In
Dennis Barons “From Pencils to Pixels,” I notice a common theme throughout the
history of writing technology. It seems at the advent of new technology, the
public is initially apprehensive. Whether this is due to the inaccessibility of
the new technology or a deeply embedded fear that the technology might
radically alter the fabric of their existence is unclear, but the common
feature I attribute to the surviving technology is the incorporation of its
precursor.
I propose that our most recent
writing technology subsumes all the technology that preceded it. So the romance
we associate with the rudimentary technology is not lost. It is rather
channeled and reconstituted into the new. Therefore, we should not be lamenting
a loss, but embracing the myriad possibilities that new technology offers. As
writers we are driven to create meaning for our readers, and advancements in
technology allow us to do that with various media that we can combine in innovative
ways that achieve an effect that was once inconceivable. In “The Multiple Media
of Texts, ” Anne Frances Wysocki offers a look at these media we as writers now
have at our disposal and the ways in which they can be manipulated to shape
transmission and reception of messages.
Each element—words, photo, chart,
graph, video, sound, drawing, color—is but a piece referring to a much larger
whole. When considering these elements alongside the “web of meaning” created
by intertext, we can see the possibility for an infinitely layered visual
representation to construct and deconstruct. One can follow one written text which
refers to others, which still refers to others, and do this endlessly. And this
is only one of the visual elements containing meaning.
Even the visual representation of
the written words contains its own meaning independent of the content of the
words themselves and yet inextricably linked. The messages of form and content
can coincide with one another for emphasis or conflict to call attention to the
disconnect, but the main point is that each is a message in and of itself that multiplies
meaning through interconnectedness. Now, with the addition of other elements,
ways of producing meaning become even more complex. The layers are endless.
With the introduction of these new
forms of media, I wonder how they will fit into Johndan Johnson-Eilola’s
argument about the trend of intellectual property (IP). As the line between
creative works and non-creative becomes more blurred, I wonder where these
things will fit. Will these elements too be seen as fragments, as manageable
chunks of information suitable for commodification? If we approach these
peripheral media (video, sound, drawings, photos) in the same manner as the
traditional media (written words), we might conclude that each has an
interconnectedness within their own medium analogous to intertext, that they
derive meaning from the things to which they are connected. As with traditional
media, these too could be fragmented and reconfigured as an “original” work.
This has lead me to conclude that IP
laws are destroying the very things they are meant to protect. With our
postmodern conception that all works arise in a social context, that these
works can then be fragmented and reconfigured into a composite that constitutes
originality, I can imagine IP becoming obsolete. This new form of IP is the antithesis
to IP, and yet its construction is contingent on the production of actual original
thought. Will we eventually cease pursuit of intellectual innovation in
exchange for the perpetual breakdown and reconfiguration of the existing IP? Or
has this already been going on since the beginning of time?
No comments:
Post a Comment