"'Blogs bring on decay. Each new blog is supposed to add to the fall of the media system that once dominated the twentieth century' Do you think that this is a true statement, that blogs have contributed to the erosion of mass media or are they the second step in the progression of mass media in people's lives?"
This is the question I focused on predominantly in my first blog post, but I'd like to elaborate on this point...I think blogs definitely are bringing on decay as far as the fall of the media system that dominated the twentieth century goes. Throughout the twentieth century people relying heavily if not solely upon print media sources as well as radio and television to receive news and now as people look to the internet to see what's happening around the world and get their news faster, we are seeing newspapers and other print mediums take a dive.
However, I also feel that they are also considered the second step in the progession of mass media in people's lives. Blogs give people the chance to be citizen journalists and to post their opinions on news and broadcast it to thousands or millions of people. While I believe this is a great thing, I also think it's sad that print media is dying out because of it and I feel that people can't completely turn to blogs to receive news, they are simply a supplement to online news media sources since blogs have no journalistic standards to uphold.
As far as Facebook and Twitter go, they also provide citizen journalists an outlet to broadcast to other users news and opinions, though just as a blog, they cannot always be trusted. A lot of journalists I know are utilizing tools like Twitter and Facebook to find story ideas, and to post links to relevant news stories or their own stories. I think that once you realize what a great tool Facebook or Twitter can be and learn how to use it to fully benefit the sending the receiving of news, it's great.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Blogging
Thank God blogs are "more precisely described as 'feedback channels'" rather than alternatives to mainstream media. I am majoring in communication with a journalism concentration and am not as up to date on the internet media phenomenon as I should be. I'm kind of old-fashioned when it comes to "new media," in that I'd rather just work for print journalism, going out writing stories and not have to deal with all the new ways of getting news out via blogs, Web sites, etc. Unfortunately I definitely need to.
Citizen journalism is great, but I definitely agree it is more feedback than anything else, especially since bloggers don't have to deal with things like censorship and repression, there is still a place for legit journalists to create and post information online in the typical article format with all the facts.
I slightly disagree however with the statement that newspapers and radio stations have failed to integrate open, interactive messages from their constituencies. Most radio stations and newspapers have online sites where readers are invited to post comments, links, etc. While this is usually completed one-sided I think that newspapers and radio stations have attempted to facilitate messages from their readers, bloggers just take it one step further.
While I am torn over the issues with blogs and internet media and how they relate to journalism, I definitely do love blogs. I constantly find myself checking up on Perezhilton.com, fmylife and other funny blog sites where blog entries are "hastily written personal musings, sculptured around a link or event."
Citizen journalism is great, but I definitely agree it is more feedback than anything else, especially since bloggers don't have to deal with things like censorship and repression, there is still a place for legit journalists to create and post information online in the typical article format with all the facts.
I slightly disagree however with the statement that newspapers and radio stations have failed to integrate open, interactive messages from their constituencies. Most radio stations and newspapers have online sites where readers are invited to post comments, links, etc. While this is usually completed one-sided I think that newspapers and radio stations have attempted to facilitate messages from their readers, bloggers just take it one step further.
While I am torn over the issues with blogs and internet media and how they relate to journalism, I definitely do love blogs. I constantly find myself checking up on Perezhilton.com, fmylife and other funny blog sites where blog entries are "hastily written personal musings, sculptured around a link or event."
Monday, April 20, 2009
Technotext
http://collection.eliterature.org/1/works/poundstone__project_for_tachistoscope_bottomless_pit/Tachistoscope.html
William Poundstone’s “Project for Tachistoscope (Bottomless Pit)” is a great example of technotext. Single words are flashed to readers in a subliminal way with pictures depicting the words behind them. According to the site, “Poundstone's project also opens a quiet assault of, and perhaps on, icons. Engineered to make subliminal statements and incorporating effective sound, this piece also makes the reader highly conscious of how texts and images are read together and how a reader's attention is parceled out in time-based media.” The words keep coming at you and looping back around to start over again in a different place.
William Poundstone’s “Project for Tachistoscope (Bottomless Pit)” is a great example of technotext. Single words are flashed to readers in a subliminal way with pictures depicting the words behind them. According to the site, “Poundstone's project also opens a quiet assault of, and perhaps on, icons. Engineered to make subliminal statements and incorporating effective sound, this piece also makes the reader highly conscious of how texts and images are read together and how a reader's attention is parceled out in time-based media.” The words keep coming at you and looping back around to start over again in a different place.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Book Arts
I didn't know that book arts were so philosophical and complicated. For something to be considered book art, does the artist have to do everything involved in making the book, i.e. binding, printing, etc.? Are book arts a form of uncreative writing? What is a book? When does a book stop being a book and become something else, like a sculpture? I think book arts and uncreative writing go hand in hand and that there are strong arguments on both sides if book arts are or are not a form of creative or uncreative writing.
I enjoyed reading Johanna Drucker's book about artist's books, it introduced me to a lot of questions that I never would have asked about artist's books if I hadn't read it. I think that book arts, just like a dance performance that uses somebody else's music is considered creative and not uncreative writing. By altering a book's appearance I feel you are making something entirely new and drawing inspiration from already existing texts to create your own piece of work--which is why at times, I got a little bored with Drucker's really in depth questions about the technicalities of what consitutes a book and if book arts are in fact art.
This week, for our group presentation I had a blast making humuments. While I do think that altered books are a form of creative art, I can see the argument for why something like a humument or a book art that uses somebody else's words could cross the line into uncreative writing. Even so, the words are rearranged in a different way to create new thoughts and ideas, which technically is what authors do when creating books. The words don't belong to anybody, and using them in the same space that they are already in, though picking and choosing which to use is a form of creative expression.
I enjoyed reading Johanna Drucker's book about artist's books, it introduced me to a lot of questions that I never would have asked about artist's books if I hadn't read it. I think that book arts, just like a dance performance that uses somebody else's music is considered creative and not uncreative writing. By altering a book's appearance I feel you are making something entirely new and drawing inspiration from already existing texts to create your own piece of work--which is why at times, I got a little bored with Drucker's really in depth questions about the technicalities of what consitutes a book and if book arts are in fact art.
This week, for our group presentation I had a blast making humuments. While I do think that altered books are a form of creative art, I can see the argument for why something like a humument or a book art that uses somebody else's words could cross the line into uncreative writing. Even so, the words are rearranged in a different way to create new thoughts and ideas, which technically is what authors do when creating books. The words don't belong to anybody, and using them in the same space that they are already in, though picking and choosing which to use is a form of creative expression.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Uncreative Freewrite
"Basically, his[Kenny G's] premise is that the author is dead, originality is dead, and all that authors can do now is rearrange texts that have already been written."
This is my main problem with Kenneth Goldsmith's logic behind uncreative writing. While I will agree that originality is pretty much dead, the way to remedy the repetition we see in movies, music and writing today is not to just stop trying. That is a surefire way to make sure that from here on out no more creative and original works of writing are ever made. I understand Goldsmith's frustration, watching a movie with a premise about another coming of age love story or another Halloween remake can be exhausting, and perhaps the problem with the writers of those works is that they have given up, which is exactly what Goldsmith wants them to do. It seems that the opposite of what Goldsmith says would be true: if we just keep rearranging texts, it is naturally going to be uncreative because somebody else has written it, whereas if writers keep striving to come up with a new story, plot twist and characters there is at least a chance for something positive to come out of it. We all know that the act of writing has changed dramatically from the time of Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean that writing is dead. Societal changes overtime are enough to create new ideas and space for new writing so to give up on it would ruin any chance to document current history through writing. While it's hard to find a new plot when so many have been written, other aspects of writing have improved; technology has improved the way we print, read and receive books and as long as authors at least attempt to be creative, not everything that comes out of it can be bad.
This is my main problem with Kenneth Goldsmith's logic behind uncreative writing. While I will agree that originality is pretty much dead, the way to remedy the repetition we see in movies, music and writing today is not to just stop trying. That is a surefire way to make sure that from here on out no more creative and original works of writing are ever made. I understand Goldsmith's frustration, watching a movie with a premise about another coming of age love story or another Halloween remake can be exhausting, and perhaps the problem with the writers of those works is that they have given up, which is exactly what Goldsmith wants them to do. It seems that the opposite of what Goldsmith says would be true: if we just keep rearranging texts, it is naturally going to be uncreative because somebody else has written it, whereas if writers keep striving to come up with a new story, plot twist and characters there is at least a chance for something positive to come out of it. We all know that the act of writing has changed dramatically from the time of Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean that writing is dead. Societal changes overtime are enough to create new ideas and space for new writing so to give up on it would ruin any chance to document current history through writing. While it's hard to find a new plot when so many have been written, other aspects of writing have improved; technology has improved the way we print, read and receive books and as long as authors at least attempt to be creative, not everything that comes out of it can be bad.
Uncreative Writing
One quote that was most interesting to me from this week's readings was in "Petty Theft" when Kenneth Goldsmith answered the question "what's wrong with creativity?"
Goldsmith says that "Creativity as we've come to know it is bankrupt. What passes for creativity in our culture is actually vastly uncreative. Think of the flood of worn-out narratives, passing for originality, be it novels, films or music, and you'll find that what we term creative is nothing more than repetitious formulas, spun over and over. Should something appear that's truly "creative" it doesn't stand a chance of selling and as such, is rendered culturally insignificant and marginalized to the point of invisibility. By opposing creativity as commonly accepted -- in a sense by constructing a negative notion of creativity -- perhaps we can breathe new life into this practice. Hence, my concept of the uncreative."
I get what Goldsmith is trying to do with uncreative writing and I agree that often times the writing, films and music we see and hear today are made from repetitious formulas, but to me this is no reason to turn to the uncreative. Goldsmith says we need to not try as hard to be creative since our own voice shows up in what we write inevitably. It seems Goldsmith has seen other things which he has deemed original and creative go unappreciated by the general public so his philosophy is to stop trying. It's a great way to get people to notice what message you're trying to get across, but if everybody followed Goldsmith's theory, all creative endeavors would be forever doomed. If we simply stop trying to be creative all togehter there will never be an original work again, rather than there being a handful of good original creations in a sea of unoriginal repeats. It seems downright pessimistic.
Goldsmith says that "Creativity as we've come to know it is bankrupt. What passes for creativity in our culture is actually vastly uncreative. Think of the flood of worn-out narratives, passing for originality, be it novels, films or music, and you'll find that what we term creative is nothing more than repetitious formulas, spun over and over. Should something appear that's truly "creative" it doesn't stand a chance of selling and as such, is rendered culturally insignificant and marginalized to the point of invisibility. By opposing creativity as commonly accepted -- in a sense by constructing a negative notion of creativity -- perhaps we can breathe new life into this practice. Hence, my concept of the uncreative."
I get what Goldsmith is trying to do with uncreative writing and I agree that often times the writing, films and music we see and hear today are made from repetitious formulas, but to me this is no reason to turn to the uncreative. Goldsmith says we need to not try as hard to be creative since our own voice shows up in what we write inevitably. It seems Goldsmith has seen other things which he has deemed original and creative go unappreciated by the general public so his philosophy is to stop trying. It's a great way to get people to notice what message you're trying to get across, but if everybody followed Goldsmith's theory, all creative endeavors would be forever doomed. If we simply stop trying to be creative all togehter there will never be an original work again, rather than there being a handful of good original creations in a sea of unoriginal repeats. It seems downright pessimistic.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Mobile Writing
Generally texting and talking on Twitter, Facebook or via instant message is very limiting. There have been countless times that meanings have gotten lost in translation causing me to come off like a complete jerk since when texting you lose all the important parts of a conversation that you get face to face--nonverbal cues like facial expressions, body language, tone, etc. So, to me, it's sad that the internet is becoming the chief mode of communication between people. It is also disappointing that more and more young people are employing acronyms and abbreviations for words, which generally also dumbs down communication. Sometimes, holding a conversation over text or IM is necessary, but other times I get really frustrated when people can't just pick up the phone and call me. At least over the phone, tone isn't lost or misunderstood, though it seems texting culture has even seeped into the way we talk.
Numerous times I have heard people add acronyms into conversations where they just flat out don't make sense. Acronyms like BTW, LOL and TTYL are everywhere in speech, which is a signal to me that we've just gotten plain old lazy. When we have to use an abbreviation to avoid saying two more syllables, something is a little off. And using LOL in conversation makes zero sense. If you're laughing out loud, then you would be doing it, not saying "LOL."
I don't have any actual facts about how chat terms have dumbed down society, but I can bet that younger generations that have grown up in this texting culture, have started to transfer Web lingo to things like papers and assignments. I can't imagine that learning how to text and shorten everything has actually benefited the way young people write or communicate.
Numerous times I have heard people add acronyms into conversations where they just flat out don't make sense. Acronyms like BTW, LOL and TTYL are everywhere in speech, which is a signal to me that we've just gotten plain old lazy. When we have to use an abbreviation to avoid saying two more syllables, something is a little off. And using LOL in conversation makes zero sense. If you're laughing out loud, then you would be doing it, not saying "LOL."
I don't have any actual facts about how chat terms have dumbed down society, but I can bet that younger generations that have grown up in this texting culture, have started to transfer Web lingo to things like papers and assignments. I can't imagine that learning how to text and shorten everything has actually benefited the way young people write or communicate.
Txting
OMG, making a txting poem was hardr than I thought. Since I'm not an avid texter myself, my group and I had a hard time making sense of the funky acronyms we all used off of Web sites. Despite the translation problems, creating the poem was just flat out funny. I was on a Web site of texting and instant messaging acronyms and the amount of things that people have acronyms for is just ridiculous. Every phrase you ever want to use is conveniently put into acronym form, though it should be noted using these are definitely not the easiest way to communicate. My group and I kind of took a joking tone to our poem, since we found the phenomenon of using acronyms and misspelling things in texts and online to be hilarious.
Growing up, some of these different abbreviations and lingo was in use, though it has grown to absurd proportions today. I think often times people do get too wrapped up in it and it can start to hinder one's ability to actually spell in real life, which is a shame. Maybe one day we will see the day when this texting lingo is used across all forms of writing, but until then it is important for kids who grow up immersed in this texting culture to continue to spell things out and communicate more effectively, rather than with symbols and acronyms.
Just reading textually.org was enough to make me cringe. Soon, we're going to be downloading food off the computer, too. I mean, really, what can't the iPhone do? I believe I'll live to see a day where every technology created prior to the iPhone, even practical everyday tasks, will become virtual. Reading Bruce Sterling's "When Blobjects Rule the Earth," I began thinking to myself: soon enough, we will be able to control the whole world with the click of a button from inside our own homes; the future is already upon us.
Growing up, some of these different abbreviations and lingo was in use, though it has grown to absurd proportions today. I think often times people do get too wrapped up in it and it can start to hinder one's ability to actually spell in real life, which is a shame. Maybe one day we will see the day when this texting lingo is used across all forms of writing, but until then it is important for kids who grow up immersed in this texting culture to continue to spell things out and communicate more effectively, rather than with symbols and acronyms.
Just reading textually.org was enough to make me cringe. Soon, we're going to be downloading food off the computer, too. I mean, really, what can't the iPhone do? I believe I'll live to see a day where every technology created prior to the iPhone, even practical everyday tasks, will become virtual. Reading Bruce Sterling's "When Blobjects Rule the Earth," I began thinking to myself: soon enough, we will be able to control the whole world with the click of a button from inside our own homes; the future is already upon us.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Flarf Free Write
I think flarf is not taught as a form of poetry in all schools because it is not seen as a legitimate writing form, but more as a goofy pairing of random words to create nonsense. Before reading about flarf I would probably say that no, flarf should not be taught in schools because it takes no real writing skill and is just a fun and random way to laugh at the bad grammar and punctuation and terms of today's generation. But after looking at the form more closely, I find myself thinking back on other forms of literary "art" or "poetry" and asking if they actually took any real writing skill to produce.
Sometimes the things that we consider art baffle me. Paintings of squares, poems that make no sense or are overly emotional and sappy are sometimes viewed as legitimate and so why then not flarf? I guess the only way we really categorize whether something is worthy of teaching or not is if someone--probably a critic or literature buff--deems it something that should be taught because it is new or brilliant.
Especially after producing my own flarf, I think it definitely should be taught in schools, maybe not as poetry, but definitely as a new form of writing, especially since it seems to have a semi-large following. Also, it's fun. I wish that we would have learned about flarf in school and been able to experiment more with it especially since it seems so relevant to my generation which is always connected to some form of technology and it's wacky lingo at all times during the day.
Sometimes the things that we consider art baffle me. Paintings of squares, poems that make no sense or are overly emotional and sappy are sometimes viewed as legitimate and so why then not flarf? I guess the only way we really categorize whether something is worthy of teaching or not is if someone--probably a critic or literature buff--deems it something that should be taught because it is new or brilliant.
Especially after producing my own flarf, I think it definitely should be taught in schools, maybe not as poetry, but definitely as a new form of writing, especially since it seems to have a semi-large following. Also, it's fun. I wish that we would have learned about flarf in school and been able to experiment more with it especially since it seems so relevant to my generation which is always connected to some form of technology and it's wacky lingo at all times during the day.
Flarf and Spoetry
I loved the story about how flarf came about. All throughout high school I used to get those poetry.com e-mails about how if I submitted poetry I could receive a $50 hard cover book with my poem along with all the other great poetry submissions the Web site had chosen to be published. To be fair though, some of the flarf on the first Web site we were supposed to look at seemed like actual good obscure poetry. Sometimes it's interesting to me to see what is considered "art." While a lot of the flarf on the Web site was terribly funny, other poems seemed that they could be taken seriously.
While reading the examples of flarf, I was reminded a lot of other literary movements like dada or stream of consciousness writing. The first thing that came to mind when learning about flarf was Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky:
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
I also thought about William S. Burroughs and some of the nonsensical, drug-induced passages from "Naked Lunch." So in that way, flarf could actually be seen as funny yet serious literature.
It took more time than I expected to actually produce a piece of flarf or spoetry. I think this also contributes to my viewing flarf as more of a real art form. While the concept seems really easy it takes some time to find and place and add in your own touches to the writing that the google search turns up and my flarf definitely didn't turn out as well as some of the examples I read.
It's interesting to take note that reading spoetry most times makes perfect sense to me, meaning it's amazing just how much the internet has changed our understanding of texts. While somebody without a computer may be confused by spoetry, I found myself laughing and identifying with a lot of the lines used since I had seen them often.
While reading the examples of flarf, I was reminded a lot of other literary movements like dada or stream of consciousness writing. The first thing that came to mind when learning about flarf was Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky:
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
I also thought about William S. Burroughs and some of the nonsensical, drug-induced passages from "Naked Lunch." So in that way, flarf could actually be seen as funny yet serious literature.
It took more time than I expected to actually produce a piece of flarf or spoetry. I think this also contributes to my viewing flarf as more of a real art form. While the concept seems really easy it takes some time to find and place and add in your own touches to the writing that the google search turns up and my flarf definitely didn't turn out as well as some of the examples I read.
It's interesting to take note that reading spoetry most times makes perfect sense to me, meaning it's amazing just how much the internet has changed our understanding of texts. While somebody without a computer may be confused by spoetry, I found myself laughing and identifying with a lot of the lines used since I had seen them often.
Monday, March 16, 2009
The Iron Whim
I think that Darren Wershler Henry's "The Iron Whim" is one of my favorite books we've looked at so far this semester. I loved his writing style and I was able to easily follow along with his history of typewriters and the impact they had upon what writers could and could not do with type.
Many of us today who grew up knowing about computers and expecting everything at the click of a button often don't think of typewriters in the way that Henry shows them: as the pioneers of the advanced written word. Those people on the other hand who grew up with typewriters truly saw it as one of the first pieces of technology that changed how we were able to write. Without the typewriter, the only way to produce text was just to write it down and distribute it with presses.
Many of us today who grew up knowing about computers and expecting everything at the click of a button often don't think of typewriters in the way that Henry shows them: as the pioneers of the advanced written word. Those people on the other hand who grew up with typewriters truly saw it as one of the first pieces of technology that changed how we were able to write. Without the typewriter, the only way to produce text was just to write it down and distribute it with presses.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Graffiti Lives
In high school, when I was editing a music and arts page for the school paper we did a feature page on graffiti once. I remember being really interested in banksy and his social commentary graffiti and with the debate over whether graffiti was art or ugly writing mucking up bridges and walls in cities.
Reading Synder's book was really interesting for me so that I could get more in-depth with the actual history of graffiti since on the surface the whole thing fascianted me. I expected Synder's book to focus more on a broad overview of the art, rather than tell the history and origins of the art of graffiti, so I was pleasantly surprised when I read it.
While I am generally fascianted with graffiti and was aware of the professional artists that do it, I never knew the time and effort that goes into the smaller pieces and didn't know so many kids in New York City were emersed in graffiti culture.
Most times when I look at graffiti, it's not anywhere near as intricate or cool as the pieces offered in "Graffiti Lives." Where I'm from we actually think most of the graffiti is funny since it is so poorly done by real "gang members," when really it's a lot of poorly and quickly drawn letters, or throw-ups, that aren't worth a second glance. I also found Synder's book rewarding in the way he cast off any tying binds between graffiti writers, other than they all write graffiti; they are not generally of one race or social status and despite what people may think they don't turn out to be criminals and do other types of illegal activity.
Synder gives a candid look into graffiti, though doesn't praise its artists, rather gives an almost subjective look at it's history and the future of graffiti which was much better than the overlook I was kind of expecting this book to be.
Reading Synder's book was really interesting for me so that I could get more in-depth with the actual history of graffiti since on the surface the whole thing fascianted me. I expected Synder's book to focus more on a broad overview of the art, rather than tell the history and origins of the art of graffiti, so I was pleasantly surprised when I read it.
While I am generally fascianted with graffiti and was aware of the professional artists that do it, I never knew the time and effort that goes into the smaller pieces and didn't know so many kids in New York City were emersed in graffiti culture.
Most times when I look at graffiti, it's not anywhere near as intricate or cool as the pieces offered in "Graffiti Lives." Where I'm from we actually think most of the graffiti is funny since it is so poorly done by real "gang members," when really it's a lot of poorly and quickly drawn letters, or throw-ups, that aren't worth a second glance. I also found Synder's book rewarding in the way he cast off any tying binds between graffiti writers, other than they all write graffiti; they are not generally of one race or social status and despite what people may think they don't turn out to be criminals and do other types of illegal activity.
Synder gives a candid look into graffiti, though doesn't praise its artists, rather gives an almost subjective look at it's history and the future of graffiti which was much better than the overlook I was kind of expecting this book to be.
Graffiti Lives
George Mason is no New York City when it comes to graffiti. I searched about the campus looking for graffiti and while I found several different examples (none of actual professional artists or good graffiti) I settled on one specific area with different types of graffiti behind the art building. I think the best way to describe the graffiti I found is half random or illegal and the other half is just art kids practicing on the wall before actually painting on something they were making.
Generally, since the pictures I took were all in one basic area, I'd say that the writers of these messages were art students, though on some of the random messages, it could have been anybody since the wall I was looking at is in a well-concealed area. Most of the messages or images were never meant to be seen by anybody, they were there as practice before the writers painted the images onto an actual project, though some of the more random or illegal messages, such as the tag "Eggman" and "Think" with a lightbulb above it are misplaced if that is the case. I would think that these images would appear on the outside of the wall, where people often walkby, though these were painted inside the wall where there is a sculpture workspace for students where most of the experimental painting should be placed. So it seems that none of the random words and tags were meant to be seen either, which is kind of backwards since graffiti is generally put in public places where people can read the messages.
Even though I say that these messages were written most likely by all "art kids," I don't know if that's a good specification of the writers of these messages. When Synder says that he thinks graffiti is not a monolithic culture, he's right. Since this space is not closed off, it really could have been anybody that wrote these messages.
In two of my pictures, the "Life is Good" sticker and "Photo Mat" have had letters or in the case of the sign, a sticker added to them to change their meaning or emphasize it. So for me, graffiti is now separated into two separate categories: messages that are added to already existing messages to alter their meaning or images and messages from scratch. Also, unlike what Synder finds in his book to be true, none of the messages I found truly had any social or political messages to them. I generally found the graffiti around campus to be boring actually because it didn't actually have anything powerful to say.
Since this is the case, I think this type of graffiti's role is purely for entertainment. Not in the way that it says something subversive, but in that it is just random scribblings for people to smile at in passing. The writers of these messages didn't mean anything by this graffiti, especially since most of it is spur of the moment, not professionally done or has much time put into it.
Generally, since the pictures I took were all in one basic area, I'd say that the writers of these messages were art students, though on some of the random messages, it could have been anybody since the wall I was looking at is in a well-concealed area. Most of the messages or images were never meant to be seen by anybody, they were there as practice before the writers painted the images onto an actual project, though some of the more random or illegal messages, such as the tag "Eggman" and "Think" with a lightbulb above it are misplaced if that is the case. I would think that these images would appear on the outside of the wall, where people often walkby, though these were painted inside the wall where there is a sculpture workspace for students where most of the experimental painting should be placed. So it seems that none of the random words and tags were meant to be seen either, which is kind of backwards since graffiti is generally put in public places where people can read the messages.
Even though I say that these messages were written most likely by all "art kids," I don't know if that's a good specification of the writers of these messages. When Synder says that he thinks graffiti is not a monolithic culture, he's right. Since this space is not closed off, it really could have been anybody that wrote these messages.
In two of my pictures, the "Life is Good" sticker and "Photo Mat" have had letters or in the case of the sign, a sticker added to them to change their meaning or emphasize it. So for me, graffiti is now separated into two separate categories: messages that are added to already existing messages to alter their meaning or images and messages from scratch. Also, unlike what Synder finds in his book to be true, none of the messages I found truly had any social or political messages to them. I generally found the graffiti around campus to be boring actually because it didn't actually have anything powerful to say.
Since this is the case, I think this type of graffiti's role is purely for entertainment. Not in the way that it says something subversive, but in that it is just random scribblings for people to smile at in passing. The writers of these messages didn't mean anything by this graffiti, especially since most of it is spur of the moment, not professionally done or has much time put into it.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Interface Culture Free Write
I think when Steven Johnson says that the hypertext link is the first truly new form of punctuation in centuries, he is saying that nothing has so completely altered our culture and the way we view text as the development of the web and the new language that has come along with it. Johnson is right; if somebody from the 1960s were to look at the way we nonchalantly place links within news stories, in books and give mention to Web sites, they would have no idea what we were talking about.
This way of punctuating links () in texts and the very makeup of the link itself (http://www.) is something completely funny to think about interepreting if you don't already know what it means. Since I have grown up seeing this kind of writing and knowing about web lingo it doesn't strike me as weird, but in thinking about another type of writing or punctuation technique that has come along and altered the text we read, it is impossible.
While certain fields of study bring along with them their own jargon and are often creating new terms that are hard to understand, I can't think of a field that has brought with it a new way of punctuating, not just the words themselves.
This way of punctuating links () in texts and the very makeup of the link itself (http://www.) is something completely funny to think about interepreting if you don't already know what it means. Since I have grown up seeing this kind of writing and knowing about web lingo it doesn't strike me as weird, but in thinking about another type of writing or punctuation technique that has come along and altered the text we read, it is impossible.
While certain fields of study bring along with them their own jargon and are often creating new terms that are hard to understand, I can't think of a field that has brought with it a new way of punctuating, not just the words themselves.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Messages in the Landscape
For my messages in the landscape, I chose to do showings of opinion around campus. There are a lot of stickers for bands, and opinions on religion and personal choices staring at us that we often don't notice. All the images I took are tied together in that they attempt to get the viewer to believe what they are saying. That you have to always wear condoms, texting will ruin your ability to spell, Square Trio IS good, etc.
Also, most if not all of the messages were posted clearly by students, and in places were students congregate or walk by often.
The message about date abuse, for example was posted on a red flag, a universal sign that something is wrong, and in a place where all residents of the student apartments have to walk by.
Also, most if not all of the messages were posted clearly by students, and in places were students congregate or walk by often.
The message about date abuse, for example was posted on a red flag, a universal sign that something is wrong, and in a place where all residents of the student apartments have to walk by.
Proust and the Squid
Reading "Proust and the Squid" reminded me of an honors class, I think honors 230, freshman year about brain development. We read about a girl who had been locked in a closet her whole life until she was discovered at 13 and she had very low comprehension of anything and knew little about the outside world, much I guess like "The Allegory of the Cave."
I recalled several other texts we studied in that class while reading "Proust and the Squid," since it deals heavily with the way the brain develops and how reading has changed the very ability and ways in which we communicate.
I found it interesting that reading, apparently, was never meant to be and that it even "altered the intellectual evolution of our species."
I never thought about the ways that the "neuronal connections" are different for what language we read in, for example that the way the brain processes Chinese is different from the way it processes English.
The most compelling part of the reading for me was on page 155 and the Hermann Hesse quote that was given: "For every thinking person each verse of each poet will show a new and different face every few years, will awaken a different resonance in him. The great and mysterious thing about reading experience is this: the more discriminatingly, the more sensitively, and the more associatively we learn to read the more clearly we see every thought and every poem in it's uniqueness, it's individuality in it's precise limitations."
I always find that as time goes on certain passages of reading or lyrics or poems begin to change in their meanings to me. I always thought of it in the way that experiences we have continue to change and so if somebody were to die between the time we first read something and the second time we do so, the meaning would be different but I never really thought of it in the way that things change because the way we learned to read and the way we continue to develop our reading skills is evolving.
I recalled several other texts we studied in that class while reading "Proust and the Squid," since it deals heavily with the way the brain develops and how reading has changed the very ability and ways in which we communicate.
I found it interesting that reading, apparently, was never meant to be and that it even "altered the intellectual evolution of our species."
I never thought about the ways that the "neuronal connections" are different for what language we read in, for example that the way the brain processes Chinese is different from the way it processes English.
The most compelling part of the reading for me was on page 155 and the Hermann Hesse quote that was given: "For every thinking person each verse of each poet will show a new and different face every few years, will awaken a different resonance in him. The great and mysterious thing about reading experience is this: the more discriminatingly, the more sensitively, and the more associatively we learn to read the more clearly we see every thought and every poem in it's uniqueness, it's individuality in it's precise limitations."
I always find that as time goes on certain passages of reading or lyrics or poems begin to change in their meanings to me. I always thought of it in the way that experiences we have continue to change and so if somebody were to die between the time we first read something and the second time we do so, the meaning would be different but I never really thought of it in the way that things change because the way we learned to read and the way we continue to develop our reading skills is evolving.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Human Consciousness
When Walter Ong says that "more than any other single invention, writing has transofrmed human consciousness," on page 78 of "Orality and Literacy," he means that the way we see writing (i.e. the typeface it's in, the color, the shape, the spacing), affects how we interpret the passage. One of the most eye-opening parts of Ong's book, for me, was the way that I've never thought about how the way the words look subconsciously change the way I think of the passage.
Before we had all the technology that we do today, speeches were held in high regard by the general public as the main means to convey and share ideas and thoughts. When the spoken word began to be put down on paper, there began to be more than just the words to consider. All the things I mentioned above, the typeface, spacing, etc., gave people more things to consider. It made people aware of the ways in which writing had the ability to do more than spoken word, it could convey meanings through the way it looked.
I don't even know if this is a legitimate comparison, but cell phones were an invention that also opened up human consciousness. Before there were cell phones, there were people who relied on landlines to talk and before that there was just snail mail. People now realize that they can walk out of the house and always be connected to somebody through their cell phone. They can check their e-mail, listen to music, or call somebody up from anywhere and we've come to rely on that. The way we plan things now is different, our whole consciousness has shifted to where we don't make plans before leaving the house, we can just call and make plans, we don't have to worry about maps or writing down information we may need because we can look it up online via cell phone.
While these two inventions, writing and cell phones, are very different, they have both shaped the way that we either interpret what we're seeing or the way in which we go about our daily lives...if that makes any sense...
Before we had all the technology that we do today, speeches were held in high regard by the general public as the main means to convey and share ideas and thoughts. When the spoken word began to be put down on paper, there began to be more than just the words to consider. All the things I mentioned above, the typeface, spacing, etc., gave people more things to consider. It made people aware of the ways in which writing had the ability to do more than spoken word, it could convey meanings through the way it looked.
I don't even know if this is a legitimate comparison, but cell phones were an invention that also opened up human consciousness. Before there were cell phones, there were people who relied on landlines to talk and before that there was just snail mail. People now realize that they can walk out of the house and always be connected to somebody through their cell phone. They can check their e-mail, listen to music, or call somebody up from anywhere and we've come to rely on that. The way we plan things now is different, our whole consciousness has shifted to where we don't make plans before leaving the house, we can just call and make plans, we don't have to worry about maps or writing down information we may need because we can look it up online via cell phone.
While these two inventions, writing and cell phones, are very different, they have both shaped the way that we either interpret what we're seeing or the way in which we go about our daily lives...if that makes any sense...
Orality and Literacy
"If a picture is worth a thousand words, why is it a saying?" writes Walter Ong in his book "Orality and Literacy." I found Ong's book and his analysis of oral culture and the differences between orality and writing and the changes brought about in thought and expression with writing to be the opposite of what I would have thought. Having grown up in a more reading and writing centric culture, it was interesting to read about orality and the fact that writing chiefly depends upon orality: "oral expression can exist and mostly has existed without any writing at all, writing never without orality."
While reading about the historical aspects of orality and writing was educational, I was most interested in chapter five, “Print, Space and Closure.” As I said in my other post responding to the film “Helvetica,” I have truly never thought about the texts that are all around me or the impact spacing and written word has upon consciousness.
The thought that we often think that all text involves sight and sound and we think that reading is a visual activity that makes us think of sounds, it’s weird to think of it the way that early printers thought of it; that reading is a listening process that begins with sight.
I never paid attention to the way I see the things I read in my head, for example how Ong said that when you say “nevertheless” to somebody, they usually can’t go a minute without thinking of the letters involved in the word.
Chapter five of the book reiterated a lot of the things we’ve been talking about in class about how the position of text on a page and even the white space contribute to the overall meaning of it.
I checked out George Herbert’s poem, The Altar…
The Altar
A broken ALTAR, Lord thy servant rears,
Made of a heart, and cemented with teares:
Whose parts are as thy hand did frame;
No workmans tool hath touch'd the same
A HEART alone
Is such a stone,
As nothing but
Thy pow'r doth cut.
Wherefore each part
Of my hard heart
Meets in this frame,
To praise thy Name:
That if I chance to hold my peace,
These stones to praise thee may not cease.
O let thy blessed SACRIFICE be mine,
And sanctifie this ALTAR to be thine.
This reminds me of creative writing class in high school where we used to look at poems by people like e.e. cummings who took advantage of spacing (http://www-scf.usc.edu/~thier/ee/#found).
This is why for last class’ project I chose to focus on spacing more than changing fonts up, it’s so much harder to use spacing to convey meaning and it’s cool that poems or works of writing are often more than just the words, it’s everything involved in the printing like Ong talks about in Chapter five.
And oh, the technology we have today! Trying to understand what it was like for people back in the days of the Lincoln-Douglas debates is almost impossible for somebody who has grown up in such a technologically advanced time.
While reading about the historical aspects of orality and writing was educational, I was most interested in chapter five, “Print, Space and Closure.” As I said in my other post responding to the film “Helvetica,” I have truly never thought about the texts that are all around me or the impact spacing and written word has upon consciousness.
The thought that we often think that all text involves sight and sound and we think that reading is a visual activity that makes us think of sounds, it’s weird to think of it the way that early printers thought of it; that reading is a listening process that begins with sight.
I never paid attention to the way I see the things I read in my head, for example how Ong said that when you say “nevertheless” to somebody, they usually can’t go a minute without thinking of the letters involved in the word.
Chapter five of the book reiterated a lot of the things we’ve been talking about in class about how the position of text on a page and even the white space contribute to the overall meaning of it.
I checked out George Herbert’s poem, The Altar…
The Altar
A broken ALTAR, Lord thy servant rears,
Made of a heart, and cemented with teares:
Whose parts are as thy hand did frame;
No workmans tool hath touch'd the same
A HEART alone
Is such a stone,
As nothing but
Thy pow'r doth cut.
Wherefore each part
Of my hard heart
Meets in this frame,
To praise thy Name:
That if I chance to hold my peace,
These stones to praise thee may not cease.
O let thy blessed SACRIFICE be mine,
And sanctifie this ALTAR to be thine.
This reminds me of creative writing class in high school where we used to look at poems by people like e.e. cummings who took advantage of spacing (http://www-scf.usc.edu/~thier/ee/#found).
This is why for last class’ project I chose to focus on spacing more than changing fonts up, it’s so much harder to use spacing to convey meaning and it’s cool that poems or works of writing are often more than just the words, it’s everything involved in the printing like Ong talks about in Chapter five.
And oh, the technology we have today! Trying to understand what it was like for people back in the days of the Lincoln-Douglas debates is almost impossible for somebody who has grown up in such a technologically advanced time.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Helvetica
Before watching “Helvetica,” I never gave a second glance to the types of fonts that adorned the signs, ads and products that I see and use every day, but after seeing this whole culture of font and the impact it has on onlookers, this past week I began to take a little more notice of the fonts that were, quite literally, all around me. All the George Mason University signs I see every day, telling me the names of buildings, the numbers of the rooms, the instructions beside the phones and equipment telling professors to call tech support if anything goes wrong were all presented in a very clean font, official and easily readable.
Also before watching Helvetica and doing the class reading I usually never noticed the formation of the words either. I tend to think, as I think more people commonly do, that spacing and sentence formation and alignment are not the things to use when trying to be expressive, automatically I would think to change the font to some goofy bold, loud font to show meaning. Therefore, I found it interesting to listen to the side of the veteran typographers who were all about Helvetica. As they said, Helvetica says everything; by messing with the spacing between letters and words and changing the font ever so slightly it is possible to convey a whole new message. Helvetica, according to them, makes other fonts completely superfluous. Just hearing this, I wouldn’t believe it, but to actually see the examples was weird to me, the signature signs of companies like American Apparel that they showed and the subway signs in New York City truly did convey different messages, and I found it odd that I had never even considered the messages signs were screaming out at me.
Although I saw their point — that Helvetica truly can in a sense convey a wide range of emotions — I preferred the designs made by some of the newer typographers who were experimenting with font and spacing in new ways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)