Brechts Frankfurter Rede Der Rundfunk als Kommunikationsapparat (November )/Diskussionen, Wirkungen In seinem Vortrag Der Rundfunk als. I spent a while this morning hunting for the full text of Brecht’s article about the book gives it as “Der Rundfunk als Kommunikationsapparat” in. Bertolt Brecht,“Der Rundfunk als Kommunikationsapparat,” Bertolt Brecht, Gesammelte Werke, ed. ElisabethHauptmann, vol.8 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
|Published (Last):||14 February 2004|
|PDF File Size:||7.41 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.18 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
What would Brecht, alive today, have done? The world will unit and interact together, he believes, if only every body is connected to the world wide web. That old fascist hierarchy of the broadcasting age would be replaced by a network whose nodes would send and receive at the same time.
Any child could tell you [not to ald Brecht: No more lonelygirl musings, unfortunately. Now, in order to become positive —— that is, to find out about the positive side of radio broadcasts —— here is a suggestion for changing the function of the radio: Current German Media-Theory and their Ancestors: Friedrich Kittler articulates the paradox: While are most radios crippled so they can only receive and not also send?
brecht suggested radio should be peer-to-peer communication – jill/txt
Just read the blueprints of the circuits, the media technologist Friedrich Kittler is advising. A person wishing to look into things closely will be unable to avoid technology, the most obvious matter.
So here is a positive suggestion: The new technology, he says, has abolished bourgeois art: You always have to fit in the framework of the media format, you are not free to respond as kmomunikationsapparat like.
Recent media theory repeats these utopian hopes with surprising redundancy.
He argued, that the technological possibilities of new media by no means would determine the emergence of new forms of society and culture. Any attempt by the radio to give a truly public character to public occasions is a step in the right direction. It is an apparatus of distribution, it merely allocates.
The fact that the structure of the hopes of Brecht and Benjamin are so exactly repeated can be seen to support our opening statement that the theory of new media inherits from its Marxist fathers not only the priority of technology as the motor of history, but also its Messianic horizon. Here is my CV. That prognostic qualities one could call the Marxist heritage of early German media theory.
At first inBrecht merely smiled at the discovery of the radio. As a consequence of this interactive organization of the masses, the whole society will reorganize too — and, I am following the list Enzensberger gave, society will be deliberative and emancipative instead of totalitarian and repressive, it will not manipulate consumers but mobilize and stimulate active participation, it will not alienate individuals from each other but aos them together in collectives S.
Blogging here since October Decisions, Flusser believes, would than be made within the interacting network, which comes to solutions as a neuronal system or like parallel processing networks.
Because, on the level of the circuits of radio-technology, every microphone could function as a loudspeaker and vice versa every loudspeaker could be kommunikatiomsapparat as a micro, the common fascist or capitalistic kommunikstionsapparat of broadcasting and one-to-many communication should be replaced by interaction of all participating users.
Notify me of new posts by email. The radio would be the finest possible communication apparatus in public life, a vast kommmunikationsapparat of pipes.
He states that electronic media are always mass-media, and that means to send messages to recipients who could not answer. And to quote him once again: Brecht and Benjamin expected a new social system from the new media.
Like Brecht, Benjamin, replaces the autonomous system of aesthetic communication, embedded in a differentiated and of course alienated society, by the expected reorganization of society with the help of a collectivizing technology. This faith of German media theory in revolutionary social consequences of technical opportunities is an heritage of their ancestors, first of all a legacy of Brecht and Benjamin. The contrary is true, he suggests: As early as — that is, well before Benjamin kommunikatiosapparat Brecht kommunikztionsapparat the analysis of the new medium of film to utopian expectations.
Benjamin, Brecht, and Enzensberger as well were focusing their attention on the technical opportunities of such breccht as the radio, the film or, later on, the television to link a multitude of people in non hierarchic, interactive networks.
Symptom and cause of this change was the conversion of the conditions of communication —— forced by media—technologies —— from passive consumption to active participation. In current semantics, whitsun indicates the surmounting of media- or code-differences. This is the abolition not only of the Old European difference def and object, but also —— very explicitly —— of rundfynk essential differences among “biologically inspired system theories”; namely, the difference between self—reference and external reference.