Lisa Gitelman sums up the problem well in her introduction to Always Already New. In the process, I will focus on individual examples provided by each scholar to illustrate their concept of artifacts.

Comparing these approaches will show the benefits and disadvantages of each as opposed to a mere description of the object of study. These approaches run the gamut between social history and media philosophy. My goal will be to define what a media artifact is and why that should matter for the study of media history. Social constructionism and the feminist critique of science.

Cultural history or discourse of the media.Historical context or objects outside history.I would like to discuss three fault lines that determine definitions of media artifacts: Recognizing this distinction makes all the difference in distinguishing between empirical, archaeological and conceptual artifacts. But to end the list there would cut the story short.Ī scholar’s approach to her object of study determines the characteristics of the media artifact, not the other way around. Jonathan Sterne treats the stethoscope as a tool in his work on the history of listening practices, emphasizing their social roles and modes of aural mediation (Sterne 2003, 104). Erkki Huhtamo, for example, examines peephole devices in his work on late 19 th century visual culture, with emphasis on the materiality of the objects themselves (Huhtamo 2012, 39). Let’s begin with the two most obvious examples: material objects and tools for social practice. While some scholars analyze material objects to ask questions about design and practice, others engage in analyses of discursive, conceptual, or metaphorical objects to ask questions about cultural forms and intellectual genealogies. What is a media artifact? The definition changes depending on who you ask, what discipline they identify with, and how they approach the study of history.

Cultural artifact examples