Diggin the readings

I feel that both authors for this week's readings were really well grounded. Although, I do have to admit that I thought Lanham was complaining for almost half of his article.

Lanham brings up some really good points about the idea that people are really clinging to an archaic idea of what aesthetic is and what we in Lit departments try to reinforce is an idea that was around before computers. Basically, its about time that someone redefines the aesthetic that we are all so obsessed with. He makes some really bold professions about how technology makes it possible for him to teach a music appreciation course while having an insufficient education to do so... I would really disagree. Yes, the technology is there but regardless, there is a major component that a knowledgeable professor can offer that the layman cannot... ... even through another person's course materials, expertise cannot be faked and the specialization of professors in colleges is not, in my opinion, in danger. I do agree with him when he says that the advances in technology open up large new realms of possibilities for collaboration, collaborative education and such. I do think that is an extremely helpful part of our new technology.
Kohl, Liebert and Metten discuss that specific influence in one of its most effective forms: Wikipedia. I'm a huge supporter of the Wikipedia basic source for information. I'm glad that it is recognized scholastically for what it is.

I'm excited for this week's class. I'm glad we are reading people who have accepted technology and its place in our society, professional lives and classrooms.

Images in Scientific Writing

The Mishra piece really interested me. I was reminded while reading it of learning, in high school chemistry and physics, about the different ways scientists have attempted to visually document the things they study, specifically very small things like new molecules, electrons, neutrons, protons, reactions and how they could prove what they found actually looked like the diagrams they have used over the years. We even discussed the models we would put together of different compounds and why they did/didn't fully represent what actually happened. These are extremely interesting things to think about because of how highly esteemed Western Scientific thought is.

I have always been fascinated by the idea that a simple drawing can change the way something, that should be black and white, is viewed and understood. Even within the field of chemistry, if something is drawn or modeled incorectly, it could actually alter the substance and what the drawing means to begin with. It seems that more caution has been used in recent years with theorizing about the appearance of the inner structures of molecules but the formulation of pictures, while, if incorrectly depicted, can be a setback in understanding, it also seems that it is a huge part of how we, as people, grow to understand more and experiment more and expand the field. It seems extremely important to play around with models and pictures in order to further understand things. I am interested in why this method of learning and developing ideas is not used across every field of study (*ehem*, humanities) but Mishra is right, for some reason, it is seen as a silly and childish or un-academic way to present information for people within the humanities.

It seems that the more I learn about the lack of multi-modal learning and writing in academia, the more I realize that we are being seriously shorted on the amount of information that we could potentially access and understand. It would be interesting to see what type of pictures and visuals could be used with the academic writing we have all grown to know and love... ... and hate?

Mini Project 2; Blog post for this week still to come :(

Beauty

First, I am posting late and I do know that I am. I would give some sort of excuse but I'll spare you all and say, "here it is" and I'm sure you've all been waiting with bated breathe for this moment.

So. Beauty. A really interesting topic, especially coming from a woman who is easily and instantly offended or struck by the naked portrayal of another woman's body in an ad. Here is my first beef. I think humanity and the human form are beautiful (and I've been called a feminist by many-a-person before, though I don't really consider myself anything of that exact sort). Yes, women can be demeaned and yes, their bodies are sexually exploited daily, as are young children and men. The root of the obsession is not because women are inferior but because they are generally considered to be more visually appealing than men are (and a host of other reasons, innumerable). Beside that, one thing can be agreed upon in many cultures worldwide and despite gender and sex: humanity is extremely attracted to beautiful things. Something that is difficult to do is to define something so vast. But, there is something to be said of the test of time: marble carvings of men and women from Greece and Rome, Mozart's Requiem, Bach's Cello Suite 1 Prelude, Michaelangelo's The Creation of Adam in the Sistine Chapel, Flowers, Mountains, Clouds, Stars, Women with shapely bodies, Men with toned muscles, books that contain true and artful descriptions of life, Poetry, computers that are white and glow blue and phones that can contain all our lives within a sweep of our fingers on the screen.

The point is that beauty takes many forms. And what people remember and what they write about, think about, live for, die for, fight for, dream of, stare at and sometimes stalk, it is beauty. The ability to write well, to speak well, to dress well, to present yourself appropriately in different situations, that is your ability to effectively use rhetoric and those who are most successful, they are the beautiful ones, the ones we remember most: Shakespeare, Martin Luther King Jr., Sarah Palin (just kidding ;) ). 

Beauty, in fact, has everything to do with everything. It is most relevant and as much as we would all like to deny ourselves the carnal instinct to acknowledge and drool over its powerful presence, we cannot, in our most honest moments, truly pretend that the beauty contained in favorite texts do not move us.

Good Evening

Okay, I mostly want to focus on the Bronwyn Williams piece, though I think this equally relevant for the Jones piece: We are clearly not the audience. It is not news to us that there is some sort of "interactivity" going on between online multi-modal writing and the "real" world. It is no surprise that people multitask while doing online or even regular homework and it is certainly not ground breaking research to study facebook and myspace pages.... Unless we are talking about perhaps those not technologically connected (at all). The thing is -- this is the world we live in. If you let your child think it is okay to talk to strangers and accept sweet treats from them in the park while you go to a nearby bar to grab a quick drink 40 years ago, you are the same parent who doesn't monitor their 12 year old girl who gets online and creates a fake profile or chats with strangers. (stranger danger)

Pop culture is commonly mistaken for "Jersey Shore" and terrible quality programming and (heaven forbid) rap music, though Pop stands for "popular"... ... so the New York Times contains pop culture, the Bible contains pop culture... ...? Not a problem. Everything that defines a certain society at a given time can be defined as pop culture. While it is interesting to study "pop" culture of the 1920's it is not necessarily (or, in my opinion) very valid to write extensively on the interfacing of today in a shocked expository.

Given, in 1999/2000 (when the Jones piece was written, if memory serves me correctly, if not -- please correct me) this could be quite relevant and perhaps shocking. Students using the computer to communicate rather than actually meeting up! But 2008, Williams is a little ahead or behind her time in writing a reflection on something that is currently happening? Not what I would call the best situated rhetorical device on her part.

All in all -- these articles/journals said what we all already know about our own world. We use it and we are familiar with it.