The text on assemblages provides a interesting lens towards dissecting the media that we frequently interact with. Using this lens forces us to pick apart the individual pieces that come together to make a large “assemblage” or platform such as YouTube. On the Youtube platform there are many what the text calls “arrangements of humans and nonhumans” all of these individuals pieces and their interactions with each other make the YouTube platform what it is. These individual pieces of the YouTube assemblage include the many humans who make YouTube content, the respective audiences of these creators, the comment section, devices to access the platform, internet access, letters, words and more. While dissecting these pieces is interesting the text also points out that “Assemblages are not static structures” and that “it is not enough to dissect or map an assemblage’s elements. We must consider its capacities: what an assemblage can do”. One unique element of many social media platforms, Youtube included, is the capacity for interaction between the audience and the creators of media. In more traditional forms of media, such as television, this interaction did not exist in the same way as it can now. Previous forms of audience-media producer interaction was usually do as direct, immediate or easily accessible. With platforms like YouTube an individual audience member can directly communicate with a media creator such as through the comment section. This in turn can impact the work produced by the media creator thus creating a type of mutualistic relationship that would not be possible without all the individual pieces of the assemblage working together.
2 thoughts on “Assemblage – Grace Brogan”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I like how you mention this mutualistic relationship described in the keyword reading. It was enlightening in class to specify all of the human and non-human components that go into producing a single tweet. We see and understand a tweet in concept, however rarely think of the various aspects that go into its production from the originator to the post itself. This speaks to the true lack of accessibility that we actually have to producing media as many can not acquire all of the technology required such as a router or free wifi to be able to produce, let alone have a popular tweet.
The thought that it is not enough to just map out and divide the human and non-human pieces of assemblage in an app like Youtube is something I agree with. I also agree with what you say about how we have to think about their relationships with each other because as humans we usually only look at what we get out of these connections in the short term or to solve our problem, not the long-term effects. These long-term effects are what usually have lasting results on the futures we are trying to change and with media that affects everyone, this is a very important topic.