While postmodernism has taken over our media in a noticeably different     form than modernism, it often does so by reusing artifacts from the modernism time. Authors, film directors, and video game creators often quote or make references to well-known existing modern media. These references are made to make the media appealing to a wide range of people, as well as to demonstrate the popular postmodern style. In their article Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture, Marita Sturken and Lisa Cartwright argue that “In postmodernism, the sense that everything has been done before gives way to relentless quoting and remakes, a context in which the only way to get noticed is to be ironic, to quote-not only words but also clothing and appearance styles.” We live in a time where it is hard to be original, because so much has already been created. As a result, trends in media and fashion reflect historical trends. This is the primary source of distancing irony in postmodernism. We are trying to be new by using the old, which would not be expected in any other circumstance.

Despite this irony being a prevalent element of postmodernism, we often do not even notice it. One explanation for this is that the references go over our head. For example, the reference to The Matrix in the movie Shrek (pictured below) was intended to appeal to an older audience (the children’s parents), but might be too mature to be understood by Shrek’s main audience (children). This is an interesting concept that was derived in postmodernism. Previously, a children’s movie would only be focused on entertaining children.

The creators of Shrek wanted to make their film enjoyable to the most amount of people. Another explanation us not noticing is that references like these are so common, they blend in with the media. Playing off scenarios from old media has become so standard in our postmodern idea of humor that they are almost expected. The “non-noticing” phenomenon adds to the irony of postmodernism. It’s ironic that references are put in children’s movies that they aren’t intended to understand, and that postmodern comedy relies on new jokes about old media.

The irony that arose in postmodernism makes me wonder what the next phase will be. What is after postmodernism? Post-postmodernism? I wonder how comedy will be created in this system. In a way, postmodernism was the hipster of the era. It took what was old and made it ironically cool again. Will the new era ironically quote the media of the postmodern era? I think this will be unenjoyable and boring. Media creators in future times will be presented with the same problem creators face now (that everything has been done), but will lack the option to reference it ironically because even that’s been done. Virtual reality and other technology are pushing society towards a new more involved and more immersive visual media experience. These advancements might make the postmodern irony almost obsolete. Interacting with media will feel so much like real life, you won’t notice any ironic discrepancies.

In many ways, film as a medium has changed over time with cultural and technological advancements. Film started as something that could only be seen in a theater, then transitioned to a medium that could be watched at home via VHS and DVD, and is now in its most freely accessible form.

Film has adapted to its current viewers by becoming much shorter and more accessible over time. While long, traditional cinema does still exist, the creation of media sources like YouTube have allowed for the convenient sharing of short, often user-generated film. This is the result of our shorter attention spans, as well as a desire to get the best message in the shortest amount of time. We feel that we are too busy to waste hours on a full length film. This same idea is reflected in Twitter’s 140 character limit. We don’t want to spend time finding the information, we just want to read or watch it quickly, so we can move on.

Film has also adapted to the social trend of sharing personal content online. In a world of Facebook, Instagram, and the countless other social media platforms, we are constantly sharing photos, videos, and other information about our lives that we think others will find interesting. Film is no longer something that only professionals can create and share, but something that is accessible to everyone.

These new changes in the structure of film raise questions about its classification as a medium. Is the new, internet film of the 21^st century the same medium as traditional cinema? Or is it a completely new medium? I think YouTube videos are in the same medium as other film, just a more evolved version of the medium. In The Future of a Medium Once Known as Television, William Uricchio writes “YouTube’s limits as an exemplar of mashup culture and Web 2.0 may be precisely its strengths as a transitional model to next generation television.” The short, easy to watch, and easy to create videos are not a different medium, but the transformation of an old medium. Over time, mediums evolve into similar, yet more effective modes of transportation. For example, painting art on caves transformed into painting on canvas. The idea is the same, but the way artists convey the idea has adapted to a new society with new technology.

As far as categorization of this evolved medium, it’s not very different than the categorization of traditional cinema. Many of the genres of film still remain, but with some new genres, like vlogs. Some of the traditional genres, like instructional videos, have become more efficient as a result of their much shorter lengths.

Film will continue to evolve as a medium in the future. This could eventually mean the end of all professionally filmed and directed cinema, as the medium becomes entirely user-generated over the internet. If the medium did not adapt to new viewers in new cultures, it would become obsolete. With new technology, humans will find new ways to share film in a way that makes the most sense based on the societal and cultural values at the time.

Hillary Clinton, like other public figures, does have some control over her public image, however the media plays a very influential part in shaping the public’s opinions about her. The media is more critical and of politicians because they have a direct impact on our country and our lives. Much more so than other celebrities, such as actors and athletes. On one hand, scrutiny of politicians can be beneficial to the public. This allows the public to gain the most knowledge about a politician, both good and bad, when deciding whether or not to vote for them. However, when the media is in charge of shaping political opinions, there is often biased framing and agenda planning at play.

Media outlets use a number of techniques when creating an image. These include visual manipulation, zooming and distancing the camera, and recycling old news footage. Even though we trust news stations like CNN to be honest about people and events, we are actually receiving a biased message. With every news story, there are images and video clips that we do see, but also ones we don’t. The visuals of Hillary they choose to show (smiling, angry, rude, etc.) will strongly impact what the public thinks of her. The media can even use images that don’t accurately portray an event. For example, Hillary could have been happy during an event, however she looks angry in a photo. The media would then show that photo, making a naïve viewer think Hillary is harsh or uncompassionate. There is a range of reasons to why the media would try to create a biased image. These include trying to get better ratings and trying to please the politicians and corporations they are supported by.

The most simple and effective way Hillary Clinton can control her public image is to act and speak appropriately. Hillary doesn’t always do this. During her time in the public eye, she has made comments that have offended feminists and involved herself in various political scandals in the Middle East. The more a politician can stay out of trouble, the better reputation they will have. The media would not easily be able to promote a bad image of Hillary if she wasn’t providing them with a number of ways to exploit her. Even though media images can be exaggerated, they are still based on true facts. When Hillary finds herself in the middle of a scandal, she tries doing friendly or respectable things to increase her good PR and keep her image from spiraling out of control. While it is important for Hillary to maintain a good image on social media, she cannot rely alone on that. People will trust any news outlet more than Hillary’s own twitter. She wouldn’t say anything bad about herself on her own twitter.

In an ideal world, media outlets would show a complete, unbiased report of events. However, this is not the case. Hilary can help control her image by avoiding scandal and properly managing her PR. However, the majority of the influence on her image will come from the media.