The Aesthetics of Media Experience in a Mobile Landscape
Transformations in texts and spectatorship
Name: Gijs Berger
Student number: 10576703
MA Thesis TV and Cross Media Culture
Supervisor: Sudeep Dasgupta Second reader: Toni Pape Word count: 18809
Abstract
This thesis offers an analysis of the transformations in the aesthetics of TV spectatorship as a result of increased mobility of screens, spectators, and content. Based upon a literature review and a comparative analysis of two traditional types of content, I critically review aesthetic media
experience in the mobile media landscape. The narrative complexity and cinematography of the TV series Breaking Bad seem to demand another form of attention than small screens and mobile consumption may offer. In contrast, the news content as presented by the visual platform Vox seems to be better suited for mobile consumption and small screens because of its informational and textual form. In this thesis, I present the spectatorial and textual transformations of TV content in the mobile media landscape, where viewers consume content on small, mobile screens while they move around.
Table of Contents
Abstract
Chapter 1: Introduction………. 3
1.1: Research Question……… 3
1.2: Structure and Methods……… 4
Chapter 2: Spectatorial Transformations in TV Experience……… 6
2.1: Introduction……… 6
2.2: Moving Bodies: Embodied Mobility……… 7
2.3: Platform Mobility……… 9
2.4: Gazing vs. Glancing……… 12
2.5: Deep Attention vs. Hyper Attention……… 14
2.6: New Era of Television……… 16
2.7: Bingewatching……… 18
Chapter 3: Textual Transformations in the Mobile Landscape……… 20
3.1: Introduction……… 20
3.2: TV Texts Transformed onto Small Screens……… 21
3.3: Unbundling: New Forms of Media Texts……… 24
3.4: Viewer Attention Regarding Unbundled Forms……… 25
Chapter 4: Modern TV Series: Breaking Bad………. 29
4.1: Introduction……… 29
4.2: Production and Narrative……… 29
4.3: Textual Mobility of Breaking Bad……… 30
4.4: Spectatorial Transformations of Breaking Bad……… 32
4.5: Scene Analysis of Scene I: Jesse & Mike (S04E05: Shotgun)... 33
4.6: Scene Analysis of Scene II: Missing Piece of Plate………. 36
(S01E3: And the Bag’s in the River) Chapter 5: News Content as presented by Vox……… . 40
5.1: Introduction………. 40
5.2: Fragmented Visual News Platform………... 41
5.3: Textual Transformation of News Content………... 44
5.4: Video Aesthetic of Vox……….45
Chapter 6: Conclusion……….. 49
6.2: Discussion………. 51
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1: Research Question
Media and technology are always in development and the human perception of media is often formed by the way media and its surrounding technologies are shaped. The contemporary media landscape is dominated by platforms and mobile devices. Viewers consume media everywhere, even when they are moving themselves. Traditional media, including domestic television and theater-based cinema, has changed in terms of content, access, and viewer relationships. The distinctions between types of media become blurred as they converge and new devices are developed. New mobile devices are able to present almost every type of media content to the viewer, whereas traditionally, every type of content had its own device and location for experience. These traditional links have changed, but more recent technological developments, including streaming technologies, platforms, and mobile devices, further developed the relationship between media and viewer experience. The ways viewers consume, perceive, process, and understand these forms of media have been impacted by the rise of mobile devices. Human perception of what is on the screen may have changed as a consequence of mobility. For example, when one is watching a movie on a small, mobile screen, his or her understanding of the object may be completely different when the same object was consumed on a larger screen at home. Mobile viewing changes experiences. Media content converged, and screens and spectators are mobile. Mobility is an influential and important development in the media landscape and is also the focus of this thesis.
The rise of mobility changed almost every aspect of media. While viewers are on the move, they consume content on all different sorts of screens. Content is also mobile because of platforms such as Netflix and YouTube, which are available on almost every device that is connected to the Internet. Viewers are able to access their favorite series, films, videos, and websites whenever they wish and they can also pause or continue watching at every desired moment. They can switch from a large TV screen to a small mobile phone screen in a matter of seconds. Mobile consumption seems to be the common form of media consumption these days and this has consequences for the forms of spectatorship and aesthetic experience. Technological dimensions, including screen size,
platforms, and mobile access, impact the sensory experience of media. Textual elements of media objects, such as format of the image, length, and narrative, transform as these technological dimensions change. Additionally, spectatorial dimensions, including how users consume content because of mobility, have an even greater impact on the way their senses perceive and experience media content. Users are now able to divide their consumption and attention into sessions and can pause films on their phones while on the train and continue watching later on their TV screens. This
has consequences for the aesthetic experience of their favorite content. Aesthetic or sensory dimensions of content, images, and sound are intrinsically connected with the aesthetic dimensions of the devices that viewers employ. Low bass tones do not reach the viewer if one is watching on a mobile phone without headphones. Similarly, a small screen does not convey images to a viewer in the same way that a large screen does.
Because of the mobility of content, devices, and spectators, the traditional, aesthetic media experience has been challenged. This thesis offers an introduction of the impact of mobility on aesthetic media experience and demonstrates how modes of spectatorship have been transformed. The research question is as follows: How do moving bodies and mobile screens transform aesthetic experiences on Netflix and Vox?
1.2: Structure and Methods
First, I elaborate on mobility, spectatorship, and textual forms of media in a theoretical framework which is divided in two parts: spectatorial transformations and textual transformations. This literature review contextualizes and defines concepts which are then applied to two case studies presented in Chapters 4 and 5. The emphasis of this thesis and the case studies in particular is the comparative analysis of two traditional types of TV content: TV series and news reports. I specifically focus on these types of content because both originate from traditional, linear television, and this thesis aims to explore the transformed modes of spectatorship regarding this medium. In addition, these types of content fundamentally differ in both textual and aesthetic dimensions. The
comparative analysis in this thesis concretely establishes the perspective of transformed spectatorship as a result of mobility on the basis of two types of content, both of which are accessible via multiple platforms and devices.
In the first chapter, I discuss traditional media theory surrounding viewer experience and apply it to the contemporary landscape. The theory of gazing and glancing, as discussed by Milly Buonanno, formed the basis of viewer experience in the media studies field. Her ideas form the basis of this thesis as well but need some revisions in order to be still applicable in the contemporary mobile landscape. Katherine Hayles demonstrates a general shift in attention throughout society, which can be linked to mobile media consumption and new forms of aesthetic media experience. Small screens provoke a separate form of attention toward the screen than a large cinema screen does. To better explain the different concepts of media mobility, I discuss and apply Sudeep Dasgupta’s ideas of embodied mobility and intermittent experience, linking it to Tryon’s ideas of platform mobility. This theory is applied to Netflix and Breaking Bad in particular in Chapter 4.
theory of unbundling, as discussed by Max Dawson, forms the basis of this chapter. The
fragmentation of the landscape seems to be further developed because of mobility, and this also has consequences for viewer experiences, given that his text was written more than a decade ago. It is important to include theories of textual dimensions in the framework as well, since aesthetic experience is formed by both spectatorial and textual dimensions. Both of these dimensions are further transformed because of the mobility of viewers, content, and devices. The theory and notions that are defined in the theoretical framework are applied to two case studies. The first case study is centered specifically around the platform of Netflix with the TV series Breaking Bad as the specific content. The second case study is centered around the fragmented visual news platform of Vox.
The first case study primarily focuses on the aesthetics of the contemporary TV series
Breaking Bad and seeks to ascertain whether these aesthetics are suitable for mobile consumption.
How does spectatorial experience get transformed when media content is viewed on mobile platforms? This question will mainly be answered from the textual perspective in the form of contemporary TV series. These aesthetic and textual elements seem to demand another form of viewer attention than is common in the mobile landscape.
The second case study focuses on the entire platform of Vox. Their content is fundamentally different content than Breaking Bad, since Vox offers news content in the form of fragments. This case study analyzes textual transformations of this type of content and makes connections with changed forms of media experience as well. Textual dimensions, such as form of the image, image structure, and narrative, are also challenged because of mobility, so this case study investigates how textual transformations, such as quality of the image and length of the media text, alter the aesthetic experiences of mobile media.
Both case studies thus analyze traditional television content in the new mobile landscape and offer insights regarding transformed aesthetic viewer experiences, focusing specifically on spectatorial and textual dimensions; in combination with the literature review, this thesis explores new forms of viewer experiences in a mobile media landscape.
Chapter 2: Spectatorial Transformations in TV Experience
2.1: Introduction
In a time where mobile phones dominate the access to media content in the contemporary media landscape, the aesthetic experience of media also changes due to mobility. There are two forms of mobility which are central in this research: mobility of spectators and mobility of screens. The mobility of the spectator does not only mean that viewers can watch on mobile devices, they can also move their bodies while consuming content. One could assume that watching a television series such as Breaking Bad on a small, mobile screen is fundamentally different to the spectator’s senses than watching it on a large TV screen at home. In particular, if the body of the spectator is moving while consuming the content, the aesthetic experience of content may be processed differently by the senses. This may also affect the attention of the viewer toward the content, which correlates with the aesthetic experience. Technological developments, such as small screens and streaming services, allow for mobile consumption. This is a spectatorial transformation which likely impacts the aesthetic viewer experience of media content. The mobility of screens, content, and users challenges traditional forms of media experience because it offers many new ways of access, spectatorship, and sensory dimensions. Traditional links between media and viewing locations (such as television and the living room) vanished when mobile viewing developed. One could now begin watching an episode of their favorite series at home on the TV screen, pause the program, and then continue watching it an hour later on a smaller, mobile screen while traveling to work by train, for example. This paper examines what this means for the aesthetic experience of the content and how the spectatorial experience is transformed when media content is viewed on mobile platforms.
In this first theoretical chapter, I offer a framework of literature surrounding the topic of mobility. This theory will be connected to traditional media theory surrounding viewer experience and attention, since the mobility of users and screens has challenged these areas. To demonstrate how spectatorship of media has changed because of mobility, this theoretical framework offers new insights in mobile viewer experience, which is later applied to the TV series Breaking Bad. First, I discuss the concept of embodied mobility to examine the mobility of spectators. Second, the concept of platform mobility is utilized to explain the mobility of content and screens. Finally, these theories are connected to the traditional concepts of gazing and glancing, as posited by Milly Buonanno, to reveal how mobile media consumption may have challenged this theory and how spectatorship has been transformed.
2.2: Moving Bodies: Embodied Mobility
In his article “Towards A Media Archaeology of Inscription, Experience and Temporality,” Sudeep Dasgupta revisits traditional cinematic aesthetic experience from a contemporary media perspective utilizing the concepts of embodied mobility and intermittent experience. The concept of embodied mobility is useful in analyzing the aesthetic experience of media that has been impacted by mobility, because this idea illustrates that mobile screens not only change the ways of accessing media content, but also directly impact the way the human senses experience and process this content:
“The volatilization of screens and wearable digital-processing objects converts ‘everyware’ into ‘everybodyware,’ i.e. the phenomenological density of temporal experience in real time has changed toward reading, scanning, calculating and visualizing with the moving body, often in a heavily corporatized and client-targeted media environment. Embodied mobility then does not only mean watching images on the move, but bodies processing, locating, navigating, and viewing images and data. Both these dimensions—morphing mobile images and processing spectating bodies—must be factored into how we understand the experiential dimensions of mediated modernity” (229 - 230).
The concept of embodied mobility thus means that bodies move and process while consuming media content. In other words: not only is the content mobile, but the media-experiencing bodies are also mobile. Spectators are able to move while they consume content, whereas media
consumption formerly was intrinsically connected to certain locations where the body would be still. However, in the contemporary media landscape, it seems to be very common to consume media content while both body and thus senses are on the move. Users or spectators consume music, moving images, texts, and pictures while their screens and bodies are in motion. Series such as
Breaking Bad are consumed in trains, planes, metros, and trams, and news articles or videos from
news platforms such as Vox are being read and watched everywhere and at any time due to the mobility of content, screens, and spectators. However reading words may be considered a
completely different experience than watching images; the fact that the body and thus the senses move while conducting such an act likely changes the sensory experience of the media object.
Additionally, as Dasgupta indicates, mobile viewing is not only about watching content differently, but embodied mobility also means that the bodies of spectators now process the content they engage with differently than before. The fact that their bodies move while consuming media also means that their senses are doing things other than merely viewing at the same time. Their bodies are also processing their movement and not just simply the media content they are engaging with. This processing involves viewing, calculating, and manipulating (zooming in and out, fast –
forwarding, and rewinding, for example). Embodied mobility thus means that not only do spectators move while they consume, they also process the content differently because of this movement. Thus, the forms of attention toward the content may also be impacted by mobile viewing, which likely provides spectators different aesthetic experiences than stationary viewing.
Dasgupta continues by pointing out a new form of media experience that is limited only to the textual experience of the spectator. He argues that in the contemporary media landscape, spectacle is increasingly being used to further deepen the narrative and the experience related to the narrative, whereas previously, spectacle was used especially in cinema to increase the sensory experience of the audience. Modernly, it is used to “intensify the narrative experience (226).” Intermittent experience of contemporary media texts would then mean that the experience is formed by a combination of both narrative and sensory spectacles. It is a “complex of different forms of sensory experience, in their mixture and hybridity, what I term ‘intermittent experience’”
(Dasgupta 230). This form of experience seems to be a combination of narrative absorption and visual theatricality, which makes the experience intermittent.1
One could also argue that mobility causes a contemporary media experience to be
intermittent as well. The definition of intermittent is “occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or steady.” When a spectator divides its attention across multiple forms of content on either the same or multiple screens, his or her attention is likely to be intermittent due to both aesthetics and access to multiple shows at the same moment. Furthermore, the rapid switching between multiple screens while consuming one kind of content also seems to tend to an intermittent experience. This new form of experience can be connected to more traditional modes of media consumption, such as the glancing and gazing theory posited by Buonanno. It is nevertheless important to note that intermittent experience in any form seems to originate from the mobility of spectators, screens, and content, because the sequenced character of the modern media landscape allows for intermittent experience.
Attention of the viewer in a mobile media landscape is often triggered by either platforms or the content itself. As Dasgupta argues, sensory experience is increasingly driven by the aesthetics of (mobile) content.
“In the broader temporal experience of today's multi-medial world, the viewer's ‘action’ is often not just ‘allowed,’ but actively solicited where home computing, digital tools, and
circulation platforms, encourage indifference to narrative (even while producing it), not just committing to memory but actively producing, altering, storing and circulating images from narratives. The contingent becomes permanent, one narrative produces others, or interrupts them in today's digital media. Sensory perception as the experiential density of practices of viewing, scanning, databasing and accessing, rotate the cinema of attractions as one part of a complex nexus where theatricality and absorption, the instant and the present continuous, and the narrative and the event combine in specific configurations ” (227).
Dasgupta’s quote is particularly interesting if one is to consider the new experience of media due to mobility with new modes of attention, as I describe later on in this chapter. The term intermittent experience implies a constant switch between sensory (aesthetic) and narrative (anaesthetic) experience. The viewer is then controlled by both aesthetic and anaesthetic2 characteristics, which now seem to work together more than ever before because of the way that the platforms work as well as the mobile characteristics of screens, content, and spectators. Additionally, modern television content has also changed aesthetically, as I discuss in the Chapter 3 of this thesis. Breaking Bad and Vox allow for an intermittent mode of experience, as described in the case studies.
To gain a better understanding of how Netflix and Vox are connected to mobility, it is useful to first consider the concept of platform mobility. This is connected to the theories described above to create a useful theoretical framework concerning mobile aesthetic experiences.
2.3: Platform Mobility
In his article “Make any room your TV room,” Chuck Tryon writes of different forms of mobility, which can be tied to the concepts explained in Dasgupta’s article mentioned before. According to Tryon, platform mobility is “the idea that films and TV shows can move seamlessly from one device to another with minimal interruption” (289). The texts are mobile and morph onto every possible device or screen. Tryon further states that platform mobility not only implies that the content on a platform is mobile, but also platforms themselves: “Thus, in addition to content moving seamlessly between platforms, the platforms themselves are mobile, allowing people to use them wherever they wish” (289). When one applies this concept on the contemporary media landscape, it becomes clear that the majority of platforms, including Netflix and YouTube, are indeed mobile in the sense that their content can be viewed everywhere because their platforms work on every device as long as the device is connected to the Internet.
The platform mobility of Netflix implies that a series such as Breaking Bad is available on every device that can run the Netflix application, such as iPads, laptops, and smartphones. The content of Breaking Bad is mobile, and the Netflix platform is available on multiple devices as well. These developments strengthen a position which allows for mobile media consumption and subsequently, intermittent experience of media. Without platform mobility, the above spectatorial dimensions and intermittent experiences would not be possible since media content would still be connected to one place and one device only. However, since media devices and content became digital, these types of mobility and access have become possible to a large extent.
“Furthermore, digital delivery not only opens up forms of spatial mobility, allowing us to watch films wherever we happen to be, but also allows for the possibility of temporal mobility, expanding the time-shifting potential of television technologies such as the VCR [video cassette recorder] and the DVR [digital video recorder]. This time-shifting potential has contributed to a further casualization of the practice of film and television watching, making it possible for viewers to watch according their own schedule rather than in the discrete time frames suggested by theatres and broadcasters” (Tryon 289).
Tryon supports the idea that due to platform mobility, viewers are in control of their media usage more than ever before. Furthermore, he uses the concept of temporal mobility to describe the shift in flow. Due to both embodied mobility and platform mobility, the flow of images is increasingly created by the user rather than by the traditional television
broadcaster. The notion of spatial mobility, as described in the quote above, describes the mobility of the spectator’s body, which allows the watching of content everywhere. This idea seems to mirror the concept of embodied mobility that Dasgupta described. In this research, I apply the latter term to refer to this idea and describe its consequences on transformed spectatorship.
The temporal dimensions of platform mobility are important in understanding the complexity of spectatorial experience. For example, Tryon argues that platform mobility allows for repeated viewings of the same content (289). Because of the mobility of both content and devices, the majority of media objects have become easily accessible, which allows for repeated consumption. This implies that the audience’s attention may have changed as well, because the luxury of watching a show or film more than one time became effortless—it is merely a matter of clicking the play button. Before content and devices were mobile and digital, repeated viewing was also possible, but only if there was a VHS or DVD
available, and the spectator was able to purchase this. Repeated viewing became easier because media transformed from analog to digital and mobile. If one is distracted the first time one is consuming an object, he or she can easily watch in a more focused manner a second time due to platform mobility. Additionally, embodied mobility allows viewers to tune in and out of their shows at every desired place and time, making repeated viewings even easier. Repeated viewings also enable a better understanding of the narrative.
In his article, Tryon also establishes that the result of platform mobility is a changed
experience of consuming media since mobility allows media consumption on different devices. This means that content made for a specific medium or screen size can be consumed in a way which was not originally intended for certain types of content. For example, films are now often consumed on mobile screens, although they were originally intended by the producers to be watched in a movie theater with a theater-sized screen and sound system.
“Many viewers consume these shows on laptops, through Netflix, Hulu or YouTube, on tablet computers, anywhere other than a television set, taking what was once
regarded as a medium consumed passively and turning it into something watched purposefully. A similar shift affects the domestic consumption of films, with many viewers using their Netflix menu as a kind of database of channels, flipping idly, starting a film and then discarding it quickly if it fails to hold their attention” (Tryon 290).
The first part of the quote above is further discussed in the theory chapter concerning textual transformations, in which I elaborate on such matters. The last sentence of this quote demonstrates that Tryon connects the mobile possibilities of Netflix to the attention of the viewers. He suggests that viewer agency has improved and that the decision of watching content in a desirable manner is now possible. Repeated viewings and mobile content allow for both distraction and deep attention simultaneously. In the following sections, I discuss traditional and new modes of viewing and connect this to mobility as discussed by Dasgupta and Tryon. The concepts of deep and hyper attention, as described by Hayles, and gazing and glancing, as described by Buonanno, are linked to the different ideas of mobility to further investigate how mobility has changed the form of attention and aesthetic media experience.
2.4: Gazing versus Glancing
Buonanno discusses the theories around the medium of television in her article “Theories of the Medium: Flow, Gaze, Glance,” which is considered to be important among media scholars and is
often utilized within the media studies field. For this research, I mainly focus on two of the
spectatorial dimensions of media that she describes: gazing and glancing. She relates these concepts to two traditional forms of media: cinema (gazing) and television (glancing). It is, however, useful to see if and how these traditional concepts withstand a new media culture in which mobile viewing and the convergence of texts and media dominate the landscape. When television series and films became mobile and the textual and aesthetic distinctions between these two started to blur, the theories surrounding their modes of spectatorship seem to be challenged as well.
In her article, Buonanno argues that television as a medium must be seen as a medium of glancing. The mode of watching television is more “absent-minded, casual, [and] nonchalant,” whereas the mode of watching cinema (gazing) involves “visual immersion in the images of film” (37). Glancing thus allows a spectator to shift between multiple tasks because it is an “absent-minded” form of consuming media. The mobile landscape seems to offer possibilities for a glancing experience, since mobile viewing may keep the spectator from focusing specifically on one media object. Additionally, embodied mobility impacts the attention of viewers, since their senses are not focused only on the screen. Embodied mobility thus also seems to provoke a glancing experience.
Moreover, Buonanno writes that television traditionally has often been used “as wallpaper”: the screen is on, but no one is consuming the content with full focus. One could say that a spectator does glance at the screen to distract himself from other activities. The TV set has traditionally been located in the living room, and therefore television was seen as a domestic medium. Buonanno, among other TV theorists, considers TV to be a glancing medium because of the domestic
characteristic. The TV was “incorporated and naturalized in various domestic settings: sitting room, kitchen, children's bedrooms, . . . whether switched on or off or on standby: a fixture, yet not a demanding one” (36). The distractions of the home likely provoke spectators to glancing experiences, since they can be easily distracted by activities in the home.
Besides, the traditional, small screen of the television also provokes a glancing experience rather than a gazing one. As Buonanno states, for a gazing experience, viewers like to immerse themselves with undivided attention and their eyes glued to the screen (38). The traditional TV screen is not large enough to do this. Additionally, the traditional television flow is characterized by the switch between commercial breaks and “proper” media content, which also provokes the spectator to become distracted from the content. She describes the concept of flow as follows:
“What is presented is rather a sequence of heterogeneous material, which flows forth from the screen in a continuous current: news, current affairs, talk shows, films, series and every other sort of content can be broadcast successively on the same channel within a matter of hours, mixed up with advertisements, telesales and sundry promotional
material (Buonanno 30).”
From the perspective of spectatorship, one could indeed argue that flow is one “bomb” filled with different stimuli and media texts. The types of content switch rapidly, the tempo between images is high, and spectators are exposed to multiple streams of information. The viewers are almost allowed to do nothing, as the flow creates the experience for them. Because of this high tempo and changes in content, the audience is easily placed in a position of glancing at the screen, making the experience absent-minded as a glance. The concepts of mobility both support and challenge this way of experiencing television content since users are now in control of media usage and experience due to platform mobility and morphing texts. They literally have the choice of how to approach media content because the broadcast flow has been replaced by a user flow, which can be experienced infinitely in every desired mode of experience.
Traditionally, deep focus was not required from the spectator because of commercial breaks. Traditionally, TV has thus been seen as a glancing medium because of its location, its screen size, and its textual form of content. In the contemporary landscape, TV screens sizes have increased and content has changed both aesthetically and textually. Mobile television developed, and the original glancing medium has been challenged by these recent advancements.
Embodied mobility and platform mobility add new dimensions to media consumption, which also impact the traditional modes of spectatorship described above. These new
possibilities allow users to choose whether they want to fully focus on the content or briefly look at it, because the spectator controls its consumption completely. Content can be paused and continued at every desired moment, and viewings can be repeated over and over again. This may also mean that glancing is now used consciously as a distraction mechanism. For example, one may use his mobile screen to glance at on the train to make traveling more comfortable because it provides extra stimuli and distracts the body from moving. Alternatively, one could also gaze at the screen to continue watching on the move after pausing content at home. Mobility creates new forms of spectatorship and challenges Buonanno’s traditional forms and definitions of glancing and gazing. As I argue next, mobility made the domestic character of television and thus glancing irrelevant.
This theory is from 2008, when mobile media consumption was not as common as it is now; TV at that time was indeed a domestic medium and content could not be consumed everywhere at any time. However, the convergence of media content with embodied mobility and platform mobility blurred these modes of gazing and glancing, because media and its content are no longer linked to one location. The aesthetic and textual dimensions of TV content also changed, which I discuss in the next chapter. The main argument is that mobility challenges
the traditional theory of gazing and glancing. The notion of platform mobility describes how media content flows across different devices, and embodied mobility ensures that the user is independent in the viewing location as well. However, in regard to the aesthetics of TV series and films, Buonanno makes an interesting point: “the aesthetics [of] television [are] unadorned, obvious, confined in most cases to showing 'talking heads'” (37). She further states that “the televisual image is regarded as fundamentally incapable of attracting and captivating our gaze.” This means that in aesthetic terms, television does not offer the appropriate amount of stimuli for a gazing experience like cinema does.
Mareike Jenner provides some interesting points regarding new TV aesthetics which add new dimensions to this insight. Buonanno’s theory concerns traditional TV content, whereas Jenner writes about contemporary TV content; the aesthetics are fundamentally different. The final concept Buonanno connects to the mode of glancing is the idea of flow, which is further discussed in the next chapter. It is, however, important to note that the textual and aesthetic dimensions of TV content also add to the form of the viewer’s experience. As I argued in this section, the traditional modes of gazing and glancing are being challenged by the mobility of spectators, content, and screens. Hayles’ theory concerning hyper and deep attention also indicates that mobility has impacted the way people focus in a mobile landscape, as I discuss in Chapter 2.5. Hayles’ arguments correspond to Buonanno’s work and offer new insights and dimensions regarding how spectatorship has been transformed.
2.5: Deep Attention versus Hyper Attention
In her article “Hyper and Deep Attention,” Katherine Hayles describes a generational shift in cognitive styles and distinguishes between two types of attention. Hayles describes how the shift from deep to hyper attention challenges education, but I do not elaborate on that perspective, as this research is centered around attention toward media. She does, however, state that the role of media in contemporary society has had considerable effects on how attention spans changed as well. I will connect her more general definitions of attention to the theories of gazing and glancing to illustrate how transformed modes of spectatorship toward media have emerged due to mobility.
Hayles distinguishes two general, contemporary forms of attention: deep and hyper attention. She describes these cognitive styles or modes of attention as follows:
“Deep attention, the cognitive style traditionally associated with the humanities, is characterized by concentrating on a single object for long periods (say, a novel by Dickens), ignoring outside stimuli while so engaged, preferring a single information
stream, and having a high tolerance for long focus times. Hyper attention is characterized by switching focus rapidly among different tasks, preferring multiple information streams, seeking a high level of stimulation, and having a low tolerance for boredom” (187).
According to Hayles, the contemporary cognitive style throughout society is hyper attention, whereas people used to be more deeply attentive. The generational shift is then from the mode of deep attention to the mode of hyper attention. As described above, the mode of hyper attention is characterized by the need for high levels of outside stimuli and the preference for multiple information streams, which could be linked to multitasking. One could argue that the contemporary media landscape fulfills these needs more than ever before. Due to the mobility of screens and content, people are constantly tied to their phones while utilizing different applications at the same time (multiple information streams), and media content is constantly available on different devices (switching rapidly between tasks, or in this case, screens). Hyper attention shows a strong connection with the traditional mode of glancing. The nonchalant, absent-minded form of glancing is also characterized by high levels of outside stimuli and distractions. Glancing and hyper attention embody the same sort of unfocused, distracted form of media experience.
The concepts of embodied mobility and platform mobility seem to arguably support a shift toward hyper attention. Media consumers are almost obliged to switch their attention quickly between different media platforms to keep up with different media content. In other words, one might say that mobility has affected the mode of attention in general, especially attention toward media. From a user-experience perspective, intermittent experience corresponds with such a shift in attention; this is discussed in Chapter 3.
The concept of gazing is likely linked to deep attention, because gazing implies that the spectator immerses himself into the visual dimensions of the screen. The main characteristics of deep attention are long concentration periods on a single object and a preference for a single information stream so that outside stimuli can be ignored (Hayles 187). Gazing and deep attention seem to complement each other and are likely to be the exact opposite of glancing and hyper attention. Despite her general approach regarding attention, Hayles also describes how media affect this shift in attention. “As Johnson convincingly argues, media content has also changed, manifesting an increased tempo of visual stimuli and an increased complexity of interwoven plots (61–106)” (Hayles 191). According to this quote, contemporary media content contains higher levels of visual stimuli, which may support the shift toward hyper attention. Therefore, contemporary media content
also provokes a glancing experience, but, as I will argue, that is not the case for every form of new TV content. In the next chapter and case studies, I examine this further. However, some new cultural forms of media and textual transformations of content support a mode of hyper-attentive viewing.
2.6: New Era of Television
In this section, I investigate how mobile viewing and access could be connected to hyper and deep attention as well as to gazing and glancing. Additionally, I discuss how a new form of media consumption came to life due to platform mobility. Jenner writes about the new era of television with the arrival of video-on-demand platforms such as Netflix, which is the main example of mobile media that challenges traditional forms of media in terms of access and content. I examine whether the modes of gazing and glancing as described by Buonanno are still applicable in this new era of television.
Where Buonanno focuses primarily on linear television, Jenner investigates how Netflix once again changed user experience and media consumption. This platform is often seen as the new form of television, which is why it is important to include it in this theoretical framework. Additionally, the
Breaking Bad case study cannot be considered without delving into Netflix, which may represent
platform mobility in its ultimate form. The aesthetic of this platform invites users to consume media content at a high tempo and allows viewers to personalize their consumption to the maximum level. The platform and its content are truly mobile, and because of this, Jenner proposes a new dimension of user experience linked to this platform: binge watching.
First, I briefly mention how Jenner’s general notions of a new era of television change the mode of attention toward this medium. Jenner writes that the new era of television, which she names TVIV, changed the aesthetics of the medium and thus the viewing experience:
“Yet, possibly, TVIV can be understood as an era of matrix media where viewing patterns, branding strategies, industrial structures, the way different media forms interact with each other or the various ways content is made available shift completely away from the television set” (Jenner 4)
.
This shows that the connection between glancing and television, as well as seeing television as a domestic medium, may be outdated. According to this quote, the television set is no longer the only place to consume drama shows, films, news, or game shows. This once again indicates the outdated relevance of some of Buonanno’s arguments from 2008 as well as how platform mobility challenges this theory. Buanonno’s main argument in linking the glancing experience to television was that the medium was to be consumed in one place: the home. This is no longer valid in the era of TVIV that
Jenner describes, which means that the glancing approach toward television may have changed as well. Mobility of both screens and bodies caused television to be “spaceless”; thus, it may no longer be considered solely a domestic medium.
This does not, however, necessarily mean that a mode of glancing is no longer possible. The mode of experience is, as argued previously, no longer dependent on the place of the medium. In the contemporary mobile media landscape, the user decides how to approach and experience media in terms of access and attention (hence, intermittent aesthetics). However, Buonanno’s argument that TV’s aesthetics are a reason to glance may still be applicable on some forms of new TV content.
However, the majority of contemporary drama series on platforms like Netflix are
aesthetically and textually overly complicated to be put on the screen and “used as a wallpaper,” like Buonanno states. This new aesthetic form of television and TV content suggests that a new form of attention is needed to understand it. This aesthetic form is further explained in the next chapter and the case study of Breaking Bad, but it is important to already note that these aesthetics also impact spectatorial transformations.
Jenner writes the following regarding this: “Netflix positions itself in relation to TVIII, ‘cult’ or ‘quality’ TV and encourages specific modes of viewing (8).” She does not really elaborate on this specific mode of viewing or which mode of attention could be linked to this. However, of interest here is the kind of attention demanded by these sorts of series’ aesthetics. Hayles says that modern media content is more visually stimulating than before, which implies a mode of hyper attention, because this mode is characterized by the need for high levels of stimuli. But a state of deep
attention seems to be more relevant for contemporary television content, because the narrative has become more complex to understand. This means that the new aesthetic of TV calls both for hyper attention and deep attention at the same time because it has both high levels of visual stimuli and a complex narrative which cannot be understood if one is watching in a glancing mode. New television content thus is not necessarily for glancing; rather, it is designed to be gazed at, similar to cinema. As I argue in this thesis, two types of contemporary TV content seem to demand two types of
spectatorship. Mobility has challenged traditional theories surrounding spectatorship and has blurred the ties to traditional media. That does not mean that they have become irrelevant, but they have transformed because of both mobile screens and viewers as well as new TV aesthetics. Platform mobility and embodied mobility allow spectators more control over their modes of attention, which also allows for a new mode of experience, one which is developed and supported because of the mobility of screens, content, and spectators: binge watching.
Another distinctive characteristic of new television is the stimulation for a binge-watching
experience. Binge watching means that a viewer consumes a few episodes of a series in a row; exact numbers depend on the individual. Another important factor of binge watching is the fact that this mode of experience is disconnected from scheduled television (Jenner 9). This form of experience thus seems to be connected to mobility, because mobile screens and bodies make this form of experience possible. Mobility, among other factors, allows users to binge watch their favorite media content because they control both flow and access, which means that they can watch everywhere. One could argue that binge watching is likely to be linked to the mode of deep attention, because it implies that the consumer shuts out other stimuli to completely focus on the content and makes the decision to immerse himself into the content. The following quote also suggests that binge watching is related to gazing rather than glancing, because the main characteristic of the binge-watching experience is the fact that it is not intertwined with television flow:
“The practice of binge watching implies not only viewers’ desire for autonomy in
scheduling when they want to watch what, but also a wish for a ‘pure’ text (as Jacobs terms it) that is distinctively not part of the television flow. Another factor in binge watching is the text itself. The kind of attention demanded by some series seems to make it necessary for viewers to consciously make a decision to focus entirely on the series, something only possible if viewers can schedule autonomously” (Jenner 10).
This suggests that the change from broadcast to user flow also caused the aesthetic experience of television to change from glancing to gazing. This suggestion contradicts the shift that Hayles described from deep attention to hyper attention. If one is to connect glancing to hyper attention and gazing to deep attention, the shift Jenner argues is the opposite of Hayles’ theory. To relate Jenner’s concept of binge watching to Buonanno’s theories of gazing and glancing, mobile
consumption and platform mobility must transform traditional modes of spectatorship. According to Jenner, “binge-watching suggests an entirely different media experience than ‘traditional,’ scheduled television can offer” (308). This experience is allowed not only because of platform mobility and embodied mobility, but also because of the contemporary aesthetics of some types of TV content— largely series with complex narratives such as Breaking Bad. These series encourage focused and self-scheduled binge-watching experiences because of their textual dimensions (Jenner 305).
In his article “Time Wasting and the Contemporary Television-Viewing Experience,” Michael Samuel points out that before Netflix, early flow-disrupting techniques such as DVDs and VHS already changed the way people experienced media and challenged television to change as well. Samuel states: “Television was therefore forced to evolve aesthetically because the technology allowed
viewers to interact with the content—to play, pause, stop, rewind, fast-forward, skip—with a higher level of precision” (83). The arrival of platforms like Netflix only further developed this process: “binge watching suggests that audiences’ relationships with television remain fluid and continuous, perhaps intensely so” (85).
In conclusion, one could argue that the traditional distinctions regarding forms of attention have changed due to the mobility of screens and users in the contemporary media landscape. Aesthetic and technological developments have blurred the lines between old media and their traditionally linked experiences in terms of both access and content. Buonanno’s arguments for the traditional forms of gazing and glancing have also seem to become increasingly invalid as media converge and the mobility of media and users rises. The location of both the body and the screen when consuming a media object is no longer specifically linked to one place. Jenner and Samuel have illustrated that binge watching is one of the new ways of experiencing media, but it is difficult to connect this to a certain mode of attention because user agency has increased. Based upon this research, I theorize that deep attention is likely necessary if one wants to binge watch an entire season of a Netflix show in one day because the complexity of the narratives discourage brief watching or glancing.
Chapter 3: Textual Transformations in the Mobile Landscape
3.1: Introduction
New forms of aesthetic media experience are formed both by new modes of spectatorship and new textual forms of media. In this theory chapter, I elaborate on these textual transformations and connect them to new forms of aesthetic media experiences. The theories discussed in this chapter are also applied to the case study of Vox in Chapter 5. This news platform provides clear examples of new textual forms of media content.
According to Dawson, mobility has created new cultural forms of media, as he describes in his article “Little Players, Big Shows.” He claims that traditional aesthetics of content such as television series or films do not entirely fit the aesthetic experience tied to mobile media
consumption. Many television texts—mainly series—seem not to be intended for the small screen, and this has challenged traditional TV aesthetics. The possibilities that came with the mobility of
screens, content, and spectators also caused new forms of media texts to come to life. This chapter investigates how textual transformations such as quality of the image and length of the media text alter the aesthetic experiences of mobile media.
Contemporary audiences can access their favorite media content everywhere and every time they want on every device they want. This improved user agency likely changed the sensory
experience of media as well, as discussed in the previous chapter. This chapter elaborates on how mobility has also caused the existence of new textual forms of media. Dawson explains that mobility in terms of access and technology challenges television aesthetics and creates textual
transformations within the media landscape. Contemporary television series have traditionally been made for the television screens in living rooms and deeply attentive viewing, as previously discussed. Other types of TV content, such as news reports, seem to be less intrinsically connected to TV screens and deeply attentive viewing. However, in the contemporary landscape, many media texts seem to be increasingly watched on the small screens of mobile phones in many different places. Both embodied mobility and platform mobility make this form of access and media consumption easier than ever before. Watching television content on a small, mobile screen allows a different perception of content because the eyes see less on a small screen; additionally, the experience of the sound is also different in mobile consumption.
Dawson offers historical insights concerning how television texts became mobile in 2007. He states that there are traditionally two positions toward mobile television: one that sees mobilizing television as miniaturizing it and one that argues that there should be new formats, visual styles, and narratives for mobile television (234–235). The first position advocates for “literally, to shrink established media properties to sizes, scales, and durations appropriate to the diminutive new devices” (Dawson 234). This implies that such a textual transformation would have consequences for the quality of the image, causing the aesthetic experience of the mobile spectator to worsen.
Shrinking an image frequently means a loss of quality in terms of visibility, sound, and clarity. This textual transformation would likely affect the aesthetic experience of mobile media because both visual and sound quality decline.
The second position advocates that with mobility, television aesthetics should be reconsidered, and new forms of content that are suited for smaller screens and mobile phones should be created. As I demonstrate in the case study of the news platform Vox, new formats have indeed been created. This platform publishes many short clips regarding news reports or cultural topics; I examine this in the case study.
3.2: TV Texts Transformed onto Small Screens
As Dawson indicates, small screens may fail to show certain elements of a series or TV program to the viewer. Many of these elements are important for the viewer to understand the narrative and to experience the show properly (231). He asks whether “established television formats and
sedimented modes of television narration and style [will] survive these platforms’ convergence” (232). It is important to notice that Dawson wrote this article in 2007, when mobile phones and mobile media consumption were starting to grow exponentially but were not as standard as they are now. The quality of mobile screens and morphing of texts onto different devices may be better than they were at the time of this research and its publication. Dawson states that the development of television texts to become mobile took some time and that the migration of texts onto different screens was conducted by viewers themselves because of lack of mobile programming by the industry. In 2007, textual mobility was not as common as it is now, and so viewers would take matters to themselves when their favorite content was not mobile. They would “take initiative and create it for themselves, employing a variety of high and low-tech methods to make their media mobile” (Dawson 234). In the contemporary media landscape, producers of both shows as well as TV channels or platforms ensure that almost every media text is mobile. Additionally, platforms such as Netflix and YouTube use leading technologies to make the visual quality of these texts optimal on every device and screen.
Technologically, textually, and aesthetically, Netflix seems to be seen as a ‘new’ form of television because of the types of content it provides. However, Netflix offers different content than traditional, linear television does. “The VOD [video-on-demand] service offers none of the more ‘traditional’ television genres, such as news, game shows, sporting events or other programmes associated with TV’s live aesthetics” (Jenner 6). The genres offered are mainly drama series and movies. These new drama series seem to provoke a different kind of attention and experience than news shows, game shows, and other traditional television content because the aesthetics are different than in the traditional genres. In the case study of Breaking Bad, this is further explained. This series is marked by intense and complex images as well as complicated narratives. Jason Mittel states that, throughout the years, television series have developed new textual features, one of which is called narrative complexity:
“We can establish a detailed account of the narratological form that contemporary American television offers as a true aesthetic innovation unique to its medium. This new mode, which I term narrative complexity, is not as uniform and convention driven as episodic or serials norms (in fact, its most defining characteristic might be its unconventionality)” (30).
Mittel further argues that visually, television is often compared to cinema, but the narrative complexity in contemporary television shows distinguishes these series from cinema. This characteristic rejects “the need for plot closure within every episode that typifies conventional episodes forms” (32). Narrative complexity is in the foreground of plot developments and breaks with traditional forms of storytelling in television series, such as soap operas. In Breaking Bad, narrative complexity is clearly visible and one could argue that because of platform mobility,
spectators can connect even further with narratives, because they are allowed for repeated viewings. Mittel also states that time-shifting technologies contribute to the rise of narrative complexity: “Viewers can rewatch episodes or segments to parse out complex moments” (31).
In any case, the textual element of narrative complexity seems to call for deep attention or a gazing approach toward the content. Mittel writes the following about this: “Narratively complex television demands you pay attention to the window frames, asking you to reflect on how it provides partial access to the diegesis and how the panes of glass distort your vision of the unfolding action” (38). Mobile consumption may or may not affect the clarity of a narrative when one is watching such a show on a mobile screen, but as Dawson indicates in his article, some of these clues may be not visible enough and thus may cause the viewer to miss certain clues in the narrative. The small screen may impact the experience of these features and characteristics. Human senses may be under stimulated via the small screen to see, hear, and understand all the elements and clues of the narrative in such a show. Many of these shows may be available on every device, but they are certainly not aesthetically created for every type of screen.
Certain aesthetic elements of different forms of media texts seem to be intrinsically tied to a specific medium, or in other words, screens. In his article, Dawson uses Barbara Klinger’s argument to explain this observation. She calls this observation the hardware aesthetic, which means that certain textual elements, such as mise-en-scene, sound, and special effects, are related to the content that is linked to a specific medium. Klinger adds that some of these elements “either exploit or fail to realize the capabilities of the machine of reproduction” (Klinger 85). One could argue that this means that textual transformations onto different devices and screens may affect aesthetic features and experiences of a certain text because the elements are intrinsically connected to a specific medium. For example, certain types of special effects are made specifically for large screens. When a text with these visible elements is consumed on the small screen of a mobile phone, the effects are transformed badly, which leads to a poor aesthetic experience of these elements. The hardware aesthetic of the cinema is therefore poorly translated onto the mobile screen, causing an “unjust” aesthetic experience for the viewer.
Dawson argues that the hardware aesthetic is also a limiting factor in the mobility of texts and television in particular. He argues that a hardware aesthetic should be challenged by mobility and that aesthetic elements should not be linked to specific types of media:
“The distinctions mobile television’s medium-specific hardware aesthetic draws between television and the new mobile screens do not simply reflect the essential technological characteristics of discrete media. On the contrary, these distinctions are discursive formations that mobilize socially situated ‘interpretation[s] of video technology and its limitations’ to mitigate the uncertainties posed by the accelerated interpenetration of technologies and cultural forms (Seiter, 1992: 43)” (Dawson 236).
Textual transformations of television do not really seem to affect the traditional aesthetic of the medium. Mobility became a characteristic of the television experience in the contemporary media landscape. The majority of television content, such as new drama series and traditional television content such as news shows, sports, game shows, and quizzes, are accessible via mobile platforms. Traditional television texts seem indeed to be unbundled and uploaded to other platforms in segments.For the case study of Breaking Bad, narrative complexity is the main textual
transformation in analyzing the aesthetic experience of this series. Other textual transformations, like unbundling, are important in analyzing the transformed aesthetic experience of other TV content, such as news reports on the Vox platform. Next, I discuss what the concept of unbundling embodies and how fragmentation is visible in the new mobile media landscape.
3.3: Unbundling: New Forms of Media Texts
The fragmentation or segmentation of media texts is what Dawson calls unbundling: “the dismantling of integral television texts into fragmentary, yet self-contained, segments” (234).
Mobility of screens, bodies, and media has created new cultural forms of texts such as
“mobisodes (short content produced for mobile telephones), webisodes (episodic content designed for web playback), viral videos (short clips uploaded to video sharing websites like YouTube and Google Video and, increasingly, showcased on US cable channels), vlogs (video blogs), machinima (scenes from video games edited with original dialogue) and digests (abridgements of primetime network programming, sporting events etc.)” (Dawson 233).
Other forms of content that have resulted from unbundling include music videos, sketches, individual news items, movie trailers, sports highlights, and fragments. These cultural content forms have in common that they are small clips and segmented fragments which can be connected by mobile viewers for their ultimate personal, mobile viewer experience.
Dawson argues that content creators in 2007, when his article was written, had only recently begun to aesthetically and textually explore the development of unbundling as a cultural form and were focused on the mobile viewer rather than the mobile text. In 2019, one may argue that the mobile viewer is the regular viewer, and the mobile text dominates the landscape. Every platform, whether it is a social media platform, news platform, Netflix, or YouTube, is filled to the brim with short videos and fragments from other texts. These platforms are characterized by fragmentation and fragmented media texts. The mobile text is an often-seen media object in the contemporary media landscape. As I argued previously, it seems that embodied mobility and platform mobility impacted this textual transformation, and one could argue that the process of unbundling is finished, since we now live in a media landscape that is characterized by fragmentation.
Unbundling is also to be seen as a mobile television aesthetic which transforms texts into “flexible forms expressly constructed so as to flow freely between screens” (239). One could argue that Netflix and its content are unbundled as well, since entire seasons can be watched in small fragments because the viewer can play and pause every episode at every desired moment. However, unbundling and fragmented texts as new cultural forms seem to be mostly linked to traditional TV content such as news reports. As I argued before, contemporary visual news platforms like Vox are based upon these textual, fragmented forms of media.
Nevertheless, unbundling also challenges the traditional, textual format of TV series. This form of content has traditionally been divided into 22-episode seasons of 30- or 60-minute episodes. Mobility and unbundling caused this characteristic—the hardware aesthetic—to shift into many different units and segments which can be sequenced by the spectator personally (Dawson 240). New drama series on Netflix seem indeed to have looser structures and an undefined completion of seasons. Some series have only four episodes per season, while others have ten or sixteen. There is no longer an established format. Visual news platforms like Vox show a strongly sequenced character as well, with single videos per news topic. The segmented experience on the mobile screen makes time an important factor in media consumption, as Dawson argues. He states that time as a variable defines the experience: “Mobile viewers select from menus of segments to assemble programs that are as long—or short—as they want them to be” (241). Platform mobility and embodied mobility allow for repeated viewings and the viewer agency needed to divide consumption into segments. This spectatorial transformation increases the relevance of fragmented media texts because it allows
the viewer to control time as a factor in consuming content. As I discuss in the next section, these textual transformations seem to provoke another kind of spectatorship than do contemporary series.
3.4: Viewer Attention Regarding Unbundled Forms
Both distraction or glancing and attentive viewing or gazing can be linked to new, mobile forms of media content. Because of improved user agency, viewer experience depends increasingly on viewer purpose for media usage. The decision whether to glance or gaze and to use media as distraction or immersion is the viewer’s. Mobility of screens and spectators impacts the production of television in every way. In aesthetic, technological, and accessible terms, producers “now develop shows with the smaller screens of new technology in mind” (Dawson 246). In terms of viewer experience, the small screen may or may not lead to attentive viewing: “At the very least, we should entertain the
possibility that new handheld video technologies can accommodate a variety of ways of engaging with the television text, including both distraction and attentive scrutiny” (Dawson 245). According to this quote, mobile consumption does not necessarily provoke a specific form of spectatorship. Based upon the comparative analysis provided later in this thesis, I argue that fragmented mobile texts such as news reports can be linked to hyper-attentive or glancing media experiences, whereas narratively complex texts such as series demand a deeper attentive or gazing experience. Before diving into these analyses, the concept of intertextuality is discussed to illustrate how textual elements are related throughout media and platforms, which impacts the aesthetic experience as well.
As Klinger points out, fragmentation of media texts affects the experience of the audience. If one approaches a media text as a series of specialized or starred elements they may experience it differently. Intertextual elements are factors such as narratives, actors, different episodes. The concept of intertextuality causes a mode of digression, which seems to be similar to distraction.
Intertextuality means that a media text contains recognizable elements from other media texts or
maybe even non-media related products or phenomena. In the case of Breaking Bad, such elements can be the actor who plays the main character and the narrative that shows elements of the story that are displayed and developed throughout different episodes. For a news platform such as Vox, intertextual elements may appear if there are various articles or news products on the same subject across different platforms. Intertextuality, however, also outlives the screen:
“The signifying relations between textual element and forms of promotional
intertextuality are largely secured by a process of ’re-narrativizing’—that is, by placing specific textual elements within other narratives. The excerpts or fragments of a text are assimilated into inter-textual commentary that usually constructs a narrative around those excerpts—most notably in the form of a background story” (Klinger 14).
It is important to note that Klinger wrote this text in 1989, when intertextuality may have been less common than it is now. Unbundling and platform mobility as well as modern TV aesthetics seem to have increased intertextual clues in content. In other words, fragmentation produces intertextuality. Additionally, mobile access to content seems to have increased the consumption of media texts, which is why spectators may recognize actors, subjects, cinematic styles, music, and other elements much more frequently than they did during the era when Klinger wrote her article. Viewers simply see and process more content in the contemporary landscape because media are more easily accessible. In terms of experience, according to Klinger, intertextual elements may cause the spectator to be briefly distracted. The recognizable intertextual elements then take the attention of the spectator to the source of recognition, such as the episode that contained the same narrative element, for example. She calls this form of experience digression:
“The correlation built by these other narratives between the textual element and its inter-textual accompaniment provokes the digressive response. Digression is
prompted by the promotional bridge between the filmic element, whether star, subject matter, or style, and those inter-textual frames of reference that extend those elements into the social sphere. As promotion acts to extend elements of the film into the social sphere, it in turn acts on reception by galvanizing those filmic elements for momentary guided exits from the text. The star's presence on screen, for example, can cause the spectator to digress momentarily into the series of other narratives that the film's promotion has engendered” (Klinger 14).
The rise of mobile screens and bodies seems to make digression a mode of attention that can be applied to the contemporary landscape. One could also argue that digression is related to the mode of experience that Hayles names hyper attention. Even though digression enriches an understanding of the narrative, it is a form of experience that is characterized by multiple streams of information, similar to hyper attention. Mobile viewing makes it plausible that spectators will recognize
intertextual elements while watching a series, film, or individual news video. Digression can also be linked to intermittent experience, and it could be argued that this mode of attention or experience is the predominantly common mode in the mobile media landscape. As stated before, the
fragmentation and segmentation of media texts in the contemporary media landscape produces intertextuality. Intertextual elements increase as media texts fragment, and unbundling thus seems to affect the production of these elements. The digressive mode of spectatorship as described by Klinger can be connected to other forms of media experience, which I described in the previous
chapter. Digression seems to exist of two traditional forms of media experience: gazing (deep attention) and glancing (hyper attention). Intertextuality, which allegedly leads to digressive viewing, allows for both modes of attention. Deep attention is possible because intertextual elements and fragments increase dimensions of meaning in a narrative, which invites the viewer to deep attentive viewing. On the other hand, fragmentation and intertextuality also allow for hyper attention because these fragments force the viewer to negotiate among different texts and narratives, which leads to distraction and rapid switching between multiple sources of information. This characteristic can be connected to the concept of intermittent aesthetics as described by Dasgupta in the previous chapter. This aesthetic is characterized by a mixture of multiple aesthetic and textual elements of a media text and may lead to irregular viewing and comprehension of a narrative. Intermittent aesthetics then provoke a form of hyper-attentive viewing as well.
Textual transformations of media, in the form of unbundling and fragmentation, thus lead to a new form of viewer experience: digression. This form of spectatorship connects gazing and glancing and seems to be a common mode of viewing in the mobile media landscape. Platform mobility and embodied mobility create fragmented texts. Digressive viewing can be linked to the mobile
landscape but does not necessarily apply to every type of content. However, segmented texts, such as news reports, seemingly feature digression as a proper form of experience in the mobile
landscape. It nonetheless depends on the screen spectators use for viewing. Depending on the screen on which one watches segments, the portion of media may require more or less attention.
In this chapter, I have demonstrated how mobility caused textual transformations in the media landscape. Many new cultural forms of media emerged when mobile consumption developed. The fragmentation of texts, as well as narrative complexity, seem to be the most important textual transformation to result from mobility. In the following chapters, I analyze how these two forms of textual transformation lead to new forms of aesthetic viewer experiences. As discussed in this chapter, it seems likely that media texts in the form of fragments leads to digressive viewing. I analyze this claim in the case study of the news platform Vox. Narrative complexity, however, seems to demand a deep, attentive form of attention, which I analyze in the case study of the TV series
