What he discusses in the second section I can get behind - for the most part. It's painfully obvious that he comes from New Age perspective (he even says it himself). Which is great in so many philosophical respects. Radical evolution, great. Connections of people around the globe, awesome. Away with the old and in with the new, down with it. I agree with his overall sentiment, but I think what he fails to address is essentially what brought us to the corporate owned state of things today and what was, in my opinion the failure of the entire "hippie" phenomenon. While he notes that commercial entertainment has in large part taken over our consciousness he fails to take on the notion of modern capitalism and its implications, which is why essentially his ideas never blossomed, in my humble opinion. The ideas he brought forward as to his vision of what media should look like are pretty beautiful, however as is seen throughout American history, whenever something is given to the people for free, the second massive corporations see a possibility of profit in the concept, forget about it. That is, unless it is protected with through and through from their ever growing reach into all aspects of life. Without addressing capitalism's reach, his dreams will never come true and media will never truly become free. The ideas of seeing things in a common artistic language throughout the world via television, internet, etc. are very much real - except for the purpose of selling us the newest thing. Long story short, the language used that at times sounds as if it could have come out of the mouth of an intellectual new age-er standing around on Fry St. can just go ahead and render itself irrelevant in my book.
No comments:
Post a Comment