Virtually Real vs Really Virtual?

 

(In response to Julian Dibbell’s Chapter One of My Tiny Life, “A Rape in Cyberspace” and to Laurel Rosenhall’s article “Schools substitute field trips with video links“)

 Educational Information itself via teacher does not affect all our senses. Yes, we might have had a teacher or classmate who smelled funny. And the too cold or too hot classroom is all too familiar. But this sensory information is separate from what I’m calling Educational Information (E.I.). E.I. is all the facts and whatnot that teachers spew out of their mouths. We hear it, but can’t touch it, nor taste it (we can see it if it’s in the form of charts, texts, and online information). Strangely enough, E.I. seems to have a very vivid emotional effect on students K-12 (maybe in most cases, not all). That is BOREDOM. (Of course, a student’s emotional reaction to lecture depends on the teacher’s delivery, somewhat … kinda.) Although, some people are interested. (I’m just going by my own experience in K-12.)

This is much like a virtual experience. There is no direct stimulation of several senses. But we can hear and see the virtual field trip…indirectly, that is. It’s an interactive environment. Students can ask questions and have them answered in real time. It’s like a classroom and TV rolled into one. No, it’s not the “real thing,” but at least students can receive the same kind of visual and aural information as if they actually went there.

Looking at a student’s reaction, there was still an emotional reaction to the videoconference. The student enjoyed it. Emotional

 reaction is what happens when any of our senses are stimulated. I believe this is what they call “experience.” It is what some of the unfortunate MOOer went through when Mr. Bungle virtually raped them. Even though they never physically touched, they remained traumatized. The lasting emotional reaction to trauma is what affects the lives of rape victims the most. While the body heals, the psyche never really does. The psyche is what experiences much of the damage. 

Virtual Reality can stimulate two of our physical senses and can affect our emotions on a very real life level. It’s like Julian Dibbell wrote, “what happens inside a MUD-made [virtual] world is neither exactly real nor exactly makebelieve, but nonetheless profoundly, compellingly, and emotionally true.”

 

Old Nasty vs New Delicious?

The YouTube video shows an example of the next generation of type in the digital age, that is animated text. I think type can go a little further and do more like in the next video…

(Dumb and Dumber)

This is what they call KiNeTiC TyPoGrApHy. Looks fun, huh?

Anyhoozer, I was doin’ ma readin’, and ran across a few interesting tidbits. 

Helfand questions the value of older styles of text when compared to such text as in the video above. So, does the value of older styles decrease when new styles appear? Maybe. But, in probably all the videos of text animation I watched on YouTube, the animator used old forms of text but in a new way. Even Jeffrey Keedy (pgs 272-76) admits that, “It is always possible to do good typography with old typefaces” (276). His concern, though, lies in the question that follows, “why are so many typographer insistent on trying to do the impossible – new typography with old faces?” The answer is simple. We need to take baby steps to allow for the gradual evolution of type. Growth is slow and the new builds on the old. (Or maybe I’m misunderstanding what Keedy is trying to say.)

To return to the question above…Do older types lose value in the presence of new types? Hmm. In light of the video and knowing how progress works, I have to say “no.” Without the old, we would have nothing to step on to get to the next level. 

What do you think?

Typolution

Have the artists rethought language, as Helfand has suggested? 

Is this a new typography?

Typography

Sirc’s Questions

Here are some questions Sirc asks that fall in line with some concerns of my own…

“Opening writing to new media affords us (really, demands) the opportunity to wipe the slate of classoom writing clearn and ask in true modernist fashion,

‘What is essential to compsition?

What are the inescapable, minimal institutional constraints that must be considered?

and maybe better in true postmodern fashion,

‘What are the essential but desirable, interesting features of composition?

What are the outermost institutional limits?’

And since ours is a teaching discipline,

‘What are the technologies and strategies both essential and desireable for students to perform and practice?’” (126)

Box Research

(In response to Sirc’s “Box-Logic,” pgs 111-128 )

Sirc: “I want a format or method suited for the long strange trip” (113)

I found that this might be a fun assignment for students to compile research and ideas for a future essay. The Box doesn’t demand strict organization like an outline or an annotated bibliography (although, I believe an outline and annotated bib are valuable steps in organizing research). The Box seems like it would come somewhere between brainstorming (but not excluding it) and organizing research into an outline-type document.

This Box seems like a natural course of coming up with ideas. I keep notebooks to keep track of all my ideas and inspirations for future short stories. Other brainstorming methods I’m familiar with, like freewriting, are too demanding. I always feel like I need to come up with ideas I’m actually going to use, I need to come up with good ideas of my own. And all of it needs to be in prose narrative format. With a box I feel a bit more free to include anything and everything I think might seem relevant.

As Sirc says, “It is this associational logic of linkages that we need to develop in our classrooms, in order to foster a personal aesthetic among our students” (123).

I can include ideas that aren’t my own, things that I see, lists (this is me talking before I’ve actually started the box assignment. I might feel differently after I’ve finished it).

What are your feelings about this?

The Comic Message

I was so interested in Scott McCloud’s (his website) comic essay from our text (VRDW pgs 195-208 ) that I went ahead and bought two of his books, one called “Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art” and “Reinventing Comics: How Imagination and Technology Are Revolutionizing an Art Form.” I started reading the latter first, and I’ll be responding to it here.

Some of what McCloud discusses falls in line with what Roland Barthes (more on Barthes) discusses (VRDW pgs 152-163), particularly the 3 messages of an image including the linguistic message, the coded iconic message, and the non-coded iconic message.

Quick summary of these terms as I understand Barthes’ description of them (if you remember then, feel free to skip this part):

Linguistic Message – this is the verbal text and includes both denotations and connotations

Coded Iconic Message - think Saussure’s signified and signifier, but with images. This is a symbolic message. The various images in a particular picture or drawing serve as symbols of meaning, like words serve as symbols of meaning. The meaning is usually a popular one, including stereotypes. These messages are usually fairly obvious/global and require only general/global knowledge. Oh yeah, and they’re imbued with euphoric values (at least with advertisements).

Non-Coded Iconic Message – these messages are made up of the same images of the coded iconic message, except for a big difference. Barthes calls this message a message without a code. That means that we require no knowledge about the images except for the knowledge that tells us what an image is. The message is not symbolic. Barthes says this is the “literal message.” In short, we should take this message at face value. We should not look further than the surface to know what the non-coded iconic message is.

All three messages work to reinforce each other. Robin Williams (not the actor) would be proud. This coherence reminds me of his idea of “Repetition,” which she says “works to unify all parts of a design.”

After arguing that comics can be used and have been used to talk about profound stuff, McCloud goes on his merry way to defend comics as an art form (see Art Spiegelman’s Maus). In essence, comics have the ability to chose images like choosing the right word for a poem — using images as symbols

McCloud writes,

“The combination of simpler, more selective imagery and comics’ many frozen moments lends a less fleeting, less transitory feeling to each moment–imbuing even incidental images with a potentially symbolic charge.

Sounds like Barthes’ coded iconic message.

McCloud goes on to say,

“The mere use of visual metaphors doesn’t automatically draw out subtext in fiction, but when those symbols echo one another and relate directly to the story’s central themes, the results can be mesmerizing.”

And this sounds like William’s repetition.

Abstract Image = Abstract Text?

Here are some thoughts that led me to the question up ahead:

On page 143 in VRDW, Arnheim writes,

“A highly abstract design that bears little or no resemblance to its referent must be restricted to a unique application or rely heavily on explanatory content.” He also says that it’s difficult to know what the specific intention of an abstract concept refers to without a revealing context.

From this, I can understand that the more abstract an image is, the harder it is to refer to something specific (the referent is “unseen” in the image); and the more concrete and realistic an image is, the more difficult it is to portray an abstract message (Arnheim mentions this on pg 142 when he discusses lifelike art).

Birdsell and Groarke, argue that language can be just as abstract as images. Often this kind of writing is difficult to grasp without examples or context. This is what Arnheim says of abstract images, that they will be difficult to “get” without a particular context.

We, as students and avid readers, know that some readings can be VERY abstract and demands more of our imagination to figure it out.

One of Arnheim’s concerns is, “how well different degrees of abstractness suit” an image. This would, of course, depend on context.

So here’s a question of my own: Will the same level of abstractness in an image and in a text be suitable in the same context? Or communicate just as much? (This may be very problematic because, in the first question, I’m putting words and images on the same level. In essence, this question assumes words can speak what images can say, and vice versa. But isn’t this what some of the authors are trying to say, to a certain extent, in our text, including Birdsell and Groarke? I’m sure I’m very wrong. But it’s still an interesting question).

So, for instance, remember Derrida, deconstruction, and all that crap? Ok, I had to do a little digging but I found a chapter from Derrida’s book Writing and Difference. The chapter is, “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” Now, except for those goobers, I mean, uber smart people who were able to understand this mess without a problem, Derrida’s writing is pretty abstract stuff. His discussion of the center really made me dizzy. Eh-hmm.

“As center, it is the point at which the substitution of contents, elements, or terms is no longer possible. At the center, the permutation or the transformation of elements (which may of course be structures enclosed within a structure) is forbidden…Thus it has always been thought that the center, which is by definition, unique, constituted that very thing within a structure which while governing the structure, escapes structurality…the center is not the center.”

<<crickets in my head>>

The least I know is that Derrida is talking about language/text. I never completely understood the dude, but this is what I get from his shpeel of “the center.” —The meaning of a single word is unstable and indefinite without it being defined against other words and associations.

As a visual interpretation, for some reason, I imagine a canvas covered in light yellow paint. And with the same color, a circle is drawn; within the circle there’s a large light yellow dot.

What if we put this yellow painting in Derrida’s writing and titled it “Word”?

Why Blog?

Instructions: Squint. Repeat.(from some guy, Eddie’s, blog)

Blog Writing

(In response to the post below and a little to the article “Writing, Technology and Teens”)

Proceed at your own CAUTION: The following text includes the word “bullshitting.” If you are offended by the word “bullshitting,” please do not continue. Thank you.

If students are writing more with a pen than a keyboard…well, let’s just say, this makes me think twice about whether students would enjoy writing on a blog for class. No doubt, the computer allows for easy editing and formatting. Irregardless, students do not feel that they can present their ideas clearly. Which makes sense. Easier formatting and editing do not translate into a well organized and thought out expository essay. What makes for a good essay depends on a lot of factors (fellow writers, you know what those are).

But let me stop bullshitting around and get to my point…Well, sir…the main purpose of blog writing shouldn’t be clear communication. The blog should be a place where basic comp students can practice writing in aims of eventually being able to clearly communicate their thoughts (as much as this is possible…all writers have trouble articulating what they really want to say).

Blogs, in Veronica’s World, are living rooms where I can think wonderfully twisted and profound thoughts.

Another wonderful little tidbit about blog writing:

I can use such words as “bullshitting” and not feel as guilty for possibly offending someone because this is my blog, my space. As compared with a shared forum like Blackboard, which is more of a community space. One could consider a blog a bit of a community space as well. A blog is not purely an individual space if it is allowed to be seen by the public.

Thoughts?