1) In chapter 2 Bolter and Grusin explain that “media are continually commenting on, reproducing, and replacing each other.” Technology is advanced through reforms and, in turn, reforms itself. This process is not limited to our contemporary time, Bolter and Grusin claim, but is an integral part of the human history.
Bolter and Grusin separate technology from the social and political sphere as if it was an entirely autonomous entity that can influence, but not be influenced back. The book’s deterministic view of media does not answer the question how the changes in society modify or disrupt the progress of media. Assuming Bolter and Grusin are correct in their understanding of media, why different cultures use, perceive and value the same technology in different ways?
2) In chapter 7 Bolter and Grusin write that the introduction of new media immediately challenges the separation of high and low culture as the new technology makes high culture accessible for larger number of people. The new media claims it is at least equal (if not superior) to the existing one and, thus, should be seen as legitimate. The distinction is eventually restored by separation on the level of style – into high styles and popular styles. Does this separation of styles has something to do with the different ways immediacy, transparency and reality can be expressed and perceived?
Bolter and Grusin do not talk much about how the high styles of one art remediate the high styles of another, and how the popular styles of one art remediate the popular styles of another. Is the new version of the style sharing the same characteristic as the old one even though the technology might be different?