Something that I have been thinking about since our last class is what seemed to be a throwaway comment from Ian when he fumbled over some words. When trying to say that he was “capturing our intellect” he substituted imagination for intellect. It was ever so brief, and quickly corrected, but a comment like that got me thinking about this divide between intellect and imagination.
In a university, it is understandable that intellect is what a professor is interested in capturing, but imagination seems so much more elusive than intellect. The university system suggests that they can measure our intellect, but there’s no system really in place for gauging how well a person imagines, or the quality of their imagination.
I have been thinking about this binary because it reminds me greatly of the divide between immediacy and hypermediacy, and cultural connotations of the two.
I see immediacy and imagination as focusing on the same area of human fancy. Immediacy is after emmersing somebody into a world. I see immediacy in video games, comic books, television shows, Hollywood movies, and even internet culture. I feel that what appeals to people in these mediums is the same thing that Bolter and Grusin are talking about with virtual reality. These are mostly forms of entertainment that capture a users imagination.
On the other hand, I see hypermediacy as something that captures a users intellect. In going with the Bolter and Grusin example of Modern Art’s obsession with making the viewer aware of the process and technique of making art, hypermediacy seems to revel in itself. One can point to a webdesigner’s skill on a page and show the smart design decisions he or she has made. Even reading an essay, I feel like I’ve been trained to notice the quality of the piece, not the flavour of the writing or its content.
Hypermediacy is about being aware of a media and judging it. Immediacy wants the viewer just to have fun. I bring this up because I feel that are society is quick to condemn video games or other realms of immersion and immediacy. More “intellectual” pursuits that are not as pleasurable as reading a book for fun are encouraged. To me this relates to learning how to write a cover letter for a job, or other processes such as filling out forms or basically following authority. Hypermediacy feels like seeing and valuing how something is done, the “right” way that something is done. And if that is done properly, then a person is valued for their ability to create something that is properly hypermediate.
I think, however, that being able to master escapism and pull people out of reality and into a new world should be as highly regarded. It seems to me that the person I should admire is the one that can fool my senses completely and take me out of my day to day life. Being able to create immediacy in a medium seems more than just mimicking reality, but possibly recreating one better that does not weigh as heavily.
Being tricked into believing immediacy is something I would be more worried about because what is more dangerous, the evil you know (hypermediacy) or the one you cannot see (immediacy)?
good post. i believe the phrase i used was that i am interested in cultivating your intellect – and i am also interested in cultivating your imagination (a difficult task). nevertheless, i’m interested in the connections you’re making between imagination and intellect, but i worry that you haven’t fully explored their relationship to hypermediacy and immediacy. i think you have a solid grasp of how these work (good examples), but i’d like to see you develop these ideas in more detail.
“Hypermediacy is about being aware of a media and judging it. Immediacy wants the viewer just to have fun.” responding to these comments, i think pleasure is at the heart of both concepts; what differs, however, is the level of engagement the individual is subjected to in her/his mediated experience(s). i think an interesting area of inquiry here is to talk about the pleasure that is inherently part of media consumption.
keep writing,
i.