By saraht, on October 26th, 2009
Looking over the feeds, I seem to have been trying to blog/share items that I have picked up from the radio. There is definitely a theme arising here - blame it on Bladerunner – human/digital technological interaction/fusion/evolution. I’m not sure how to label this, but I think it is visible from the … (I don’t have the vocabulary for [...]
By saraht, on October 19th, 2009
I have found the theme of transliteracies really interesting, even if I am not completely sure what the term means, yet. As you can see from this week’s posts, I’ve been looking on YouTube for videos which explain the concept, but they all seem to be saying different things. Maybe this is just because there [...]
By saraht, on October 19th, 2009
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39473327@N05/sets/72157622488219487/
I wanted to look at the things we ‘read’ and yet which don’t contain writing. I tried to organise this around a lifecycle.
The digital artefact is made up of a series of pictures which tell a story of life, from beginning to end. It presents some of the ‘signs of life’ that we may encounter.
Attempting [...]
By saraht, on October 18th, 2009
This week has taken me into the orality vs literacy debate – the debate that posits that literacy enables higher levels of thought than orality. This brings me to this, the video you may have just watched. If you go to 1.58 mins in, you’ll get to a great quote describing the the character Medb ‘a corrupted and corrupting [...]
By saraht, on October 15th, 2009
Transliteracy:
I think I am now getting to grips with the lifestream and some of its ethos. If my DIY definition of transliteracy is valid, then it means not only being able to manipulate digital media – to create and communicate using it, but it also means being able to see how we are affected by the use [...]
By saraht, on October 12th, 2009
‘Speech and writing tell the world; depiction shows the world. In the one, the order of the world is given by by the author; in the other, the order of the world is yet to be designed (fully and/or definitively) by the viewer. ‘ (Kress, 2005).
Literary significance (from Wikipedia) – views of ‘author’
“In literary [...]
By saraht, on October 12th, 2009
Kress (2005) refers to speech/writing as having a ‘finite stock of words – vague, general, nearly empty of meaning’. However, for image/depiction he states that ’there is an infinitely large potential of depictions – precise, specific and full of meaning’. I am not sure that I agree with Kress here. Reading over the history of the Mona [...]