CRDM 701

Week 12--Jayna

I think I?ll start with the last quote I typed in my review of the reading this week.  ?Words mean what people have made them mean, but people mean nothing that words have not taught them to say? (Peters, p. 258).  To me this quote brings the semester?s readings full circle? we communicate in the way that we have created over the millennia.  We express our thoughts, feelings, ideas through speech and writing, photography, music, and (other) digital means. Still, it is what we have dubbed it to be.  As Peters points out, the evolution of communication also limits us?but if it is true that communication has become disembodied (and I think we?d all agree with that to some extent, ie: conference calls with researchers who are only a voice to us and not a body), then perhaps there are no limits to how we can continue to take the evolution of communication.  Maybe I will be able to one day have conversations with my dog that are of the two-way variety, where she shares her feelings, and not just her nonverbal reactions to my tone of voice and body language.

Code, as discussed by Hayles, is much the same?while she argues that it is not its own language (or perhaps that was another theorist she was quoting), it to is limited by the capabilities of its writers, and is undeniably linked to language/writing, as the intent of the code must be translated from the desires of the humans creating it.  So, likening it to the Peters quote, code means what humans say it means, and code?s capabilities are only limited by what the humans can (dream to) develop for machines to carry out.  As Hayles says, ??a computer program has only one meaning: what it does?.Its entire meaning is its function? (p. 48).  As a result, those writing the code must be very clear in their intent, otherwise the code will not function correctly.

Hayles makes a number of connections that I feel relate to my topic of the perception of typography.  Here are two that I made specific note of: ??clearly it matters that print has now become a particular kind of output for digital text?. Print books in general have moved toward the visual and away from straight text?. It is also true that any book, conventional or not, participates in the rich historical contexts and traditions of print that influence how books are designed, produced, disseminated, and received? (p. 32-33).
?[1997-2004] have seen remarkable growth in the visuality of electronic media and the accelerating digitization of all media? (p. 37).

Both quotes speak to the importance of visual communication. It seems that although our communication has become more and more disembodied, we still desire the images to go along with our written messages.  Peters seems to agree: ?Our faces, actions, voices, thoughts, and transactions have all migrated into media that can disseminate the indicia of our personhood without our permission. Communication has become disembodied? (p. 228).  Here, I feel that Peters acknowledges the digital evolution and also gives a nod to digital?s visual representation.

Random thought inserted here? Most of us don?t know code. We use extremely user-friendly web-page creation software or simply type directly into discussion boards.  The code is there, interpreting our intent, allowing the page to look and feel the way we want, helping us to use fonts, colors, text attributes, photos, sound clips, to communicate our message in our way?Hmmm? with that I must run?my apologies for the brevity; too much to do and too much mucus in my head to allow me to do it efficiently.  Now there?s your disembodied visual!

Posted at 05:23PM Nov 14, 2007 by jrjackso in General  |  Comments[3]