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.
Monday, March 30, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)