{"id":703,"date":"2025-11-02T00:16:14","date_gmt":"2025-11-02T07:16:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/?p=703"},"modified":"2025-11-02T00:19:05","modified_gmt":"2025-11-02T07:19:05","slug":"making-in-a-silent-search","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/archives\/703","title":{"rendered":"Making… In a Silent Search"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Tactility and silence are essential conditions of meaningful learning. The blog post, \u201cIn a Silent Search: Reflection on Umberto Eco\u2019s Library of the World<\/a>\u201d, by Maryam Abusamak, is a film analysis of the documentary, Umberto Eco: A Library of the World <\/em>(2022), directed by Davide Ferrario. In this blog post, Abusamak summarizes the core themes of the documentary; she demonstrates how the library of the famous philosopher, Umberto Eco, acts as a meaningful tool of knowledge production. She proves that in an information-saturated world, this biographical film demonstrates the importance of learning slowly and selectively. To extend her analysis, I propose that this film also exemplifies the cruciality of knowing through being, a concept explained in Tim Ingold\u2019s book, Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art, and Architecture<\/em>. Through connecting Abusamak’s analysis to Ingold’s framework, I aim to show the importance of learning independently and critically through slow-paced and tactile methods; this message is especially important in a world where mis- and disinformation is instantaneously available through simple clicks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both Eco and Ingold illustrate inanimate objects as living beings. Interacting with <\/em>these beings achieves meaningful knowledge production. I place emphasis on the word \u201cwith\u201d, as Ingold repeatedly encourages the reader to not think \u201cof\u201d but \u201cwith\u201d objects (8). Abusamak perceives Eco\u2019s library, as presented in the documentary, as a \u201cliving organism\u201d that \u201cbinds matter, meaning, and mediation\u201d. In each book, \u201cmatter and meaning are inseparable\u201d, demonstrating Ingold\u2019s view that knowledge is made \u201cin correspondence\u201d with a material rather than extracted \u201cfrom\u201d it (94, 8). To Ingold, objects are alive due to their everchanging state; a building is never fully completed, as it will experience reconstructions, mold removal, and repainting over time (48), and a statue changes continuously, as it is chiseled by its artist and eventually \u201cworn down by rain\u201d (22). Abusamak\u2019s interpretation of Eco\u2019s library exemplifies this concept metaphorically and physically. She describes his library as a \u201cliving system of technical memory\u201d, as well as \u201cliving matter\u201d made of \u201cink\u201d and \u201cpaper\u201d (Abusamak). As a result, the individual who peruses this library acts as a maker of knowledge among a collection of living beings. Therefore, Eco\u2019s library exemplifies Ingold\u2019s view by acting as a \u201cworld of active materials\u201d in which the maker is a “participant\u201d (Ingold 21).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, Eco\u2019s library exemplifies Ingold\u2019s view that tactile mediums enable nonconformist learning. Within her blog post, Abusamak claims the library exemplifies Stiegler\u2019s concept of  \u201cepiphylogenesis\u201d–the recording of human evolution through \u201ctools, marks and traces we create\u201d (qtd. in Abusamak). These physical traces externalize memories which survive \u201cacross generations\u201d (Abusamak). While Eco favours tactile media consumption, Ingold favours tactile media-making; he believes handwriting, handdrawing, \u201cweaving, lacemaking and embroidery\u201d portray \u201cthe stories of the world\u201d (112). He states that human knowledge production should replicate the \u201congoing movement of\u201d handdrawn and handwritten lines (Ingold 140). Furthermore, he does not praise \u201cstraight-line people\u201d who run from point \u201cA to B\u201d (Ingold 140), but instead promotes \u201cpack-donkey people\u201d who \u201cwander\u201d and learn through \u201cself-discovery\u201d (140, 141). Rather than pursuing a linear path leading from \u201cidea\u201d to \u201caction\u201d, he embraces learning through instinct and curiosity (Ingold 140). This idea is upheld by Eco\u2019s library, which \u201cresists the linear order and embraces the chaos of curiosity\u201d (Abusamak). Altogether, Eco\u2019s library promotes knowing through being; its collection of non-chronological memories embraces the whimsical, unconventional learning promoted by Ingold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lastly,  Eco\u2019s library and Ingold\u2019s theory express skepticism towards virtual learning. According to Eco, \u201cclicking a button\u201d brings about a “bibliography of 10,000 titles\u201d that is \u201cworthless\u201d due to its sheer ubiquity; however, if one discovered three library books, they \u201cwould read them\u2026 and learn something\u201d (qtd. in Abusamak). Ingold agrees with this statement; he believes modern consumers abandon learning as soon as they \u201c[fill] [their] bags\u201d with information (5). Like Eco, he condemns the mindless clicks produced by our fingers. He states that when ubiquitous information \u201cis at our fingertips\u201d it is simultaneously \u201cout of our hands\u201d (122). Additionally, he promotes Heidegger\u2019s views of the \u201chand\u201d as a symbol of sentience; when it writes with pen, \u201cit tells\u201d (Ingold 122). Therefore, he argues traditional penmen produce emotional \u201cgesture and inscription\u201d, while modern typists do not \u201cfeel\u201d their \u201cletters\u201d (Ingold 122, 123).  He shows that in order to generate true making, we must engage the entire human hand, rather than press buttons that enable machinic processes. To Ingold and Eco, technological advancement, sensitive to the touch of our fingertips, has decimated emotionally-engaged learning and impactful media consumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a distracting, information-saturated world, Eco and Ingold emphasize the importance of learning through instinctual, nonconformist, and tactile means. Rather than gathering ubiquitous information through a mindless press of a button, individuals must attentively engage with physical materials to produce meaningful knowledge. As Abusamak states, Eco\u2019s philosophy \u201cchallenges the illusion that more information equals more knowledge\u201d; instead he attributes intellect to thinking slowly and selectively. According to Abusamak, Eco\u2019s library relates to our curriculum through its transformation of media theory into “something we can see and feel\u201d; her physical description of Eco\u2019s library and its ability to evoke curiosity demonstrates the importance of slow, tactile learning. As a result, Eco\u2019s library is an example of a tool that enacts Ingold\u2019s concept of \u201cknowing\u201d occurring \u201cat the heart of being\u201d (6). Instead of instantaneously summoning innumerous sources of digestible information, we can engage directly with a physical environment, such as that of a library, to independently conceive truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Works Cited<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abusamak, Maryam. In a Silent Search: Reflection on Umberto Eco\u2019s Library of the World<\/em>, UBC Blogs, 9 Oct 2025, https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/archives\/394<\/a> .<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Ingold, Tim. Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture<\/em>, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/9780203559055<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Image Taken by Emily Shin (Page 83 of George Orwell’s 1984)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Post Written by Emily Shin<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tactility and silence are essential conditions of meaningful learning. The blog post, \u201cIn a Silent Search: Reflection on Umberto Eco\u2019s Library of the World\u201d, by Maryam Abusamak, is a film analysis of the documentary, Umberto Eco: A Library of the World (2022), directed by Davide Ferrario. In this blog post, Abusamak summarizes the core themes … Continue reading Making… In a Silent Search<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100779,"featured_media":704,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[88,71,65],"class_list":["post-703","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-critical-response","tag-ingold","tag-making","tag-umberto-eco"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/100779"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=703"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":707,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703\/revisions\/707"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/704"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}