Digging through a large number of websites and dealing with information avalanches has become part of our day-to-day. That’s neither bad nor good; it’s just a norm, which is useless to assess. 

Actually, you can’t have too many sources of information. In other words, the more, the better. The flow of information contains within itself a self-cleaning function and it regularly reviews and filters itself.

The only danger is to come under control. Though, by and large, that’s hardly feasible, since information is open by nature.

I can even say that the more information is mixed, tangled, and intertwined, the more it contains references and parts that emanate from each other, the happier and more useful it is. 

There are websites with an enormous amount of information that seems endless — to the degree that you could even go crazy. I found a website with an abnormal amount of photos. You open one, then another, then 10, then 100 — it seems that there is an endless amount of images and you’ll die before you manage to see them all.

What I’m trying to say is that information is cleaned by ramifying and being circulated (even if that creates difficulties for the viewer).

But I think our issue is not an overload of information but the material. If we make this a public issue, it’ll turn out that we live in a situation where the balance between the virtual and the material is disrupted.

The situation in the media is more comprehensible (I can even say, healthier) than in real life. By being on social media every day, we are dealing with review systems — we comment, debate, share, delete; that is, we are always in the field of active text (hypertext), we are always in context. 

Our material environment, on the other hand, is very localized. And it’s gradually becoming more narrow and limited, which is actually quite dangerous. People, forced, find themselves in very local conditions and rely only on their own resources, becoming closed and trapped, in order to preserve what they have. 

We don’t have a circulation of that which is material, since shifts are very difficult and expensive. And a review of value systems doesn’t happen in closed situations since the value of each thing (an object, a phenomenon, an idea, a work of art, information, and so on) is seen and checked only by placing it in circulation. Everything aspires to be in an open space and to understand its place in the local-global chain. 

I repeat: the more information increases, the better. I simply would want that the media try to work in a more targeted manner. Say, for there to be serious and special purpose journalists who are so specialized in their area that they can filter information and demonstrate the importance of different items. 

But, by and large, that which is happening in the media sector completely satisfies me. In Armenia’s media, it’s mainly the quality that’s poor. There are very few cases where Armenian journalists participate in important events and analyze them. The best proof of this, for example, was the Venice Art Biennale, where the Armenian Pavilion received an award, but no media outlet was prepared to deeply analyze that. Let me put it this way: it didn’t have that navigational approach that could place this victory in a global context.  

After all, let’s remember that the media has the role of a mediator and each person decides whether he needs this mediator or not. 

When a competent journalist (or a professional in any sector) doesn’t serve those in power, a dignified environment is created. And only in this case do those in power take into consideration journalists (or professionals in any other sector).

The media is a mediator, just as a curator is a mediator in art. And in both cases, both the media and the curator shouldn’t grovel but always maintain their agenda. When they become weak and don’t have the power to resist, when they become blurred and scattered in front of their clients, there can be no talk of dignity. 

To be dignified, you first of all must value the individual, who speaks from his name, though what he’s saying is top-grade, pure, glowing stupidity. 

Dignity, valuing the individual, stands in contrast to the masses, viewing them as diversity of the individual. It’s worth remembering this and try to subject our environment to de-Sovietization. 

Karen Andreassian
Artist

The views expressed in the column are those of the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of Media.am.