Week 2, Interactive Participant

“Visual structures do not simply reproduce the structures of “reality”. On the contrary, they produce images of reality which are bound up with the interests of the social institutions within which they are produced, circulated and read. They are ideological. Visual structures are never merely formal they have a deeply important semiotic dimension.”( Kress and van Leeuwen, p.47)

I think above all, as interactive participants of humanly constructed communication, we need to be aware that there is always an intention of the maker. There is a perspective, and a point of view embedded in the communication in whatever form the communication takes.

In relation to social literacies, I think it is important that we learn to be critical interactive participants. As conscious readers, producers and writers of socially produced media, we are capable of contributing to the creation of a more “transparent”, interactive, collaboratively constructed reality.

We need to be aware that no communication is neutral. A personal blog is written by an individual to put forth an idea, to share an experience or to promote a point of view. The dialog, the interactive quality of that media, has affordances for discourse. Often times in social media we find “the preaching to the choir”or the “birds of a feather'" phenomenon, or a skewed version of reporting, something taken out of context, or a producers goal driven creation of reality.  And then there are “other” social practices like,…(our hero)…. “ Ad Busters.” (You go! girl/boy/both/neither)

A consideration with regards to creating and reading images concerns the social and cultural context in which the communication is created. The value of a particular element as seen in its context needs to be considered in respect to audience interpretation. Kress and van Leeuwen, when referring to geometrical shapes for example, express that an element “can be positively valued in one context ,and less positively in another”(p56). As creators of text, we need to be aware of the social and cultural weight of elements that we choose as tools of expression. 

Hatti, in week 2 of her blog, addresses the lack of surrounding cultural context as a detriment to effectively reading the elements found on an Iroquois artifact/text. Her blog posting brings up the question of who is left out and what is lost in a communication that lacks social or cultural context.

Not unlike social and cultural context, and a less predictable element, is personal association. I suppose  the psychology of perception, “ Madison Avenue” and propaganda studies have gleaned a lot about what makes us tick in response to certain combinations of affective images/text, but individual personal experiences/histories and, perceptual acuity weigh in big time in reading an image, or interpreting an experience. 

What comes to mind is the many situations where I am with 22 young people who are looking at….…a something together. (Advertisement, painting, installation, photograph)

 What do you think this is about? What is this saying to you? What was the intention of its production? No response.

 What do you see? Then there is a lot of individual observation. Usually, responses are what is most relevant to them, and not what is necessarily visually most prominent.

Why do you think that element is there? Or, what does it mean?…some response…

 And lastly in our trail of befuddlement, What makes you say that? And then the individual responses become associations to other things, experiences and stories from their lives.

 The associations become the “other” participants, or elements in the conversation/communication. As a group we can usually put all the pieces together and make a close reading of the artifact that started out as an unknown, unapproachable text.

 The surrounding text (title, place of origin, date) is sometimes needed for specific context to create a particular point of entry, or to fine tune the reading. Putting all the individual, external associations to the reading or analyzing of the text, fleshes out the communication. An analysis of the embedded information is what the group as reader brings to the table.

Through this process we collaboratively construct knowledge. I want my students to recognize that part of the analytical process of visual literacy in the face of the supposed unknown, happens when they share the responsibility of being an interactive participant. Individual and shared personal histories, experiences and associations all add to the knowledge base.(And its always enlightening for me to see who they are.)

 And NOW there’s the question of history…how much, whose and what kind/genre do we need to perpetuate in education in order to create associative continuity that spans more than the life of a meme?  

Do students need to know about Mondrian or Banksy? And how much do we, (20+ something’s) need to know about a particular rapper, anime zine or urban slang? What will remain relevant in our fast paced, globalized, evolving, new literacies? What, if anything, will remain perennial? Who gets to pick?

 Kress and van Leeuwen, “Reading Images, The Grammar of Visual Design”, Routledge, New York, NY, 2007

New Literacies as Social Practice, week 1

“Those who have grown up in a world where the screen and its potentials have already become naturalized, are taking as natural all the potentials of the screen….”(Kress pg.6). 

 My personal realization of Kress’s statement paired with descriptions of technology as a “sea of change”, and its new literacies being referred to as “deictic” in the online journal " Digital Culture and Education", where “here and now means something completely different five minutes from when it was first uttered” (Wilber,pg 1), along with the lack of physicality in the interface of the computer screen, were the unappealing factors that informed my not so long ago refusal, to engage in digital 

technology.

“Not so long ago” it was my refusal to sit still. My refusal to spend time being frustrated by the icons, symbols, commands, internet speed, modem connections (and disconnections), and my trying to learn how to use the computer, digital camera, Photoshop and Word by reading the instructions or by sitting  in a class that taught the operational …only.

Before that, it was a refusal to let my young children sit in front of a screen for unending hours as I watched the daylight disappear. I was seeing the interaction with their friends becoming a shared experience on a screen. Also…I actually prefer the sound of real drums to that produced by a drum machine. I appreciate the handedness of a drawn image and the feel of a photograph on good paper manipulated through the knowing craft of the camera. But who asked?

Three minutes from that time of refusal, computers became ubiquitous. 

And then somehow, the “affordances” became more evident.

Digital technology and some of its new literacies intrigued me. The computer became a way to research, to have access to images, to be able to share ideas and develop designs, rapidly. The “wormhole” journey of a simple internet search allowed me the tributary investigation of …anything. And the unexpected discovery.

 The access to a variety of discourse by various Discourses allowed for critical analyses of everything…and allowed for easy participation in supporting a particular groups fundraising, contributing to a discourse, learning through a tutorial, asking a question that is then collaboratively answered .It afforded my ability to be aware of social events, keep in touch with friends and family, make multiple inquiries at the same time about grants to support my teaching practice.

 I can gather resources together in one place to create presentations that helps to foster new literacy connections for my students. I was delighted to be introduced to Ubuntu, both the  idea based in  African philosophy loosely translated as “ for the good of the all”, and the operating system  based in the idea of open source sharing of ideas and resources. (No money exchange, no advertising in the sidebar.)  I am totally pumped about the accessibility to the magic, the language and the experience of contemporary art through the use of technology. Tumbler, Pinterest, on- line zines , and Etsy  have evolved into easily accessible  places to see and share “ collections” of ideas. As a designer, I am always hungry to see what’s out there…where “ we” are going in the micro environment of “crafting ”our lives. 

  All of these literacies (as of this instant) have become a part of my supremely appreciated personal social practice.

I am an example of what learning in a constructivist environment looks like. I am learning as I go…gathering the resources I need in order for me “to further my own purposes of creating meaning in my own learning life.”

 I learned the control keys for online learning…and now I have a Second Life…It’s a miracle. I still get anxious when I get a crinkled face on the screen, or when my screen goes blank in the middle of something…Did I save any of this to my Drop Box?

 I definitely do not vote for the burning of the books. I  STRONGLY support developing perceptual acuity through hands- on, materials based experience, especially with young people. I discovered through a raise of hands, just how many 8 year olds have never dug a hole in the ground and don’t know the feel of soil in their hands. 

What happens to metaphor?     

   

References:

Digital Culture and Education online journal, Special themed issue: Beyond ‘new’ literacies, published online May 31, 2010  Dana J. Wilber

Kress,Gunther, “The Profound Shift of Digital Literacies”, “Digital Literacies: A research briefing by the Technology Enhanced Learning phase of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme”

joannas blog url

okay...got this far...whoohoo!