Prologue:
As a cycling fan, I have come to love prologues. In cycling, they are our chance to see how our favorite cyclists are prepared to race in the coming days. So Manovich’s use of this prologue is a welcome addition to his text; one that I am highly receptive of. And in this first page of the prologue, I encounter an interesting idea. Manovich writes, “in contrast to cinema, where most ‘users’ are able to ‘understand’ cinematic language by not ‘speak’ it (i.e., make films), all computer users can ‘speak’ the language of the interface” (xv). This is an interesting idea…. Why? Do I believe that all computer users can speak the language of the interface? I honestly believe that most of us are speaking a pigeon version… because doesn’t speaking imply fluency? And I would absolutely argue that most interface users are not fluent in the language of that program. Manovich certainly doesn’t assert that all users are fluent speakers, but there is something about his statement that makes me think that it is perhaps overstated… I would almost argue that I know as much about movie making as I do about using computer interfaces.
On xvi, Manovich says, “cinematic perception [in computer games] functions as the subject in its own right,” which makes me think of the use of the Steadi-Cam in film. I remember reading about a scene in Friday the 13th, in which Jason walks down a hallway and we are viewing the hallway through his hockey mask. The Steadi-Cam, by the way, was only invented in 1976.
Further into the prologue, I read the following,
“When photographs are brought together within a single magazine or newsreel, both the scale and unique locations of the objects are discarded—thus answering the demand of mass society for a ‘universal equality of things’” (xxi). It may just be that the idea is explained completely in the chapter that contains this pull quote, but I am not sure I understand this idea. Does removing scale and unique location create a “universal equality”? How exactly is scale removed from a photograph? Isn’t that an inherent quality of a photograph? Doesn’t the same hold true of unique location? I mean, the photograph itself isn’t in a unique location, but the information that is viable and valid about a photograph is mostly what the image consists of. And this idea that mass society demands a “universal equality of things”… what?
I applaud Manovich’s desire to record for posterity the emergence of this new media we are experiencing. It’s an interesting idea that once we become familiar with an idea or technique that it turns invisible to us. It’s incredibly true, but still something that I have not considered. This reminds me of children who are learning to speak. They grasp grammar rules on such a subconscious level that when they get older and can understand that their speech is guided by rules, it is still difficult to identify what the rules are. They have become invisible.
Finally, I love the description of the St. Petersburg art festival on page 5. Dancers, on stage, improvising to the music of the painter’s painting. Amazing.
I like the observation you made about most internet users speaking a "pigeon version" because, while I agree with this point, I'd never actually thought about it before. I also think that our digital rhetoric class is a great example of this because we are all at different levels in our proficiency and because of that difference, the language can get a little basterdized, or dumbed down. for those of us who just have no idea what things like html code are. What we seem to be doing with terminology in this class reminds me of a post-colonial African literature class I took where we actually followed the development of a pigeon language in New Orleans.
ReplyDeleteThe great thing about pidgins though, is that they turn into creoles! (pidgin=a simplified language, usually developing in ports of trade where many diverse languages come into contact. creole=what kids who crow up hearing a pidgin a lot create. An entire new language, complete with expanded vocabulary and full grammatical structures.) So. will web 2.0 develop into a creole, or will we always be missing out by not knowing html, etc?
ReplyDeleteOn another note - the bit on the "universal equality of things" confused me a bit as well. I THINK what the author is getting at is more an equality, or erasure of time and space - similar to the film shots with multiple images showing simultaneously. We'll see when we get to the chapter, though.
you said: "They grasp grammar rules on such a subconscious level that when they get older and can understand that their speech is guided by rules, it is still difficult to identify what the rules are. They have become invisible."
ReplyDeleteI was reminded that (according to my undergrad linguistics prof)language deteriorates as it is spoken over time, so that it becomes easier to pronounce the words. New meaning will also get tacked onto old meaning. Like what Sarah says with web 2.0 stuff, I think we can only expect that the new media will change as it becomes more easy to use. So the language used to describe it will become demystified and even though we won't recognize the HTML root, we will probably be able to understand what everything means.