Lanham's essay details the implications of moving from book to screen--word to media--linear to hypertextual. Our conventional ideas of authorship are based on the permanency of the written word, and, yet, with current technology the reader can easily become an author (456). A recurrent theme of this essay is the way in which technology has allowed for the democratization of publishing (459). With the basic programs that come with many of our computers upon purchase, we now each have the ability to create our own text, and that text can now take many forms other than just ink and page. Lantham contends that the creation of this mixture of voice, written word, image, and movies is a new form of "writing." In example, he discusses the use of computer programs to create digital music, claiming that musicianship no longer requires true physical talent. Instead, it rests on the ability to "collage" sounds together (462). The process of writing and performing music has changed. He then extends this example to discuss how the process of writing in general has changed and how that must alter what and how we teach our students to write. Similarly, we must teach our students to read differently, since literacy now is not restricted to making meaning from words on a page. Our classrooms, textbooks, and curriculum will all change.
I don't dispute any of Lanham's conclusions. Our "digital world" requires that we not only learn to interpret the visual, auditory, and traditional rhetoric of texts but to be aware of how our own choices influence how others will read the texts we create. However, Lanham's example of digital music production set off a little alarm bell in my head. While it may seem that the average, musically-unlearned person can produce music alongside gifted musicians using this technology, I don't believe it to be so. My husband has been a musician for over thirty years. He was trained in brass instruments, bass guitar, and music composition. He also plays drums, electric guitar, and keyboards. His knowledge and background in how music works allow him to create much better music on Cakewalk than I ever could. Although the program provides everything I would need, it doesn't provide talent or musical sensibility. While this probably sounds like I've gone off on a tangent, I think this "sensibility" translates to the writing process also. Our students will come to class with a knowledge of texting, internet surfing, web design, etc. Programs exist that will allow writers to blend all types of text in one document with the click of a button. But without the sensibility of what creates "good writing," they will never reach the potential that those programs allow.
Question: If we "reinvent" composition studies in the way Lanham advocates in his article, are we not ignoring the core of writing?
3 comments:
I agree. To add- I think competence evaluation is difficult when the people with a knack for technology can produce things to make themselves appear as though they have a working knowledge of a particular area (i.e. music, writing, etc.). Maybe, as technology increases, and everyone becomes more and more technologically competent, we will be able to go back to the fundamental elements of writing because we will be on the same playing field again.
I have the same concerns about Lanham disrupting the core of writing by expanding its definition to an almost unmanageable degree. I also wonder how certain multimedia productions can even be considered in the realm of "English" studies. If I look up a few words in a Russian language book and add it to my web page so that the only "text" on my space is not in English, does my work still fall into the "Visual English" field? Just a thought...
I agree, Sarah, regarding your comment about using tools available to create a composition. The fact is - tools are only tools. How one uses them still matters regarding imparting the "sensibility" you speak of. Well put.
Post a Comment