Television and Screen Assemblage - Essay Example

Television and Screen Assemblage Prologue The dynamism of technology has led to the evolution of television and screen assemblage from less to a more interactive multiplatform environment. The technological change from analogue to digital signal transmission has played a key role in the digitizing transmission of television content from originally closed system where viewers were confined to a set of programmes available to them, has now become an open system that generates new links and configurations. These technological advances, have transformed television and screen assemblage over time. The transformation has increased user interactivity since one can switch from one channel to another through the provision of multiplatform television environment. This essay looks into various ways of reconfiguring or modifying television devices, media and texts to enhance television display in regard of its functionality and capability. Also, the factors that have led to television and screen assemblage are examined which revolves around intertextuality and postmodernism as discussed by Johnson-Eilola and Selber (Johnson-Eilola & Selber, 2007). The essay draws forth the works of various theorists that try to explain the television revolution. Introduction Television and screen assemblage have undergone a huge transformation over the last one decade. The analogue to digital transmission migration is one of the most significant changes in television broadcasting. China was the first country to switch off analogue transmission for CCTV channels and Netherlands switched off analogue transmission on 11th December, 2011. According to ABC (2013), the last analogue signal was switched off on 10th December 2013 in Melbourne and rural communities in eastern and central Australia. The TV users are required to use a digital set-top box or use digital television to access content both for paid and free-to-air television content. This important because transition to digital signals provides a new interactive display feature that enables a user to have a multiplatform environment where the user can watch various channels at the same time and thus able to switch to a programme that interests the user easily. This feature brings a new quality in the interactivity of television and screen assemblage since in the past, television viewers were required to scroll through channel numbers one at a time, whereas now the user can simply select their favourite programme directly from a list (Bennett & Strange, 2008). The transformation allows the user to view their favourite programme at a convenient time for them. Also, technological advancement has led to the emergence of new forms of digital television such as IPTV and internet TV (Young, 2008). The change has brought in three new options for viewers that include search, pay per view and retrieval service. Consequently, television and screen assemblage has brought in the viewer to contribute by sharing their views, for example, integrating social media and with mainstream media. The ability of the users to share their views enables television assemblage to be tailored to meet their demands easily. The introduction of multiplatform environment for television display brings forth the need to examine its function from a social and cultural perspective (Wise, 2016). The new concept in television display has led to the inquiry of prior theories concerning the understanding of television and screen assemblage which includes remix versus plagiarism and other related issues. According to Young (2008), the television transformation has directly or indirectly affected the mass audience, broadcast flow, appointment viewing and live broadcasting factors. Therefore, there became a need to come up with a new model that takes care of arising issues from the digital model other than using prior theorist model that addresses analogue broadcasting. The new theories provide a clear basis that television producers or content creators use to customise their programme content since they provide a clear understanding of multiplatform digital environment, for example, creation of short clips from a television content to be used in YouTube as an advertisement (Young, 2008). The discussion by various theorists tries to discuss various concepts and how it needs alteration to conform the multiplatform digital model. The assemblage concept has received a strong emphasis by various scholars as a starting point for improving the quality of television content. The assemblage means the use of existing text to solve the problem in writing or communication in the new context. In other words, gathering existing content and use it to develop content that is relevant or to solve new problems as they arise. According to Goggin (2009), it is noted that assemblage theory considers specific objects, forms and technologies that bring together various cultural practices and thus simplifying the meaning and role of the assemblage theory. According to Latour (2005b), assemblage theory clarifies and solves the limitations that come with the use of traditional social theory in developing television and screen content. The profound limitations that Latour argues include the fixed terms and binaries that encompass social theory i.e. actor and system. The social theory proves irrelevant in this regard since multiplatform display environment has increased interactivity by enhancing user personalisation and customisation. Also, the user can directly or indirectly contribute to the creation of TV content through platform integrated to mainstream media, for example, use of Skype, phone call and social media by a television station in live broadcasting. In other words, social theory in content creation looked only in one perspective since programmes were not affected by anything outside the structure since television used a closed system where viewers are confined to a set of programmes at a time. The social theory limits dynamism in creation and airing of television content since they work in logic stability and linear causality, where one stage is dependent on another stage (Bennett & Strange, 2008). Therefore, failure in one stage automatically leads to failure in the whole process and thus proves that the theory limits change. The limitation of change by this social approach causes a mismatch between television content and transformation of the cultural and social setting of the society. The emergence and embrace of remix content as being the creation of new content from a previous content is one of the trends that go against the social approach. The use of social approach in the creation of television content considers remix as plagiarism while assemblage theory challenges the idea of originality in content creation. Therefore, the difference between the two approaches in television and screen assemblage rotates structures of content creation. Social theory advocates for a fixed formal structure but assemblage theory advocates for a flexible structure that enables programme actor and producers to find their way of doing things in creating the television and screen programmes. This is impactful because content creators or producers produce unique content which consumer do not expect since one cannot predict the outcome but process is predictable. The television and screen assemblage take two forms which include stratified and molecular or rhizomatic. The layered assemblage takes the form of a fixed structure and replicates some parts know as a molar assemblage. On the other hand, molecular assemblage is comparatively steady and comprises of both human and non-human elements (DeLanda, 2006). These components are heterogeneous and thus able to quickly adapt to changes in the external environment resulting from social and cultural shifts in the society. The capability of molecular assemblage gives new qualities and capacities to be introduced into the system, unlike stratified collection. Also, it can blend in with other models but retain its uniqueness. Therefore, molecular assemblage provides a clear understanding of dynamic functions and interactivity of multiplatform environment for television. The assemblage constitutes parts of self-subsistent and is explained concerning its exteriority and thus a part can be removed and used to make up another assemblage without affecting the previous assemblage (DeLanda, 2006). Therefore, overcoming the limitation of social approach in assemblage since the removal of one part fails a whole system. The approach is open to change even though the assemblage seems fixed and stable. The introduction of change renders some of the previous elements such as redundant to accommodate the new connection. The link of assemblage to external factors has two effects. First, the new connection overrides the old ones since it embraces the changes in the external components that conform to the social and cultural setting (Fuller, 2015). Secondly, the change in the system automatically leads to change in its capacities. The heterogeneous part of the assemblages always retains its distinctiveness as they acquire new attributes thus producing new outcomes that conform social and cultural change. Therefore, outcomes become unpredictable for molecular structure compared to fixed structures that result in the same outcome. The deterritorialisation and reciprocal determination form major aspects that drive the relevance of molecular television social formation. The deterritorialisation aims at overcoming the weakness of a fixed structure where assemblage is over-coded by being given a fixed role and meaning which produces a closed configuration (DeLanda, 2006). Therefore, deterritorialisation recreates the above by undoing fixed structures and disrupts formal processes. The stratified approach in television broadcast means that programmes are organised in essences that it rotates around importance, similarity and production of images and representation for consumer consumption. Therefore, provides viewers few chances to participate in dictating the media texts that they are directed to consume (DeLanda, 2006). The structure is programmed and scheduled to address age and gender. For example, content that is classified to be for audiences over 18years is aired late at night and children tailored program are aired after school. The scheduling also is important in valuing advertisement airtime, for example, advertising at the prime time i.e. before, in between and after evening news is expensive than airing ad at a regular time. The rhizomatic assemblage disrupts the programming and scheduling structure. It allows viewers to personalise and customise the content they want to view, for example, viewers can watch past television content by retrieving recorded content or switch from one channel to another channel during commercial breaks. Therefore, it limits effectiveness of age restriction to content and efficiency of advertisement during prime time. The mobile viewing capability is another disruptive technology that increases the consumer viewership since individuals can watch content anywhere and anytime. The television and screen assemblage utilises emerging digital network that centres on mobile cellular networks. The mobile platform utilises elements such as music, video and internet capabilities. The television on cell phones has increased mobility, logics and technologies since it is portable and provides an avenue of advancement (Goggin, 2009). The progress revolves around the need to match gender, mode of transportation, living setting i.e. urban life, communication technologies and friendship relationship. The Nokia Company unveiled mobile television in 2005 and it didn’t mark traditional evolution but revolutionised content, watch time and brought in the feature of enabling the viewer to personalise content through the use of WAP service and download. Therefore, allow the viewer to watch his/her favourite programme at any particular time, unlike stratified assemblage that did not provide retrieval service (Goggin, 2009). There are concern that most mobile content has not been specifically developed for mobile television platform but only abbreviated, restructured or customized from other forms of television content, for example, mobile phones television lack free-to-air and subscription feature. Therefore, depends entirely on the internet by use of cellular network and thus pushing for the need for improvement. Also, the content made for mobile platform has featured in most public discussion and media representation, but little studies have been done to improve the assemblage of a good content specifically tailored for mobile television. The users of the mobile phone as a television have fallen with time and use confined to watching events such reality programming, sports, national and international events, watching a short video, programme excerpts or experimenting programmes made for mobile phone (Jenkins, 2004). The reduction of mobile phone television viewership is attributed to the fact that the mobile phones with such capabilities are expensive. Also, users who have low resolution or small screen sizes will not see the same appeal of mobile phone television as a consumer with a bigger screen (Putnam, 2001). The low consumption of mobile television content has slowed down the dynamism in the creation of advanced mobile-based content. Lastly, mobile phone televisions have received criticism in social perspective since it makes individuals anti-social since they are glued to their phones during free time (Katz, 2002). Conclusion The constant evolution in creation and airing of television content is experienced due to the drive to satisfy the arising and ever-changing consumer needs. The analogue to digital transformation is one of the major milestones that has increased consumer interactivity as users can personalise and customise their programme, as opposed to analogue signals which forced the user to adhere to schedules. Also, mobile phone television technology has proven disruptive in the television industry. The assemblage theory provides an excellent platform for enabling dynamism due to its emphasis on the use of the open system. Reference ABC,. (2013). End of an era: Analogue TV switched off. ABC News. Retrieved 29 October 2016, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-10/end-of-an-era3a-analogue-tv-switched-off-in-victoria/5145824 Bennett, J., & Strange, N. (2008). The BBC's Second-Shift Aesthetics: Interactive Television, Multi-Platform Projects and Public Service Content for a Digital Era. Media International Australia, 126(1), 106-119. DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. A&C Black. Fuller, G. (2015). Meta: aesthetics of the media assemblage. Platform: journal of media and communication, 6, 73-85. Goggin, G. (2009). Assembling media culture: The case of mobiles. Journal of Cultural Economy, 2(1-2), 151-167. Jenkins, H. (2004). The cultural logic of media convergence. International journal of cultural studies, 7(1), 33-43. Johnson-Eilola, J., & Selber, S. A. (2007). Plagiarism, originality, assemblage. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 375-403. Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement, and interaction. MIT press. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory (Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies), Clarendon Press, Oxford. Marson, A., Foreman, R., Chevalier, B., Bilodeau, S., Kahn, M., Young, R. A., & Jaenisch, R. (2008). Wnt signaling promotes reprogramming of somatic cells to pluripotency. Cell stem cell, 3(2), 132. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster. Wise, M. (2006). Cultural studies and communication technology. LA Livingstone, The Handbook of New Media, 141-162. Read More

The assemblage concept has received a strong emphasis by various scholars as a starting point for improving the quality of television content. The assemblage means the use of existing text to solve the problem in writing or communication in the new context. In other words, gathering existing content and use it to develop content that is relevant or to solve new problems as they arise. According to Goggin (2009), it is noted that assemblage theory considers specific objects, forms and technologies that bring together various cultural practices and thus simplifying the meaning and role of the assemblage theory.

According to Latour (2005b), assemblage theory clarifies and solves the limitations that come with the use of traditional social theory in developing television and screen content. The profound limitations that Latour argues include the fixed terms and binaries that encompass social theory i.e. actor and system. The social theory proves irrelevant in this regard since multiplatform display environment has increased interactivity by enhancing user personalisation and customisation. Also, the user can directly or indirectly contribute to the creation of TV content through platform integrated to mainstream media, for example, use of Skype, phone call and social media by a television station in live broadcasting.

In other words, social theory in content creation looked only in one perspective since programmes were not affected by anything outside the structure since television used a closed system where viewers are confined to a set of programmes at a time. The social theory limits dynamism in creation and airing of television content since they work in logic stability and linear causality, where one stage is dependent on another stage (Bennett & Strange, 2008). Therefore, failure in one stage automatically leads to failure in the whole process and thus proves that the theory limits change.

The limitation of change by this social approach causes a mismatch between television content and transformation of the cultural and social setting of the society. The emergence and embrace of remix content as being the creation of new content from a previous content is one of the trends that go against the social approach. The use of social approach in the creation of television content considers remix as plagiarism while assemblage theory challenges the idea of originality in content creation.

Therefore, the difference between the two approaches in television and screen assemblage rotates structures of content creation. Social theory advocates for a fixed formal structure but assemblage theory advocates for a flexible structure that enables programme actor and producers to find their way of doing things in creating the television and screen programmes. This is impactful because content creators or producers produce unique content which consumer do not expect since one cannot predict the outcome but process is predictable.

The television and screen assemblage take two forms which include stratified and molecular or rhizomatic. The layered assemblage takes the form of a fixed structure and replicates some parts know as a molar assemblage. On the other hand, molecular assemblage is comparatively steady and comprises of both human and non-human elements (DeLanda, 2006). These components are heterogeneous and thus able to quickly adapt to changes in the external environment resulting from social and cultural shifts in the society.

The capability of molecular assemblage gives new qualities and capacities to be introduced into the system, unlike stratified collection. Also, it can blend in with other models but retain its uniqueness. Therefore, molecular assemblage provides a clear understanding of dynamic functions and interactivity of multiplatform environment for television. The assemblage constitutes parts of self-subsistent and is explained concerning its exteriority and thus a part can be removed and used to make up another assemblage without affecting the previous assemblage (DeLanda, 2006).

Read More