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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.