Q: How have social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, ect... contributed to our society as we know it? Are these contributions, if any, positive or negative? Where will technology take us?
A: Social networking sites undoubtedly contribute to society in a vast number of ways. These contributions, however, are often difficult to judge as either positive or negative. More often, the circumstances of a given situation dictate whether a social network is beneficial, detrimental, or somewhere in between. Once linked to a network, an individual creates a virtual depiction of his or her self which can be accessed by the world at large. Often, others are allowed to add or subtract from this virtual representation through posting pictures, partaking in polls involving others, or through various interactions within the network itself. These representations can do well to allow individuals to remain in touch with friends, allow for meeting new people, provide a form of entertainment, and offer many other beneficial qualities as well. Unfortunately, they can also lead to public degradation of character, misrepresentation of the self, and matters meant to be held private open for public discussion. If one an underage high schooler, for instance, were to apply for a job after a friend posts a picture of him drunk on his facebook, he will likely not get the job.
out of time...
Monday, April 27, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
4-20 in class response
Q: An original hard copy text is put into digital form verbatim. N. Katherine Hayles calls this media translation and says 'something is gained as well as lost." Peter Shillingsburg says if the text is stored accurately on a second storage medium, the text remains the same though the signs for it are different. Discuss what can be gained and lost in media translation, if anything.
Response:
When a text is copied verbatim, the wording obviously remains the same and yet an equivalent rendition of the original text is not always achieved. A different font my be used, a new background, italics could be employed instead of cursive writing, the ink may not be worn in the translation in the same places that show wear in the original. Much like the differences observed when multiple people read the same speech, perform the same dance, or play the same musical song, each instance of translation can alter the way by which text (and context of that text) interact and impact others. The question here ought not to focus on "whether or not there are differences" but rather whether or not those differences matter. Is there any great significance? Personally, I would say that in most cases there is not. Undeniably there are other extreme cases where it would matter, but those seem the exception rather than the rule. Overall, Shillingsburg seems to support my view moreso than Hayles but I would regard both as holding positions at extreme ends in need of finding a common ground.
Response:
When a text is copied verbatim, the wording obviously remains the same and yet an equivalent rendition of the original text is not always achieved. A different font my be used, a new background, italics could be employed instead of cursive writing, the ink may not be worn in the translation in the same places that show wear in the original. Much like the differences observed when multiple people read the same speech, perform the same dance, or play the same musical song, each instance of translation can alter the way by which text (and context of that text) interact and impact others. The question here ought not to focus on "whether or not there are differences" but rather whether or not those differences matter. Is there any great significance? Personally, I would say that in most cases there is not. Undeniably there are other extreme cases where it would matter, but those seem the exception rather than the rule. Overall, Shillingsburg seems to support my view moreso than Hayles but I would regard both as holding positions at extreme ends in need of finding a common ground.
4-20 TechnoText Response
As more topics are covered in this class I find myself wondering what others find so desirable about achieving the status of “poetic” for their creations. Ranging from the disaster of flarf to the more acceptable (though not as poetry) techno texts introduced this week, it is puzzling that poetry as it is commonly understood remains under constant assault. If something new is created, why must it fit into an older category? Furthermore, if one should claim that it doesn’t fit, why should that person be said to have “misunderstood” the “poem?” This whole practice both frustrates and annoys me. Take things as they are and leave them as they are. We should abandon this idiotic approach of attempting to force obscure constructions into pre-established patterns. In short, LEAVE GOOD POETRY ALONE!
***That slight mini-rant aside, I’m going to outwardly state for any of those who may read this particular post that I’ve been sick lately and admittedly I am making this post in a bit of haste. I’m perfectly aware that much of this post could be (and indeed ought to be) better justified and if such justification should be required by any reader feel free to comment and I’ll do my best to make revisions.
Anyway, to begin with the Anipoems by Ana María Uribe, I reiterate that I fail to see what can be called “poetic” about them. I could understand them being called a form of artwork or something done on the side for entertainment but certainly not poetry. What is poetic about having P’s become R’s as if to show exercise, multiple V’s becoming W’s in order to show a zipper? I mean, you could say that the letters are representing other things metaphorically, but that does not equate poetry. These “Anipoems” are forms of entertainment, perhaps an artistic rendering of individual letters but not a poetic one. Such techno texts should rather be considered as techno flipbooks or letter animation works of art, nothing more and nothing less.
Moving on, The Dreamlife of Letters by Brian Kim Stefans reminded me clearly of the kind of artwork which I do not understand, but acknowledge as someone’s decision to be visually creative. Another form of this sort would be ASCII art which takes letters and creates pictures or animations out of them. Many of these are quite impressive and can include color images or even, when viewed in rapid succession, clips from well-known movies. In this sense they could become, much like the Anipoems, techno flipbooks.
Finally, we come to Fields of Dream by Rachel Stevens and Nick Montfort which represents another kind of techno text. Fields of Dream, much like flarf, is something which proclaims to be “new” and “unique” when in reality it is nothing more than a child’s form of entertainment. It’s a mad lib, seriously, there is nothing new here. For those of you who for some reason may disagree, go to the Fields of Dream site and then go to www.elibs.com. You’ll note there is very little difference between the two websites.
As examples of techno text of which I am aware of on-line, I offer two links both related to star wars. The first is a rendition of star wars in the command prompt of windows XP and can be viewed at the following you tube links: part 1 part 2. The second is a rendition of star wars via on-line typewriter with sound and can be found here. Both of these examples, like all techno texts force the text as a material that has a higher degree of interaction than traditional texts. The first is very much like a flip book while the second could be more appropriately thought of as watching someone type each individual letter on a typewriter through the lens of a magnifying glass. Techno text exists as an art, as an entertainment, and certainly not as poetry in and of itself. It isn’t anything new, it’s not all that special, but it is there. That’s about all I have to say on the subject for now.
***That slight mini-rant aside, I’m going to outwardly state for any of those who may read this particular post that I’ve been sick lately and admittedly I am making this post in a bit of haste. I’m perfectly aware that much of this post could be (and indeed ought to be) better justified and if such justification should be required by any reader feel free to comment and I’ll do my best to make revisions.
Anyway, to begin with the Anipoems by Ana María Uribe, I reiterate that I fail to see what can be called “poetic” about them. I could understand them being called a form of artwork or something done on the side for entertainment but certainly not poetry. What is poetic about having P’s become R’s as if to show exercise, multiple V’s becoming W’s in order to show a zipper? I mean, you could say that the letters are representing other things metaphorically, but that does not equate poetry. These “Anipoems” are forms of entertainment, perhaps an artistic rendering of individual letters but not a poetic one. Such techno texts should rather be considered as techno flipbooks or letter animation works of art, nothing more and nothing less.
Moving on, The Dreamlife of Letters by Brian Kim Stefans reminded me clearly of the kind of artwork which I do not understand, but acknowledge as someone’s decision to be visually creative. Another form of this sort would be ASCII art which takes letters and creates pictures or animations out of them. Many of these are quite impressive and can include color images or even, when viewed in rapid succession, clips from well-known movies. In this sense they could become, much like the Anipoems, techno flipbooks.
Finally, we come to Fields of Dream by Rachel Stevens and Nick Montfort which represents another kind of techno text. Fields of Dream, much like flarf, is something which proclaims to be “new” and “unique” when in reality it is nothing more than a child’s form of entertainment. It’s a mad lib, seriously, there is nothing new here. For those of you who for some reason may disagree, go to the Fields of Dream site and then go to www.elibs.com. You’ll note there is very little difference between the two websites.
As examples of techno text of which I am aware of on-line, I offer two links both related to star wars. The first is a rendition of star wars in the command prompt of windows XP and can be viewed at the following you tube links: part 1 part 2. The second is a rendition of star wars via on-line typewriter with sound and can be found here. Both of these examples, like all techno texts force the text as a material that has a higher degree of interaction than traditional texts. The first is very much like a flip book while the second could be more appropriately thought of as watching someone type each individual letter on a typewriter through the lens of a magnifying glass. Techno text exists as an art, as an entertainment, and certainly not as poetry in and of itself. It isn’t anything new, it’s not all that special, but it is there. That’s about all I have to say on the subject for now.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Response to Ryan
This is a response to Ryan, someone who commented on my flarf response.
Hey Ryan, this is Kevin. I actually just saw your comments today and felt I ought to respond to them (if I had seen them sooner I would have responded to them earlier, my apologies). Anyway, many of your remarks strike me as quite interesting and I'd like to respond to each. The phrases in quotes are Ryans, the passages following them are my response.
“You make a lot of assumptions, about poetry, about philosophy and certainly about Flarf here.”
This is very true, but what do we base our opinions and beliefs upon but assumptions? The interesting aspect here is to identify what assumptions you are making and how they differ from my own. I make assumptions largely about philosophy because it is my major and thus many of those classes tend to influence my line of thought on these matters.
When I speak of criticisms some have held of philosophy I am largely focusing on the logical positivists and my own personal experiences. As a little background, the logical positivists used linguistic analysis to “conjure away” philosophical questions by attempting to show that they were not, in actuality, questions at all. They largely focused on trying to prove that all philosophical problems were “cognitively meaningless” but held that such matters could contain “emotive meaning.” In using these terms, I am building from this type of foundation.
On a further note, I find it striking that you identify flarf as separate from poetry. Was this intentional? I’ve been under the impression that people consider flarf as a form of poetry… Either way, I would be interested in your opinion here.
“The above poem [in your post] isn't flarf: it's more like a copy of what Flarf seems like to someone who doesn't get it.”
Flarf, I will readily admit, is out of my element but it is interesting that you claim my “poem” isn’t flarf. Please, enlighten me if you will, as to how I ought to discern what is flarf and what is? By what criterion can you call something “not flarf?“ Also, I will fully agree that I do not get flarf. Feel free to explain to your heart’s content and I will do my best to understand.
“I should also add that you don't like what you don't like, and no one can argue with that.”
I would like to start by saying that I am not simply saying “I don’t like flarf” nor do I see it as a valid argument. My problem is that I can’t see why anyone at all would like flarf. Perhaps for some sort of humor which I fail to see but beyond that.. I have yet to discover an answer.
“So a good point to start off a critique of Flarf might be to ask just what it is that you don't like about Flarf and go from there.”
I find it difficult to critique Flarf based upon what exactly I don’t like about it largely because I can’t pinpoint anything of significance which I do like about it. I simply fail to understand any reason for flarf’s existence. It serves no purpose and I would still hold that in most instances, communicates literally nothing or communicates nothing which could not be better communicated through some other medium.
“But, your characterization of Flarf as plagiarism is a mischaracterization. Considering that poetry has often appropriated, and that some would contest that found poetry leans more toward plagiarism than Flarf, it seems weird to accuse Flarf of plagiarism”
My understanding of flarf, although heavily limited, comes directly from here and what has been covered in my class thus far. Here are some of the working definitions as explained in the link:
Flarf: A quality of intentional or unintentional "flarfiness." A kind of corrosive, cute, or cloying, awfulness. Wrong. Un-P.C. Out of control. "Not okay."
Flarf (2): The work of a community of poets dedicated to exploration of "flarfiness." Heavy usage of Google search results in the creation of poems, plays, etc., though not exclusively Google-based. Community in the sense that one example leads to another's reply-is, in some part, contingent upon community interaction of this sort. Poems created, revised, changed by others, incorporated, plagiarized, etc., in semi-public.
Flarf (3) (verb): To bring out the inherent awfulness, etc., of some pre-existing text.
Flarfy: To be wrong, awkward, stumbling, semi-coherent, fucked-up, un-P.C. To take unexpected turns; to be jarring. Doing what one is "not supposed to do."
Note how flarf is described as plagiarized and inherently awful in the definition. This is where I get my characterization of flarf and until you offer me a new definition, I will continue to hold that flarf largely involves plagiarism. As you seem to encourage flarf, I sincerely hope you can offer me a new definition from which I can find insight to your perspective.
“For more on what is NOT plagiarism, see here.”
I have checked this link out and I really don’t see how it defends flarf or other general “forms” as not plagiarism. An interesting link all the same.
“You further say this:
Before anyone argues that this “lack of style” ought to be considered a style all its own I’d like to state that such an argument cannot be construed as viable in any sense.
To which I ask, why? Why can't misspellings and mistakes of various kinds be considered style? Let's argue it. Not before, but now. Why can't these be style? Who's to say that they can't?”
It is not the random misspellings or mistakes which deprive flarf from achieving any kind of style. What I state is that “Misspellings, plagiarism, and shapelessness [held together] do not describe a style or form which ought to be considered in thought or pursued in practice. This is an important distinction but feel free to try and convince me that flarf, in essence, could be worth anyone’s time.
“Another assumption: poetry communicates ‘meaning.’"
Yes, I would argue that poetry must communicate meaning of some sort.
“Another: poetry communicates a linearly grasped idea (plot--> progression-->terminus)= pat idea/statement of ‘meaning’ to reader? Are poems supposed to ‘mean’ things? Is your ‘meaning’ my ‘meaning‘?
I do not assume, however, that all poetry must “communicate a linearly grasped idea.” Poems don’t even necessarily have to “mean things” in and of themselves but they ought to communicate something. My ‘meaning’ of a given poem may be different from yours but there remains some meaning involved with both of us. In actuality, some of the best poetry inspires contrary meanings in multiple individuals.
“Another: Flarf communicates nothing. (Have you ever read "Chicks Dig War" by Drew Gardner?)
Please read “Chicks Dig War” and then come back to your blog and tell me that Flarf communicates nothing, nothing about war, nothing about chicks digging it, nothing about GWAR.”
I hadn’t read this before but I have now. Here is a link in case anyone else would like to read it. If you would prefer, it can also be found with ease on you tube. I’m not entirely sure about “Chicks Dig War” just yet but I will give it another read at a later date since you find it so highly recommendable. Until I’ve had a bit more time to think on it, I won’t say any more here.
Hey Ryan, this is Kevin. I actually just saw your comments today and felt I ought to respond to them (if I had seen them sooner I would have responded to them earlier, my apologies). Anyway, many of your remarks strike me as quite interesting and I'd like to respond to each. The phrases in quotes are Ryans, the passages following them are my response.
“You make a lot of assumptions, about poetry, about philosophy and certainly about Flarf here.”
This is very true, but what do we base our opinions and beliefs upon but assumptions? The interesting aspect here is to identify what assumptions you are making and how they differ from my own. I make assumptions largely about philosophy because it is my major and thus many of those classes tend to influence my line of thought on these matters.
When I speak of criticisms some have held of philosophy I am largely focusing on the logical positivists and my own personal experiences. As a little background, the logical positivists used linguistic analysis to “conjure away” philosophical questions by attempting to show that they were not, in actuality, questions at all. They largely focused on trying to prove that all philosophical problems were “cognitively meaningless” but held that such matters could contain “emotive meaning.” In using these terms, I am building from this type of foundation.
On a further note, I find it striking that you identify flarf as separate from poetry. Was this intentional? I’ve been under the impression that people consider flarf as a form of poetry… Either way, I would be interested in your opinion here.
“The above poem [in your post] isn't flarf: it's more like a copy of what Flarf seems like to someone who doesn't get it.”
Flarf, I will readily admit, is out of my element but it is interesting that you claim my “poem” isn’t flarf. Please, enlighten me if you will, as to how I ought to discern what is flarf and what is? By what criterion can you call something “not flarf?“ Also, I will fully agree that I do not get flarf. Feel free to explain to your heart’s content and I will do my best to understand.
“I should also add that you don't like what you don't like, and no one can argue with that.”
I would like to start by saying that I am not simply saying “I don’t like flarf” nor do I see it as a valid argument. My problem is that I can’t see why anyone at all would like flarf. Perhaps for some sort of humor which I fail to see but beyond that.. I have yet to discover an answer.
“So a good point to start off a critique of Flarf might be to ask just what it is that you don't like about Flarf and go from there.”
I find it difficult to critique Flarf based upon what exactly I don’t like about it largely because I can’t pinpoint anything of significance which I do like about it. I simply fail to understand any reason for flarf’s existence. It serves no purpose and I would still hold that in most instances, communicates literally nothing or communicates nothing which could not be better communicated through some other medium.
“But, your characterization of Flarf as plagiarism is a mischaracterization. Considering that poetry has often appropriated, and that some would contest that found poetry leans more toward plagiarism than Flarf, it seems weird to accuse Flarf of plagiarism”
My understanding of flarf, although heavily limited, comes directly from here and what has been covered in my class thus far. Here are some of the working definitions as explained in the link:
Flarf: A quality of intentional or unintentional "flarfiness." A kind of corrosive, cute, or cloying, awfulness. Wrong. Un-P.C. Out of control. "Not okay."
Flarf (2): The work of a community of poets dedicated to exploration of "flarfiness." Heavy usage of Google search results in the creation of poems, plays, etc., though not exclusively Google-based. Community in the sense that one example leads to another's reply-is, in some part, contingent upon community interaction of this sort. Poems created, revised, changed by others, incorporated, plagiarized, etc., in semi-public.
Flarf (3) (verb): To bring out the inherent awfulness, etc., of some pre-existing text.
Flarfy: To be wrong, awkward, stumbling, semi-coherent, fucked-up, un-P.C. To take unexpected turns; to be jarring. Doing what one is "not supposed to do."
Note how flarf is described as plagiarized and inherently awful in the definition. This is where I get my characterization of flarf and until you offer me a new definition, I will continue to hold that flarf largely involves plagiarism. As you seem to encourage flarf, I sincerely hope you can offer me a new definition from which I can find insight to your perspective.
“For more on what is NOT plagiarism, see here.”
I have checked this link out and I really don’t see how it defends flarf or other general “forms” as not plagiarism. An interesting link all the same.
“You further say this:
Before anyone argues that this “lack of style” ought to be considered a style all its own I’d like to state that such an argument cannot be construed as viable in any sense.
To which I ask, why? Why can't misspellings and mistakes of various kinds be considered style? Let's argue it. Not before, but now. Why can't these be style? Who's to say that they can't?”
It is not the random misspellings or mistakes which deprive flarf from achieving any kind of style. What I state is that “Misspellings, plagiarism, and shapelessness [held together] do not describe a style or form which ought to be considered in thought or pursued in practice. This is an important distinction but feel free to try and convince me that flarf, in essence, could be worth anyone’s time.
“Another assumption: poetry communicates ‘meaning.’"
Yes, I would argue that poetry must communicate meaning of some sort.
“Another: poetry communicates a linearly grasped idea (plot--> progression-->terminus)= pat idea/statement of ‘meaning’ to reader? Are poems supposed to ‘mean’ things? Is your ‘meaning’ my ‘meaning‘?
I do not assume, however, that all poetry must “communicate a linearly grasped idea.” Poems don’t even necessarily have to “mean things” in and of themselves but they ought to communicate something. My ‘meaning’ of a given poem may be different from yours but there remains some meaning involved with both of us. In actuality, some of the best poetry inspires contrary meanings in multiple individuals.
“Another: Flarf communicates nothing. (Have you ever read "Chicks Dig War" by Drew Gardner?)
Please read “Chicks Dig War” and then come back to your blog and tell me that Flarf communicates nothing, nothing about war, nothing about chicks digging it, nothing about GWAR.”
I hadn’t read this before but I have now. Here is a link in case anyone else would like to read it. If you would prefer, it can also be found with ease on you tube. I’m not entirely sure about “Chicks Dig War” just yet but I will give it another read at a later date since you find it so highly recommendable. Until I’ve had a bit more time to think on it, I won’t say any more here.
Monday, April 06, 2009
4-6 In Class Response
As stated in my earlier post, I think that Kenneth basis his approach upon a poor understanding of what a valueless practice would entail. One cannot make the argument that it is moral or immoral to remove values from literature because the literature itself cannot said to have any value (which could then be removed) to anyone beyond the author if there is no reader. One may even pose the question and make good arguments as to whether an author may create a valueless piece in and of itself. Purpose is derived largely from the application of a thing rather than being inherent in the thing itself. Furthermore, the value of a piece is not stagnant but rather an adapting thing which shifts and forms based upon who interprets the piece, when, why, how, and various other factors.
Academic and creative repercussions which could result from value-free writing are difficult to determine largely due to the poor basis upon what ought to be considered as value-free.
Academic and creative repercussions which could result from value-free writing are difficult to determine largely due to the poor basis upon what ought to be considered as value-free.
4-16 Uncreative Writing
Those who identify specific writings or methods of writing as uncreative fail to fully consider their approach. In stating that uncreative writing, “means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair,” Goldsmith ignores any influence the application of the writing itself. By this definition, perhaps I create a new method of writing altogether. Would the writing itself be considered creative only until the method is revealed? Is the method itself creative while the writing piece is allowed to have uncreative status? Can something be considered a creative piece in one moment and an uncreative one the next? Answering these difficult questions will likely lead one to contradict himself or result in nonsensical findings. This is shown Goldsmith’s statements which begin with “it is involved with all types of mental processes” and end with “Uncreative writing doesn't really have much to do with mathematics, philosophy, or any other mental discipline.”
Goldsmith’s further contention that all uncreative writing is “purposeless” also leads to problems. All writing, it can be argued, is purposeless until it is applied in some manner. This point moves to contradict Goldsmith’s assumption that creativity resides exclusively within the piece of writing. Even the “uncreative writing” that I submitted today (which went something like the following: aiopajh ivn0qe4 00j jds e0- _) could have some kind of purpose depending upon how it is applied. I could, for instance, analyze the number of characters typed on the left side of the keyboard as opposed to the right and yield data which may prove useful to various studies. Goldsmith even acknowledges that “Different people will understand the same thing in a different ways,” but fails to follow this line of thought and realize that different people will draw out and apply purpose of the same thing in different ways.
Yet another problematic claim held by Goldsmith involves the supposition that “the objective of the author who is concerned with uncreative writing to make her work mentally interesting to the reader, and therefore usually she would want it to become emotionally dry.” I fail to see how this argument is intended to hold any merit. Why can’t emotionally rich documents be mentally interesting? When did the use of logos exclude the implementation of pathos? How could something be mentally stimulating or be written with a goal in mind if that same writing is defined as devoid of all purpose?
Monday, March 30, 2009
3-30-09 in class response
How does text messaging affect the way you think? How does it affect our communication? How is the writing that happens via texting or tweeting different from writing?
I would argue that texting does not really affect the way I think any more than the use of any other medium. Of course, I may use terms or phrases in my everyday speech that have proven themselves as useful re-occurring texting elements, but I also frequently find myself composing papers using vocabulary of a style consistent with my most recent reading material. Texting adds to our communication in new ways, but really, this remark can be made about virtually any means of communication. Writing that happens via texting, much like writing from twitter and some e-mails, tends to be of a less formal nature than other writing. In most cases, it is less refined and serves in a niche of instant communication under which the receiver is not intended to spend much time analyzing deeper meanings or justification.
Aside from being somewhat exempt from direct criticism or timely analysis, texting also provides a less confrontational means of communication.
Time up.
I would argue that texting does not really affect the way I think any more than the use of any other medium. Of course, I may use terms or phrases in my everyday speech that have proven themselves as useful re-occurring texting elements, but I also frequently find myself composing papers using vocabulary of a style consistent with my most recent reading material. Texting adds to our communication in new ways, but really, this remark can be made about virtually any means of communication. Writing that happens via texting, much like writing from twitter and some e-mails, tends to be of a less formal nature than other writing. In most cases, it is less refined and serves in a niche of instant communication under which the receiver is not intended to spend much time analyzing deeper meanings or justification.
Aside from being somewhat exempt from direct criticism or timely analysis, texting also provides a less confrontational means of communication.
Time up.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
David Crystal response
It was apparent from the start of “txtng the gr8 db8” that David Crystal assumes his audience to be negligent of even the most basic information. Defining billion as “thousand million” and trillion as “million million,” Crystal shows that the average reader of his book likely doesn’t know how to count beyond the hundred millions place (4). Stepping away from the numerical values, he proceeds by highlighting other incredibly complex terms such as “the mobile phone (as it is known in British English – mobile for short), or cellphone (in American English – cell, for short)” (5). On the very next page, the little known term “characters” is also defined. Words like “contraction,” “geek,” and “download” are even included in a glossary in the back of the book, just in case the reader needs a refresher course on his elementary schooling.
My question for the author here is simply, “why?” I fully understand the benefits of delving into other cultures and the need to define unfamiliar jargon but to state such basic information is to undermine the intelligence of his reader. Personally, I find the entire book would improve were it to be more succinct. The reader would then appreciate receiving proper respect and also have a much lucid understanding of what he is being told.
Furthermore, I can thoroughly appreciate clever authors who can include an element of irony into their writing. The key for a clever author, however, is to be as subtle as possible and not to force these elements. Crystal fails in this regard including passages like “If a newspaper uses a jokey headline about texting, almost certainly a word like gr8 will be in it. I wouldn’t be surprised to find it in a book one day,” (22). Such instances serve only to further diminish any positive relationship that could possibly be developing between reader and text.
Although I criticize heavily the manner by which Crystal approaches the topic as well as how he considers its elements later, I do largely agree with his overall stance on the issue (highlighted very well on the bottom of the eighth page). Unfortunately, I do not see this book as prompting any kind of significant developments in my own thoughts nor do I find many of Crystal’s arguments convincing despite the fact that I already agree with what he is contending. Crystal combats, for example, the notion of texting as a foreign language. I agree with this stance entirely, but I disagree that the author is justified in supporting his argument by referencing that half of a “text poem” consists of Standard English (16). If I were to type a twenty word sentence and utilice sólo diez palabras inglesas, hace llamada de Cristal inglés? I wouldn’t, but apparently, he would.
My question for the author here is simply, “why?” I fully understand the benefits of delving into other cultures and the need to define unfamiliar jargon but to state such basic information is to undermine the intelligence of his reader. Personally, I find the entire book would improve were it to be more succinct. The reader would then appreciate receiving proper respect and also have a much lucid understanding of what he is being told.
Furthermore, I can thoroughly appreciate clever authors who can include an element of irony into their writing. The key for a clever author, however, is to be as subtle as possible and not to force these elements. Crystal fails in this regard including passages like “If a newspaper uses a jokey headline about texting, almost certainly a word like gr8 will be in it. I wouldn’t be surprised to find it in a book one day,” (22). Such instances serve only to further diminish any positive relationship that could possibly be developing between reader and text.
Although I criticize heavily the manner by which Crystal approaches the topic as well as how he considers its elements later, I do largely agree with his overall stance on the issue (highlighted very well on the bottom of the eighth page). Unfortunately, I do not see this book as prompting any kind of significant developments in my own thoughts nor do I find many of Crystal’s arguments convincing despite the fact that I already agree with what he is contending. Crystal combats, for example, the notion of texting as a foreign language. I agree with this stance entirely, but I disagree that the author is justified in supporting his argument by referencing that half of a “text poem” consists of Standard English (16). If I were to type a twenty word sentence and utilice sólo diez palabras inglesas, hace llamada de Cristal inglés? I wouldn’t, but apparently, he would.
Monday, March 23, 2009
In Class Flarf Response
3. What are your previous connotations of poetry? What is your previous experience with poetry? How does flarf fit in or not fit in with those ideas? Has it changed them?
Traditionally, I have thought of poetry as able to take on various forms based largely upon patterns of language and clever word choice. It could be cognitively thoughtful, emotively meaningful, and often prompts many interpretations. Some of these interpretations can often contradict one another while the poetry itself remains distinct and unchanged. Past experiences with poetry include classes I've taken and occasional passages I've chosen to read over somewhat sporadic periods of time. All in all, some poetry I have enjoyed and thought clever while others I have felt were underdeveloped and childish in nature.
Flarf differs from any connotations I have had with poetry as the worst of the worst of anything (poetry or otherwise) I have ever wasted my time to read. It is not creative, it presents no meaningful concepts, and does little to impress based on the look or otherwise.
Traditionally, I have thought of poetry as able to take on various forms based largely upon patterns of language and clever word choice. It could be cognitively thoughtful, emotively meaningful, and often prompts many interpretations. Some of these interpretations can often contradict one another while the poetry itself remains distinct and unchanged. Past experiences with poetry include classes I've taken and occasional passages I've chosen to read over somewhat sporadic periods of time. All in all, some poetry I have enjoyed and thought clever while others I have felt were underdeveloped and childish in nature.
Flarf differs from any connotations I have had with poetry as the worst of the worst of anything (poetry or otherwise) I have ever wasted my time to read. It is not creative, it presents no meaningful concepts, and does little to impress based on the look or otherwise.
Flarf Response of 3-23
LolCatCrack
Flarf Flarf Flaaaaaaaaaaaaaarfullage fullo’flarf
Fluff like marshmellows
Flarflike substances emerge from lolcats on heroine
With a side of crack
Seeing better days
intelligence lacks what conscious banter flarf with inconsistancies
violence begets flarf which begets belligerent flarf
plagurized creativity fralf flarf may be new
plagurized creativity fralf flarf remains unique
sure
more crack and a little heroine for the kitty
flarf
meow?
Alright, so that is flarf. I can grasp the concept of flarf and I largely appreciate its origin but I do not understand its survival. Flarf should not exist. Misspellings, plagiarism, and shapelessness do not describe a style or form which ought to be considered in thought or pursued in practice. Before anyone argues that this “lack of style” ought to be considered a style all its own I’d like to state that such an argument cannot be construed as viable in any sense. Many have criticized philosophical pursuits as worthless and unprogressive but when compared to flarf, philosophy is presented as though it were the well-refined result of empirical observation and deductive reasoning with the backing of all of science. I relate the study of flarf to the criticisms logical positivists attempted to hold against philosophy as “cognitively meaningless” but must take this one step further as flarf does not consist of any “emotive meaning” either. Flarf communicates nothing. Conceptually it was created to prove a point and has somehow survived despite its lack of any kind of intelligible transference of thought. Even stream of consciousness exercises seem to yield more viable meaning and connections than flarf. I could proceed further with my disapproval and ultimate offense of flarf but as it has rendered me a headache I am finished for now. I may choose to edit and update this post later but no promises.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Blog Prompt 3-16
Respond to the following: McCaffery's first book experiment or, more accurately page experiment was called Carnival, the first panel: 1967-70 and published by the Coach House Press in Toronto in 1973. The work was made by placing masks on each of sixteen standard 81/2-by-11-inch pages, arranged in groups of four to make a square (or, strictly speaking, rectangle) measuring 44 by 36 inches. The sixteen pages were then perforated and arranged in sequential book form, accompanied by the Instructions, "In order to destroy this book please tear each page carefully along the perforation. The panel is assembled by laying out pages in a square of four." The readerly dilemma thus created was that in order to take in the whole panel, the book has to be destroyed.
It is not a new concept to criticize someone for "not seeing the bigger picture" but in most cases that bigger picture may only be reached by starting with smaller pieces of the whole. In Carnival, the exact opposite is the case. Individuals are given the bigger picture and told that in order to make it conform with the accustomed norms, they must destroy it into smaller pieces. Although this seems simple enough, there are more complexities here that are worth mentioning. For instance, the perforation implies the "book" has already been made weaker and it is assumed that it will be broken down after it is received. It is as if the book was constructed to stand out but never intended to remain as it was presented in original form. This echoes back the ideas of graffiti being only temporary and yet successfully commanding large amounts of time, effort, and risk on the part of the writers. Furthermore, each "page" consists only of four out of the total sixteen standard size pages. This seems contrary to my initial thought that the reader is allowed to begin with the full picture. It would seem that for the full picture to be offered initially, the entire book would have to be one page with further perforations. Even still, these perforations would seemingly imply that the pieces are distinct while it seems that the nature of this work is to suggest that they ought not to be.
The concept of "destroy" here is something which seems to demand my attention. Why destroy? What is it about separating the pieces that "destroys" the work as a whole? To me, it would seem some kind of negative connotations are intended but what I don't understand is why they are intended. Could the the text simply have used more neutral terms such as "deconstruct," or "disassemble?" Destroy seems to imply imposing a finite, irreversable end to the work. Personally, I don't see why the pages cannot be torn and taped back together. What would this take away from the piece that the original perforation did not?
The addition of the words "please" and "carefully" in the statement regarding the destruction of the book interests me as well. If someone is going to begin "destroying" something, why ask them nicely? Why ask them to do so carefully? It seems as though the destruction of the work is assumed inevitable but at the same time managable and subject to criticism. The inclusion of the statement mentioned provide that there is a preferred way of destruction which in turn implies there are wrong ways as well.
3-16 Response
In looking at the Carnival website, I can tell you that I was confused. Honestly, I must say that I am still confused. When the words were placed in the typical, agreed upon, coherent fashion, I found the statements puzzling but interesting and containing both debatable cognitive meaning and worth. The following is one example:
'If the Revolution could be spoken, it would only be with a discourse that cannot assume a coherent position of truth, with a series of contradictory voices that cannot know themselves, which do not constitute a point of view, which repeat themselves and fall apart, only in order to be able to begin again.'
This statement is of a sort which I can enjoy. I acknowledge the possibility of deeper meanings than may first appear but ultimately feel satisfied when I have reached some form of judgment or decision regarding what I feel it represents. Parts of carnival which mirror this kind of representation spark me as philosophical in the sense that they can be pondered, debated, and discussed but require sufficient thought before doing so.
The remaining portion of Carnival is what really befuddles me. I am perfectly okay with differing applications of text and textual representations of words such as those we have discussed and created previously. I am also familiar and have even dabbled with the creation of artwork such as those formed through ASCII. What I do not seem to comprehend, however, is the merger of the two. Images which are in part incoherent swirls of blurred letters of differing sizes and yet also in part tightly written clauses of cognitive meaning scattered throughout seem frustrating. (This construction for example) Despite my better efforts, I see little that can be done in order to comprehend, debate, or argue much meaning for such issues definitively as anything significantly more than whatever subjective, whimsical theory is developed by each individual who encounters it.
All in all I’m left unsure of what I’m supposed to take away from such renditions placed before me. Reflecting upon Snyder’s recent book on graffiti leads me to the hypothesis that perhaps I am too much an outsider to these works. Just as writers created graffiti largely for, in response to, and with the criticism of other writers, perhaps works similar to those in Carnival are intended for others who are perhaps more familiar with this particular craft. If left to my own analysis, I feel as though I ought to seek out an interpreter, someone to translate for me what exactly is going on and provide some kind of foundation for me to begin with in order to discover whatever meaning I seem to be overlooking. Hopefully, today’s discussion will offer me some guidance of this sort. If not, then many of these images (both in zoomed in portion and in their entirety) will likely remain little more to me than rejected cards from a Rorschachink blot test.
Graffiti Lives 3-2 Response
In Graffiti Lives, Snyder offers a unique perspective which may be easily undervalued. The case where any subculture, particularly those which involve illegal activity, can be infiltrated, explored, and reported upon is quite rare. Anyone can take down observations, identify patterns, and develop theories based upon their own experiences and careful experimentation. This, however, is not what Snyder did. Snyder held genuine interest in the subculture of graffiti as well as genuine interest in relaying the reality of this world to those outside of it. Starting as an outsider himself, Snyder had to learn how to interact with insiders, develop connections, and obtain accurate information while creating records with as little “outside” distortion as possible.
It should be noted that Snyder eventually became part of the culture itself which offers warrant to what he discovers. This is what truly makes his account rare and of great value. Quite surprisingly, even when Snyder attempts to identify himself as someone conducting a study or merely seeking information, he is disbelieved by insiders and simply regarded as being necessarily paranoid. In some ways, those wary of Snyder simply conducting a study were proven to have passed proper judgment as time progressed and Snyder became a writer himself under the name GWIZ. Snyder was aware that if he was to truly understand the culture, he had to be immersed in it entirely. In doing so, urges of excitement, pride, disapproval, criticism, progress, and more were made available in a manner which could not be communicated otherwise.
Despite his great achievements, there were many flaws or areas which could be greatly improved upon in his published book. Parts such as the section titled “My Voice” begin offering useful background and making important points only to be followed by what I can only identify as useless biographical information. It is important, for instance, to mention typical relationships and interactions between Snyder and other writers but it is not at all relevant that Snyder “grew up in an Irish-Catholic household in Green Bay, Wisconsin,” whose “parents moved there from Utica, New York, in 1973, when I [Snyder] was five years old.” If included in this book at all, this kind of information ought to be in the back of the book under a section titled, “Useless Biographical Information About the Author.” A second criticism worth mentioning is the way the actual documented graffiti is presented. Throughout the entire reading, I try to imagine vivid colors which stand out and command attention but seem to be presented only with dull grayscales lacking in luster. Only once I get past the 132 page am I finally rewarded with the true images which have remained mere shadows until this point. Neither of these criticisms are exactly faults on Snyder’s research, work, or findings, but rather on construction and presentation.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Graffiti Assignment 3-2
In the most basic sense, graffiti can be broken down into the two categories of legal and illegal. Although most connotations with graffiti tend to sway in favor of the illegal, identifying such acts as unwanted vandalism or indicative of some type of economic or social issue, quite often the work becomes a tourist attraction of inspiration in areas more well off than one may suspect. Reflecting on my own personal encounters with graffiti brings to mind the following five examples:
Example 1: Mason Building Walls (Robinson and Science and Tech)
The walls near the Robinson and Sci-Tech buildings are decorated extensively with artwork and textual images rendered in chalk for various campus events. These advertisements can range from fencing club activities to mason nation events and one would assume the proper authorities grant permission before any works are composed. This kind of graffiti is legal, generally accepted, and easily traced back to its author(s). In regard to the chosen locations, the determining factor of this artwork is the balance struck between maximum visibility by students and the acceptability granted by Mason’s higher ups.
Example 2: Mason’s Sidewalks
The sidewalks of Mason arise in thought (particularly in reminiscing about my time spent in President’s Park) as consisting of much the same style of work of the walls mentioned previously. Once again, chalk is used and the advertisements mostly identify club activities and event times. There are, however, a few notable differences. It would seem that the sidewalk works require less permission or the authors feel as though less authority is necessary. The works are much more scattered about often pointing to one another and acting as clever directions sometimes including humorous backgrounds in order to sustain attraction.
Example 3: Mason’s Bathrooms
I could not think of graffiti without referencing the few bathroom stalls at Mason mostly because they were recently highlighted by a few classmates in an earlier assignment. Just as the sidewalks were a shift further away from authority than the building, the bathroom work is another further shift. Here the boundary between what is acceptable and altogether “legal” has finally been breached but a knowing sense of respect, awareness, and perhaps tolerance remains between both parties. Artists are aware that they have sacrificed a great deal of visibility and now accept new difficulties in any future attempt that may be made to claim their work beyond the doubts of others. Mason authorities, on the other hand, do little to pursue the vandals and almost seem to leave one stall in particular to act as a designated target. It should be noted here that markers are now employed in place of the previous, more friendly tool of chalk.
Example 4: Step Up 2: The Streets
Crossing the legal boundary entirely while blatantly disregarding authority (even using it to maximize visibility) is the example as depicted in the movie “Step Up 2: The Streets.” This is a whole new vein of graffiti from those mentioned in previous examples as it is generally frowned upon (by the majority at least) and efforts are made to remove it as soon as possible. Also, rather than the easily removable chalk which is eventually washed away through rain or even the markers which tend to be limited to small scale projects, more permanent spray paints are used with hopes that the designs will be larger and persist longer. In order to ensure credit the name of the group is worked into the design and the entire act is filmed and posted on-line as a “prank” in hopes of gaining respect for an upcoming competition.
Example 5: Boondocks episode 12 Riley Wuz Here
The final example which came to mind is an episode of the television show “Boondocks.” As a quick warning, there is quite a bit of language and racial content so I wouldn’t suggest those easily offended to follow the link but if you are nonetheless interested here it is. This particular episode of “Boondocks” depicts three (four if you count the one instance where he makes corrections) separate instances of graffiti where Riley tags the side of a house. The important focus, however, is on the teacher which Riley is forced to study under. This teacher guides Riley through the importance of his work by instructing him on how to improve. Insight is provided into what kinds of messages Riley should seek to convey and the value (or lack there of) which he ought to place on taking credit for his works. In contrast to the group graffiti in example 4, “Boondocks” offers a perspective of graffiti conducted by an individual (or a pair guided by an individual) for individual purposes. The general crowd response in the “Boondocks” episode ought also to be mentioned as it displays the dualistic views of approval as genuine artwork and disapproval as hooligan vandalism.
Monday, February 23, 2009
2-23 Freewrite
In his book Interface Culture, Steven Johnson says that the hypertext link is the first truly new form of punctuation in centuries. Respond to this assertion and brainstorm what you think he might mean by this. Then, either argree with this theory, using evidence/example(s) to back it up or propose your own alternative theory about the significance of the hypertext link and provide (an) example(s) to support your theory.
Hypertext is many things but it is not a "new form of punctuation." Punctuation instructs a reader on how something ought to be read. Periods, commas, semi-colons, parenthesis, ect... are all intended to provide grammatical structure to ensure coherence is preserved. This is simply not the case with hypertext. Regardless of the presence or lack there of a hypertext link, a reader gains nothing that isn't already apparant.
If hypertext is not a form of punctuation, then what is it? If I had to categorize hypertext I would identify it alongside forms of reference next to foot and endnotes. These are optional tidbits which an author finds uneccesary but nonetheless feels the reader may at some point require additional explanation. This is exactly what is accomplished, although perhaps to an infinite extant as chains of hypertext links form, through the use of hyperlinks. Additional information is offered, but largely supplimental rather than directly relevant to how the reader ought to read.
Hypertext is many things but it is not a "new form of punctuation." Punctuation instructs a reader on how something ought to be read. Periods, commas, semi-colons, parenthesis, ect... are all intended to provide grammatical structure to ensure coherence is preserved. This is simply not the case with hypertext. Regardless of the presence or lack there of a hypertext link, a reader gains nothing that isn't already apparant.
If hypertext is not a form of punctuation, then what is it? If I had to categorize hypertext I would identify it alongside forms of reference next to foot and endnotes. These are optional tidbits which an author finds uneccesary but nonetheless feels the reader may at some point require additional explanation. This is exactly what is accomplished, although perhaps to an infinite extant as chains of hypertext links form, through the use of hyperlinks. Additional information is offered, but largely supplimental rather than directly relevant to how the reader ought to read.
Monday, February 16, 2009
2-16 Freewrite
According to Baron, all literacy technologies go through similar stages. Initially, they begin as available only to a small number of individuals. This occurs as a result of the high cost, general ignorance, and overall strange unfamiliarity of the technology itself. As these problems are mitigated, the technology becomes cheaper, more familiar and thus more practical and well-known. After being spread, a newer literacy technology can come into its own and begin truly paving new routes and effecting older technologies already in place. Baron follows by pointing out suspicions and frustrations brought forth by new technologies as they often correlate with drastic increases in potential for fraud and deception. This seems perhaps an ongoing stage which persists even after modifications have been made and the technology is widely accepted.
As far as these stages apply to other forms of literary technologies, little can be said. After all, can any technology be known and used by a vast population before initially being restricted to a smaller one? Furthermore, is any kind of technology or development most efficient (both in the cost-effecient and user-friendly efficient sense) when it is first created? Although it is simple to say that Baron's stages apply to all literary stages, to say that they are obvious would be an understatement. Initially I may have argued from my own experience that applying Baron to the internet would require some modifications, but after I recently spoke to some of my elders and was proven to be in error. Apparantly my false deduction is simply due to a gap in my memory as the development of the internet was largely in my younger days. Originally, I could only imagine a time without the net, and then a time where everyone used it. After a few discussions, however, I now imagine the development to fit rather well with the typical trend identified by Baron.
As far as these stages apply to other forms of literary technologies, little can be said. After all, can any technology be known and used by a vast population before initially being restricted to a smaller one? Furthermore, is any kind of technology or development most efficient (both in the cost-effecient and user-friendly efficient sense) when it is first created? Although it is simple to say that Baron's stages apply to all literary stages, to say that they are obvious would be an understatement. Initially I may have argued from my own experience that applying Baron to the internet would require some modifications, but after I recently spoke to some of my elders and was proven to be in error. Apparantly my false deduction is simply due to a gap in my memory as the development of the internet was largely in my younger days. Originally, I could only imagine a time without the net, and then a time where everyone used it. After a few discussions, however, I now imagine the development to fit rather well with the typical trend identified by Baron.
Messages in Landscape
The official message of these images is to establish some kind of rule. Whether in regard to trash left in walkways, smokers near buildings, or time limits of parking spaces, these rules are in place and expected to be followed. The unofficial message which seems to be understood, however, is quite different. This message, the one actually received in much fuller force by the public, is that these laws often don’t matter. They are simply in place so that if authorities ever decide to take action, they have some kind of basis for doing so. The images I chose to capture weren’t hard to find and consist mostly of things that I have noticed throughout any typical day on campus. Next to each image (or pair of images) I’ve included some brief background information below.
Background - This is a picture I took on my way out the door. I didn't have to wait around or look far as this is quite a common occurence around the student apartments where I live.
Background - These images were taken at just outside of Sub 1. The first image states "NO SMOKING WITHIN 20 FEET OF BUILDING" but is difficult to read due to the post placed on the inside behind it. The second picture is of a girl who is smoking directly in front of the sign.
Background - Fitting in with the previous two images, this picture is related to the official message of "no smoking withing twenty feet of a building." Although not as close now, these individuals were originally smoking while leaning against the door before I pulled out my phone. The picture is taken from inside the JC behind the closed door.
Background - At first, these two images seem to contradict the unofficial message theme in portraying a car with a ticket for violating the sign which it was parked in front of. An official message appears stated and a penalty appears enforced for breaking that rule. However, I liken this situation to the only two instances during which I have had personal experience with such a matter. In the first instance, a friend of mine received a ticket when they had been parked in a such a place and was following the rules but received a ticket anyway and the second was an occasion where a ticket was found on my roomates car but that ticket was actually intended for a different car altogether. In both instances the penalty was dropped entirely. In this kind of context, it goes to follow that no real issue is raised nor penalty enforced by not following the "official message" which the text attempts to convey.
Proust and the Squid Response
To be honest, I did not enjoy Proust and the Squid from the start. I found the first sentence, “WE WERE NEVER BORN TO READ,” quite humorous, ironic, and applicable to my initial state of mind. There were a few sections which I thought made sense but were not really all that perceptive. A passage on page five comes to mind where it is stated that, “how we think and what we think about is based on insights and associations generated from what we read.” It isn’t that I disagree with statements like this one, but rather that I feel we can remove the word “read” and replace it with any number of other words. How and what we think is based on associations generated not just by what we read, but also what we see, hear, feel, react with, taste, fear, gain, smell, lose, and so on encompassing anything which can produce thought. Thought, not reading, is the key to associations and new understanding. I seem to fall short of comprehending why reading, as nothing more than one form of thought, ought to be held in any higher esteem than other forms of thought based upon this kind of reasoning.
At this point the author attempts to reach out as if throwing a life ring to a drowning shipwreck victim but to no avail. I simply felt as though I was excluded from the target audience. When instructed to read a specific passage “as fast as I could,” I attempted to read more quickly but failed as I was already operating at as breakneck speed as I could (provided that I maintain comprehension of what I was reading). What really made me feel out of the loop, however, was the portion where Proust supposedly “conjured up your own long-stored memories of books: the secret places you found to read away from the intrusions of siblings and friends; the thrilling sensations by Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, and Mark Twain; the muffled beam of flashlight you hoped your parent wouldn’t notices beneath the sheets.” I could not find any relations to this supposed nostalgia that I assume I must have never had. Talk such as this and references to specific parts of the brain and cellular function conjoined with retina had my view of the selection colored as mostly unexciting and a bit too technical.
As I read on, however I found that I could not bring myself to proclaim that the text was poorly constructed, lacking in references, or trivial in nature. Starting around page seventy, I finally discovered something of interest which I could latch onto: Socrates. As a philosophy major I am already quite familiar with Socrates and was curious to see how applicable Greek philosophical inquiry was to the matters Wolf discussed. I was quite pleased at the level of organization Wolf incorporated in shaping and discussing the position and view of Socrates. So much so that I in fact flipped back through earlier portions of Proust and discovered I was being a bit overly harsh on quite a few previous judgments.
As the portion on Socrates ended, a sense of dread came over me as I feared that my spark of interest had died out and I once again would have to force myself through the rest of the reading. From that point on, to my delightful surprise, it turned out that I no longer counted myself as an outsider and found many relations relevant to my own background. Due to the fact that I have a younger sister, for instance, the questions and details about how the mind develops the capacity for reading were particularly interesting. Overall, quite contrary to my initial standing, I must report that Proust wasn’t that bad of a read. In fact, it was pretty good, but I still maintain that the introduction was not intended for one such as myself. This cannot, however, be blamed on the author. After all, a target audience is called a target audience specifically because it tends not to include everyone. Furthermore, the author ultimately managed to include me in their scope anyway. This was a much better reading than Ong.
At this point the author attempts to reach out as if throwing a life ring to a drowning shipwreck victim but to no avail. I simply felt as though I was excluded from the target audience. When instructed to read a specific passage “as fast as I could,” I attempted to read more quickly but failed as I was already operating at as breakneck speed as I could (provided that I maintain comprehension of what I was reading). What really made me feel out of the loop, however, was the portion where Proust supposedly “conjured up your own long-stored memories of books: the secret places you found to read away from the intrusions of siblings and friends; the thrilling sensations by Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, and Mark Twain; the muffled beam of flashlight you hoped your parent wouldn’t notices beneath the sheets.” I could not find any relations to this supposed nostalgia that I assume I must have never had. Talk such as this and references to specific parts of the brain and cellular function conjoined with retina had my view of the selection colored as mostly unexciting and a bit too technical.
As I read on, however I found that I could not bring myself to proclaim that the text was poorly constructed, lacking in references, or trivial in nature. Starting around page seventy, I finally discovered something of interest which I could latch onto: Socrates. As a philosophy major I am already quite familiar with Socrates and was curious to see how applicable Greek philosophical inquiry was to the matters Wolf discussed. I was quite pleased at the level of organization Wolf incorporated in shaping and discussing the position and view of Socrates. So much so that I in fact flipped back through earlier portions of Proust and discovered I was being a bit overly harsh on quite a few previous judgments.
As the portion on Socrates ended, a sense of dread came over me as I feared that my spark of interest had died out and I once again would have to force myself through the rest of the reading. From that point on, to my delightful surprise, it turned out that I no longer counted myself as an outsider and found many relations relevant to my own background. Due to the fact that I have a younger sister, for instance, the questions and details about how the mind develops the capacity for reading were particularly interesting. Overall, quite contrary to my initial standing, I must report that Proust wasn’t that bad of a read. In fact, it was pretty good, but I still maintain that the introduction was not intended for one such as myself. This cannot, however, be blamed on the author. After all, a target audience is called a target audience specifically because it tends not to include everyone. Furthermore, the author ultimately managed to include me in their scope anyway. This was a much better reading than Ong.
Monday, February 09, 2009
2-9 Freewrite
2-9 Freewrite
"More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness" (pg 78). What does Ong mean by this statement? Provide an example of another significant invention that has transformed human consciousness, and evaluate its impact in relation to that of writing.
In making this statement, Ong is refering to the fact that writing has allowed for thoughts to be expressed in a new and distinctly different way. Analytical "study" can take place as a result of writing and clear references can be made which are less subject to the memory of the individual. Writing, in itself can be considered an entirely separate (while not quite entirely but in part still human) form of consciousness.
One other such technology which has transformed human consciousness is the ability to record video. Like written works, video allows for direct reference rather than a reliance on memory. Unlike literature, however, video is able to convey many of those parts which are lost when an orator is taken out of the equation. Body language, changes in tone, differences in volume, reactions of the original audience of what was recorded, all of these things and more are among the context by which video can shape human consciousness that written works cannot.
Another technology which can further mold human consciousness is the medium of music. Music often allows the expression and recognition of strong emotional experiences while giving an individual more freedom of interpretation than perhaps video while often providing more guidance than written word. Although initially the assertion that something transforms human consciousness initially resonates with power and controversy, after a small amount of thought one comes to realize that most things shape human consciousness is one manner or another. Further, much of what is shaped depends largely on the person on the receiving end of the chosen medium.
"More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness" (pg 78). What does Ong mean by this statement? Provide an example of another significant invention that has transformed human consciousness, and evaluate its impact in relation to that of writing.
In making this statement, Ong is refering to the fact that writing has allowed for thoughts to be expressed in a new and distinctly different way. Analytical "study" can take place as a result of writing and clear references can be made which are less subject to the memory of the individual. Writing, in itself can be considered an entirely separate (while not quite entirely but in part still human) form of consciousness.
One other such technology which has transformed human consciousness is the ability to record video. Like written works, video allows for direct reference rather than a reliance on memory. Unlike literature, however, video is able to convey many of those parts which are lost when an orator is taken out of the equation. Body language, changes in tone, differences in volume, reactions of the original audience of what was recorded, all of these things and more are among the context by which video can shape human consciousness that written works cannot.
Another technology which can further mold human consciousness is the medium of music. Music often allows the expression and recognition of strong emotional experiences while giving an individual more freedom of interpretation than perhaps video while often providing more guidance than written word. Although initially the assertion that something transforms human consciousness initially resonates with power and controversy, after a small amount of thought one comes to realize that most things shape human consciousness is one manner or another. Further, much of what is shaped depends largely on the person on the receiving end of the chosen medium.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
