It was really interesting to see Daniel Anderson's face on his "Prosumer" "object," so I thought I'd look into what Lev Manovich looks like:
So I did a little bit of digging about Lev Manovich, and I discovered his CV on his blog (which has some really cool stuff, by the way). His CV is 59 pages long...and that's not formatting tricks, or fluffy stuff. It just went on and on about really cool, quality stuff. For example, he's held visiting education positions at 17 different universities/schools, many of which are in Europe. Anyway, it's pretty cool.
Now to the reading (/viewing):
This reading/viewing/(I want to say interacting, but Lev wouldn't approve) went well for me. I was able to get into the readings, probably because the topics (computers and technology) interest me, and the format (in Anderson's case at least) was intriguing.
I love the idea of the computer starting out as a loom (Manovich 22). Not just because of the image-producing capabilities that Manovich points out, but the idea that computers are creating something tangible. I also think Anderson would appreciate the idea of the loom not being a passive consumption machine, but an active production machine.
In opposition to this idea of the computer being (or needing to be) an active production machine, Manovich remarks that movie theaters became "a routine survival technique for the subjects of modern society" (23). "Survival technique" to me indicates passive consumption to unwind...something I can definitely appreciate. I don't think Anderson is saying that we need to always be "prosumers," just that producing New Media artifacts, rather than strictly consuming them, can have radical educational implications. Yay for survival!
I appreciated that Anderson focused his presentation on being usable. At first I thought it was a sloppy mistake that the font on his assignment descriptions was black on a dark background, but then I realized that he intended them to be copy and pasted into a document--ready to go. I wonder if that was intentional? Did anyone else notice that/think of that?
Again, Manovich' logical organization is at work: New Media is inherently numerical (section one) and modular (section two), from which he explores the benefits New Media can have over Old Media--computer-based objects can be automated to a degree (section 3) and can have nearly endless variations (section four). The fifth section, "Transcoding", describes what Manovich views as "the most substantial consequence of the computerization of media" (45). Ironically, this is the section that I had the hardest time understanding. What I got was that all new media contains a cultural layer, which is decodable to the common person, and a computer layer, which is decodable to computers (even those who work with computers don't read binary code for fun rather than watching a YouTube video...at least I don't think they do. Hmm. That's a scary thought).
I agree with Rick that the last section, "What New Media is Not," implies that "new media is old media with electricity," except that Manovich points out on page 47 that the lacking principle in that idea is that old media wasn't programmable.
I was blown away by Manovich' last section--I read the six points he was going to critique and I thought, "is he really going to critique these? These seem quite reasonable, aren't these what he agrees with?" But sure enough, after each one he described the fallacies of looking down on Old Media and of putting New Media on a pedestal.
Anyway, I'm out of time. Here's an image from Lev Manovich' blog, http://databeautiful.net/. I thought it was a nice tie-back to Weinberger:
Richard Samuelson
Richard or Laura? Or both? Or none? What is going on!??
ReplyDeleteOK - I can't figure out how to begin my own comments, so I am just going to attach my comments to your writing and call it good -- This pisses me off!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I have no idea what Manovich was talking about throughout 99% of the reading -- There was so much technical mumbo jumbo that I kept asking myself why I needed to know any of it - Most of the time I don't care how technology works, I just care that it works when I need it to - which for me in my life is very hit and miss -- this is a case in point -- I can only figure out how to do about one thing a week -- I don't know how the rest of you do it -- I don't have hours to sit on the computer and figure out how things work, let alone get on things like You-Tube and Facebook and waste hours of my life balthering about things most people don't care about. Most of the time I am not even in a place where I have internet or cell phone service. So, when I do get to where technology works it is a mad scramble to get caught up on things and usually there is so much out there to look at and read through that I am just overwhelmed.
I get the need for the use of technology in the classroom in this day and age, esp. for my students who are light years ahead of me in this stuff, but how much of it is necessary is what I struggle with. I don't necessarily think that technology has helped to improve the skills of student writers. Even I don't spell as well as I once did, because I know spell check will get most of it and the whole abbreviated world of text messaging make me crazy.
So, I guess I wonder in my world where I will find that happy medium - How much can I and will I integrate without feeling like I am selling myself and my students short just to fit in with what is new?
Christy:
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some interesting points about technology in the classroom. I've definitely struggled with incorporating it myself, so I'd love to have a discussion about new media and pedagogy later tonight. With this being said, I do feel like new media can enrich the traditional instruction of writing. For examples, check out some websites my students made in Engl102 last year: http://www.wix.com/asklepiades4/the-ancient-greek-physician. Also, http://www.wix.com/aimzilla/deforestation. Yay!
Anyhow, I've actually been thinking lately, that the traditional forms of writing are entirely over-hyped. Sure, I enjoy reading and writing essays-- but there are certainly other interesting forms. Why not experiment with them in the classrooms? At the moment, I'm wondering if I could do away with traditional papers entirely for my Engl102 next Spring. I dunno though. It's just something I'm thinking about.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Richard: Your mention of the movie theater "survival technique" made me think of Barthes' essay, "Leaving the Movie Theater"
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty short, and I think highly relevant to our discussions. Here are the first few sentences:
There is something to confess: your speaker likes to leave a movie theater. Back out on the more or less empty, more or less brightly lit sidewalk (it is invariably at night, and during the week, that he goes), and heading uncertainly for some café or other, he walks in silence (he doesn’t like discussing the film he’s just seen), a little dazed, wrapped up in himself, feeling the cold – he’s sleepy, that’s what he’s thinking, his body has become something sopitive, soft, limp, and he feels a little disjointed, even (for a moral organization, relief comes only from this quarter) irresponsible. In other words, obviously, he’s coming out of hypnosis.
Now, go read it...
I did it I did it! I made my own link!
ReplyDeleteWait... Sarah, how did you do that? (Make a link in the comment field.)
ReplyDeleteI have to admit I was a little skeptical at the beginning of this class, but the more I read the more I am convinced of the importance of learning and teaching digital rhetoric. Both the DigiRhet article and the Anderson piece argue this point persuasively. The DigiRhet article cites the recommendations of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, the National Council for Teachers of English, and the American Library Association as support. I looked at the website for The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of the American Library Association, and they do in fact have detailed standards, performance indicators, and outcomes on “information literacy.”
ReplyDeleteThe DigiRhet authors note the importance of not only learning about the relevant technology but actually using it: “We see a divide where students may download complex, multimodal documents but lack the training to understand how to construct similar documents.” They also express concern about students being engaged in “one-way reception” rather than “true interactivity and collaborative meaning making.” Anderson’s focus on empowering students by teaching them to use the technology supports these arguments.
Although I love reading and writing the old-fashioned way, and I don’t want to see students’ writing skills decline, I agree with the DigiRhet authors that “writing is no longer a purely text-driven practice,” and that we’re probably moving from a verbal to a visual culture. The magnitude of the change that we’re living through is just starting to dawn on me. As DigiRhet contends, writing now requires “critically analyzing and selecting among multiple media elements” including words, motion, interactivity (apologies to Manovich), and visuals. It seems like there will have to be more collaboration between artists and writers as we move in this direction. I appreciate DigiRhet’s civic-mindedness, and agree that we as educators “have a responsibility to understand the power of purposeful discourse – particularly in public digital spaces – and the ways it can either be used for democratic, socially responsible ends, or used to marginalize and colonize.” I would add “polarize.” In addition to making persuasive arguments about the need for teaching digital rhetoric, both the DigiRhet article and the Anderson piece provided helpful tips for demystifying the teaching process.
I have to admit I was a little skeptical at the beginning of this class, but the more I read the more I am convinced of the importance of learning and teaching digital rhetoric. Both the DigiRhet article and the Anderson piece argue this point persuasively. The DigiRhet article cites the recommendations of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, the National Council for Teachers of English, and the American Library Association as support. I looked at the website for The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of the American Library Association, and they do in fact have detailed standards, performance indicators, and outcomes on “information literacy.”
ReplyDeleteThe DigiRhet authors note the importance of not only learning about the relevant technology but actually using it: “We see a divide where students may download complex, multimodal documents but lack the training to understand how to construct similar documents.” They also express concern about students being engaged in “one-way reception” rather than “true interactivity and collaborative meaning making.” Anderson’s focus on empowering students by teaching them to use the technology supports these arguments.
Although I love reading and writing the old-fashioned way, and I don’t want to see students’ writing skills decline, I agree with the DigiRhet authors that “writing is no longer a purely text-driven practice,” and that we’re probably moving from a verbal to a visual culture. The magnitude of the change that we’re living through is just starting to dawn on me. As DigiRhet contends, writing now requires “critically analyzing and selecting among multiple media elements” including words, motion, interactivity (apologies to Manovich), and visuals. It seems like there will have to be more collaboration between artists and writers as we move in this direction. I appreciate DigiRhet’s civic-mindedness, and agree that we as educators “have a responsibility to understand the power of purposeful discourse – particularly in public digital spaces – and the ways it can either be used for democratic, socially responsible ends, or used to marginalize and colonize.” I would add “polarize.” In addition to making persuasive arguments about the need for teaching digital rhetoric, both the DigiRhet article and the Anderson piece provided helpful tips for demystifying the teaching process.
ohhhh... Kathy, you just brought out something I had not considered in terms of new media. (You brought up a lot of really interesting somethings, but one struck me hardest)I had not considered collaboration across genres.
ReplyDeleteI think I am loving the idea of moving into a new media environment more and more with each chapter of the Manovich book and with each new application I learn, and with each new discussion. How wonderful to think of the possibilities of artists collaborating to marry their individual skills in a digital world. It hearkens back to the illuminated text that one of the writers talked about. The mixing of mediums to create a dynamic product. I am creating my own mental mash-ups of art across genres as I write this. YAY!!