Felix Stalder, one of the co-moderators of Nettime, posted there yesterday with a McLuhanesque, hot-cool analysis of Dean v Kerry that recalls McL's classic example of Nixon v Kennedy. In light of some of Jenny's recent discussion, Stalder's thoughts caught my eye. Since it's a listserv post, here's a little longer excerpt than I'd normally offer:
Yet, could it be that exactly the kinds of qualities that make Dean so attractive to get involved with via the Internet make him less appealing on TV? Online, his 'radical' stance comes across as principled, as a clear alternative. On TV, it comes across as arrogant and hot-headed. TV clearly is a cool medium, favoring a cool demeanor by politicians. Nobody got this across better than Clinton. Yet, cool politicians are not the types who feel you need to help personally (unless in ultra-crass cases such as the Clinton-impeachment that spawned moveon.org). On the Internet, spontaneity is essential part of an engaging interactive experience, while on TV, it's amateurish.Dean, it seems, is in a difficult position. He needs to continue to appeal to his Internet-based organization, which could fall apart as quickly as it was assembled, yet he needs to tone himself down to make the transition onto TV where the boring but authoritative-looking Kerry operates much more smoothly.
It may just be me, but I've always found McL's notion of hot and cool media to be more than a bit slippery--never felt like it quite worked. Jenny can answer this better than I, but I wonder if there's an affective dimension to media that doesn't get picked up. Scratch that. I know there's an affective dimension to media that doesn't get picked up, but I wonder if increased attention to affect renders the hot/cool distinction more context-dependent and more concrete. And perhaps even ultimately more useful?
Yeah, this last part's mainly just for Jenny. After our conversation about vocabularies, I seem to be more alert to the possibility that one of the things we do is alter/interrogate/revise the scope of vocabularies to make them more relevant. Hmm. I have more thoughts on this, but they need a little more cooking.
And ps. Stalder's page is worth a browse
Good stuff, c. (And I say that because it's interesting to me. More posts about my project, please!) I agree about the hot/cool stuff. Never worked for me that much.
But I'll say this (and I plan to say it in more places than just this comment page!): affect as a concept is USEFUL because of the vocabularies that we can develop from it. It creates new terministic screens. So, for example, you're right to note that now we can talk about Dean via his affective capacities/effects, rather than *just* his emotional, ideological, or mediated effects.
Unsexy claim? Hardly. It's hip in the way that trucker hats are now hip. (Wait. Are they? They were a few months ago.) Are vocabularies for analysis unhip? No way. But even if they are (and they're not), I would argue that this is the only thing we CAN do with affect. IOW, affect is not "useful" as a mode or means of production, but affective vocabularies are useful as a mode/means of reading. And, of course, reading is a mode of production, so blah blah blah. But note the difference.
And I'm sorry, but this affective analysis of the campaign is frankly kinda cool.
btw, my link doesn't work in your post.
i'm sorry, but i have to self-promote when i actually say good things.
oops. fixed.