Text Processing

by TMD

20 comments

1 Peter Hill { 09.23.09 at 7:30 pm }

“..Might the advent of digital writing erode literature..”

I’ve wondered about this for a while.
Do we risk more when we write long hand? Does knowing that word processing can be made public make us less risky in our writing?
If I write poetry it tends to be in long hand. I shape it and save it in on the computer, but the initial impulse- driving, dreaming- is written on whatever paper is at hand- usually in scribbled free verse.
( See Auden’s comments about us liking our own handwriting).

I think of poets/ songwriters I like- say Leonard Cohen or Joni Mitchell and I recognize personal analysis and risk matched with crafted rhyme. I know I’m showing my age, but I don’t
feel the same depth in lyrics/ poems today. I hear ‘exposure,’ but it reminds me more of a bad Paris Hilton photo than it does poetry.

Is this because Joni and Lenny wrote in longhand?

2 Genevieve Brisson { 09.24.09 at 7:21 am }

Alain’s comment (in Heim, p. 194) on the writing process as “sculptural, as a carving in resistant materials” reminds me of Wertsch’s (in Mind as Action, 1998) discussion of constraints imposed on actions by meditational tools. Mediated action is the basic unit of analysis in Wertsch’s activity theory. The core assumption of his theory is that most actions are dynamic systems in which agents (individuals, or groups, small or large) and tools involved influence one another. Agents do not usually recognize constraints imposed on them by the tool they are using (until a new tool is introduced). Some agents (Alain, for instance) strongly tie the constraints and the action, making them inseparable. The introduction of a novel tool creates an imbalance in the mediated action (e.g. writing with pen and paper), which leads to change in the agent and the action itself, often creating a brand new mediated action (e.g. computerized writing). Because mediated action often involves many individuals or groups, some agents may resist the introduction of the new tool. In such cases, two related mediated action might coexist for a time… quite a long time in the case we are discussing.

I also was interested, in an anecdotal way, by Heim’s discussion of about personal letters, and how computer writing is likely the “death of letter culture” (he is so dramatic, it sure made the reading of this article quite entertaining). I used to love writing and receiving letters. In 1995, I lived in Prince George for three months, and I would send a few letters every month to my friends in Québec. The advent of emails changed it all. When I was in North Battleford in 1999, I sent a few emails a day to my friends. And then Facebook came… and Facebook is killing the “email culture”. As Heim, whom seems not to be an ardent defender of “computerized writing”, I still find an invitation sent on Facebook “a lapse of manners”. One could say I am a bit old-fashioned (I AM on Facebook, however, so not THAT old-fashioned). If anybody else has an old-fashioned side, and is still interested in handwriting letters, as I am, have a look at this Website:
http://www.assemblyoftext.com/letter_writing_club

On the other hand, nowadays when I write, I almost always write on the computer, whether I am writing a creative piece, an essay, or preparing my entry for our Digital Literacy Blog. I write a sentence, I stop to read someone’s entry that comes up as I was writing mine, begin drafting an response to that entry, and finally go back to what I was writing before, etc.

3 Melanie Wong { 09.24.09 at 12:11 pm }

Hi!

Genevieve, I have to agree about your comment regarding Facebook killing the “email culture.” I was having a conversation yesterday with my friend about how I don’t send emails anymore because it is so much easier to just Facebook people I know. Also, you can update every one of your friends by just updating your status.

With regards to Heim’s article, I actually find that I prefer using my computer to write. In fact, it is refreshing to just sit here and type whatever comes to my mind. I am a faster typer then a writer. I find that sometimes I can’t write fast enough to get all my thoughts down. I also find that I can be more creative using my computer. As Heim (1987) mentions in his article, “with the word processor, the difficulty of getting started is less of a problem. Starting with random sentences and phrases, one finds it easy to begin writing, only later to elaborate and structure what has been entered into a file” (p.207). This definitely describes the way that I write.

However, with that I wonder about how this effects the next generation; the children that are growing up in the digital age. There are teachers who have complained to me that their students do not know how to type but they also do not know how to write properly. Is there a need for teachers/educators to be revisiting handwritten letters and encouraging students to use a pen and paper rather then computers to correspond with their peers?

In particular I remember a student who gave me an excuse once about not getting his homework done. “Miss Wong, my computer is broken so I could not type out my assignment.” I remember looking at him and reminding him that he could use pen and paper to do his assignment. Apparently this thought had never entered his mind.

4 Emma Kivisild { 09.24.09 at 3:09 pm }

i am always dragged kkickng and screaming to the new technology and have now learned to recognize the pattern. sometimes, i think it is just a matter of the culture around me showing me something that i want from a new way of doing things — and no, ‘it’s fasteer!’ is not usually it. i’ve learned to love email (you can reread it, you can correct it, ou can send it n the middle of the night), even appreciate facebook (the photos, the invitations), texting (cheap! silent!). when i feel suspiciion creeping in. i try to put it aside, not always successfully,

i’ve been reading ursula franklin a little. she writes a lot about technology, and i can’t really do her any justice here. but what sticks in my mind today is that technology which fits into present constructs as a liberator often getst turned around to be used as a controller, and though the liberation does happen, the control quickly subsumes it, and becomes the dominant use.. i remember when faxing and emailing appeared and we were all going to have so much more time because we wouldn’t have to wait for the snail mail. but all that happened was that we were expected to do everything faster. sometimes, i long for the days of waiting for the reply.

ifranklin points out that sewing machines were supposed to liberate women from the drudgery of hand-sewing at home, but women became sewing factory workers instead. hardly liberation. then again, we can use sewing machines at home if we want. i am amazed to see young women sewing all the time.

so it’s true, the technology does not determine the culture, i guess. if you have a culture that is always looking for a way to use the technology to make money. the culture will find that way. it’s not the only thng we find, but it is also not the best.

trying to see the middle ground at all times.

5 Jeff Miller { 09.25.09 at 8:29 am }

Hi Genevieve,

I’m really glad that you connected Wertch’s idea of mediated action into this conversation. His attention to the materiality of the means by which meaning making occurs draws attention to the relationship between our tools of expression and the cultural practices that inscribe, among other things, our own sense of identity. Wertch also provides some useful cautions about how fully we might think about the extent to which tools can be internalized, seeing some mediating means (such as a pole vaulting pole) as less likely to be internalized as, say, the literacy practices of reading and writing.

This is a useful distinction to keep in mind, particularly as we seem to be in the midst of a process whereby literate culture is, as it were, shedding its bibliographic skin while expanding the internalized processes of reading and writing via new mediated forms. I’ve not thought enough about it, but it would likely be worthwhile working through Ong’s description of internalization of technologies in relation to the adoption of literacy in comparison to Wertch’s own description of this process. This would potentially be helpful when thinking about Ong’s secondary orality, a form of orality that is marked through by the experience of literacy, but not merely a return to the previous form. I also am influenced in my own thinking here by my reading of McLuhan. It is hard for me to read about “mediating means” without thinking about the cultural artefacts that McLuhan repeatedly probed as evidence that “the medium is the message.”

The materiality of the mediating means also nicely touches on our reading from Hayles this week, “Translating Media: Why We Should Rethink Textuality.” She draws attention to the problem in assuming that text (and textual practices) remain constant, regardless of the material means by which the writer and reader engage with them. As she puts it:

“The largely unexamined assumption here is that ideas about textuality forged in a print environment can be carried over wholesale to the screen without rethinking how things change with electronic text, as if “text” were an inert, non-reactive substance that can be pured from container to container without affecting its essential nature” (p. 267).

In some ways, the account you offer about how Facebook is killing email culture supports what Hayles is saying. The lapse of manners you refer to when people pop up with an invitation to be your friend on Facebook is a reaction to the absence of a material form, a written letter, a personal greeting, that would previously have been the means by which someone would invite themselves into your presence. The text on the Facebook wall is not the same as the text in a hand-written letter, even though the words and sentences might be identical. By the by, I love the website for the Regional Assembly of Text. It is such a wonderful collage of old media artefacts!

Cheers,
Jeff

6 Eva Ziltener { 09.25.09 at 2:08 pm }

Lost Due to Translation

Here I sit, trying to overcome my irrational fear of posting on a blog (for the first time).
I like technology. But it has a way of invading our (my) space.
Posting to a blog feels like writing a diary entry that the whole world can read. In fact, I don’t even like making diary entries, because I feel that once I have written something, it is there for anyone to see. I don’t feel this way about papers or (fictional) short stories… but I will admit to spending a long time choosing my words before I post anything on Facebook.

This electronic form of writing as a few advantages – all of you will be able to read my “writing” and spell check will catch most of my typos.
It comes with a few disadvantages too. Sitting at my computer I am easily distracted by email and the aforementioned Facebook.
Reading articles in PDF format saves paper – but I miss scribbling in the margins. I will also admit to being afraid of a blank computer screen. When I am facing a blank piece of paper I can at least doodle on it. There is something about a blank Word document that tells me it’s time to be serious. I feel the need to produce a perfect text the first time around.

Hayles talks about the decisions editors have to make regarding books, journals, newspapers and on-line content. The electronic medium brings out my inner editor. I want things to be perfect before they hit the “paper”. (Please excuse my print-based vocabulary… I am clearly still rather old-fashioned. Let’s form a club Genvieve!). When I write something on paper I cross things out (often with great satisfaction) and add arrows indicating new ideas on another page. When I begin putting my ideas straight into a computer I often feel lost – I’m not sure where to begin or how to jot down other/new ideas. Despite typing faster than I write, I haven’t yet been able to feel completely comfortable using the computer to sort out my ideas. I have fully embraced email, but I’m still flirting with Facebook and I have no use for twitter. I also still enjoy writing and receiving letters. I’ve come to realize that it’s okay not to love every new innovation on the internet. I’ll just pick and choose the ones I like.

Ciao,

Eva

7 Eva Ziltener { 09.25.09 at 2:14 pm }

Genevieve, I love the letter writing website!!!

8 Richard Harris { 09.25.09 at 6:13 pm }

Hello,

Firstly, I have to agree with Eva on the subtle advantages of text on paper. The doodling, the marginal notations, the arrows and crossed-out phrases all contribute to my understanding of a text I’m reading, or constructing for that matter. I have to admit that if I really want to dig in to an article I will print it out. I need to mark it up! If I read from a PDF or HTML I too easily scan over the text, possibly missing out on key points. Anyway, I know my technique is antiquated, but it works for me.

I found Hayles’ paper did a thorough job of assessing the previous literature on the subject of changing textuality. But her idea (at least I think it was hers) about “work as assemblage” (278) was particularly interesting. I guess that is what this blog is – multiple authors contributing to, and therefore, altering a single work. She notes the internet has made this possible. Without the new digital technologies this medium would not exist. The technology is shaping the text, I guess. Blogs and wikkis both are so different from traditional letter writing or emails that they change the way we write for them.

Linked closely to this was her notion that “texts would spread out along a spectrum of similarity and difference along which clusters would emerge” (277). In this way one can come to terms with the idea that multiple and different “texts” may be generated from the same “document.” I acknowledge the fact that the medium, and interface, of a given text will affect understanding of that text. But in such case is it an entirely new text? Interesting. She makes all this possible by emphasizing the distinctions in the diction here. She separates “text” from “document” (277). So are we just dealing with a clarification of the new vocabulary, or something more?

She spends some time in the latter part of the paper describing new texts that are only made possible by the digital media used to view them (those by John Cayley, pp. 284-286). It is too bad that she didn’t include any visuals. Ironically, she is using the traditional scholarly medium of a typed article to comment on new pseudo-visual texts worthy of note.

Finally, she was a bit long-winded; but so was I.
I guess this is all very meta-textual. We keep using new textual mediums to express and explore new understandings of “text.”

9 Peter Hill { 09.26.09 at 7:56 am }

Hi,
I’ve been lost inside the Blake archive for a few hours. It IS a beautiful site. So many images I hadn’t seen. So many poems illustrated that I hadn’t read.
He also was clearly nuts- but what an inspired nut!
I imagine the same is true of the Rossetti archive.( another nut!)
But these sites work on the computer because of their use of images. Both are great artists, and this makes their texts come alive.

The debate on text alone is different of course-Mcann suggests literature in print is greater than writing on- line.
Neither have Blake’s benefit of being combined with great art, so they are both at a disadvantage to start. It comes down to a question of content and clear thinking.
As Orwell suggested, clear writing comes from clear thinking.
I tend to agree with Mcann and Orwell about better writing when i read lines like this from Hayles:

“What are the consequences of admitting an idea of textuality as instantiated rather than dematerialized, dispersed rather than unitary, processual rather than object-like, flickering rather than durably instantiated?”

I know this is taken out of context, but what does it mean exactly?This was just one quote that baffled me. I could have chosen any number as examples.
If on- line writing leads only to this kind of bad writing, then Mcann is correct.
I know one might suggest that I’m not adept at reading academic writing. Perhaps that’s true. But some academic writing, like the emperor’s new clothes- needs to be unmasked for what it is- turgid.

HOWEVER, I have to credit Hayles with turning me on to the Blake site.
So she’s a trustworthy site guide.
( This is another issue- so many sites- so little time to visit them all).

p

10 Jeff Miller { 09.26.09 at 10:03 am }

Hi Peter,

In my opinion, Hayles seems to be saying, at some length, that it is problematic to try to evaluate and judge the impact of digital texts and textuality using the biases of print technology and bibliographic culture alone. McLuhan once quipped “if you want to know what water is, don’t ask a fish!” The idea here is that the medium of water is completely invisible to the fish, it has become a background environment below conscious awareness.

I read a lot of Hayle’s critique in this paper as her trying to get people to see text beyond bibliographic culture, beyond text as books or textuality as valued only in the forms that have emerged in the physical, material objects that we place upon shelves without a second thought.

I read the question you ask about from the article as Hayles speculating about the impact of thinking about text as it emerges within the different media we now have at our disposal, not as some higher-order entity that is unrelated to the material means by which we produce it. She seems to be asking for us to pay attention to the ground that has become much clearer to us now that the once invisible and naturalized container, the book, is more obviously a material (technological) artifact. That we can see such things now has a lot to do with the fact that these textual forms – books, newspapers – and the writing that take place within them, are being refashioned as we move into digital spaces for writing and reading.

Cheers,
Jeff

11 Janet Pletz { 09.26.09 at 10:52 am }

In our shared likenesses and in sentient nodding, I want to say how much I have enjoyed reading everyone’s posts.

While Heim, I found myself creating a visual image of ‘writing’ on a sliding continuum, how I personally experience ‘writing’ in my life. On one hand, I related to Heidegger’s description of hand writing as “primordial embodiment of human awareness” (in Heim, p. 194), and on the other hand, seeing computerized word processing as ‘consistent of electric signals, networked and immediately linked (1987).

I am drawn to Heidegger’s phenomenological description of ‘acting’ through the hand, where the hand contains (or mediates by Wertsch’s description) the essence of our ‘humanness’ through thinking and gesture (of the written word). The essence of being human is felt most through receiving a personal ‘hand-written’ letter. In my life, my sister embodies ‘the hand’ as mediating this essence and ground of being human through words. She is my letter writer. In the year that I turned 50, I received 50 birthday cards, containing 50 hand-written letters from her. They are prized and cherished, and as Foucault (2001) says, “by writing we absorb the thing itself…to be established in the soul and in the body” (p. 359).

I am living in the midst of my own experience of Brod’s coined term ‘technostress’, “ as a certain aberration induced by computer use or by fear and avoidance of computer use” (p. 201). My hard drive failed on my mac this week (in less than an hour), and unfortunately, no data could be recovered. Losing documents, assignments, email addresses, digital photos, essentially—’my digital life’!, has brought forward my own brand of technostress. This experience reminds me over and over how much I live in, and depend on, digital technologies. I am a learner who hesitates in digital technologies, but once learned, I engage at my own speed.

Reading Hayles’ article as a digital document was a new experience for me. I listened to you, Teresa, on Monday, and thought that it was time to move out of my comfort zone (of printing a hard copy). I am a doodler (pen as cultural tool), write-in-the-margin, kind of reader. Hayles’ discussion on the textuality of electronic print, that nothing remains constant, lends significance on the notion of translation. The ephemeral nature of words, and texts, in digital formats is simply a matter of electronic signals that bear meaning, for the moment. In electronic writing, we only ever produce a draft, “as a provocation in search of meaning” (p. 283).

Please know, dear colleagues, that here in this space, your words and impressions are valued and regarded with care and honour.

Janet

12 Melanie Wong { 09.26.09 at 5:02 pm }

Hi again,

Janet, sorry to hear about your hard drive!

A little bit unrelated to our readings but thinking about it so I thought I would share. Recently I have I done a lot of reading on e-identities. In particular I have been extremely fascinated with the concept of individuals taking on and negotiating various identities online. The studies I have been reading are surrounding how individuals are creating online identities in order to be feel like legitimate speakers in their online communities. Even from personal experience, I find myself meshing both my online identities and my offline ones. Williams and Copes (2005) make a significant point in their article about how online identities are not separate from the offline world, but they supplement and complement it. In some aspects I am wondering how this relates to Brod’s concept of “technostress.” In particular the concept of “overidentification.” Some of these individuals are spending hours online shaping their identities. They are relating only with the computer. There is definitely a sense of overidentification happening in these situations.

Lots to think about…

13 Genevieve Brisson { 09.26.09 at 5:40 pm }

Hello all!

Melanie, I really like your example of the boy who did not think of handwriting his homework. I am sure this boy is aware of the existence of pen and paper, and uses them from time to time to scribble a note to his mom about his whereabouts. Then again, maybe he simply sends her a SMS, and therefore almost never writes with a pen. It would be interesting to investigate hoe often teenagers use of pen and papers nowadays… Anyway, you story drew me back to Wertsch and to Jeff’s comment about mediational means being internalized to different degrees. If pole vaulters remain aware of the tool they use in the practice of their sport, your student seems to have lost this awareness, and he has internalized one meditational tool of writing an assignment: his computer.

Was someone else intrigued, like I was, by McGann’s work (in Hayles, p 275)? I have never heard of McGann’s work, but a sentence like “the quantum nature of textuality (i.e., textuality that is unresolvably ambiguous until a reader interacts with it in specific way)” is unsettling, no? It seems to refer to Schrödinger’s cat, a thought experiment I have heard of simply because my partner studies quantum mechanics. I cannot explain the experience very well, but my understanding is that it involves a cat that might be dead or might be alive, depending on an earlier random event. It is meant to explain, I believe, the combination of all possible states in a system. Interesting how McGann uses this to discuss textuality. Hayles also talks about electronic texts as processes, as something that does not exist before someone actually opens it to read it (the cat/text is neither dead nor alive until you look in the box). An electronic text does not have a ‘material form’, according to Hayles. I am not sure how this ‘fact’ affects readers’ experience with textuality. When I read a text on a screen, I do not mind that it does not exist on my computer; it exists for me as I read it.

Sorry about the ‘fuzziness’ of this last paragraph. I have not yet entirely grasped Hayles’ discussion on the subject.

14 Heidi { 09.26.09 at 6:26 pm }

What a wonderful and insightful conversation! As usual, I am tempted to respond to every topic discussed so far, however, my experience of being an online teacher has taught me the necessity of being selective within this digital age of communication. You see, I approach online communication in the same manner as I would with writing a personal letter, keeping in mind the person or audience I am writing to of course (I would not put the same amount of mental effort into a casual email as I would with this blog post). The process of writing, no matter how I am doing it, allows me to articulate and connect all of the fragmented thoughts in my mind, leading to a sense of accomplishment and something that I can later reflect back on to learn from. You are probably thinking that I am one of those people that writes long, detailed emails….and you would be right. But I have resisted Facebook since it emerged on the scene, mainly for many of the reasons discussed above (plus the fact that I was born with procrastination in my genes). Instead, I choose to lurk under my husband’s profile since we have many of the same “friends” and this “participation” allows me to conduct my “research” as somewhat of a virtual ethnographer of contemporary visual (and now textual) culture. Through both artistic and academic work, I analyze the personal relationships we have with/through impersonal technologies and how our perception of the human self alters through these acts and experiences. Our relationship with online social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, has been observed as a “new kind of intimacy,” described as an “acute form of self-reflection” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html) This suggests even more reason for those of us invested in education to explore the potential and possibilities for merging these writing/communication tools into our classes.

I would like to discuss further the Hayles (2003) article “Translating Media: Why We Should Rethink Textuality,” with the intention of extending on commentary already provided by Richard and Jeff. My apologies for the length of the post in advance (I might as well just start every post that way!), please indulge me as I “work through” my own mind….

I should note that I found this to be a fabulous article. Hayles discussed ideas that were familiar to me yet she allowed me to think about the ideas from a different perspective than my own. I teach foundation courses in visual art and design, which address basics of composition and form in relation to conceptual development. Therefore, it is very natural for me to think about the letter/page/narrative/book/text/form in terms of all of the elements that compose the piece. And because I am someone who works and teaches with a concept-based approach, the relationship between concept and form, how one informs the other, is always central to how I think. Jeff did a fabulous job at summing up Hayles’ main argument for rethinking textuality in relation to digital technologies. Similar to Richard, I was also really drawn to the author’s concept of Work as Assemblage. I could relate this to historical and contemporary art literature that addresses similar methods of production, defined with different terminology and language (ie. Dada artists constructing poems by cutting up newspapers bits and throwing them on the floor, the Surrealist “exquisite corpse” game in which artists collaborate to produce drawings and collages, Ray Johnson’s mail art pieces from the 50s and 60s, etc. – all of which you can look up on wikipedia to learn more.) I was also reminded of an excellent website that expands on the narrative structure and concept of the film “Into the Wild” (http://www.intothewild.com/). And, of course, there is the inherent connection to what is occurring in social media and blogging.

Following her explanation of why we should rethink “textuality,” Hayles proposes that we now consider the text as part of a PROCESS (p. 267). I completely agree. As I read the article, I “jotted” down notes on the side (also experimenting with new ways of reading on screen by highlighting and framing portions of text and adding digital post-its here and there) only to discover that my train of thought was eerily echoed by the author herself. I was reminded of Barthes’ work and of rhizomatic forms before I even got to those sections of the text! The article inspired me to search through my old binders to find Barthes’ influential essay “From Work to Text” from “Image-Music-Text” (1977), which I remembering reading exactly eleven years ago. It wasn’t until I went to refer to the optional Hayles (2004) reading “Print is Flat, Code is Deep: The Importance of Media-Specific Analysis,” that I saw she references Barthes’ work even more directly (which is why I would suggest that everyone read the first part of that article too!). By referring to this piece of writing by Barthes, Hayles is really on to something…

Barthes’ distinguished between the traditional notion of “work” from “text” at a time when there was a need for a new language to describe literary and artistic art forms. Within his essay, Barthes deconstructs the meanings of other words — method, genres, signs, plurality, filiation, reading, and pleasure – in relation to the transition from “work” to “text”. The point was not to get caught up with how we define these forms, but to understand the differences between them and resulting impact on perception and interpretation by the reader/viewer. What is extremely interesting is the fact that Barthes used the metaphor of a network when describing his understanding of the text, also describing the text as a “process of demonstration that speaks according to rules or against rules and occurs in language as an activity of production.” I understand this to be similar to certain forms of social media that exist on the internet today. There are other ideas Barthes explores that I now plan on revisiting, particularly his description of play and plurality in relation to the text: “This plurality – the difference between text and work – can make the reader award of changes in reading in areas where ideas are regularly viewed in one way.” Although forms of interdisciplinary in creative work have been explored throughout the 20th century, it is worth re-reading Barthes in the context of digital media being used today. In summary, Hayles raises significant issues for us to think about by revisiting an earlier time of transition, through the help of Barthes, and points to how current exploration of electronic media in the arts allows us to reimagine/redefine our understanding of textuality.

15 Heidi { 09.26.09 at 6:47 pm }

A question to throw out there for pondering….
Hayles wants us to rethink textuality. Hayles expands on Barthes’ distinguishing between the work and the text, in which he defines as visual and/or written. With the advancement of digital technology including more and more visual language, does this mean that textuality can be considered apart from written text?

16 Janet Pletz { 09.26.09 at 8:16 pm }

Genevieve, your comments and questions on McGann’s statements on the quantum nature of textuality as “unresolvedly ambiguous, until the reader interacts with it in a specific way”…..may be easier to re/solve through our experiences as sensual perceivers. I am thinking out loud here. Through the technology of binary codes, text appears on our computer screens in a manner that we can ‘see’–text is perceived and apprehended in a manner that ‘makes sense’. Our ability to make meaning of the ‘text’ as a processual interaction between the visual cortex and the technology applied in its rendering, make it ‘real’ and ‘textured’. Emotionally, we connect to the text through our abilities to draw meaning ( we experience text as words on the screen). In this way, the text does ‘exist’…as our perceptual reality of it.

I wonder about hearing as a way to explain this notion too. Please interject. Sound waves are not visible, however, our ability to ‘hear’ the ‘textuality’ of the waves, and derive meaning from them is achieved through our amazing system of hair cells in the cochlea that interpret and translate sound waves into electrical impulses, and thus the brain apprehends and comprehends as meaningful sound messages. The ‘textuality’ of the sound message is rendered.

This entry is not substantiated by our readings or by any other supporting documents…perhaps this isn’t the venue for idea-thinking-out-loud? My apologies all..(I am inspired by the questions)..

Janet

17 Heidi { 09.26.09 at 10:50 pm }

Janet, I really appreciate your idea-thinking-out-loud. You described very eloquently aspects of sensory input that, when joined, produce an experience of synesthesia, a phenomenon that perhaps is an exaggeration of a post-postmodern life. I really like how you have zeroed in on the process of the senses, in an aesthetic way.

18 Erin Garcia { 09.27.09 at 2:06 pm }

So if this is a blog, are we allowed to write with the uninhibited? stream of consciousness, self-reflective (as Heidi pointed out) that tends to typify the medium? I guess since I’m passed the 48hr minimum and I know this one won’t be graded, I will feel freer in my writing. So why am I so late? I decided to not print out the articles and to read them all on my laptop. It’s been utter torture, perhaps largely due to the fact that I started with the Hayles article, which I would have loved to have thrown across the room in frustration various times. Also, the constant temptation of email, facebook, and this blog were more than I could handle. I even watched the whole RiP: A Remix Manifesto – which by the way was awesome!, Thanks, Jeff!

I am amazed by how perfectly this blog fits with this weeks reading. The concept of multi-author Work as Assemblage being able to produce something bigger than any of the given units (authors) could produce singularly is self-evident. I could read your posts and feel encouraged by others voiced frustration with the Hayles article, and benefit from re-iterations of the inherent theories, which were much more accessible in this write-as-one-speaks informal style.

When I read Mosenthal’s line “One way to define writing is to construct a descriptive definition,” I just about lost it entirely, true to the psychological theory that similar mental states release memories formed in the same state, I quickly had a flashback of a particularly frustrating modern art exhibit I once saw at the Guggenheim, called something like “blank white wall.”

My one reward to slogging through these texts on my radiant Mac screen was the gorgeous definition on writing in Hayles article, which she credits to Efrain Kristal, defining “…all writing as a stab in the dark at articulating meanings that always remain to some extent elusive.” As an English major and lover of literature, and wannabe writer, I swooned at the simplicity and beauty of those words.

By the way, I went to the Portobello Art and Design Market today and I saw some collage art that I thought was nice and must have been done digitally and then printed onto the canvas, when I spoke to the artist, she showed me that actually it was hand made very thin layers of paper that created the effect. Upon touching the surface you could feel the edges, instantly the art held a stronger sense of value and beauty for me. But it’s still the same piece. Is it just the romance of the human touch that makes me feel it has more validity and value as art?

19 Jeff Miller { 09.27.09 at 4:21 pm }

Hi everyone,

Katherine Hayles was at UBC in 2006, and if you are interested in her ideas, you can view her presentation at the following URL:

http://media.elearning.ubc.ca/det/etec540/katherinehaylesvideo.html

Or you can listen to it here:
http://media.elearning.ubc.ca/det/etec540/katherinehaylesaudio.html

The title of her presentation was “The Future of Literature” and she brings up some of the ideas she explores in this week’s reading. You may well recognize the person who introduces her to the audience!

Best,
Jeff

20 Genevieve Brisson { 09.27.09 at 5:21 pm }

“The romance of the human touch”… Beautifully said, Erin!

You must log in to post a comment.