Print and Visual Media: A 21st Century Revolution of the Mind

 

Words and pictures are both powerful mediums of communicating virtually anything we desire. They’re a beautiful way to translate thoughts and ideas, and by many people that translation is artfully done. Pictures and written language can also be used together to achieve other effects. Especially in the 21st century, media of a variety of sorts is being incorporated into rhetorical and entertainment functions.

Let’s start with a book. A good book brings its reader into another world, a separate dimension of time and space. With words alone, an author can guide a reader through a fantastic tale, and change the way they see the world. Books can incite ideologies, start a following, and create social revolutions. Movies can act in the same way. Film actors and directors can shepherd an audience through a riveting, thought provoking plot. In fact, there are many movies that are adaptations of books, translations from a print to a film medium. Harry Potter is a wonderful testament to film adaptations. I first entered the wizarding world through the books, but I also fell in love with the saga on screen. Both mediums served to entertain and delight me in differing ways. Reading the books is a process. You have to sit down for hours on end in order to digest the whole story. It’s a commitment. That commitment is a large part of why reading is so satisfying. Once you’ve finished reading a book, it’s an accomplishment, it’s a small sort of accolade. Movies, on the other hand, are ephemeral, exciting works of art. They have depth, but not nearly to the same extent of books. Moreover, films can display visuals that novels simply cannot hope to compete with.

Together, in a digital space, photos and writing can be used for a multitude of means. Social media is ripe with amalgamations of media and print. Sites like Vine and Instagram are mostly picture and video based, with captioning, commenting, and a profile infrastructure as well, so there is writing on some level. Sites like Tumblr and Facebook are more of an even split of writing and pictures. There are statuses, comments, profiles, extensive about sections. At the same time there are photo and video albums and sharing, and the same captioning and commenting system of Vine and Instagram. Lastly, Twitter is a mostly text based social media platform. There is some picture and video media involved, but the majority of the information is in writing.

There is a wide spectrum of mediums for the combined use of media and text, and denizens of the 21st century have capitalized on those mediums to broadcast their personal image. The internet is a broad, endless canvas, with no rules or regulations on how to use it. We are the authors of our existence, the composers of our individual symphonies. We are witnesses and participants to a revolution of the mind hosted in a vast digital environment.

Why Do I Write?

When I came across this question, I wanted to give a beautiful, flourishing answer. I wanted to tell a story, relate a memory of sudden epiphany or serenity. I thought there must be some abstract, profound reason for why I write, but as a searched my mind no such reason came to mind.

I quickly have come to the realization the majority of the writing that I’ve ever done has been in an academic setting. School is where I learned to spell my name. In a way, my identity in terms of the way I write is interwoven into a school environment. Even now, as I type these words, I’m doing this as an assignment for a class. My writing method was crafted by a couple dozen teachers, the prompts given to me on a schedule with a purpose. There is so little, sadly, that I’ve written solely for myself.

This makes my perception of writing seem pessimistic, so let me make something clear. I love to write. I enjoy the process of working through a piece until it’s as close to perfect as possible. Trying to convey the cascade of ideas streaming through my mind when I’m writing can be equally sensational and tedious. Also, the fact that most of the writing I’ve done has been for school does not diminish the satisfaction I can get from doing it.

I’d also like to address the feeling of ‘flow’, brought up on OnCourse. Here’s an article on it if you’re interested. When I’m deeply focused on an assignment, especially when I’m interested in the topic, I’ve experienced this feeling. It’s like having tunnel vision and extended peripheral vision at the same time. You’re aware of everything around you, yet focused intently on one specific task. It’s difficult to have this happen with every piece you write, but it’s nice when it happens.

I guess I haven’t really answered the question. I write because I like doing it, because I think I’m pretty good at it. I write because it engages my mind like nothing else. It gives me the ability to create universes, the time to formulate my arguments and to sound my best with every letter I put on the page. Writing is splendid and aggravating, and I hope to continue to cultivate the skill both in school and in my personal life.

The Invisible Audience: Writing Blocks

Writing blocks can be the bane of any writer or non-writer’s existence. Those hours spent in front of a computer screen or an open notebook with nothing written down, assignments met with nothing but lethargy and an empty mind. Multitudes of people experience it, but what’s really happening when we encounter a writer’s block?

Well, Kieth Hjortshoj has a few ideas about that, and he details them in his book Understanding Writing Blocks. According to him, there are a couple of factors that go into writing blocks. For example, Hjortshoj tells an anecdote about one of his college students. This student, Paul, grew up having his writing criticized and revised by his father and couldn’t write anything for himself as a result. The very thought of scrutiny prevented Paul from being sure about anything he put to paper. The author says that this is pretty much what we all experience when we question our writing. The invisible audience looking over shoulder as we write makes us strive for perfection on the first try.

Because of this conception that writing needs to be perfect as it’s being written originates from our skewed perspectives of what writing is. Prescriptive strategies taught in many schools with strict guidelines of how to form a piece of writing disassociate students from the complex, ever-changing nature of the process. We need to make countless mistakes while writing in order to find the right word or phrase, and we need to trust our voice. Hjortshoj asserts that the best way to combat writing blocks is to find personal strategies to overcome the sense that we are being criticized while we’re in the process of writing. For one of his students, it was putting on a shower cap to remind themselves that they’re alone and can do whatever they want without scrutiny. For Paul, it was putting an imperfection on the paper he was working on. Writing isn’t a simple process with straightforward rules about how to do it. It’s a confusing, messy, and personal thing that takes time and energy to be anywhere near proficient at it. But that’s also what makes it beautiful. Occasionally, all of those hours researching, composing, and revising coalesce into something you can be proud of, something you can’t wait to show people. It’s all about reminding yourself that there’s no invisible audience looking over your shoulder.

Wintery Mixed Feelings

Earlier in March, Bryan Alexander decided to document the early transition from winter to spring in Vermont. Usually for the Green Mountain State, March brings a host of blizzards and freezing whether, but this year it has been surprisingly temperate. In his article, he uses two different forms of documentation: a YouTube video and what can only be described as a semi-interactive slideshow on cowbird. If you’re interested, go ahead and click on those links to get an idea of what I’m talking about.

(Photo Taken From http://cowbird.com/story/128806/Uncanny_Spring/)

Very simply put, I like the cowbird version better. This isn’t necessarily because I enjoy it, I just find YouTube videos to be an unprofessional format. I’m always reminded of some adolescent discovering how to use iMovie and feeling the compelling desire to share his work with the world. (No offense to adolescents, live your dreams kids) While the video itself is fine, I can’t get that image out of  my head. It’s also possibly because I’ve used iMovie before, and I could tell what video editing tools Alexander was using. This may make my opinion biased, but I think that bias is shared my a large number of people, so I’ll let it stand.

Not surprisingly, the reasons I liked Alexander’s use of cowbird were for the opposite reasons that I disliked his YouTube video; it was a new format for me that seemed much more professional. Additionally, the page was interactive, which made me more mindful of the information I was receiving. I tend to disengage, at least partially, when I cannot have an active role in what I’m learning or looking at.

Overall, both mediums conveyed almost the same exact information, but I would be more inclined to watch Alexander’s work on cowbird than I would on YouTube.

For perspective, a comment posted on Bryan Alexander’s article by a user named “CogDog” had quite a different opinion than me. Here’s an exerpt:

“In Cowbird, the audio and text are the same, and to me, a tad redundant, whereas in video, the audio is the narration. In Cowbird the audio is not synchronized at all with the visuals/text, so it either allows for the free roaming, but also for others might be discordant.”

This is an entirely valid claim, but it doesn’t change my opinion, I think because I prefer the “free roaming” capability that CogDog is mentioning. For others, I understand how it could come off as  redundant.

What do you think?

Humor, Comics, and Mental Illness

In 2014, Katy Waldman wrote an essay concerning mental illness and how it relates to comics. I gained a lot of insight and a larger appreciation for the medium after I read it, and I implore you to do the same.

Anyway, here are a couple things Waldman pointed out, and a little of my own embellishment as well.

One of Waldman’s claims is that “a certain psychological profile… gravitates toward self-expression in cartoons.” This profile is one of mental illness. The author asserts that cartoonists tend to write and draw about mental illness, perhaps because the cartoonists themselves are “a little bit nuts.” The first example of this Waldman provides is a cartoon about the famous painting “the Scream”, shown below.

 

People primarily know “the Scream” from what the cartoon says; “gift shop umbrellas, inflatable punching bags”. This cartoon allows the viewer to see the real motivation behind the work, and takes away any guesses someone looking at the painting might have to make. Moreover, it is a prominent example of a cartoonist highlighting an issue of mental illness where there was previously no recognition. I certainly didn’t think of ‘the Scream” as someone experiencing a panic attack, I just accepted it as a part of popular culture and moved on. She goes beyond this particular example to assert that there is a connection between the creative nature of cartoonists and mental illness. She believes that the two have a distinct correlation, and that many cartoonists deal with those issues.

Waldman goes on to offer a different perspective from Professor William Kuskin. He claims that “you can’t separate graphic novels from their superhero roots.” That is, the superhero trope is ever-present in both graphic novels and cartoons. Superheroes change their identity in many cases in order to cope with varying degrees of trauma. Batman conquered his fear and internal anguish by taking the guise of a bat and protecting his city. Superman became a savior of a world that was not his own in order to deal with his inability to stop the extinction of his own species. In the same way, cartoonists portray themselves and their emotions in certain ways through their comics as a coping mechanism. Or, as Kuskin puts it, “one self has to transform visually into another self to survive, and that is what creators are doing every time they represent themselves in a panel.”

One example Waldman uses for this assertion is a cartoon about the character ‘Blerch’, seen below. The author of this cartoon is attempting to change themselves visually, by exercising, while at the same time fighting against an intangible, internal force capable of negatively affecting their life. Sounds like a superhero, right?

However, the idea of superheroes being the predominant inspiration and underlying cause for comics seemed too superficial for Waldman. She believes that comics transcend the level of discussion about mental illness that novels and other mediums can provide because they are so flexible. They can tell multiple stories at once, provide varying perspectives, and include a very unique type of humor that simply can’t be accomplished in other forms. Below is an example of this type of humor, from Allie Brosh’s “Hyperbole and a Half”.

This simple piece brings mind, at least to me, the feeling of relief when you’re having a terrible week and someone or something completely turns it around. It’s that moment where you realize “hey, maybe this whole being alive thing is actually pretty nice.” It’s also quite funny because it implies that most of the time we think that everything is hopeless bullshit. Because rarely do we address how difficult it can be just living from day to day, and even more rarely do people use humor to showcase that difficulty.

At first, I thought it would be hard to identify with this article, not because I don’t know about mental illness, but because I’m not huge on comics. However, Waldman made this article easy to connect with, for both those who don’t know much about mental illness or comics. It gave me a deeper appreciation for a medium which I had very often taken for granted. I now realize there is a lot more than what meets the eye in comics, and I’ll definitely be paying more attention to them from now on.

Long Distance Relationships in 2016

Physical separation in a romantic relationships is one of the hardest obstacles to overcome. Couples have been dealing with long distance relationships long before any of us were born, and will continue to do so long after we’re gone. The question is, how does modern day technology affect these relationships?

In Nancy Baym’s Personal Connections in the Digital Age, she discusses the intimacy involved with different modes of communication, the value of different types of interactions on an emotional scale. She asserts that Internet, phone, and conversations of the like are equally as intimate and valid as face-to-face interaction. Baym does admit that “face-to-face communication provides social connection that cannot be attained” (Baym 64) in the same way that technology can. She quickly follows with a counter argument that the value of face-to-face interaction does not negate the social benefit of technological communication. I agree to an extent

I think that while non romantic relationships can function with newer technology such as Skype and FaceTime, romantic relationships require touch, and will eventually cease to exist because of a lack of a third dimension. So much of our romantic attraction for people requires their physical presence. While the obvious example is the aspect of sex, I’m also talking about how just having someone you’re attracted to near or touching you helps solidify a relationship. However, I think if two people have had enough time together, there is the possibility that long distance couples can work, but only for the right people in very particular circumstances.

An Argument as Old as Plato

Plato, one of the most widely read philosophers in history, was adamantly against writing, because he thought our memories would suffer as a result. The irony is very evident here, as the only reason we know his refutation of writing is because it is written down. But then again, who knows how potent our memories would be if we didn’t store our thoughts on paper, the internet, and the like.

In the article “the world UNPLUGGED”, the author showcases a variety of younger people’s self-reported addiction to technology. The article seems only to highlight the downsides of smart phone usage and almost altogether ignores the positive attributes. By asserting that younger people cannot mediate their use of technology healthily, the author posits his view in the light of technological determinism: the belief that technology is a casual agent that we cannot resist the changes of. Although I agree that there are many issues with people’s use of modern technology, I think it’s very important to include the benefits in the discussion as well. (Article: https://theworldunplugged.wordpress.com/)

With every new generation comes new technology, and with that technology comes fear, usually from the mouths of the previous generation. While it is true that every invention comes with obvious downsides, I believe that opponents of new technology very often fail to recognize the benefits to make their argument seem stronger. That being said, the younger generation also has a tendency to overlook the possible negative consequences of new tech for the same reason.

One of my classmates, Will, related the younger generation’s use of  technology to the global dependence on cars. He asserts that while we are fully aware of the negative consequences of our actions when driving, mostly on the environment, we still willingly participate in the use of them on a daily basis. While I agree that the older generation has the same pitfalls with technology that the younger does, I do not believe that one negates the other. We need to find solutions to the negative aspects of technology, not simply compare issue to another. With phones, for example, I think it’s necessary to mediate younger people’s constant use in order to protect their developing brains. Also, I think that education concerning the possible bad consequences of over usage needs to be implemented from an early age. If people are taught to use devices responsibly, then we can avoid a lot of the issues talked about in the article.

Is this the real life, is this just fantasy?

In the digital age, there are many instances where new technology necessitates a redefinition or at least a review of the ‘real world’. With phones, the question was whether the communication you had was as meaningful as face to face interaction. Then computers, and smartphones, and similar technologies emerged which blurred the lines even further. We as a culture are witnesses to a massive technological revolution that brings into play more dimensions of life, more ways for a person to express themselves, and more places for our minds to inhabit.

One interesting example of these new areas of life comes in the form of a video game. In the article, “This Video Game Will Break Your Heart”, Chris Suellentrop writes about the game “That Dragon, Cancer” in which the user has to care for their 5 year old son who has cancer. It is described as a “memoir… in the form of  a video game”. The player has to live through the heartbreaking tale of this young boy, and contrary to many video games, the controls are very restrictive. “Withholding some control from the player was an attempt to convey feelings of helplessness and despair”, writes Suellentrop. As opposed to the conventional video game, “That Dragon, Cancer” involves the users’ emotional state more than their skill at any given gaming task.

For many, video games began as a simple, entertaining way to distract themselves. There was no concept of a second life involved, one wasn’t emotionally connected to Tetris or Mario Kart (hopefully). But now, the world is slowly becoming more accustomed to people living their lives in a digital medium, and tech geniuses are continuing to accommodate. In an age of digital confusion, I think the line from Freddie Mercury’s most famous song encapsulates my feelings towards this phenomenon, “Is this the real life, is this just fantasy?”

Controversy of Design

The room that I’m sitting in offers very little in terms of taste and smell, so I’ll focus my efforts of observation on the three remaining senses – sight, touch, and sound.

In terms of sight, there are desks of roughly equal sizes in the middle of  the room as well as desks lining each side. The chairs are all exactly the same, adding to this uniform nature. There are equal amounts of computers on each side of the room (6 on each side). The noticeable differences from the norm come from the front of the room, where there is a podium, a higher standing desk with a computer, and a dry erase board. These are all for the Professor’s use. Because he or she will be the focal point of any lesson in the room, it is necessary for their place of work to be centralized. This is a traditional classroom setup. Finally, there are four windows on the left side (as one enters), which is possibly a functional addition to allow natural light to enter the room.

Other than what grounds me; my feet on the floor, my legs and body in my chair, the main thing I am interacting with is my computer. My mouse pad and keyboard are my main points of contact, as well as my pen and notebook. Other than that, there are very few things that I touch in this room.

Lastly, the natural sound of the room is entirely quiet. That is, without anyone in the room, there are no constant background noises, which elicits a calming feeling, perfect for studying. Right now, with people in the room, mainly what I hear is fingers striking keyboards and the occasional sneeze or loud breath.

In short this room contradicts a discussion based environment. Everyone is facing their computers, not the whiteboard or each other. It provides much more of an individual workshop environment rather than one of classroom collaboration. The sounds and what one can touch in the room do not affect the way students interact with technology, but it simply resembles any quiet classroom environment; very few distractions, and mildly calming. The main piece that affects how technology is used is the visual setup: Students are all facing their devices rather than the professor or each other.