The relationship between the concepts of multiplicity, fragmented media, and flexible media, can be some what confusing; they all relate but have distinct natures within media today. In order to understand these terms though it is imperative that the bigger picture of the modern ‘Internet of things’, is analysed. The Internet of things being, all the things in our lives, and how the Internet has or may have changed our relationship with such things.
Multiplicity here is the collection of all of these things, and how each relationship between things has an affect on its outcome, and how the coming together of a few things or many things or even nothing has a certain relational affect. Multiplicity in this sense is the coming together of things, and relates more so to the abundance of potentials from such ‘coming together’. Take something away and what’s left may come together in a completely different way, or not come together at all, or add something to a relationship of things and it may shift the relationship all together. Fragmented media here relates whereby the current media landscape has shifted and is now more fragmented in terms of its accessibility, instead of requiring to go straight to the SMH website for news for example, you may be able to access links through Facebook, or Twitter. Ironically, fragmented media allows for more connections, and herein we are witness to this increasingly flexible type of media; there are numerous paths to attaining such media, and media is becoming ubiquitous even within social media.
The Internet of things relates to this wherein it is the coming together of things such as app’s, technology, our environment and our own experiences of our reality, and how this ‘coming together’ has a significant affect on our lives, and how we interact with society. Bollier (2013) discusses the concept of ‘commons’ with significant relation to this concept. “The ambient commons consists of all of those things in our built environment, especially in cities, that we take for granted as part of the landscape: architectural design, urban spaces, designs that guide and inform our travels, amenities for social conviviality.” These commons can be thought of as pieces in the multiplicity puzzle, they are our surrounding environment in which has an effect on how we may interact with apps or technology. This relationship between all facets of the multiplicity puzzle has been described by Bollier (2013); “we now experience a cityscape in different ways. We identify our locations, find information, connect with each other and experience life in different ways. The embedded design elements of the ambient commons affect how we think, behave and orient ourselves to the world.”
It is important to note within this media landscape that the democratisation of smartphones, for example, has given people the tools in which they are able to reclaim their ambient ‘commons’ to suit their needs, i.e. they are able to tailor their experiences of their environment through things such as apps, because they can tailor how and why they use such apps.
Reference:
Bollier, David (2013) ‘How Will We Reclaim and Shape the Ambient Commons?’, David Bollier: news and perspectives on the commons, July 16, <http://bollier.org/blog/how-will-we-reclaim-and-shape-ambient-commons>
arts3091blogtm 