Huhtamo and Galili (2020) elaborate how far media archeology has come over the years. While it started in Europe and has been primarily Euro-centric, it’s beginning to go global and get the attention of many academics all around the world. It’s also creating sub-categories such as “public media archeology”, “network archeology”, and “experimental media archeology”. The authors state that the vagueness and complexity of this topic makes it chaotic to research and is called “the history of a question mark” by Colomnia and Wigley (2018). While this ubiquity makes media archeology rely on personal interpretation, there’s four commonly shared attributes is recognized by scholars. These are non-linear history, non-discursive media, rejection of medium-specific historiographies, and focus on forgotten or obsolete devices. This means that when we study media archeology; we’re jumping in time, we’re not just focusing on what material means but deeply investigating how it works, we’re not studying media in isolation but looking at connections, and looking at forgotten and obsolete technologies.
Huhtamo and Galili (2020) also mention how media archeology is expanding to studies of feminism, intersectionality,decoloniality, cultural semiotics, critical theory, design, and fashion. This article brings many of the topics and scholars I am looking into together by citing and referencing their works and can be extremely helpful to me when it comes to tying these political aspects together.
I filmed half of my proof of concept on Tuesday and got deep into my field research. I have a full committee now which I am very excited about but I have not met with them yet, I feel a little behind but I know I will be okay. I usually panic in my own time until I actually talk to someone and ask for help and every single time they end up calming me down and I realize I’m okay. I haven’t met with Kristina DeVoe yet but I will this week.
Be First to Comment