As Lievrouw outlines in his discussion surrounding new media, “new media” is a relative term that is always changing and always evolving. In specific moments in time, innovation and using media differently is a very relative statement. When Vertov made his film, he was indeed exercising the use of new media but within the framework/definition of a different time.
Lievrouw states that new media today is that which is “two way” and allows for the interaction and participation of the consumer but it is also stated that new media is that which challenges the status quo. Though Vertov’s film does not technically present itself as a “two way” media and exists at a time when that wasn’t an understood notion, he was certainly challenging existing norms and pushing film past the limits that had previously constrained it. His message certainly pushes the consumer to think different and change their conceptions regarding what they accept as film both through content and through technological use of the medium. Though in a different sense and with less innovation than the media in use now, Vertov’s work is highly active and is very clearly merging politics and art and this is what Lievrouw claims to be a key identifier of an active new media.
It is interesting to think about how our definitions of “new” change each and every day and more clearly so over long periods of time. What Vertov did challenged everyone’s conception of film and what it could portray but today, his technology no longer fits into our definition of “new media.” It is very strange but also very inspiring that this happens with such haste and just shows how much we evolve as a human race with each passing year. We can’t really define anything specifically because we are constantly pushing the boundaries of these definitions.