Writing New Media — Day 12
The Writing New Media workshop ended last Friday. I packed up camp and headed home. And I’m still tired (3 daze later), yet energized at the same time. I learned a lot, especially the use of Flash — those scripts are the hardest part; they make everything happen. But what does learning a new program really mean?
The initial difficulty for me was having done digital video editing with Adobe Premiere back in the mid-90s. There is only one time line, and everything goes there — with effects added there. Flash is different. In creating a button, for instance, I can make an animation (a movie clip) and add that to my library. Then I have to make a button symbol (it comes with states of appearance/action similar to an internet link: up, over, down). You can see this at the UW Visual Culture site: plain square @ up state; animation for over state; and new location for down state. The “up” is simply a shape (graphic) drawn on the screen in the “up” tab. The animation is a separate moive clip dragged into the “over state.” This layers of action concept is what’s tricky. 1) Create Movie clip 2) Create button symbol. 3) Drag movie into button 4) drag button onto the stage of your project. Abracadabra! You have a cool button on your webpage.
Why try to explain all this? It all goes to the idea that the technology used shapes not only the creation but also our thinking — but only so far as how culture implements the technology, I think (Isn’t this what Scribner and Cole, Royster, and Heath are saying with their work?). Someone help me out here. It feels like a chicken and the egg dilemma. Am I Flash-thinking now compared to Premiere-thinking in my film and video production days? Is this what we mean when we say someone “thinks like a scientist”? Does becoming immersed in a specific culture of knowledge shape the way a person thinks about the world, and is that the same as (similar to) saying that different technologies shape the way we think?
Any one have some suggested reading concerning this?
It make me think (somewhat) of Bazerman’s discussion of the evolution of the article genre in the sciences. Of course, you could look at
Or, you could look historically at technology and literacy. Eisenstein’s The Printing Press As An Agent of Change, or Ong’s work, as well - it’s all part of this debate.
While it doesn’t necessarily relate to technology as you define it, you might find Benjamin’s The Task of the Translator interesting.
And of course, you can always add a little Bakhtin to the mix to look at how you are dialogically constructing these worlds of knowledge and narrative. (as a side note, do you find reader response theory helpful in this respect?)
Or, you could look at it from a sociolinguistic pov - looking at Halliday or Hymes.
That’s was a semi-lengthy librarian moment. Let me know which route you are going, and I might have more ideas.
Comment by k8 — June 27, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
Ok, one more. I just saw the title of our Reading Information Studies book club book. We are reading Bowker’s Memory Practices in The Sciences. Based on blurbs I’ve seen at amazon and powell’s, you might find it interesting. Our book club blog is located at: http://readinginformationstudies.blogspot.com/
If you think you might like to join the group, let me know and I will hook you up with the person in charge of invites. Most people in the group are either LIS professors, doctoral students, or academic librarians. There are a few MLS students, too. And me, whereever I fall into all of this;-)
Comment by k8 — June 28, 2006 @ 3:13 am
Thanks for the info k8. I’ll check out the Bowker.
Comment by Rick — July 3, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
I’m only about 50 pages into the Bowker. It isn’t a fast read, but it is worth it. So far I am really enjoying it. The discussion has already started up over on the book club blog.
Comment by k8 — July 4, 2006 @ 3:06 am
I thank you for your comment.
Comment by Annerose — February 5, 2007 @ 1:19 pm