Hi Steve,
You make some very good points, and I agree with you on the usefulness and
interest of Carol's approach. However, there are some few questions.
When you say that "the very very nature of replication is itself a form of
editing, because it cannot be identical", this clearly does not apply to
digital information technologies. Here, there is no difference between an
"original" and a "copy". If I copy the contents of an Audio CD into a CD-R,
the end result is identical to the "original". The same goes to the copy of
software, digitized images, etc. This is a fundamental difference between
digital technologies and analogic ones.
The other question has to do with the teaching of literature. You say that
"of course such devices [computers] will affect how people will read and
interpret. But so does the design and structure of the physical books
themselves." I couldn't agree more, but... "the design and structure of the
physical books" is an essential part of what we came to understand as
"literature". The use of computers in fact adds another layer of mediation,
and in this process it changes the way in which we approach books and,
maybe, the very notion of "literature".
Rgrds,
Luiz Carlos Baptista
lucabaptista@sapo.pt
lucabaptista@hotmail.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Gabosch" <bebop101@comcast.net>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: quinta-feira, 13 de Novembro de 2003 12:05
Subject: Re: first brief remarks on Carol Lee's article
> Hi Luiz,
>
> Lots of ideas in your post to think about! Picking up on your discussion
> of cutting and pasting recorded melodies, speech, and moving pictures, we
> of course have been cutting and splicing audio tape, film and video tape
> since the beginning of these technologies.
>
> Your focus on the whole notion of editing brings to mind an interesting
> point about all forms of recording - that the very nature of any kind of
> recording, including even memorizing a verbal story, implies editing. The
> very nature of replication is itself a form of editing, because it cannot
> be identical. Compromises are necessary in any technology, so even the
> most earnest attempt at identical reproduction is necessarily a kind of
> editing.
>
> Editing is part any reproduction, and everyone is very conscious of
> it. And if mass publishing, photocopy technology, film and audio
> technology weren't already enough, the new digital age has ushered in a
> level of reproduction - and therefore editing - unheard of in human
history.
>
> In general, of course, "logotechnical" (digital) or not, the medium
> mediates the message. And today, what messages do not have technology to
> enhance and mediate them? When you really start to look, where - anywhere
> - is to be found an authentic original that is unaffected by mediational
> devices? Performances usually use sound equipment. Museums usually use
> the best possible lighting. When we vacation in wonderful places, we
bring
> cameras, binoculars.
>
> We humans edit and enhance incessantly - wherever we can. Why shouldn't
> we? And speaking of editing, we are all now sitting in front of the
> greatest editing device ever developed - the computer, where, as Luiz
aptly
> points out, we can cut and paste virtually anything that can be digitized.
>
> To bring this back to Carol's article and Luiz's question: "For instance,
> can we really believe that computer-based tools for literature classes do
> not affect the way in which people will read and interpret books?" we can
> all probably agree, of course such devices will affect how people will
read
> and interpret. But so does the design and structure of the physical books
> themselves. And the verbal hype - the words of the teacher, and whoever -
> doesn't this also affect people? No cultural object stands alone - it is
> mediated in every way.
>
> In Carol's article, what I think she is most essentially driving at is
that
> students need to be communicated with - even if the topic is classical
> literature - in terms of their own cultures. From the familiar, they can
> build windows into the lesser known. Carol is explaining that these
> windows can be built from any culture, not just American white middle
class
> culture. Any culture, any vernacular, any discourse style, can be a
> touchstone to all the others. Cultures are not learned in terms of
> themselves, but in terms of each other, and we learn about other cultures
> by starting with our own. This essential concept seems to me to be at the
> basis of Carol's reasoning, and is what I see as the essence of her
> Cultural Modeling Framework.
>
> The software she was reporting on, the Collaboratory Notebook (CBN),
> provided one way of doing this kind of cultural modeling. She had
positive
> results, and she reported them. I liked her upbeat appraisal of the
> experience.
>
> In my opinion, every school should have a computer for every student. But
> computers alone are just operating systems. Carol shows us a way
computers
> can be used to teach culture, and teach it in terms of any particular
> culture, such as that of African-American youth in the Chicago area, where
> Carol did the research her article was based on. Programming such
software
> is itself a cultural headache, and designing effective
culturally-sensitive
> course material on computer-based learning tools is no easy task, but the
> essential solution to all these problems, in my thinking, seems to be
> well-articulated in Carol's cultural-historical approach.
>
> Best,
> - Steve
>
>
>
> At 04:33 PM 11/9/03 +0000, you wrote:
> >Steve, I think cut-and-paste is a good example. We can use scissors and
glue
> >if we want to cut and paste text and pictures; but not if we want to "cut
> >and paste", say, melodies, moving pictures or speech. That is, the tools
> >constrain (in this example, we are limited to paper or whatever can be
cut
> >by scissors) and at the same time enable (scissors and glue allow us to
cut
> >and paste pieces of paper; indeed, the very idea of cutting and pasting
> >"comes to mind", so to speak, once we have those tools at hand).
> >
> >There is an interesting point to be made regarding the cut-and-paste
> >metaphor in computer-based scenarios. Everybody "cuts and pastes" *while
> >writing* on a screen - we are not limited, then, to what is alredy
written
> >in pieces of paper (as is the case with scissors and glue). We could say
> >that cutting-and-pasting are "incorporated" into the process of text
> >production.
> >
> >Now if we move beyond word processing to the more general "logotechnical"
> >(here I go again) character of computing, since every form of
representation
> >can be translated into binary code, there is the possibility of editing
> >(that is, cutting, copying, and pasting) features such as digitized
voice,
> >melodies, moving pictures, etc. - and doing that while producing those
> >forms.
> >
> >What we have then is a technology that enables us to edit everything we
can
> >conceive of as "editable". And what are its constraints? Maybe they have
to
> >do with what *cannot* be so edited and tends to be relegated to the
shadows.
> >For instance, can we really believe that computer-based tools for
literature
> >classes do not affect the way in which people will read and interpret
books?
> >
> >I leave it at that - for now.
> >
> >Luiz Carlos Baptista
> >lucabaptista@sapo.pt
> >lucabaptista@hotmail.com
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Steve Gabosch" <bebop101@comcast.net>
> >To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >Sent: domingo, 9 de Novembro de 2003 7:22
> >Subject: Re: first brief remarks on Carol Lee's article
> >
> >
> > > Very interesting point, Luiz. If we draw a parallel between
programming
> > > the kind of computer-based tools Carol is speaking of with cutting and
> > > pasting text and pictures from magazines, then the challenge for the
> > > teacher is not just the technical (and hardly culturally neutral)
aspects
> > > of the scissors and glue, but also the choice of magazines in the
first
> > > place - the range of possible screens. But I think your point goes
even
> > > deeper when you speak of the range of possible designs, and enabling
and
> > > constraining cognitive processes. What examples do you have in mind?
> > >
> > > - Steve
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:11 PST