This blog is going to be a work-in-progress. It is already massive, I know - but I've really found an interconectedness between many of the authors we're reading, and this is my attempt to connect them and find my own place in the arguments. I'll clean it up later - but this is what I've got so far.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "Brass Tacks"of this Blog:
It has taken me awhile to finally formulate a blog (while, admittedly, it probably wouldn't have taken as long had I not been trying to up my brain size and my vocabulary on the Internet and obsessing over Myspace Karaoke). As a result, this blog will be MASSIVE and unattractive to the hurried eye. So be it. I'm hurried, too, so one long blog about multiple authors is how it is going to have to be. As for the "design" of this blog - I've highlighted my main points in bold in effort to invite my readers to pick at least one section to respond to.
Mostly, though, the reason I procrastinated on this particular blog was due to an initial lack of understanding about what the readings were trying to say, while at the same time, having a hard time knowing how I felt about them (that I really "feel" has become an issue thanks to the readings). I have been noticing a few "trends" though (as I allow my human brain to catalogue):
1. That language is being used to describe humans (and society) as "coded" in the articles of the class text AND that language is viewed more in terms of "function." In the Ehses article "Representing MacBeth…," these notions appear, such as when this author writes that style works to arouse the appropriate emotional response [my emphasis] (166). Also, Ehses writes that rhetoric constitutes the functional organization of verbal discourse or messages (165). In fact, it seems that rhetoric functions based on understanding a perceiver's coded responses. Ehses discusses how deviation from ordinary expression produces a "challenge" (168), which demands that rhetors know how humans respond. Obtaining this knowledge means that "…the designer assumes and activates codes by meanings…" (169). Essentially, knowing how humans are socialized to respond to certain (crafted) stimulus enables for more effective function in rhetorical communication.
First, that "designer" has become the new, “hot” word implies an even deeper notion about the ability to create and foster reaction. “Design” seems to imply that every aspect of a communicative effort is considered and placed deliberately for a desired, or expected, outcome.
Second, that humans can be "reduced" to codes, and human communication to coding, bothers me; however, perhaps this verbiage merely reflects our developing technocratic society - the society of the transhuman (http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index/). I use "mere" lightly. I think that, as with all media, we have a mirror and we need to look into it to see who we are and who we are becoming. If we speak using technical terms, if we are looked at as coded beings (ahem, machines), what does this mean for the meaning in human interaction? Is it still meaningful? And by whose standards? Sure, machines can connect and interact. Computers talk to each other; however, do they mean anything to each other?
In response to this machination of the human and, consequently, human communication, Michele Shauf posits the humanist against the technologist, writing that there is too much focus on the "function" of language (366). Shauf hopes to imbue this techno-dialectical trend with meaning - meaning that seems a growing absence in the "design" of communication. She notes that there is plenty of technical ambition (i.e. the drive to understand the function of JavaScript) while very little rhetorical ambition (i.e. the drive to understand the meaning that JavaScript achieves on a larger social and communicative scale) (367). She hopes to continue the drive to invent rhetorically versus technically (367). It appears that I share Shauf's concerns. The "humanist" cannot become obsolete in design and technology. One way to achieve this, as Shauf alludes to, is to ask questions. Computers follow commands (well, we hope they do). They do not ask questions of what their users demand of their function. If we look at words or images and give "appropriate" emotional responses, are we then following the commands we are "coded" with? Hmm…
2. There is a continued notion of binaries in the relationship between verbal and visual AND binaries even within the realm of the visual, WHILE there is also a very intricate relationship between the image and corresponding text. First, I do find it a bit odd that there is such subordination of the visual as Ehses notes that "…this society is informed by visual discourse through a wide variety of media to a degree incomparable to any other time" (176). If the visual is so prevalent, why is there such a heated debate about its status compared to written discourse?
Criticisms highlighted by varied authors in the Visual Rhetoric… text point to why it remains subordinate. David Birdsell and Leo Groarke write that "visual images are assumed to be intrinsically arbitrary, vague, ambiguous (310), which leaves them open to suspicion. Additionally, Keith Kenney writes that scholars do not recognize visuals as capable of forming rational arguments because they lack explicit meaning, are perceived as whole (thereby lacking a two-part premise), and that they are prone to what David Perlmutter says is "ideological manipulation" (324, 340). Advertising seems mostly responsible, in my opinion, for the notion or stereotype that images cannot be trusted. That Roland Barthes focuses on the role of the image in advertising does not seem to help the image of "the image" in this argument.
Barthes' article is poignant, however, to one reason why images and text must be integrated. His argument that images are "polysemous" (have more than one meaning) explains why humans rely on the linguistic side to fix their potential uncertainty (156). Though this explains the connection, it only emphasizes the implied deviousness of human communication comprised of both text AND image (and have we ever wondered why humans must be so political, controlled, and devious with each other in their communications?)
Barthes explains, "When it comes to the symbolic message, the linguistic message does not guide identification so much as it guides interpretation" and that "The text directs the reader through the signifieds of the image, causing [her]/him to avoid some and receive others…it remote controls [her]/him towards a meaning chosen in advance" [my emphasis] (156). (Again, the possibility that humans can be remote-controlled appears even here.)
Barthes' explanation "frighteningly" implies that text filters the image, but because the text is 1) more accepted, 2) therefore more trusted, 3) and delivered in segments (versus the whole of the image), it is actually the TEXT that humans should be wary of (but perhaps not only the text – just other humans with “agendas” is what the general populous should be wary of). The wolf/text dresses itself in the sheep/image, essentially.
I used the term "frighteningly" above because of Barthes' mention about the hurried reader (157). Since our technological society encourages us to be so damn busy, we are consequently becoming a hurried society – having no time for anything because our technology gives us the ability to accomplish so many things. Being a hurried society, do we take the time to stop and reflect on what is going on around us? Do we even feel the “need” to do such reflecting – such as asking the question about why text is seen as so authentic, especially compared to the image? When reflections and questions cease to exist, we only become more susceptible to accepting code and being coded.
However, as Punyashloke Mishra (“The Role of Abstraction…”) quotes Gould as saying “iconography comes upon us like a thief in the night – powerful and remarkably efficacious, yet often so silent that we do not detect the influence” and that because images are treated as subordinate to the text, they are not given the attention that the words are given (178). If what Barthes says is true about text guiding interpretation of images, Gould’s assertion is not exactly an accurate view – it is not that the image is more sneaky than text, it is that the text guides us so strongly that we cannot help but see it over the image AND that it tells us what to see in the image.
It's not all bad, though. I like that Barthes shows how text can provide meanings that may not be found in the image itself (157). The benefit to both text and the image is that they both can transcend their own existence depending upon the interpretation(s) they offer. Barthes puts it well when he writes that “The language of the image is not merely the totality of utterances emitted…it is also the totality of utterances received…” (160). Unfortunately, though, if perceivers are coded to receive messages, than the utterance seems to occupy the same meaning as the message received.
2a. Images contain binaries in themselves. As Scott McCloud, Punyashloke Mishra, and Barthes note, however, text and image are not the only components connected in a binary. The drawing and the photograph fall into a binary, where the photograph is seen as more realistic (but distracting according to McCloud) while film, drawings, and diagrams promote a “magical fictional consciousness” (Barthes 159). In this way, images enter into a binary-type relationship, with one being perceived as better than the other because one is considered more truthful than the other.
On the same hand, McCloud implies that different types of images serve different purposes – that if one’s goal is to amplify specific traits, and to deliver an effective message, one should use a generic form so that the perceiver/receiver of the message is not caught up in distraction (207). McCloud shows how different images work differently (serve different functions), thereby taking more of a genre approach – which is, it seems the best rhetorical option any “designer” could work from because it admits that in every situation, every image or text may not be appropriate or may be more appropriate than another. Does this mean that one is better than the other? In McCloud's presentation, value judgments about communication mediums are context-based, not inherent to the communication medium's nature.
Mishra points out the importance of genre when considering the usefulness of a picture versus a diagram in scientific illustrations and discussions. For instance, "…a photograph is an imperfect representation of an actual object, while a diagram represents it more faithfully" (187). In this case, the traditional notion that the photograph is more authentic or realistic than the diagram works against someone trying to see all aspects of a cell, for instance. McCloud's assertion that simplification amplifies works well in terms of using a diagram in place of a picture. A "cartoon" cell would relay different information than a microscope image of a cell; however, both are useful for the science student.
3. Images (and what they are images of) seem able to occupy multiple subject positions (they can center, while de-center simultaneously). Mishra states directly that “pictures have a double reality” and that “pictures are unique among objects; for they are seen both as themselves and as some other thing…” (182). This is a paradoxical existence for images - one that seems an answer to the problem of the binary, while also the very thing that keeps images suspect. Since images can be "something else" or something different than they are, this leaves skeptics continuing their suspicions about the authenticity of images. Words also share double (perhaps triple, quadruple) meanings, such as the infamous "double entendre" construction. Moreover, the words of the Bible have never been more debated due to many possible interpretations (literal vs. symbolic). I am beginning to see that the image is, in fact, unfairly suspected and maintain that ALL of human communication is worth some inspection.
Showing posts with label Reading Responses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reading Responses. Show all posts
Friday, May 23, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Arnheim Blurbs
I'm going to try something a little different... instead of writing a drawn out piece, I'm going to take sections of Arnheim's writing (from "Pictures, Symbols, and Signs") and respond, while asking readers questions at the same time. Hopefully it will make sense!
Arnheim writes about the nude woman being painted – how she exists “…at the realistic level of representation, as the muse, as the traditional allegory of truth, the fullness of life, all at the same time” (142). Arnheim notes how an image de-centers, while centering. It seems that, because images appear in whole, instead of a sequential order, that they truly do offer an existence that transcends the binary. This is ironic considering the fact the image is caught in the secondary position of a binary comprising verbal text and visual imagery.
Arnheim writes: “This creates a problem in a civilization which constantly throws things together that do not belong together or puts them in places contradictory to their function. All the mobility, transportation, transmission, and communication in our century removes things from their natural location and thereby interferes with their identification and efficiency” (143). This argument emphasizes the notion of truth – that things have a certain place where they belong. It is an interesting observation that present culture has a [postmodern] tendency to disrupt, which is seen as a positive move – one that breaks up established norms that may need/require change; however, because this interferes with identification, it also interferes with efficiency, which is, ironically, what the technocratic society seems to aim for.
Arnheim writes: “…there is always the risk of ideas coercing the life of the image” (148).
Now there’s a thought – that the image is not subservient to the idea. How does the image sustain life apart from the idea?
Arnheim writes: “Conceptual norm becomes poverty of imagination” (149). It appears that, with this statement, art should never enter into a “norm” for fear that it becomes incestual (to put it crudely). Yet, Arnheim stated earlier that problems arise in a civilization that tries to put seemingly unrelated things (concepts) together because then they cannot be identified. Identification begets norms and vice versa. Is it “wise” to deviate from the norm to avoid the “poverty of imagination”? Is the imagination something that is vulnerable to poverty? How so? Does a technocratic society argue for such deviations? Does a technocratic society imbue or hinder imagination?
Arnheim writes about the nude woman being painted – how she exists “…at the realistic level of representation, as the muse, as the traditional allegory of truth, the fullness of life, all at the same time” (142). Arnheim notes how an image de-centers, while centering. It seems that, because images appear in whole, instead of a sequential order, that they truly do offer an existence that transcends the binary. This is ironic considering the fact the image is caught in the secondary position of a binary comprising verbal text and visual imagery.
Arnheim writes: “This creates a problem in a civilization which constantly throws things together that do not belong together or puts them in places contradictory to their function. All the mobility, transportation, transmission, and communication in our century removes things from their natural location and thereby interferes with their identification and efficiency” (143). This argument emphasizes the notion of truth – that things have a certain place where they belong. It is an interesting observation that present culture has a [postmodern] tendency to disrupt, which is seen as a positive move – one that breaks up established norms that may need/require change; however, because this interferes with identification, it also interferes with efficiency, which is, ironically, what the technocratic society seems to aim for.
Arnheim writes: “…there is always the risk of ideas coercing the life of the image” (148).
Now there’s a thought – that the image is not subservient to the idea. How does the image sustain life apart from the idea?
Arnheim writes: “Conceptual norm becomes poverty of imagination” (149). It appears that, with this statement, art should never enter into a “norm” for fear that it becomes incestual (to put it crudely). Yet, Arnheim stated earlier that problems arise in a civilization that tries to put seemingly unrelated things (concepts) together because then they cannot be identified. Identification begets norms and vice versa. Is it “wise” to deviate from the norm to avoid the “poverty of imagination”? Is the imagination something that is vulnerable to poverty? How so? Does a technocratic society argue for such deviations? Does a technocratic society imbue or hinder imagination?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Myspace... or MyCompany'sSpace... Hmm
This also was a comment on Heather V.'s blog - but I would like to make it a post.
I read the myspace article and was also quite bothered, annoyed, angered, and confused. So, I get the whole: teachers are public servants thing. I get that politicians, clergy, police officers, etc. participate in a public eye and also, that they represent certain ideals set forth by who knows who. So, when these public figures/role models have conduct that suddenly speaks against those ideals, people don't quite know how to react other than to point fingers (and they probably should point fingers at themselves while they're at it).
The point is: all of these roles are filled by humans. Humans with basic needs and desires: sexual, companionship, lust, humor, liberty, etc. which get conveyed in mediums of expression, such as Facebook or Myspace at varying degrees.
I agree that teachers should behave appropriate to context - that they conduct themselves professionally in a professional setting: the classroom, and that while they are around students (especially underage students), they should be considerate and cognizant of their conduct.
When creating their own space, such as Myspace or Facebook, they should be allowed to express their multiple identities as the context allows for it. When employers go "snooping" around, they are bringing their "professional" context into an arena that is meant to be non-professional. They are crossing boundaries, and while they cross, they are bringing "rules" into an environment where their rules don't *necessarily* apply. (Child porn is one area where concern would, of course, be rational.)
While I know that Myspace and Facebook are public forums and that privacy is not expected, what should be expected is that viewers will see PEOPLE. That the people are separated from their "role." Already students fail to see their instructors as people with lives: that they grocery shop, do laundry, date, drink, play pool, etc. It is this ignorance and naivete that contributes to the shock factor when someone stumbles upon a "sperm cartoon" on a teacher's page (or whatever it was).
Moreover, if teachers cannot express themselves in mediums like Myspace, Facebook, or ANY other public forum, in relaxed, human ways, we essentially say that they are not allowed to be human and that they are owned by the company/institution that hires them for the rest of their working career. It certainly is "good" to be professional, but letting loose in relaxed arenas seems only a logical action. If one is always being "watched" or feels that s/he cannot participate in community-creating activities, I believe they call it the "chill effect." This could result in feelings of resentment and poor morale - certainly not beneficial to the company.
While companies say that their employees represent them - of course, I can't negate this. But it is the fault/ignorance of the viewer to assume that a "sperm cartoon" denotes poor moral character (especially just because a "teacher" posts it) first, and second, automatically linking the thought that the company/institution endorses people who like sperm cartoons.
Essentially, there seem to be many who jump to conclusions about someone or a company without really exercising critical thought about the situation.
CONTEXT. CONTEXT. CONTEXT.
Such as in the case of the "retard." So, this instructor teaches special ed students and is accused of using the word "retard." First, she never ever called her own students retards - she probably wouldn't even dream of it. The context in which the word was used was completely divorced from her special ed students. I doubt that when the word was used, her students ever entered her mind. Instead, it is the viewer who is linking the word to the students - and perhaps the viewer should be faulted for this assumption.
I read the myspace article and was also quite bothered, annoyed, angered, and confused. So, I get the whole: teachers are public servants thing. I get that politicians, clergy, police officers, etc. participate in a public eye and also, that they represent certain ideals set forth by who knows who. So, when these public figures/role models have conduct that suddenly speaks against those ideals, people don't quite know how to react other than to point fingers (and they probably should point fingers at themselves while they're at it).
The point is: all of these roles are filled by humans. Humans with basic needs and desires: sexual, companionship, lust, humor, liberty, etc. which get conveyed in mediums of expression, such as Facebook or Myspace at varying degrees.
I agree that teachers should behave appropriate to context - that they conduct themselves professionally in a professional setting: the classroom, and that while they are around students (especially underage students), they should be considerate and cognizant of their conduct.
When creating their own space, such as Myspace or Facebook, they should be allowed to express their multiple identities as the context allows for it. When employers go "snooping" around, they are bringing their "professional" context into an arena that is meant to be non-professional. They are crossing boundaries, and while they cross, they are bringing "rules" into an environment where their rules don't *necessarily* apply. (Child porn is one area where concern would, of course, be rational.)
While I know that Myspace and Facebook are public forums and that privacy is not expected, what should be expected is that viewers will see PEOPLE. That the people are separated from their "role." Already students fail to see their instructors as people with lives: that they grocery shop, do laundry, date, drink, play pool, etc. It is this ignorance and naivete that contributes to the shock factor when someone stumbles upon a "sperm cartoon" on a teacher's page (or whatever it was).
Moreover, if teachers cannot express themselves in mediums like Myspace, Facebook, or ANY other public forum, in relaxed, human ways, we essentially say that they are not allowed to be human and that they are owned by the company/institution that hires them for the rest of their working career. It certainly is "good" to be professional, but letting loose in relaxed arenas seems only a logical action. If one is always being "watched" or feels that s/he cannot participate in community-creating activities, I believe they call it the "chill effect." This could result in feelings of resentment and poor morale - certainly not beneficial to the company.
While companies say that their employees represent them - of course, I can't negate this. But it is the fault/ignorance of the viewer to assume that a "sperm cartoon" denotes poor moral character (especially just because a "teacher" posts it) first, and second, automatically linking the thought that the company/institution endorses people who like sperm cartoons.
Essentially, there seem to be many who jump to conclusions about someone or a company without really exercising critical thought about the situation.
CONTEXT. CONTEXT. CONTEXT.
Such as in the case of the "retard." So, this instructor teaches special ed students and is accused of using the word "retard." First, she never ever called her own students retards - she probably wouldn't even dream of it. The context in which the word was used was completely divorced from her special ed students. I doubt that when the word was used, her students ever entered her mind. Instead, it is the viewer who is linking the word to the students - and perhaps the viewer should be faulted for this assumption.
A Comment Turned Post
I posted this comment on Jeanne's blog, but I want it to also stand as a post:
What I found interesting about the David story is that it seemed to imply criticism of standard English requirements employed by the institution (a literacy that David could not find a home in), while elevating the literacy that David COULD find a home in: a tech literacy or new media literacy. What I think this article fails to imply is that tech literacy/new media literacy work to create power structures AKIN to those that standard English is accused of: that is, those without that literacy suffer out in “the real world.” It seems that new media literacy is being viewed as “the answer” to breaking down the authority of (or assumed oppression of) standard English, while I see it continuing - or even - reinforcing power structures. If you lack it in a new media environment, you will not have power (which is yes, why there is a move towards teaching it and using it in the everyday classroom - but this does not mean that this form of literacy is any less competitive. It seems more competitive to me right now).
What I found interesting about the David story is that it seemed to imply criticism of standard English requirements employed by the institution (a literacy that David could not find a home in), while elevating the literacy that David COULD find a home in: a tech literacy or new media literacy. What I think this article fails to imply is that tech literacy/new media literacy work to create power structures AKIN to those that standard English is accused of: that is, those without that literacy suffer out in “the real world.” It seems that new media literacy is being viewed as “the answer” to breaking down the authority of (or assumed oppression of) standard English, while I see it continuing - or even - reinforcing power structures. If you lack it in a new media environment, you will not have power (which is yes, why there is a move towards teaching it and using it in the everyday classroom - but this does not mean that this form of literacy is any less competitive. It seems more competitive to me right now).
Friday, April 25, 2008
A Film Imprisonment
In Nancy Lutkehaus and Jenny Cool's article about ethnographies, I appreciate their statement about how "...the very act of representing others not only bears with it moral responsibility, but, more sinisterly, is a form of domination" (434).
So, they present a shift in the form of the ethnography. No longer is it an objective narrator narrating his/her subject, but rather, trends are shifting towards the indigenous and autobiographical or towards the global/transnational (436). In these forms, "subjects" have voice over their experience as they are filmed. Moreover, "...autobiographical films and videos ... make the Self the focus of the camera" (443).
The camera is problematic in terms of enacting an unframed, unboxed subject because the camera is one tool that always binds its subject (or a tool that the filmer/photographer uses to bind his/her subject) within the frame of a viewfinder.
As Donna Haraway writes in Primate Visions "The eye is infinitely more potent than the gun" (43).
And with her insight, I see the potential danger and limitation of the visual:
"To make an exact image is to insure against disappearance, to cannibalize life until it is safely and permanently a specular image, a ghost" (Haraway 45).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against visuals - I just don't automatically assume they are the answer to eradicating the pure, sacrosanct notions about text. With every new solution, comes a new consequence.
So, they present a shift in the form of the ethnography. No longer is it an objective narrator narrating his/her subject, but rather, trends are shifting towards the indigenous and autobiographical or towards the global/transnational (436). In these forms, "subjects" have voice over their experience as they are filmed. Moreover, "...autobiographical films and videos ... make the Self the focus of the camera" (443).
The camera is problematic in terms of enacting an unframed, unboxed subject because the camera is one tool that always binds its subject (or a tool that the filmer/photographer uses to bind his/her subject) within the frame of a viewfinder.
As Donna Haraway writes in Primate Visions "The eye is infinitely more potent than the gun" (43).
And with her insight, I see the potential danger and limitation of the visual:
"To make an exact image is to insure against disappearance, to cannibalize life until it is safely and permanently a specular image, a ghost" (Haraway 45).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against visuals - I just don't automatically assume they are the answer to eradicating the pure, sacrosanct notions about text. With every new solution, comes a new consequence.
Beating Authenticity – A Fragmented (Frustrated!) Reading Response
So, I know what I want to write about – I’m just not sure how it will all come out... So, here goes. I’m noticing some trends about the relationship between visual media and verbal text – how one “form” is considered better than the other or (hopefully) equal with the other.
Claims that verbal text is better than visual imagery are based in the notion that there exists the possibility for an authentic form. Verbal text is supposed to represent this authentic form (as declared by Whitey – or so, it is being conveyed. The White male sure gets a lot of mention (credit) for being dominant…I don’t want to go there, but well, why not. I just did.)
Charles Hill emphasizes that the physical real world is given more “authentic value” versus the represented real world (i.e. in art) (113). The problem is that there is no “authentic” available considering that “…we perceive events around us very imperfectly and incompletely” (Hill 113).
Though I agree, what remains problematic is that, while we cannot grasp the authentic, (some, if not all) humans believe that there is a standard, origin(al), truth, absolute, etc. against which concepts, representations, notions, etc. are measured. Even those who strive to claim that there is no such thing as an absolute, or that we should strive to find something beyond absolutes, holds these resolves absolutely.
Moreover, Rogoff writes that the critical culture has been trying to remove the dominance of “Whitey” in representations for the purposes of re-writing culture – a culture not dominated by Whitey (383). I’m wondering what the goal is. What is this re-written culture going to look like, and will it be free from binaries?
Further, I am seeing this complaint over and over and over and over – that the White male is in control over how “we” should perceive things. It seems to me that those who continue to acknowledge such dominance only work to maintain it, to give it control, to allow it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy (in other words, we see what we want to see (or even (if not especially) what we don’t want to see) – which is another problem in terms of the “real,” … but then perception IS reality, is it not?).
I find it ironic that deconstructionists strive to break apart binaries in order to affect chaos, disharmony, unsettled feelings, etc. to enact fluidity, motion, (maybe) progress because in human psychology, it seems that when feelings of chaos are paramount, the desire to have control grows stronger – as the cyberculture seems to be enacting: this obsession with CONTROL. So, we are moving towards freedom of expression, of infinite possibilities with visuals, sounds, colors, texts, etc.; yet, all this concludes in is having control over visuals, sounds, colors, etc. AND how we want to see them. Hmm.
Rogoff claims that she prefers curiosity (preferring the curious eye to the good eye) because it is unsettling and likely because it works to defeat the binary of good/bad (386). This position makes the most sense in terms of attempting to remove power from the (assumed) powerful. It keeps one from labeling – from determining something as good or bad. Chaos finds a home in art/representation as Lanham notes “The arts are non-linear systems” (467). “Art” (defined as whatever by whomever – nevertheless, art has a definition, even if it is just as art) strives to break, push, merge boundaries. Okay, but it still acknowledges those boundaries in order to break them… How can we stop acknowledging boundaries is my ultimate question?
I think our language is too limiting to answer the question. The reason humans are “trapped” in the binary, in the assumption that we have an absolute standard to follow, is because our human language operates (for some reason) on it. (I’m talking about all language: verbal, visual, auditory, etc.) Images seem a nice way to get out of the assumed objectivity of text – they seem expansive, and I love them (being a creative person); however, what they convey is still a form of mere, human communication. I think to get outside of ourselves, we must truly be something different than the humans we are – we must be “non-humans”… if that’s possible. I can’t argue with the thought that that might truly be better…
Claims that verbal text is better than visual imagery are based in the notion that there exists the possibility for an authentic form. Verbal text is supposed to represent this authentic form (as declared by Whitey – or so, it is being conveyed. The White male sure gets a lot of mention (credit) for being dominant…I don’t want to go there, but well, why not. I just did.)
Charles Hill emphasizes that the physical real world is given more “authentic value” versus the represented real world (i.e. in art) (113). The problem is that there is no “authentic” available considering that “…we perceive events around us very imperfectly and incompletely” (Hill 113).
Though I agree, what remains problematic is that, while we cannot grasp the authentic, (some, if not all) humans believe that there is a standard, origin(al), truth, absolute, etc. against which concepts, representations, notions, etc. are measured. Even those who strive to claim that there is no such thing as an absolute, or that we should strive to find something beyond absolutes, holds these resolves absolutely.
Moreover, Rogoff writes that the critical culture has been trying to remove the dominance of “Whitey” in representations for the purposes of re-writing culture – a culture not dominated by Whitey (383). I’m wondering what the goal is. What is this re-written culture going to look like, and will it be free from binaries?
Further, I am seeing this complaint over and over and over and over – that the White male is in control over how “we” should perceive things. It seems to me that those who continue to acknowledge such dominance only work to maintain it, to give it control, to allow it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy (in other words, we see what we want to see (or even (if not especially) what we don’t want to see) – which is another problem in terms of the “real,” … but then perception IS reality, is it not?).
I find it ironic that deconstructionists strive to break apart binaries in order to affect chaos, disharmony, unsettled feelings, etc. to enact fluidity, motion, (maybe) progress because in human psychology, it seems that when feelings of chaos are paramount, the desire to have control grows stronger – as the cyberculture seems to be enacting: this obsession with CONTROL. So, we are moving towards freedom of expression, of infinite possibilities with visuals, sounds, colors, texts, etc.; yet, all this concludes in is having control over visuals, sounds, colors, etc. AND how we want to see them. Hmm.
Rogoff claims that she prefers curiosity (preferring the curious eye to the good eye) because it is unsettling and likely because it works to defeat the binary of good/bad (386). This position makes the most sense in terms of attempting to remove power from the (assumed) powerful. It keeps one from labeling – from determining something as good or bad. Chaos finds a home in art/representation as Lanham notes “The arts are non-linear systems” (467). “Art” (defined as whatever by whomever – nevertheless, art has a definition, even if it is just as art) strives to break, push, merge boundaries. Okay, but it still acknowledges those boundaries in order to break them… How can we stop acknowledging boundaries is my ultimate question?
I think our language is too limiting to answer the question. The reason humans are “trapped” in the binary, in the assumption that we have an absolute standard to follow, is because our human language operates (for some reason) on it. (I’m talking about all language: verbal, visual, auditory, etc.) Images seem a nice way to get out of the assumed objectivity of text – they seem expansive, and I love them (being a creative person); however, what they convey is still a form of mere, human communication. I think to get outside of ourselves, we must truly be something different than the humans we are – we must be “non-humans”… if that’s possible. I can’t argue with the thought that that might truly be better…
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Reading Blog #1
Sorry for posting these responses this late. I have "chunked" my responses and hope that if you do not want to read all, you will read at least a section - one that could interest you most - this is what our authors call for right?
The Fabrication of Drones - Using Machines to Battle the Formation of Machines
I want to comment, briefly, on J.L. Lemke's article "Metamedia Literacy: Transforming Meanings and Media." Finally I see someone writing about a very serious problem: the lack of critical thought appearing in education. Lemke compares the "curricular learning paradigm" with the "interactive learning paradigm" (84). He argues that the curricular learning paradigm, found in today's schools, is where "someone else decides what you need to know and will arrange for you to learn it in a fixed order on a fixed schedule" (84). This results in a "common curriculum" (86). (Can we say standardized tests and learning? Actually, let's call this it the common curriculum cult or the fabrication of productive, passive drones…)
I agree with Lemke that "we want people who are at least a little critical and skeptical about information" and that they have the ability to decipher the reliability of the information being taught (85). In the interactive learning paradigm, members of society can access information freely opposed to being imposed upon with a set of ideas in a confined setting (the classroom with a captive audience) (85). In such a free learning environment, one no longer remains subject to an "author's priorities, scope, and sequence…" (87). [Though, I will confess, this portion was at the bottom of my blog, but I moved it to the front because, as the author, I want to manipulate my readers into reading this first… Authors will forever be able to manipulate readers, maybe in even more subtle ways, when users have the impression that they are not being manipulated…]
As I will note below, however, such freedom to information has its own self-indulgent dangers. Lemke writes, "We can change reality [via technology] by acts of will or small motor commands - we can be sorcerers…" (90). In essence, we can play God. I remember this story about this guy and this gal called Adam and Eve. They were tempted to eat from the "Tree of Knowledge." And look what happened. [Whether you believe this happened or not, the moral of the "story" still stands…] Which is better? A blissfully ignorant life - the life of a slave or drone - OR one where humanity becomes God (or many gods). Which is more dangerous? Can we have a situation where we can choose to be one or the other - or should we simultaneously be a slave to a God and a God who has slaves?
The Individual vs. The Collective and Who Owns What
The notion of both a hybrid identity and expression offers a new perspective on owning space, especially when this space resides on the Web. Craig Stroupe provides good argument for the possibility for and potential of "visualizing English" in his article "Visualizing English: Recognizing the Hybrid Literacy of Visual and Verbal Authorship on the Web." With this notion of shared space for expression, contact zones develop between the individual and the collective body of society.
Stroupe writes that David Siegel describes a "new work paradigm" where "success depends less on the individual writer…and more upon the coordination of a team…" (14). Using Siegel, Stroupe infers that English Studies needs to reduce its high regard of "the individual" as a lone producer and as a symbol of authority when "Web-based communication makes verbal expertise only one among many forms of literacy…" [emphasis added] (14). I can see why English Studies praises the individual. The individual is identifiable. Names belong to work produced so that accountability and credit can be established. The individual can be rewarded and this induces competition.
English Studies can hardly be faulted for this psychology when it is the mentality of a capitalist society to credit the individual. (I do not, necessarily, find fault with competition - I think it can be a motivating force. After all, to remain "competitive" in society, I must master using the Web and its tools because it is becoming an essential part of succeeding in this technological culture. Competition has hardly ceased to exist, nor should it. Without something to fight for or compete against, for what should anyone strive?)
Stroupe does bring about an honest realization though: how often is an individual really an individual in the production of a text? Ideas from others find their way into the individual and it makes it appear the individual is the "original thinker." Works cited pages in documents written by only one author clearly represent the fact multiple voices DO appear in the work and in a way, allow for credit to be given to the other players.)
How will human psychology respond to this "new work paradigm" (shared space) since it certainly is a reality society faces with the advent of this technology? We all remember how teamwork seems to function in class: there is a leader and then there are followers. Within teams, there are always varying degrees of involvement and production, especially with competition entering the scene. How will this "work" be rewarded? And will every member of the team be rewarded equally? Who decides? Moreover, will the visual eventually gain more praise than verbal text? It certainly seems so. Big blocks of text (such as the ones I have here) are never preferred. So, will we see a continued hybrid form of expression or will we begin to see a shift of privileging other forms? (Essentially, privilege will always exist, just in different forms.) Faster is better… at least, that is what this technological society seems to privilege most.
The Problem of Self-Indulgence
What Stroupe really seems to want less of is English Studies' focus on elaborationism, which is based on the notion that higher forms of consciousness can only be achieved through formality in the reading/composing process (15). It appears that those who engage in "formality" appear impersonal and (unfairly or unreasonably) elevated due to standards set in the history of English Studies. Without "visualizing English" (or, what Stroupe seems to want: "visualizing one's arrogance"), one remains ignorant to their self-indulgence because it is rewarded in the current-day English Studies environment - one that is criticized for rejecting "difference" and multiple forms of expression.
Stroupe pits Peter Elbow against Elizabeth Castro to illustrate the benefits of Web expression. He does this by unfairly illustrating that Elbow's expressivism only maintains self-indulgence whereas Castro's method is expansive and results in enriched societal connections.
Of course, next to Castro, Elbow appears stuffy, out-dated, and unreasonable in terms of his call for intimacy with words, which Stroupe seems to paint as intimacy with self. After all, Castro offers helpful editing tools, options for creativity, and a heightened focus on audience, opposed to focus on self - definitely more attractive on first glance.
I must ask: why is focusing on self-improvement a negative thing, especially when it comes to the way one thinks? Elbow's method invites, and even requires, contradiction for growth as a thinker and writer (21). True acts of self-indulgence never take time to consider another perspective.
What I really find beneficial in Elbow's method is his focus on words talking to words, which argues against using visuals because they offer immediate, simple, and literal access to meaning (21). While Castro speaks of speed in terms of visuals (will a user be able to download or easily view images?) Elbow has a point - should access be so immediate? Should meaning be revealed so easily? After all, "only those who resist the expedient and who master what is difficult will achieve personal empowerment" (20). I'm not saying that visuals should not be used. Moreover, I realize that visuals can deepen meaning of text, especially when the connection between visual and text is not obvious. Instead, I caution Stroupe and others to not rush to dismiss what Elbow has to offer in terms of taking time to develop oneself.
Instead of discounting Elbow's focus on self-development, one might view Castro with a more critical eye. With Castro's web-based ideology, a focus on the self still occurs as the "Web-author is free to indulge in a breezy, self-conscious style" while the "Web user is free to go where s/he likes" (23). Such freedom is desirable, but might lead to further self-indulgence as one "gets to" cater to his/her own desires. Certainly appealing, but if everyone gets their way, what happens to the notion of conflict? Conflict motivates reaction thus growth between conflicting parties as they work to sort out differences. Sometimes, not getting one's way can be the best thing for the development of self --and-- society.
READER LIBERATION!
The Fabrication of Drones - Using Machines to Battle the Formation of Machines
I want to comment, briefly, on J.L. Lemke's article "Metamedia Literacy: Transforming Meanings and Media." Finally I see someone writing about a very serious problem: the lack of critical thought appearing in education. Lemke compares the "curricular learning paradigm" with the "interactive learning paradigm" (84). He argues that the curricular learning paradigm, found in today's schools, is where "someone else decides what you need to know and will arrange for you to learn it in a fixed order on a fixed schedule" (84). This results in a "common curriculum" (86). (Can we say standardized tests and learning? Actually, let's call this it the common curriculum cult or the fabrication of productive, passive drones…)
I agree with Lemke that "we want people who are at least a little critical and skeptical about information" and that they have the ability to decipher the reliability of the information being taught (85). In the interactive learning paradigm, members of society can access information freely opposed to being imposed upon with a set of ideas in a confined setting (the classroom with a captive audience) (85). In such a free learning environment, one no longer remains subject to an "author's priorities, scope, and sequence…" (87). [Though, I will confess, this portion was at the bottom of my blog, but I moved it to the front because, as the author, I want to manipulate my readers into reading this first… Authors will forever be able to manipulate readers, maybe in even more subtle ways, when users have the impression that they are not being manipulated…]
As I will note below, however, such freedom to information has its own self-indulgent dangers. Lemke writes, "We can change reality [via technology] by acts of will or small motor commands - we can be sorcerers…" (90). In essence, we can play God. I remember this story about this guy and this gal called Adam and Eve. They were tempted to eat from the "Tree of Knowledge." And look what happened. [Whether you believe this happened or not, the moral of the "story" still stands…] Which is better? A blissfully ignorant life - the life of a slave or drone - OR one where humanity becomes God (or many gods). Which is more dangerous? Can we have a situation where we can choose to be one or the other - or should we simultaneously be a slave to a God and a God who has slaves?
The Individual vs. The Collective and Who Owns What
The notion of both a hybrid identity and expression offers a new perspective on owning space, especially when this space resides on the Web. Craig Stroupe provides good argument for the possibility for and potential of "visualizing English" in his article "Visualizing English: Recognizing the Hybrid Literacy of Visual and Verbal Authorship on the Web." With this notion of shared space for expression, contact zones develop between the individual and the collective body of society.
Stroupe writes that David Siegel describes a "new work paradigm" where "success depends less on the individual writer…and more upon the coordination of a team…" (14). Using Siegel, Stroupe infers that English Studies needs to reduce its high regard of "the individual" as a lone producer and as a symbol of authority when "Web-based communication makes verbal expertise only one among many forms of literacy…" [emphasis added] (14). I can see why English Studies praises the individual. The individual is identifiable. Names belong to work produced so that accountability and credit can be established. The individual can be rewarded and this induces competition.
English Studies can hardly be faulted for this psychology when it is the mentality of a capitalist society to credit the individual. (I do not, necessarily, find fault with competition - I think it can be a motivating force. After all, to remain "competitive" in society, I must master using the Web and its tools because it is becoming an essential part of succeeding in this technological culture. Competition has hardly ceased to exist, nor should it. Without something to fight for or compete against, for what should anyone strive?)
Stroupe does bring about an honest realization though: how often is an individual really an individual in the production of a text? Ideas from others find their way into the individual and it makes it appear the individual is the "original thinker." Works cited pages in documents written by only one author clearly represent the fact multiple voices DO appear in the work and in a way, allow for credit to be given to the other players.)
How will human psychology respond to this "new work paradigm" (shared space) since it certainly is a reality society faces with the advent of this technology? We all remember how teamwork seems to function in class: there is a leader and then there are followers. Within teams, there are always varying degrees of involvement and production, especially with competition entering the scene. How will this "work" be rewarded? And will every member of the team be rewarded equally? Who decides? Moreover, will the visual eventually gain more praise than verbal text? It certainly seems so. Big blocks of text (such as the ones I have here) are never preferred. So, will we see a continued hybrid form of expression or will we begin to see a shift of privileging other forms? (Essentially, privilege will always exist, just in different forms.) Faster is better… at least, that is what this technological society seems to privilege most.
The Problem of Self-Indulgence
What Stroupe really seems to want less of is English Studies' focus on elaborationism, which is based on the notion that higher forms of consciousness can only be achieved through formality in the reading/composing process (15). It appears that those who engage in "formality" appear impersonal and (unfairly or unreasonably) elevated due to standards set in the history of English Studies. Without "visualizing English" (or, what Stroupe seems to want: "visualizing one's arrogance"), one remains ignorant to their self-indulgence because it is rewarded in the current-day English Studies environment - one that is criticized for rejecting "difference" and multiple forms of expression.
Stroupe pits Peter Elbow against Elizabeth Castro to illustrate the benefits of Web expression. He does this by unfairly illustrating that Elbow's expressivism only maintains self-indulgence whereas Castro's method is expansive and results in enriched societal connections.
Of course, next to Castro, Elbow appears stuffy, out-dated, and unreasonable in terms of his call for intimacy with words, which Stroupe seems to paint as intimacy with self. After all, Castro offers helpful editing tools, options for creativity, and a heightened focus on audience, opposed to focus on self - definitely more attractive on first glance.
I must ask: why is focusing on self-improvement a negative thing, especially when it comes to the way one thinks? Elbow's method invites, and even requires, contradiction for growth as a thinker and writer (21). True acts of self-indulgence never take time to consider another perspective.
What I really find beneficial in Elbow's method is his focus on words talking to words, which argues against using visuals because they offer immediate, simple, and literal access to meaning (21). While Castro speaks of speed in terms of visuals (will a user be able to download or easily view images?) Elbow has a point - should access be so immediate? Should meaning be revealed so easily? After all, "only those who resist the expedient and who master what is difficult will achieve personal empowerment" (20). I'm not saying that visuals should not be used. Moreover, I realize that visuals can deepen meaning of text, especially when the connection between visual and text is not obvious. Instead, I caution Stroupe and others to not rush to dismiss what Elbow has to offer in terms of taking time to develop oneself.
Instead of discounting Elbow's focus on self-development, one might view Castro with a more critical eye. With Castro's web-based ideology, a focus on the self still occurs as the "Web-author is free to indulge in a breezy, self-conscious style" while the "Web user is free to go where s/he likes" (23). Such freedom is desirable, but might lead to further self-indulgence as one "gets to" cater to his/her own desires. Certainly appealing, but if everyone gets their way, what happens to the notion of conflict? Conflict motivates reaction thus growth between conflicting parties as they work to sort out differences. Sometimes, not getting one's way can be the best thing for the development of self --and-- society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
