In reading both the Bejamin and McLuhan readings, my response is a bit mixed. In short the connection I made between the two readings lies within McLuhan’s reoccurring comment, “the medium is the message” and Bejamin’s thoughts on how the concept of the film places the public in the position of the “examiner” but requires them to pay no attention to what is being presented. McLuhan points out that regardless of what the content of the medium through which something is being conveyed, the medium itself is really what should be analyzed. He says that “technology…alter(s) sense of ratios and patterns of perception steadily without any resistance.” I think that overall what he is saying is that how a message is being conveyed is more important than the message itself. The medium has the ability to not only cause a reactionary response, but overtime has the ability to change the equilibrium in the masses. It has the profound effect of altering our perception of issues and how we view and analyze the world.
Likewise, in Bejamin’s reading he goes through the whole line of development on how art was made and how the reproduction of art dilutes its original authenticity or purpose. Most importantly out of what he says, is when he begins to talk about the medium of film and how that the cameraman has the ability to alter our perception. Through the cutting of footage and varied camera angles the cameraman has more control over how his work is absorbed versus that of the painter painting a scene. Through this exercised control of the footage, the cameraman has now created a piece that does not always require a great attention to what is happening on the side of the viewer. The viewer can almost absent-mindedly absorb the cameraman’s work.
Overall, the ideas I gleaned from the reading is that the medium and the way the hyper-controlled way it is curated have the ability to change the perception of the viewer. One forces the viewer to see through a specific lens, while the other changes slowly the way the viewer sees.
