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.
Monday, February 23, 2009
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.
Orality and Literacy by Walter Ong
Orality and literacy are two distinctly different concepts. Quite simply, the former is spoken while the latter is written. Furthermore, if we are speaking of literature as the written word, then it follows quite clearly that orality may exist without implying literature while literature could not exist without implying orality. There are, of course, many relationships, misconceptions, and forked paths between these terms which have thus far managed to elude and deceive the attention of most minds. Some, before actually offering any intelligent thought to take place, would contend that speaking and writing are one and the same in practice. Others attempt to offer study on orality, but do so without recognizing their exclusive concentration on written means. Walter Ong attempts to direct focus on orality and literacy in order to explore some of these uncharted paths. He does so with some success, and perhaps seeks the eventual goal of creating a new path all his own.
"Written words are residue. Oral tradition has no such residue or deposit. When an often-told story is not actually being told, all that exists of it is the potential in certain human beings to tell it."
Despite a few of Ong’s insights which I acknowledge, I have a couple issues with some statements including the above quoted passage. First of all, oral tradition leaves behind just as much (if not more) residue as written words do. I’m speaking not of the physicality of course, but of the imprint upon the mind and the subsequent thoughts invoked. Often the presence or persona accompanied by an orator can change drastically the meaning or effect of a work (written or spoken). I consider this as significant residue. Furthermore, in making the criticism “all that exists of (an oral story not currently being told), is the potential in certain human beings to tell it,” Ong may as well insist “all that exists of literature not being read is the potential of certain human beings to read it.” My question is, what’s the difference?
As a point of interest, there were parts of Ong’s work which intrigued me almost to the position of contending that Ong ought to change the title of his book to “Orality, Literature, and Thought.” Much of what he discusses seems to be relevant with the very process and interpretation of thought. Perhaps I am simply increasing the size and scope of the problem at hand but it seems that orality and literacy hold thought as a common factor which both practices are used to convey. Furthermore, it seems there are times when neither orality nor literacy (working together or separately) are adequate to explain a given amount of thought implying thought itself to deserve attention and explanation all its own. After all, often an occasion occurs during which a person is unable to convey his or her own thoughts to others despite many attempts and methods at varying success. One friend of mine, for instance, when asked to respond to the question “What are you thinking?” could only respond with the following confused jumble of words: “I don’t actually know,” followed by “but I’m not thinking of nothing, I mean I am thinking, it’s just.. I don’t know… nevermind.” Ong has made an interesting step in what I would approve of as an appropriate direction, but there remain many more unexplored avenues and a great deal of room for further exploration even in Ong’s focus of study.
"Written words are residue. Oral tradition has no such residue or deposit. When an often-told story is not actually being told, all that exists of it is the potential in certain human beings to tell it."
Despite a few of Ong’s insights which I acknowledge, I have a couple issues with some statements including the above quoted passage. First of all, oral tradition leaves behind just as much (if not more) residue as written words do. I’m speaking not of the physicality of course, but of the imprint upon the mind and the subsequent thoughts invoked. Often the presence or persona accompanied by an orator can change drastically the meaning or effect of a work (written or spoken). I consider this as significant residue. Furthermore, in making the criticism “all that exists of (an oral story not currently being told), is the potential in certain human beings to tell it,” Ong may as well insist “all that exists of literature not being read is the potential of certain human beings to read it.” My question is, what’s the difference?
As a point of interest, there were parts of Ong’s work which intrigued me almost to the position of contending that Ong ought to change the title of his book to “Orality, Literature, and Thought.” Much of what he discusses seems to be relevant with the very process and interpretation of thought. Perhaps I am simply increasing the size and scope of the problem at hand but it seems that orality and literacy hold thought as a common factor which both practices are used to convey. Furthermore, it seems there are times when neither orality nor literacy (working together or separately) are adequate to explain a given amount of thought implying thought itself to deserve attention and explanation all its own. After all, often an occasion occurs during which a person is unable to convey his or her own thoughts to others despite many attempts and methods at varying success. One friend of mine, for instance, when asked to respond to the question “What are you thinking?” could only respond with the following confused jumble of words: “I don’t actually know,” followed by “but I’m not thinking of nothing, I mean I am thinking, it’s just.. I don’t know… nevermind.” Ong has made an interesting step in what I would approve of as an appropriate direction, but there remain many more unexplored avenues and a great deal of room for further exploration even in Ong’s focus of study.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Helvetica Response
After watching Helvetica, I really haven’t noticed much about type that I hadn’t seen before. I tend to be rather observant but there really isn’t just that much to see when it comes to text. There are words and there are many ways in which to write those words, but really, who cares? I mean seriously, who cares what font something is in? Put more accurately, who cares whether or not I know what font something is in? Wouldn’t a piece of writing have the same effect on my interpretation of it regardless of whether or not I know what the font is called? If so, then why should I have noticed anything different about the world after viewing Helvetica? Honestly, the only people who could care about fonts are those making money out the deal (i.e. the owners of Helvetica and perhaps advertising agencies) or those attempting to convey a message in a particular way (i.e. artists and the rest of us “common folk”). Given these categories of people involved with fonts, we all already realize the effects and impact they can have on how we say what we say. Moving forward from here, it follows that we already understand what fonts do precisely because we are so engulfed in their application. Although there are obvious connotations and reactions to be expected from a given font, their overall importance in most cases is minimal. Helvetica itself just happened to become a “typical font” for making most things appear in a uniform fashion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
