Remediation, Hypermediacy, and Metapictures

In Remediation by J. David Bolter and Richard A. Grusin, I found the self-titled section, “Remediation,” because of their concept of remediation.  They reference Marshall McLuhan: “the content of any medium is always another medium…a more complex kind of borrowing” (339).  This, I think, asserts that everything is a remediation, which I know due to previous class discussions, not everyone agrees with.  Another definition of remediation I found helpful that Bolter and Grusin provide is “The content has been borrowed, but the medium has not been appropriated” (338).  In other words, remediation is taking the same message, but translating it through a different medium.   

I question, though, how McLuhan and Bolter and Grusin define the term “content”: Is “content” synonymous with “message”?

I found a connection between Bolter and Grusin’s hypermediacy and “metapictures” by Mitchell.  BoIter and Grusin define and describe hypermediacy as a “combination of random access with multiple media” and an “interactive application” (327).  I believe that metapictures are a type of hypermediacy or hypermediacy is found within metapictures.  But a metapicture is definitely not always a remediation.  There are many original pieces of art that are defined as “meta.”