media ecologies part 2

Ok, the model of media ecology I follow is that described by Matthew Fuller and not that described and delineated by Neil Postman. WHY? Some of this comes down to the way media are defined. Some comes down to an openess to different theoretical approaches. But media ecology (Postman) and media ecology(Fuller) are not the same thing. Where they do converge is in statements like "Media ecology is the study of media as environments" Where they differ is in the definition of media. but for the current project I need ot be able to discuss this in terms of teaching practice... which is a problem as Postman's version of media ecology is the one picked up within education, but what I need to find out is if it is still current. Next stop is a proper description of Fuller's media ecologies and the way that I apply that - basically a reworking of the text from Caro and I.

Fuller describes Postman's media ecology as the "study of media to sustain a relatively stable notion of human culture" (ME pg. 4) - key issue here is that ecology is used as interchangable with environmnet and this need or desire for stability. What I find troubling about Postman's work is the idea that envrinoments impact on people, rather than people being part of the environment, also the deterministic way that media re appraoched by anumber of media ecologists is problematic. I guess it comes back to the divergence within McLuhan studies. And my ongoing suspicians about convergence theories/ deterministic theories and media as remediation... see my thesis for more on this :)

Fuller's aproach focuses on "dynamic systems in which any one part is always multiply connected.. and always variable" this to me is a perfect description of a teaching LAB envrionment. I'll use this to begin a description of the senior electronic arts lab here at art school, as I feel a need to get some concrete examples in here.