VIDEO
REVOLUTIONS
VIDEO
REVOLUTIONS
On the History of a Medium
MICHAEL Z. NEWMAN
Columbia University Press
New York
Columbia University Press
Publishers Since 1893
New York Chichester, West Sussex
cup.columbia.edu
Copyright 2014 Columbia University Press
All rights reserved
E-ISBN 978-0-231-53775-9
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Newman, Michael Z.
Video revolutions : on the history of a medium / Michael Z. Newman.
pages cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-231-16951-6 (pbk. : alk. paper)
ISBN 978-0-231-53775-9 (ebook)
1. Video recordingsHistory. I. Title.
PN1992.935.N49 2014
302.234dc23
2013046909
A Columbia University Press E-book.
CUP would be pleased to hear about your reading experience with this e-book at .
Cover design by Jason Alejandro
Cover art by Hollis Brown Thornton
References to websites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing. Neither the author nor Columbia University Press is responsible for URLs that may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared.
CONTENTS
As a detour sometimes becomes a trip of its own, this book, which I also think of as a long essay, came into being while I was on my way somewhere else. The place I was going was research on early video games and the emergence of that new medium. I am young enough not to remember the earliest games of the 1970s, so it was news to me that when they came along they often were called TV games. This made me wonder why eventually they came to be known as video games rather than as TV games, and what if any difference that represented. As I came to appreciate, video often stood for something rather distinct from TV in the 1970sbut wasnt video also a synonym for television? How could the same word be both a synonym and a term of distinction? It was this series of mini-discoveries and semantic puzzles that led me toward Video Revolutions, which aims at once to account for the variety of meanings video has had over time and for the ways in which the concept and category called the medium functions to accommodate this kind of ambiguity and diversity of reference and meaning.
Distinct historically and conceptually as they are, these ways of thinking share a number of traits. They describe a quasi-religious faith in electronic technology as an impetus to societal improvement, a great benefit to humanity pointing the way to a future free from the problems of the past and present. In its many iterations, this utopian rhetoric repeatedly returns to the idea of revolution. A revolution is not merely a change but an upheaval. To use 2010s tech lingo, a revolution is a radical disruption of the status quo. Owing to the terms historical political connotations, revolutions are closely associated with independence and liberation. To revolutionize, observed Raymond Williams, is to produce a new social order. A revolution gives power to the people and moves the world forward.
Video revolutions are but one patch of a broad field of new technologies promising revolution. Along with video revolutions have come revolutions in computers, convergence, networks, mobile devices, and on and on, all under the umbrella of the information revolution. One ideological function of revolution talk is to displace political, economic, and cultural structures that produce and reproduce our most intractable problems and substitute technological fixes for the more challenging and difficult work that would move us toward changes most deeply desired and needed. Revolution talk also functions to shift interest from the objectives of powerful institutions and individuals, who benefit from the commercial fortunes of media and electronics, to the people whose interests are supposedly to be served by technological improvement, and whose participation in technological innovation as enthusiastic consumers is often necessary to satisfy the objectives of corporations and states. Revolution talk bathes media and technology in a glow of optimistic promise and thrill, but it is typically devoid of authentic critical perspective or historical understanding.
Scholars were writing both short books and extended essays long before E Ink and touchscreens were everyday objects. We might think of an academic book having certain expected qualities of length, shape, and scholarly apparatus, but nothing about the technology of the bookprint or electronicdemands any terribly specific conception of its contents. I wonder if we would do better to think (to the extent that this kind of thinking is possible) less of books, articles, blogs, etc., and more of writing, argument, and ideas. One of the ideas I have tried to suggest in the pages to follow is that a medium is often more flexible and labile than prevailing notions about it seem to allow. Trying to fix a medium with one clear identity and purpose is ultimately never going to work because the intertwined history of society and media technology is one of regular change, renewal, and remediation. This insight should apply as much to media of writing as it does to media of sound and moving image.
A number of friends and colleagues have aided the progress of this book from idea to writing and revision to publication. I am thrilled to have worked again with Jennifer Crewe, an editor who was eager to pursue an unconventional project and saw the value of trying new things. I began the research that developed into this work while on a fellowship at the Center for 21st Century Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and I am grateful to the Center for its intellectual community and commitment to interdisciplinary humanities scholarship. Zach Campbell, Peter Collopy, Kit Hughes, Josh Kitching, Richard Popp, and Ira Wagman offered excellent advice, expanded my understanding, pointed me to sources I didnt know about, and sometimes saved me from blunders. Philip Sewell was particularly enthusiastic, and his media history knowledge has been indispensable. Columbia University Presss anonymous reviewers offered outstanding feedback, and this work is undoubtedly much better for their generous, knowledgeable, and incisive comments. Finally, I never would have found myself writing about the history of video if not for Elana Levine, a constant source of support and inspiration. Thank you all.
As tube , tape, and disc are replaced by file, pixel, and cloud, the present moment in media history offers a vantage point for regarding video as an adaptable and enduring term that bridges all of these technologies and the practices they afford. At different times video has been different things for different people, and its history is more than a progression of material formats: cameras, transmitters and receivers, tapes and discs, decks that record and play them, digital files, apps and interfaces. It is also a history of ideas about technology and culture, and relations and distinctions among various types of media and the social needs giving rise to their uses.
I aim to represent a history of video that accounts for these expressions in their specific contexts from the early period of television to the present day, identifying three broad historical phases. These phases are marked by technological innovations such as videotape and streaming web video, but also by the ways in which video has been placed in relation to other media, including radio, television, sound recording, and film, as well as networked computers, their hardware and software.