Luiz,
I wanted to get you to articulate your difference between the two a bit
more. I certainly agree there is a difference there... but I don't
believe framing it in terms of interactive or non-interactive media
gets us very far and is all that useful. And I don't believe thinking
about how humans have dialogue with media at some meta level is
trivial, either.
I read your argument as saying that computers, for instance, are
intuitively much more interactive than books or reading activity. This
you attribute to some parameters (and they seem overly physical
parameters they way you write of them) of the media itself. You also
write that what makes a computer more interactive is its plasticity, so
to speak, of its functional capabilities that rests at least in part in
the hands of the user (to what end, you don't say).
Intuitively, I think you _sound_ right on... yeah, of course _that_
kind of media is more interactive. But I find this short-sighted.
Let's not forget that all artifacts necessarily constrain human
activity and that these constraints are at once material and
conceptual. So we must ask: in what ways is the media constraining the
activity in both a material and conceptual/ideal way (and how does each
constrain the other)?
To highlight this fundamental difference of interactivity in media of,
for example computers versus, say, TV, you say: "But when we use
computers, we must act on the material presented on the screen: we must
constantly issue commands, through writing, pointing-and-clicking,
voice activation, whatever."
All computer programs restrict, if you think about it deeply, human
input to a very particular and highly restricted form. I can only
issue a particular set of commands, over a rather restricted area of
(digital) "space" with fairly crude input methods (buttons,
essentially). Why can't I speak colloquially to my computer and its
gets what I want to do? Why can't I share a glance with a computer and
it understands my meaning? Why can't I drop a book in front of my
computer and it fetches relevant material on the web? I think it's a
fallacy, then, to view a computer or computer program as greatly more
interactive than, say, a book (and this is interactive in your sense,
not mine) when in facts its interactive abilities are is so poor
compared to most other activities.
To return to interaction with artifacts: it may turn out that for some
computer programs that feel more interactive (ooo, look, pen-based
input! how interactive!), they are conceptually or ideally not
interactive at all. What I mean by this is, and this perhaps shows my
bias, can the question "how does the interaction of the artifact shape,
engage, and develop higher level cognitive processes?" yield an
interesting answer?
And, for what it's worth, look at how the computer hardware industry is
constantly trying to mimic rather old and culturally established
artifacts: a digital pen, a digital canvas, a digital camera, a digital
orb (http://www.ambientdevices.com/cat/index.html), the digital BOOK
and digital PAPER. The innovation seems to be a revisiting of the old
artifact.
I agree with your intuition: digital-ness (and I think it's fair to
abstract this from your example because you've offered none other than
the computer) offers _something_ in the dialectic of artifacts with
mental processes. But that "something" is unclear, and it doesn't feel
right to say it's the "interactive" properties. Digital-ness may be a
gross way of stating the issue, since digital-ness exists just about
everywhere these days, but I feel confident the thrust of what I mean
by it is clear.
etienne
On Monday, Nov 24, 2003, at 14:48 US/Pacific, Luiz Carlos Baptista
wrote:
> Ettiene,
>
> I can't see why the fundamental difference between interactive and
> non-interactive media is hard to grasp. Of course, from a certain
> perspective, we are always interacting with everything around us, even
> if we sit still, but this is so broad a sense of "interaction" that it
> becomes trivial. What I mean by that difference, and I believe this is
> the common assumption, is the fact that, no matter how wise we are in
> our "interaction" with books or broadcast media, our ability to "talk
> back" is limited to the adjustment of a few parameters - and, more
> important, there is no possibility for us to intervene at the level of
> the messages.
>
> I never said that computers are not a medium of reproduction, of
> course they are. But they are much more than that, in all their
> "instantiations".
>
> As regards "drawing" and "pictures" as counting as "literature", I
> think the same arguments concerning "interaction" apply. But then
> I might be wrong.
>
> Rgrds,
>
> Luiz Carlos Baptista
> lucabaptista@sapo.pt
> lucabaptista@hotmail.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Etienne Pelaprat
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 11:08 PM
> Subject: Re: first brief remarks on Carol Lee's article
>
> 'Lo:
>
> I find your fundamental difference a bit hard to grasp. First,
> interaction with literary mediums does not necessarily mean physical
> interaction. I, for one, would like to believe that in spite of all
> the trash we see on TV, there is still some critical (in almost all
> senses of the word) cognitive activity going on in the brain that we
> could count as interacting with the technology. Mental interaction
> counts for something, right? And, physical interaction is never
> without its brain correlate. Second, how can computers not be a medium
> of reproduction? That's what they do best, they churn out the same
> things over and over again! Third, let's not forget digital computing
> technology extends beyond the desktop machine, so when you speak of the
> computer you mean one instantiation of a digital computing device.
> There are many computing devices, just as there are many printed
> devices. There are many computers in your car. And, as you say in the
> case of the computer in the TV, there will inevitably be a continuing
> confluence of computing technology with other technologies.
>
> So I think your "fundamental difference" is not a difference at all, at
> least with respect to interaction and "talking back" with the
> technology (and this is meant to spark an argument). Although you are
> right that digital technology will create and modify existing forms of
> literature, you are wrong to say that the printing press or mass
> production of text established literature as a form. The printing
> press established several forms of literature, but it wasn't the first
> and it won't be the last. Art, drawing, pictures are as much a part of
> literature (and this is perhaps a philosophical argument) as material
> language.
>
> etienne
>
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > There is a fundamental difference between technologies of mass
> > reproduction, such as printing, and computers. Printing, broadcast
> > media, movies, etc., are non-interactive: in each case, we are
> > basically left with two options, namely reading (watching, listening,
> > etc.) or not. We can't "talk back". But when we use computers, we
> must
> > act on the material presented on the screen: we must constantly issue
> > commands, through writing, pointing-and-clicking, voice activation,
> > whatever. And if we connect computers in networks, and these
> > networks in the Internet, besides the "interactivity" with the
> machine
> > we also have interaction with other people.
> >
> > It's true that we are able to "talk back" to television or radio
> > shows, but only if we use the telephone (an interactive medium). On
> > the other hand, we may issue commands to a TV or radio set, but they
> > boil down to zapping and adjusting parameters such as volume,
> > brightness (in the case of TV), etc. We can't change the programs
> > themselves - and when we can, as is the case with "interactive
> > television", this is done thanks to a computer connected to the TV.
> >
> > All this is to say that the use of computers as an aid to learning
> > literature will certainly change how we interpret literary works and
> > even what counts as "literature". When you say that "Printing
> > presses and computers can modify the forms of literature and provide
> > different ways that these artifacts of text can be looked at", I
> would
> > say that printing presses helped to establish literature as a form,
> > and computers can induce some important changes in the way this form
> > of expression is understood and (re)produced. But what these changes
> > are, and how wide, nobody knows. We'll have to wait and see.
> >
> > Sorry for the delay. Rgrds,
> >
> > Luiz Carlos Baptista
> > lucabaptista@sapo.pt
> > lucabaptista@hotmail.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Steve Gabosch
> > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 2:48 AM
> > Subject: Re: first brief remarks on Carol Lee's article
> >
> > Hi Luiz,
> >
> > Great points.
> >
> > One underlying theme we seem to be grappling with is the question of
> > whether and how much computers really change the basic issues of
> > culture in
> > general and literature in particular. The essential educational
> > challenge
> > behind Carol's article is the development of ways to learn and teach
> > literature across cultures. Her article is about how a new generation
> > of
> > computer-based learning tools is beginning to open possibilities for
> > teachers to produce their own illustrated, annotated and hyper-linked
> > versions of literature to facilitate culturally responsive approaches
> > in
> > the classroom to the study of "canonical texts." How are these new
> > tools,
> > and computers in general, changing our understanding of what
> literature
> > really is? Do they change the essential dynamic of literature?
> >
> > As you emphasize, digital technology brings many possibilities to new
> > heights, such as the ability to create copies that are immediately
> > identical to one another, and the ability to create text, images and
> > sounds
> > in the digital media itself. But hasn't this been a characteristic of
> > industrial mass production all along? In particular, the mass
> > publication
> > of literature - barely 500 years old, since the invention of the
> > printing
> > press - has always had an aspect of these peculiar features. Just as
> > is
> > the case in digital communication technology, virtually identical
> > copies
> > can be made in large quantities, and the medium of reproduction
> itself
> > (print galleys, etc.) can be used for composition. Mass literature is
> > born
> > as a reproduction. And now, in the digital age, this capacity has
> > leaped
> > to new levels.
> >
> > Which gets back to those complex questions: just where is the
> > "original"? (And what is a "reproduction"?) As you point out,
> > scholars
> > are sometimes needed to sort out confusion over origination, and when
> > they
> > can, of course they go to the original manuscripts - which themselves
> > can
> > have multiple versions! But is the question of the original really
> > just a
> > technical question of identifying a particular artifact?
> >
> > I am inclined to think in Bakhtinian terms at this point. Is there
> > really
> > such a thing at all as an "original'? Is there such a thing as an
> > "original" if it is not "reproduced"? Is it literature in any sense
> at
> > all
> > if it is not reproduced? Can a work of literature really be such
> > without
> > readers, without interpreters, without people who themselves mediate
> > the
> > message and transform the text into real experience, real dialogue,
> > and in
> > doing so, real social relations? In this line of thinking, all
> > "reproductions" become versions not just of some "original" but also
> > the
> > living process of people interacting with the work.
> >
> > The hard copy, according to this line of argument, is just one part
> of
> > the
> > real process of reproduction, which occurs only when people are
> > intersecting and interpenetrating with it. The "authenticity" of the
> > reproduction of the "original" - its degree of being mediated with
> > abridgments, illustrations, annotations, etc., the version it turns
> > out to
> > be - plays a role, but perhaps not the essential role. Whether the
> > original was on screen and the reproduction was in a book, or the
> > original
> > was in a book and the reproduction was on screen, is interesting, but
> > again, not essential. Perhaps the essential issue is how the readers
> > are
> > actually and culturally interacting with whatever version they are
> > dealing
> > with. Versions change over time, forms vary, but readers and the ways
> > they
> > interpret the things they read change even more, and here is where we
> > can
> > really locate the dynamics of the origin and reproduction of
> > literature.
> >
> > Your point is well taken that there are important differences between
> > the
> > mode of the mass-published printed page, and the mode of computer
> > technology (which often winds up, as you ironically point out, on
> more
> > printed pages!). And certainly, these differences in modes of
> > reproduction
> > have opened our minds to more flexible notions as to what counts as
> > "literature".
> >
> > But perhaps as the industrial age has developed and we have learned
> to
> > reproduce more and more things in more and more ways, we are learning
> > more
> > about what the essence of cultural events is really all about. If our
> > notions of what counts as literature are changing, perhaps it is
> > because we
> > are getting a better idea of what literature really is. Printing
> > presses
> > and computers can modify the forms of literature and provide
> different
> > ways
> > that these artifacts of text can be looked at, and if the literature
> is
> > interesting to enough people, over time, more and more versions seem
> to
> > proliferate. But no matter what the form literature takes, and no
> > matter
> > what technology is used to make copies of it, it is people that
> supply
> > its
> > content and really reproduce it.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > - Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > At 03:34 PM 11/14/03 +0000, you wrote:
> > >Hi Steve,
> > >
> > >Lots of interesting points in your message. I'll follow some
> threads.
> > >
> > >«the absolute similarity of copies does not negate the obvious fact
> > that
> > >even a digital copy is not the same thing as the original
> performance,
> > >image, or whatever it is a recording of.»
> > >
> > >I agree. But then there is a qualitative difference between digital
> > and
> > >analogic representation, and it's the fact that whenever we
> > create/produce
> > >something in digital mode (say, a software, a video game, a piece of
> > >"techno" music) the "copies" of this work are undistinguishable from
> > the
> > >"original". There is no loss of quality or information, and the very
> > notions
> > >of "original" and "copy" become problematic, to say the least.
> > >
> > >
> > >«Just where do we locate a literary "original"? Is it the author's
> > original
> > >manuscript? Perhaps the serialization of their writing in a
> > newspaper (as
> > >many of Charles Dickens' books were)? The first edition of the first
> > book
> > >the text appeared in? The highest quality edition ever published?
> > The
> > >current edition in print? The best e-book version available?»
> > >
> > >Tricky questions indeed. But I think that as regards literature,
> > there is
> > >already a well-established tradition of scholarship and
> > interpretation which
> > >employs procedures to identify "authoritative" versions of literary
> > works
> > >(not that this identification is always without argument; the
> > contrary seems
> > >to be the case, but at least there is a common basis for
> discussion).
> > >
> > >
> > >«And then, just to reverse the order of events, how about literary
> > writing
> > >that originates on the internet? Suppose the next great Portuguese
> > novel is
> > >originally published on the web - and subsequently printed in book
> > form.
> > >Wouldn't the production of this work in book form then be a "layer
> of
> > >mediation"?»
> > >
> > >Of course it would. For instance, a book published on the Web has a
> > >different structure than in print. Think about hypertext links, the
> > absence
> > >of page numbers, the different division of sections, etc. Besides
> > that, if a
> > >text is too long we'd rather print it, because the screen is not as
> > good as
> > >paper to read. All this is to say that a printed book can "have"
> more
> > layers
> > >of mediation than a computer, no problem with that.
> > >
> > >
> > >«Why can't literature be just as real on screens as it is in
> > beautifully
> > >bound books? Does the screen format really add another layer of
> > mediation
> > >that is fundamentally different from the layer of editing that is
> > involved
> > >in creating a new edition of a book? Perhaps rather than another
> > layer, we
> > >just have the possibility of many versions.»
> > >
> > >I disagree. The production of a new edition of a printed book is
> very
> > >different from the adaptation of this same book to the Web. The
> media
> > are
> > >different. This is not to say that the notion of "literature"
> doesn't
> > apply
> > >to texts on the screen. Rather, what we have here is a change in our
> > notion
> > >of what counts as "literature" - a change brought about by our uses
> > of a new
> > >technology.
> > >
> > >Rgrds,
> > >
> > >Luiz Carlos Baptista
> > >lucabaptista@sapo.pt
> > >lucabaptista@hotmail.com
> >
> >
> >
>
> Etienne
> ..........................................................
> Living by and for ideals Life's little ironies #4:
> is a strength, Wisdom of the right path
> Evaluating others with them only becomes apparent when
> is a weakness. that path is unreachable.
>
>
>
Etienne
..........................................................
Living by and for ideals Life's little ironies #4:
is a strength, Wisdom of the right path
Evaluating others with them only becomes apparent when
is a weakness. that path is unreachable.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:12 PST