As I finish with Lev Manovich’s chapter two, I am reminded of two things. One is the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. A favorite, this book is a depiction of a future when frivolous distraction is king and screens have grown to wall size. And it is only the strange (intellectuals that read) that don’t own complete TV rooms:
“He took Montag quickly into the bedroom and lifted a picture frame aside revealing a television screen the size of a postal card. ‘I always wanted something very small, something I could walk to, something I could blot out with the palm of my hand, if necessary, nothing that could shout me down, nothing monstrous big. So, you see.’ He snapped it on” (Bradbury, 132-33).
And the large TVs in Montag’s world have software that allow the owner’s name to be inserted into the dialogue, thereby including the viewer in the interaction. It is a perfect example of the difference between representation and simulation. The four wall-size televisions seek to immerse the viewer completely in the experience. Yet they do not take the viewer into account when they go about their display, thereby falling short of a VR experience.
This thought feeds in to Manovich’s comments about the screen as a prison. Isn’t this is the idea behind many developing thoughts about screens today: Moving images aren’t good for toddlers’ developing brain cells; school-age children aren’t getting enough exercise because they look at screens too much; teenagers are either preyed upon by cyberstalkers, cyberpedophiles, or cyberbullies. Screens in the form of video games, TV, and the Internet are great big time wasters; talking on a cell phone while driving is as hazardous as driving tanked; texting while driving is even worse. And while the clamor rages on, we continue to turn to them for our dose of information. Screens of all forms are ubiquitous and feel so necessary to our lives. Who hasn’t experienced the dissatisfaction of leaving the house without her cell phone?
Manovich makes a strong impression on me when he says, “Rather than being a neutral medium of presenting information, the screen is aggressive. It functions to filter, to screen out, to take over, rendering nonexistent whatever is outside its frame” (96). I would not disagree. I have never thought of the screen itself as an influence; I have only considered what is coming through the screen. But if the screen’s presentation colludes with the screen itself to “take over” then do I have to keep vigilant to avoid being rendered nonexistent? Or worse yet, irrelevant?
Jim Porter’s “Why Technology Matters” was a nice counterbalance to the density of Manovich this week. While the article was interesting in its entirety, the following stuck with me (probably because I am completely on board this wagon):
“Rather the revolution is the networked computer and the social/rhetorical contexts it creates and the way its use impacts publishing practices. All that is revolutionary. The impact on social networks and publishing practices represents a significant change, of a magnitude that the pencil and typewriter (essentially print-based tools) don’t achieve.” (384-85).
Constance Petersen’s article on Writing for the Web was a nice read. It’s surprising to see that some things haven’t changed in the last decade regarding the Internet. Still very timely advice, as most people who write for the web aren’t informed about such nuggets as “Link Wisely.” This is an issue with our FYWP Google site. It isn’t linked wisely, which makes it hard to know if you have seen all of the information the site has to offer or not. The only other advice I would add would be regarding adding the “target” tag to a hyperlink so that the new page opens in a new tab or window. Once you have them on the page, you don’t want them to leave, especially if you made them leave by adding a hyperlink!
Lots of good stuff to think about this week! Can’t wait to discuss! I’m all verklempt!
