I was really looking forward to reading Jim Porter’s “Why Technology Matters: A Cyberwriter’s Tale” because I thought it might shine some light on the Manovich reading. Unfortunately, I found that I had the same issue with both texts: lots of fluff and me wanting them to get to the point. This week, I devoted hours upon hours to understanding Manovich. I started by trying to understand Porter’s essay because I hoped it would illuminate what we are reading from Manovich.
The general idea I got from Porter was that the importance of computers lies not in the way it changes one’s writing process, but rather the social context and the affects computers have had on publishing practices (Porter 384-5). Porter writes: “Teaching that course pushed me to consider visual design, page payout, and graphics as integral to rhetoric and writing” (381). This focus on the visual aspect is where Porter sees the social context of writing being important. The publishing aspect comes from networked computers where one can post anything they like online through a blog, email, website, etc.
One overlap that I examined between the two texts has to do with the visual design aspect. In the first section of chapter two in The Language of New Media, Manovich points out that interface “renders insignificant the traditional distinction between spatial and temporal media…It is also ‘blind’ to traditional distinctions in scale” (65). At this point he is referring to “cut and paste” features, but the idea still applies to anything having to do with human-computer interface since he continually points out that interface is ignorant of the rules already existent in the human world. This seems significant to the Porter article’s reference to design in that it is this lack of distinction that encourages “play” in rhetoric which can lead to using font, size and layout to enforce one’s thesis or point.
A second overlap I found had to do with Porter’s other point of importance for computers being partly social context and publishing. In “Cultural Interfaces” Manovich addresses the shift in computer use from a work tool to a universal machine. Internet changed the computer’s image so that it was “no longer solely that of a tool but also a universal media machine, which could be used not only to author, but also to store, distribute, and access all media” (69). Anyone could now publish their work online and this changed the social views of writing.
It appears, however, that Porter and Manovich are not in complete cohesion with their arguments. Porter states that the computer has been great for rhetoric; it has opened doors and changed the face of rhetoric in a positive way. Manovich points out that the phenomena of hyper-texting caused a “decline” in rhetoric (77). His argument is that with the distraction of hypertext, it becomes harder to be persuasive. Although, Manovich does not seem to indicate that this is an end-all flaw, but rather a hurdle that needs to be overcome as part of the progression of new media.
It was pointed out to me that my use of the word "fluff" wasn't conductive to a class discussion and could be interpreted negatively by Manovich or Porter if they ever saw my posting. So, to clarify what I meant, I struggled with reading both of the texts because, as someone who is relatively naive and unknowing when it comes to computers, I don't know what points to latch on to. In a chapter as long as the ones Manovich writes, I walk away with so much that I don't know what I should really be learning. For me, it becomes a matter of trying to focus in on the thesis or a point that really explains things at the base level from which I come to the text.
ReplyDeleteI hope this clarifies. For me, working with computers is like learning a new language, and it's hard. It takes me a long time to really understand what is being said in a book or essay as technical as the ones we've been reading.
You make the point that, "Porter states that the computer has been great for rhetoric; it has opened doors and changed the face of rhetoric in a positive way. Manovich points out that the phenomena of hyper-texting caused a “decline” in rhetoric (77). His argument is that with the distraction of hypertext, it becomes harder to be persuasive. Although, Manovich does not seem to indicate that this is an end-all flaw, but rather a hurdle that needs to be overcome as part of the progression of new media." I wonder if this is part of the adjustment that comes with learning the laguage of a new media. It seems we need time to figure out what it means to be persuassive in a new digital format--the old way does not fit into the new mode, so there is a lull. I am not sure that I can be that reductive, but I thought pointing out where the two fall on the issue is valuable. It seems like part of their different perspectives are connected to their disciplines and how they inform their ideas about the use(fulness) of the computer.
ReplyDelete