This post is about where should content actually go and the issue that it may work best in places that it might not seem so clear it would.
It might be said that new media speaks a universal language.
I do not mean the language itself, but the concepts, the ideas of novelty and potential. Is new media still new - it seems though to continues to evolve and create.
Where it goes is undecidable in this sense: while it can be targeted, it may work best in another serendipitous direction. This is perhaps a key feature of new media: that not only does it have a potential given by tech to move across the world, it may need to, to realise the potential of the created content.
As a free expressive space, the sense of fitting it into spaces may not exist, so it needs to fit itself, using a diverse potential for finding a fit.
This is perhaps a tech of structure and meaning, with an openness for the creator of it to define what it can do. That core idea of potential, that unknown which drives tech is here as well. It is an unknown that can create hugeness, or a sense of being lost in a vast space.
The tech of new media, is its integration with tech itself, with the programs.
But the words and images themselves also have a potential themselves, in terms of creating a new space. This translates for words and images as a new expressive space, tech itself provides the space, but new media populates it, diminishing the sense of vastness and emptiness and potentially finding a place to thrive.
New media is perhaps like an effectively instantaneous transposition, of an indeterminate value. Such a value can be one of interest only, but it potentially gains value from this transposition. Which suggests liquidity of transportation is important for new media. What I mean by this is that the content can be transposed, which is where any idea of a universal language starts to come up against the content itself, with the solution that it is let find where it can exist and thrive.
