38","date_gmt":"2025-10-12T02:53:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/?p=421"},"modified":"2025-10-13T11:34:08","modified_gmt":"2025-10-13T18:34:08","slug":"the-test-of-time-media-and-memory-through-eco-and-ingold","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/archives\/421","title":{"rendered":"The Test of Time: Media and Memory Through Eco and Ingold"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Davide Ferrario\u2019s film, Umberto Eco: A<\/em> Library of the World<\/em> memorializes many of Eco\u2019s theories, particularly the relationship between media and memory, which works through its connection to history. Eco himself is staunchly committed to physical media, blatantly exhibited through his sprawling library which is featured in the film\u2019s opening credits. These themes of media and memory pervade throughout the film and are evident through the glimpses Eco gives the viewer of his own personal philosophy and conduct. His emphasis on physical media and the unique qualities he attributes to it align with the philosophies that Tim Ingold describes in his book Making<\/em>. Ingold\u2019s propositions recommending a re-evaluation of how we approach the concepts of learning and making are complementary to Eco\u2019s valuation of physical media. Both theorists approach media in the same way, just from two directions: Eco reflects on a \u2018finished\u2019 product, while Ingold proposes restructuring our understanding of media from its inception. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Physical Media and Memory<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eco espouses the benefits of physical media\u2019s permanence. There are books that are hundreds of years old which can still be read and observed, yet \u201ctoday\u2019s computers are unable to read what we recorded two decades ago\u201d(Ferrario 21:00-21:20). This longevity sustains physical media\u2019s connection to history\u2013and subsequently memory\u2013in a way that is impossible for digital media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The immediacy of the digital, while convenient, is not conducive to creating longlasting media that is tied to memory. By lacking memory, digital media offers little learning opportunity in the way that Ingold defines it: the process of accruing knowledge by being taught by<\/em> the world rather than simply intaking information about<\/em> it (2). Though the easy discussion forums presented by online media appear<\/em> to help the flow and interexchange of knowledge, they primarily orchestrate an excessive influx of information that is designed to be consumed quickly and easily, not to facilitate effective and educational discussion. These discussion forums then become performative opportunities for interaction that are dictated by algorithms designed to cater information based on its audience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Physical media, like Eco\u2019s books, is a published thing. The source information cannot be changed on the same whim as that online, yet it\u2019s this stagnation that allows for further reflection and change of perception over time. This temporal aspect of physical media is what truly makes it a conduct of memory. By remaining the same, the information is the finished object within the dynamic thing of the book (Ingold 85). The book can be altered physically, and through correspondence, because its information is not adapting to the audience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Physical Media vs. Digital Media<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

During an interview featured in the film, Umberto Eco is discussing his own digital media habits and how he recently downloaded a copy of Proust\u2019s Recherche<\/em> onto his iPad. He then expresses frustration that he \u201ccould not underline any passage, [he] could not make dog-ears, [he] didn\u2019t smear the pages with [his] dirty thumb\u201d(Ferrario12:18-12:37). Evidently, Eco wants to alter his books as he reads them. He wants to impart his own thoughts onto the already published media, which is a far more dynamic process than simply absorbing the information that the book\u2019s words offer. In this desire, Eco aligns himself with both Ingold\u2019s philosophies of learning, and his views on the treatment of art. Ingold deems the role of students\u2013or in this case readers\u2013is not to mindlessly consume the information offered by an established source, but to \u201ccollaborate in the shared pursuit of understanding\u201d(13). Similarly, he encourages us to view art as things that give \u201cdirect correspondence [to] the creative processes that give rise to them\u201d rather than simply as \u201cworks to be analyzed\u201d(Ingold 7).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Books: An Object or a Thing?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A pillar of Making <\/em>is Ingold\u2019s discernment between objects and things. An object \u201cis complete in itself\u201d and we cannot \u201cjoin with it in the process of its formation\u201d(85). Conversely, things are \u201cwith us\u201d and allow us to correspond with their materials (Ingold 85). This distinction mirrors that of Eco\u2019s explanation of bibliophiles versus bibliomaniacs. A bibliomaniac reserves his books to himself \u201cbecause he would fear thieves from all over the world would flock to steal it\u201d, while a bibliophile would \u201cshare his wonder with everybody and they\u2019d be proud they knew it was his\u201d(Ferrario 16:52-17:00). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By this definition, bibliomaniacs view books as prized assets of information, to be hoarded and kept away, effectively rendering them stagnant objects of observation and considering them complete, despite this state of futility. If no one is around to read the books, there is no further knowledge to be gained than that which is printed on their pages. Meanwhile, bibliophiles share the information in their collections, inviting discussion and utilizing books as vessels to obtain further knowledge. Eco\u2019s definition of bibliophile is one that exists harmoniously within Ingold\u2019s definition of learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eco deems books as \u201cirreplaceable\u201d(Ferrario 12:45). Books, and any other physical media, are inherently unique. Walter Benjamin defines this uniqueness using the concept of aura, which is congruent to the memory instilled into a physical medium and is not present in its replications as it is \u201cembedded in the fabric of tradition\u201d(6). The physical process of making a book, and its distribution to its eventual owners, is entirely distinct to another printing of that same book. The initial individuality and aura of physical media again cooperates with Ingold\u2019s definition of making. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Per Ingold, the process of making does not end with its finished \u2018product\u2019, as other factors will continue to act upon it over time (22). In this way, making is \u201ca process of correspondence: not the imposition of preconceived form on raw material substance, but the drawing out or bringing forth of potentials immanent in a world of becoming\u201d(Ingold 31). These ideas readily translate to Eco\u2019s beloved physical media. No two books are affected by the world around them in the same way, but a pdf of a text will remain generally unchanged no matter whose device it is on. Furthermore, Ingold defines making as a \u201cprocess of growth\u201d wherein artists and other forces\u2013in this case, the books\u2019 audiences\u2013work in tandem with the materials they are manipulating\/experiencing (21). This approach to making and artistry is synonymous to the way Eco creates a reciprocal relationship between his books and his thoughts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mass Media\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The concept of mass media provides an interesting nuance to these theories. It, like any other form of media, must be made. Ingold further defines making as a process of correspondence, where transducers allow interaction between the kinaesthesia and material flow until they become indistinguishable, parallelling John Durham Peters\u2019 definition of media as \u201csymbolic connectors\u201d between messages, means, and agents (Ingold 102, Peters 266). By these definitions the means\/transducer creates a bridge from the kinaesthesia\/message to the material flow\/agents, ultimately creating the media that is observed or discussed. However, a defining characteristic of mass media is the distance and distinction between the senders and receivers, rather than each party taking on an interchangeable role (Peters, 267).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This differentiation of author and audience intrinsically opposes Ingold\u2019s aforementioned definition of learning. The purpose behind mass media is to communicate to the masses (Peters, 268). With this purpose, the process of making is centred around the dissemination of the final product and any discussion that this media spurs is generally between two receivers, not the sender. In this way, mass media features something consumable, not collaborative. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mass media as consumption is far more relevant when considering digital mass media versus physical mass media. With the sheer amount of content created and its potential for profit, digital media often becomes a transaction. It attempts to balance its message with enough ease of digestibility, often diluting or changing its message in the name of profit. Through this, digital media becomes a stagnant object because of its dynamic form. The message gradually changes for its audience so it is always meant to be consumed at face value, not discussed at length. In our modern digital media landscape, everything is meant to attract our attention instantly. This quickens the pace at which we consume digital media and the extent to which it is mechanically reproduced effectively removes any aura or memory that was once attached to it, reinforcing Benjamin\u2019s relative disdain for mechanical reproduction (4). Finally, the ease of mechanical reproduction works against the integration of memory into digital media. Umberto Eco says it best: \u201cwhen everything is recorded, we don\u2019t feel the need to remember it\u201d(Ferrario 22:49-22:53).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Umberto Eco loved his books and, considering Ingold\u2019s theories on making and learning, the opposing affordances between physical and digital media, and Benjamin\u2019s resolution in the plight that is mechanical reproduction, it\u2019s easy to see why. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Benjamin, Walter. \u201cThe Work of Art in the Age of Reproduction\u201d, Illuminations<\/em>, edited by Hannah Arendt, Schocken Books, 1969.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ingold, Tim. Making<\/em>. Routledge, 2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peters, John Durham. \u201cMass Media\u201d,  Critical Terms for Media Studies, <\/em>edited by W.J.T Mitchell and Mark, B.N. Hansen, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp. 266-279.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Umberto Eco: A Library of the World. <\/em>Directed by Davide Ferrario. Performance by Umberto Eco, Zoe Tavarelli, and Giuseppe Cederna. 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Photo by Molly Kingsley<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Written by Molly Kingsley<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Davide Ferrario\u2019s film, Umberto Eco: A Library of the World memorializes many of Eco\u2019s theories, particularly the relationship between media and memory, which works through its connection to history. Eco himself is staunchly committed to physical media, blatantly exhibited through his sprawling library which is featured in the film\u2019s opening credits. These themes of media … Continue reading The Test of Time: Media and Memory Through Eco and Ingold<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100869,"featured_media":422,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[77,7,45,78,76,70,65,79],"class_list":["post-421","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-other","tag-digital-media","tag-mass-media","tag-memory","tag-objects-vs-things","tag-physical-media","tag-tim-ingold","tag-umberto-eco","tag-walter-benjamin"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/421","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/100869"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=421"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/421\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":423,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/421\/revisions\/423"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/422"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=421"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=421"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=421"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}