In the paper The Owl Has Flown, Sven Birkerts goes over the idea that the modern day technologies and life styles has made for a loss in depth and wisdom. Birkerts says, “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the seep and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical consciousness.” This passage for the most part gets Birkets biggest point out, that our culture is becoming shallower and appreciating the ability for deep thought less.
An interesting thing is that when Birkets makes a good claim that technology is killing depth, Clive Thompson brings up equally legitimate contrary ideas. Clive Thompson wrote an article The New Literacy and in it he shows how this paradigm shift may be a good thing. Technology has increased the amount of text produced out side of the classroom significantly. This is because of chat rooms and web sites like face book and twitter. Thompson even argues that this technology has taken us back to the age of argument in ancient Grease. On the other hand Birkerts says that, “ We direct our energies to managing information. The computer, our high-speed, accessing, storing, and sorting tool, appears as a godsend. It increasingly determines what kind of information we are willing to traffic in…” He points out that all the information on-line gets to be too much, to the point where we no longer sit and think, but try sorting out the good from the bad.
Both sides bring up reasonable claims; I think that they both have some truth. I see how the Internet can be almost a cheat to get information, a way to know stuff with out having to think. It encourages shallow communication and pushes away time to sit and think. Thompson’s argument also is reasonable, the more you write the better you become. The better you are at writing the deeper you can become. Plus, every day people can get their ideas and opinions out, before the Internet getting you ideas out was nearly impossible unless you worked in the media or were an author.
In the end it is hard to know what is better, life before or after technology. It hurts by enabling bleat and shallow conversation and limited time for resonance. It makes education almost meaningless when in five seconds you can have an answer form your iphone. But it also has made writing a more commonly practiced thing that helps individual thought and idea to be shared and contemplated. But certainly technology has started one of the biggest paradigm shifts ever.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Reading Response #2
Advertisements often don’t sell the product, but instead a good feeling that is than associated with the product. An excellent example of this is the new Black Berry commercial. The commercial follows a band as it writes and performs. It is accompanied by the song “All you need is love,” written by the Beatles but sung in this commercial by Grayson Matthews. It then ends with text saying, “Do what you love” followed by “Love what you do” And ends with “Black Berry.”
Unlike the Budweiser commercial that required a lot of cultural knowledge, the Black Berry commercial required li ttle. The Budweiser commercial was based around baseball, which really is only big in a couple countries. Where as the Black Berry commercial revolved around music and rock, a common thing around the world. So the target group in this commercial could be much larger than the Budweiser commercial.
The makers of this commercial new that Black Berry’s them selves are not terribly exciting, so they had to go for a different approach. They sold the views a good feeling, just as the Budweiser commercial did. The song “All you need is love,” not only is a great song to make you feel good, but was written by arguably the largest band ever. Almost any one knows this song, and that familiarity can almost manipulate the viewer into wanting the product, “I like this song, I must like the product.”
This commercial also supports the American Dream, Try hard and you can achieve what ever you want. The band starts off as a small garage band, being rejected by a producer (as far as I can tell), then after practicing a lot they make it big. This also gives the viewers a good feeling. Almost every American dreams of being a rock star at some point in their life. This shows that all you need is a little motivation and your dreams can come true. Then the commercial says, “Do what you love… … love what you do… …Black Berry.” After seeing something that inspiring brought to you by Black Berry, its hard not to want one, even though the commercial brings up no reason why you would want one.
Modern day commercials can be very manipulative on your feelings to sell a product. They try to make you feel good and show you things that you can relate to, and through in their product at the last minute to pursued you into buying the product.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twu3pLVI9D8
Unlike the Budweiser commercial that required a lot of cultural knowledge, the Black Berry commercial required li ttle. The Budweiser commercial was based around baseball, which really is only big in a couple countries. Where as the Black Berry commercial revolved around music and rock, a common thing around the world. So the target group in this commercial could be much larger than the Budweiser commercial.
The makers of this commercial new that Black Berry’s them selves are not terribly exciting, so they had to go for a different approach. They sold the views a good feeling, just as the Budweiser commercial did. The song “All you need is love,” not only is a great song to make you feel good, but was written by arguably the largest band ever. Almost any one knows this song, and that familiarity can almost manipulate the viewer into wanting the product, “I like this song, I must like the product.”
This commercial also supports the American Dream, Try hard and you can achieve what ever you want. The band starts off as a small garage band, being rejected by a producer (as far as I can tell), then after practicing a lot they make it big. This also gives the viewers a good feeling. Almost every American dreams of being a rock star at some point in their life. This shows that all you need is a little motivation and your dreams can come true. Then the commercial says, “Do what you love… … love what you do… …Black Berry.” After seeing something that inspiring brought to you by Black Berry, its hard not to want one, even though the commercial brings up no reason why you would want one.
Modern day commercials can be very manipulative on your feelings to sell a product. They try to make you feel good and show you things that you can relate to, and through in their product at the last minute to pursued you into buying the product.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twu3pLVI9D8
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
In Class Essay #1
Luke Buehrer
In Class Essay #1
Question #1
In the past decade technology has evolved and progressed more than ever before. With this new technology there has been new ways of communicating and simply doing every day life. The internet, it has changed almost every way we go about life, but now the question arises, “Is this new technology killing literacy.”
In the article “The New Literacy” by Clive Thompson, this question is pondered. As John Sutherland says, “Power point has replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into “bleak, bald, sad shorthand.”” But Andrea Lunsford thinks the contrary. She simply suggests that instead of destroying literacy, technology is merely changing it. One interesting thing Lunsford found was that the new generating is writing far more than the previous, because of the internet. All the on-line chat rooms and twitter up dates has encouraged kids to write, not only write, but sharing there opinions and enjoying it as well. She argues that the “New literacy” has taken literacy back to the Greek tradition of argument. And that writers today have to write to an audience, which makes them change their tone and technique in order to get there point across.
I personally don’t see it as black and white as Lunsford or Sutherland makes it seem. I think that the progression of technology has not only been a good thing but an awful thing as well. The way it is good is that it persuades kids and adults to write a lot. And the more you write the better you become. All these chat rooms allow people to get there ideas and belief much further than previously possible. This can lead to a boost in confidence and personal identity. And as Lunsford sees it, it has brought us back to the time of argument and thought. With this access to an easy audience people get to write on there passions and beliefs sometimes writing pages and pages on their own will. A decade ago, the only time you ever wrote so much was when you had a school assignment. Full of anxiety, you would just make up something that almost always you had no passion in. Writing with the internet seems like a hobby now not a chore.
There are also many ways technology has damaged literacy. It is hard not to agree with Sutherland at times when you log on to some site and all you see is self centered comments that have no deep thought process or self identity weaved in the text. Some times all you see is comments on some celebrity and “how I want to have her hair” or some shallow thing like that. With chat rooms it is also possible to loss your identity, (contrary to what I said before) wanting to fit in with the masses, people will go along with what ever idea seem to be the most popular, stuffing there beliefs and opinions aside. It is no secret that web sites like Face Book and My Space have many followers that are addicted to them. Some teenagers’ even adults will stare at the monitor for hours on end. You think the more you practice the better you become, but really, is that much good for you? Some people see Face Book and My Space as their social life. Theoretically, if you never saw a person face to face in you life, but had five hundred friends online would you still count that as a social life? I think that this technology is great (admittedly, I never use is) but there has to be a limit to how much people use it.
Like I said, technology is good and bad, helping and hurting literacy. It is pushing literacy in new exciting paths, bringing us back to the age of argument and intellect. But at the same time it is killing self identity, encouraging bleak, superficial conversations. Taking people away from reality, and replacing it with Face Book. In the end it is a great tool with limitless possibilities, but moderation is the key.
In Class Essay #1
Question #1
In the past decade technology has evolved and progressed more than ever before. With this new technology there has been new ways of communicating and simply doing every day life. The internet, it has changed almost every way we go about life, but now the question arises, “Is this new technology killing literacy.”
In the article “The New Literacy” by Clive Thompson, this question is pondered. As John Sutherland says, “Power point has replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into “bleak, bald, sad shorthand.”” But Andrea Lunsford thinks the contrary. She simply suggests that instead of destroying literacy, technology is merely changing it. One interesting thing Lunsford found was that the new generating is writing far more than the previous, because of the internet. All the on-line chat rooms and twitter up dates has encouraged kids to write, not only write, but sharing there opinions and enjoying it as well. She argues that the “New literacy” has taken literacy back to the Greek tradition of argument. And that writers today have to write to an audience, which makes them change their tone and technique in order to get there point across.
I personally don’t see it as black and white as Lunsford or Sutherland makes it seem. I think that the progression of technology has not only been a good thing but an awful thing as well. The way it is good is that it persuades kids and adults to write a lot. And the more you write the better you become. All these chat rooms allow people to get there ideas and belief much further than previously possible. This can lead to a boost in confidence and personal identity. And as Lunsford sees it, it has brought us back to the time of argument and thought. With this access to an easy audience people get to write on there passions and beliefs sometimes writing pages and pages on their own will. A decade ago, the only time you ever wrote so much was when you had a school assignment. Full of anxiety, you would just make up something that almost always you had no passion in. Writing with the internet seems like a hobby now not a chore.
There are also many ways technology has damaged literacy. It is hard not to agree with Sutherland at times when you log on to some site and all you see is self centered comments that have no deep thought process or self identity weaved in the text. Some times all you see is comments on some celebrity and “how I want to have her hair” or some shallow thing like that. With chat rooms it is also possible to loss your identity, (contrary to what I said before) wanting to fit in with the masses, people will go along with what ever idea seem to be the most popular, stuffing there beliefs and opinions aside. It is no secret that web sites like Face Book and My Space have many followers that are addicted to them. Some teenagers’ even adults will stare at the monitor for hours on end. You think the more you practice the better you become, but really, is that much good for you? Some people see Face Book and My Space as their social life. Theoretically, if you never saw a person face to face in you life, but had five hundred friends online would you still count that as a social life? I think that this technology is great (admittedly, I never use is) but there has to be a limit to how much people use it.
Like I said, technology is good and bad, helping and hurting literacy. It is pushing literacy in new exciting paths, bringing us back to the age of argument and intellect. But at the same time it is killing self identity, encouraging bleak, superficial conversations. Taking people away from reality, and replacing it with Face Book. In the end it is a great tool with limitless possibilities, but moderation is the key.
In Class Essay #1
Luke Buehrer
In Class Essay #1
Question #1
In the past decade technology has evolved and progressed more than ever before. With this new technology there has been new ways of communicating and simply doing every day life. The internet, it has changed almost every way we go about life, but now the question arises, “Is this new technology killing literacy.”
In the article “The New Literacy” by Clive Thompson, this question is pondered. As John Sutherland says, “Power point has replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into “bleak, bald, sad shorthand.”” But Andrea Lunsford thinks the contrary. She simply suggests that instead of destroying literacy, technology is merely changing it. One interesting thing Lunsford found was that the new generating is writing far more than the previous, because of the internet. All the on-line chat rooms and twitter up dates has encouraged kids to write, not only write, but sharing there opinions and enjoying it as well. She argues that the “New literacy” has taken literacy back to the Greek tradition of argument. And that writers today have to write to an audience, which makes them change their tone and technique in order to get there point across.
I personally don’t see it as black and white as Lunsford or Sutherland makes it seem. I think that the progression of technology has not only been a good thing but an awful thing as well. The way it is good is that it persuades kids and adults to write a lot. And the more you write the better you become. All these chat rooms allow people to get there ideas and belief much further than previously possible. This can lead to a boost in confidence and personal identity. And as Lunsford sees it, it has brought us back to the time of argument and thought. With this access to an easy audience people get to write on there passions and beliefs sometimes writing pages and pages on their own will. A decade ago, the only time you ever wrote so much was when you had a school assignment. Full of anxiety, you would just make up something that almost always you had no passion in. Writing with the internet seems like a hobby now not a chore.
There are also many ways technology has damaged literacy. It is hard not to agree with Sutherland at times when you log on to some site and all you see is self centered comments that have no deep thought process or self identity weaved in the text. Some times all you see is comments on some celebrity and “how I want to have her hair” or some shallow thing like that. With chat rooms it is also possible to loss your identity, (contrary to what I said before) wanting to fit in with the masses, people will go along with what ever idea seem to be the most popular, stuffing there beliefs and opinions aside. It is no secret that web sites like Face Book and My Space have many followers that are addicted to them. Some teenagers’ even adults will stare at the monitor for hours on end. You think the more you practice the better you become, but really, is that much good for you? Some people see Face Book and My Space as their social life. Theoretically, if you never saw a person face to face in you life, but had five hundred friends online would you still count that as a social life? I think that this technology is great (admittedly, I never use is) but there has to be a limit to how much people use it.
Like I said, technology is good and bad, helping and hurting literacy. It is pushing literacy in new exciting paths, bringing us back to the age of argument and intellect. But at the same time it is killing self identity, encouraging bleak, superficial conversations. Taking people away from reality, and replacing it with Face Book. In the end it is a great tool with limitless possibilities, but moderation is the key.
In Class Essay #1
Question #1
In the past decade technology has evolved and progressed more than ever before. With this new technology there has been new ways of communicating and simply doing every day life. The internet, it has changed almost every way we go about life, but now the question arises, “Is this new technology killing literacy.”
In the article “The New Literacy” by Clive Thompson, this question is pondered. As John Sutherland says, “Power point has replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into “bleak, bald, sad shorthand.”” But Andrea Lunsford thinks the contrary. She simply suggests that instead of destroying literacy, technology is merely changing it. One interesting thing Lunsford found was that the new generating is writing far more than the previous, because of the internet. All the on-line chat rooms and twitter up dates has encouraged kids to write, not only write, but sharing there opinions and enjoying it as well. She argues that the “New literacy” has taken literacy back to the Greek tradition of argument. And that writers today have to write to an audience, which makes them change their tone and technique in order to get there point across.
I personally don’t see it as black and white as Lunsford or Sutherland makes it seem. I think that the progression of technology has not only been a good thing but an awful thing as well. The way it is good is that it persuades kids and adults to write a lot. And the more you write the better you become. All these chat rooms allow people to get there ideas and belief much further than previously possible. This can lead to a boost in confidence and personal identity. And as Lunsford sees it, it has brought us back to the time of argument and thought. With this access to an easy audience people get to write on there passions and beliefs sometimes writing pages and pages on their own will. A decade ago, the only time you ever wrote so much was when you had a school assignment. Full of anxiety, you would just make up something that almost always you had no passion in. Writing with the internet seems like a hobby now not a chore.
There are also many ways technology has damaged literacy. It is hard not to agree with Sutherland at times when you log on to some site and all you see is self centered comments that have no deep thought process or self identity weaved in the text. Some times all you see is comments on some celebrity and “how I want to have her hair” or some shallow thing like that. With chat rooms it is also possible to loss your identity, (contrary to what I said before) wanting to fit in with the masses, people will go along with what ever idea seem to be the most popular, stuffing there beliefs and opinions aside. It is no secret that web sites like Face Book and My Space have many followers that are addicted to them. Some teenagers’ even adults will stare at the monitor for hours on end. You think the more you practice the better you become, but really, is that much good for you? Some people see Face Book and My Space as their social life. Theoretically, if you never saw a person face to face in you life, but had five hundred friends online would you still count that as a social life? I think that this technology is great (admittedly, I never use is) but there has to be a limit to how much people use it.
Like I said, technology is good and bad, helping and hurting literacy. It is pushing literacy in new exciting paths, bringing us back to the age of argument and intellect. But at the same time it is killing self identity, encouraging bleak, superficial conversations. Taking people away from reality, and replacing it with Face Book. In the end it is a great tool with limitless possibilities, but moderation is the key.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Reading Response #1
Luke Buehrer
Reading response #1
In his recent work, “A New Literacy,” Clive Thompson brings up shows two points of view on the subject of technology influencing literacy. According to John Sutherland technology has turned our literacy into “bleak, bald short hand.” The other argument is that technology is bringing us back to the age of the Greeks, who used intellect and argument. Andrea Lunsford has found an increase of writing due to technology, and a new stirred passion.
I agree with parts of Thompson's article "The new literacy." Before technology writing outside of school was uncommon, unless, as Thompson says, "They got a job required producing text (like law advertising, or media)." This in turn made the average person less literate, simply because they didn't need to use it in their daily life. As technology evolved and the Internet became a norm, people started using it for socializing. Inevitably to communicate writing had to take place. Andrea Lunsford found that 38% of students writing takes place outside of the classroom, most likely on social sites like Face Book and Twitter. Technology has also helped people get their ideas out in a place that many people can see and comment on, this has many beneficial factors. First, sharing your opinion with others is a great way to find self-identity, and builds up your confidence. Second, it let’s people consider new ideas that they would never thought about and can lead to many intellectual conversations.
With all this in mind, I agree that literacy is changing and possibly improving, however there are certain parts I tend to disagree with. Even though there is a lot more writing taking place, can social web sites really help literacy? When you log on and read what people have to say the majority are shallow, self-centered comments either about some celebrity or just random blabbering that really has no value at all. I admit that’s not true of all the postings, but still can Lunsford 38% really be counted as a positive thing? Another bad thing that could come from social web sites is people might just want a place to fit in. This could lead to people ignoring their beliefs to be friends with someone half way around the world. Also, it can be additive. This is no joke, I know people that spend more time a day on the computer than any thing else. I honestly find it hard to have a strong opinion on the matter because there are so many things to consider, and I never even use a computer for social stuff. But what I am certain of is that writing in my generation is immensely changed from my parent’s generation, because of technology.
If it is a good thing or a bad thing I not sure, technology has made writing a more commonly practiced skill that lets others share their personal opinions in creative ways, leading to great debate and conversation. While at the same time can be very shallow and unemotional rubbish.
Reading response #1
In his recent work, “A New Literacy,” Clive Thompson brings up shows two points of view on the subject of technology influencing literacy. According to John Sutherland technology has turned our literacy into “bleak, bald short hand.” The other argument is that technology is bringing us back to the age of the Greeks, who used intellect and argument. Andrea Lunsford has found an increase of writing due to technology, and a new stirred passion.
I agree with parts of Thompson's article "The new literacy." Before technology writing outside of school was uncommon, unless, as Thompson says, "They got a job required producing text (like law advertising, or media)." This in turn made the average person less literate, simply because they didn't need to use it in their daily life. As technology evolved and the Internet became a norm, people started using it for socializing. Inevitably to communicate writing had to take place. Andrea Lunsford found that 38% of students writing takes place outside of the classroom, most likely on social sites like Face Book and Twitter. Technology has also helped people get their ideas out in a place that many people can see and comment on, this has many beneficial factors. First, sharing your opinion with others is a great way to find self-identity, and builds up your confidence. Second, it let’s people consider new ideas that they would never thought about and can lead to many intellectual conversations.
With all this in mind, I agree that literacy is changing and possibly improving, however there are certain parts I tend to disagree with. Even though there is a lot more writing taking place, can social web sites really help literacy? When you log on and read what people have to say the majority are shallow, self-centered comments either about some celebrity or just random blabbering that really has no value at all. I admit that’s not true of all the postings, but still can Lunsford 38% really be counted as a positive thing? Another bad thing that could come from social web sites is people might just want a place to fit in. This could lead to people ignoring their beliefs to be friends with someone half way around the world. Also, it can be additive. This is no joke, I know people that spend more time a day on the computer than any thing else. I honestly find it hard to have a strong opinion on the matter because there are so many things to consider, and I never even use a computer for social stuff. But what I am certain of is that writing in my generation is immensely changed from my parent’s generation, because of technology.
If it is a good thing or a bad thing I not sure, technology has made writing a more commonly practiced skill that lets others share their personal opinions in creative ways, leading to great debate and conversation. While at the same time can be very shallow and unemotional rubbish.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
About me and my writing
Part 1:
This is my first class at Whatcom, I am going here to finish up my high school credits so i can graduate. Before this I was at BTC and got my AA in Building Construction Technologys. After I graduate I plan on working construction. I love working with my hands and hate using computers, so this is not to fun. When I am not in school I like mountain biking and Making stuff (usually in my shop).
Part 2:
I never write outside of school so my style would be what ever it needs to be to pass the class.
This is my first class at Whatcom, I am going here to finish up my high school credits so i can graduate. Before this I was at BTC and got my AA in Building Construction Technologys. After I graduate I plan on working construction. I love working with my hands and hate using computers, so this is not to fun. When I am not in school I like mountain biking and Making stuff (usually in my shop).
Part 2:
I never write outside of school so my style would be what ever it needs to be to pass the class.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)