Is what Kress outlining actually new? If so, why? If not, why not?
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Multimodality: New ways of communicating, new ways of making knowledge
Is what Kress outlining actually new? If so, why? If not, why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In Gains and Losses: New forms of texts, knowledge and learning by Gunther Kress, the author presents his research and argument of what humans may lose from the overall representation of subject when we view writing versus when we view images. Kress outlines the new ways that mostly digital multimodal texts have created knowledge. One of these ‘new ways’ is “in multimodal text, writing may be central, or it may not; on screens writing may not feature in multimodal texts that use sound-effect and the soundtrack of a musical score, use speech, moving and still images of various kinds” (Kress, 17). Basically, Kress describes here that “reading has to be rethought” (Kress, 17). For centuries, the dominant form of text came from writing produced through books. In today’s society we have movies, television shows, social media and more that provide with us with text but way more heavily imaged focused.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think what Kress is outlining is actually new. I do agree with new technology like computers that allow for graphic design and more advanced cameras to produced higher quality films that text is definitely presented in new ways. However, technology evolved as society evolved to use it. Speech became pen writing to typewriting to cyber-writing not on its own but because someone saw the more advanced ways of how to communicate information via text. In my own personal life, utilizing social media in public relations has become simpler but more challenging.. For instance, people are not going to read long posts, which are usually considered more than three sentences, if there is no picture or video. Kress points out that we have to rethink how people read and in today’s society people want their information quicker than ever so they are not making time to read long drawn out texts. Therefore, I do not think what he outlines are new. I think he outlines what how these new ways have affected how we process the information and how we need to change for the way society’s absorbs such information.
In “Gaines and Losses,” Kress talks about how multimodal texts grant “new freedoms for authors and readers [that] bring changes in practices” (Kress 19). The changes discussed in the article are mainly the ways in which texts and created and consumed. The creator, or the author, is now able to use “the mode that seems most apt for the purposes of representation and communication” instead of being restricted to the linguistic mode which was conventional mode of communication before the rise of digital media (19). What Kress means is that some tasks are more suited to one mode than another, and digital media allows the author or creator a wider selection of modes than authors of prior media eras. The consumption of texts is also altered by multimodal texts according to Kress. “I can now no longer rely on convention to make my audience take information in modes that are not congenial to them,” (19). This idea implies an expanded availability of multimodal texts, and a public in which an individual might be more likely to consume a certain type of multimodal text than others. It is an idea that makes sense, as most people probably know of someone who is much more likely to watch a movie than read a book or vice-versa.
ReplyDeleteI do not Kress’ ideas are essentially new. He argues for a kind of adaptability that can navigate an ever-changing world, which is the kind of language we have been hearing since the widespread adoption of computers. I do not believe that his idea about the “most apt mode” is new either. The theory and the name “multimodal text” are new, but multimodal texts are not new whatsoever. People have known forever that some modes can be more effective than others in situations. That is why magazines feature pictures or artwork on the cover rather than say an excerpt from an article. Pictures are more effective at quickly grabbing attention, and that is not a new idea.
Gunther Kress in his essay “Gains and Loses” argues that for the most part that newer forms of text, coupled with their ability to now become multimodal, have provided means for knowledge development. Communication is no longer just defined through a linguistic lens and that “speech and writing are being pushed to the margins of representation and replaced at the centre by the mode of image and by others” (17). An example Kress offers is in figure 6 of the essay, which is an image of a science textbook page depicting the inner structuring of the Earth. In older versions of the book there were probably no images and just written words used to describe the Earths layers instead of the visual representation which is now in place. This changes the way readers interact with text and transform the way they retain knowledge. It makes me question whether people who gather knowledge from images remember the material based on the idea the image reflects or do they remember it through a visual representation in their head? Or is there even a difference between the two? Kress makes a great point about this when he states that “speech and writing tell the world; depiction shows the world” (16).
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that what Kress is pointing out is really anything we haven’t heard before or even experience for ourselves. For myself and other alike we have grown up with the growth of technology. As I child wrote with pencil and paper and read books or magazines only in print. Then as I got older, the adaptability of laptops allowed me to rely more on Microsoft Word for writing and the advent of technologies like Kindle allowed the ability to switch to e-books. Each different medium changed the way we interacted with a text and seemingly visual representations have replaced the real objects themselves. Kress may have outlined new examples or showed different perspectives, but the end point is one we have all become too familiar in our tech-evolving society.
In “Gains and Losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning” by Gunther Kress, the author explains how there are new multimodal texts that can change the way in how a text is perceived and also presented. “Each of the modes available for representation in a culture provides specific potentials and limitations for communication” (5). What Kress is saying in this quote is that certain modes used for different mediums have the potential to do outstanding things or things that we may have not been able to do before. One of these things that people have not been able to do before is use a text for a screen. “In a multimodal text, writing may be central, or it may not; on screens writing may not feature in multimodal texts that use sound effect and the soundtrack of a musical score, use speech, moving and still images of various kinds” (17). Now, it seems like text is hardly seen on the screen and is much more color and image focused to attract and appeal an audience rather than center in on the actual text itself.
ReplyDeleteTo me, what Kress is pointing out in this passage is not new. Drawing from a personal experience I can remember growing up and watching my community evolve with new technology. Ever since about 1st grade everything started to change and computers and phones were starting to be introduced slowly. I always like to comment on how the entertainment industry has changed over the years and even texts that people have known about forever are starting to change now with things like reading on the web. Kress highlighted some important points to remember in this passage, but I think for the most part it was a refresher on what has been changing in our society for some time now.
In the reading Kress talks about the new ways that multimodal texts have created new ways of communicating and making knowledge. In one part of the reading he goes on to describe how one of these ways is when an author can get knowledge based off the audience and relate their experiences through the authors writing. In another paragraph, Kress describes that it is the organization that contributes to a new way of communicating and making knowledge. He addresses the way that an author can draw the attention of its audience but also can choose when to draw attention away from the text. He compared the organization to how before the author was the one who controlled the organization of a text, then it switched as time went on and multimodal texts advanced to be a way in which the audience can control the organization of the text. He talked about how writing used to be the dominant organization of the page to when image began to be the dominant organization of the page.
ReplyDeleteA lot of what Kress talks about I honestly do not think is “new” but rather just revised. The part where he talks about image being more attention drawing than writing itself is something that I do not consider new. Though I am not sure if it can count in regards to my argument, but weren’t the first signs of writing just pictures, like cave drawings. The Egyptians use hieroglyphs to write, which is a language based on symbolic images. It is a language that has been around for quite a while, so I do not think that images are anything new to the multimodal society. I do believe however that a page on a computer screen allows readers to have a more free way to go about reading and learning. There really isn't any order to reading things on websites. The audience has more control.
Kress posits that depiction through image in multimodal texts offers us an entirely new mode of expression. While concluding his essay he suggests depiction through image can present the world more directly and without much of the ambiguity words can create. He also points out that words can be more effective sometimes depending on your audience and he mentions that having more modes allows us to cater to audiences better than we ever have before.
ReplyDeleteKress expresses his concern about authority and how the ability to change text immediately via screen makes everyone a potential author, an action that challenges the concept of authority as we knew it. In the past, authority was more exclusive since accessibility was more limited to the public. Now, however, anyone with internet access can start a blog or a website and become an author. In this sense I believe what Kress is discussing is new, because computer technology is new to us and we aren't one hundred percent sure what to think about it yet. On another level, I believe the adaptability of communication through evolving modes isn't necessarily new because on a longer timeline humans have been adapting discourse for new technology ever since oral culture was carved into a rock by a man or woman who grew a little too tired of mnemonic devices.
Kress outlines that multimodal texts offer us a completely new method of expression and of understanding. He compares words to images and their differences from one another. Words can be represented however the reader may want to. The author may be the one who composes a sequence of words, but, in the end, the reader is the one who is intaking the words and making his or her own ideas from them.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, society did not have any other option but to be centered around reading and writing. The technology to go beyond this did not yet exist. Now, our society has gone past the basics and expanded on media. This includes shows, movies, and images that can be seen on the internet and shared from person to person.
We have become more of a visual and image needing society. We prefer to see images to understand and learn as well as get our point across efficiently. For me, seeing an image helps me remember subjects when I am studying as well as create and share moments and memories. This could be compared to a journal versus a scrapbook. Before technological advancements, people would write down their daily activities and monumental moments in a “diary”. Today, people prefer taking photographs and keeping them in a scrapbook or in a folder on their computers.
I do not think that what Kress is outlining is new but instead, he is stating something we have seen expand, and have experienced personally, along side the growth of technology. This is something has been progressing with the evolution of technologies.
Kress in his essay “Gains and Losses” is trying to convey the idea that through technology the way people are able to interpret information has changed. This is the case he says because the linguistic approach is being taken over by that of the image. In his world visuals that may not even contain words are becoming the dominate form of communication. It is because f the advent of the computer that Kress has reached his conclusions. For him we have become a population fixated on images whether they be on a computer screen, television, or a magazine. He believes we have become so focused on what we see rather than what we read. Reading he says is something people are not really doing anymore anyway. Kress mentions that because depending on word placement people interpret what is being said or read differently. This varying of the logic of space is something that is believed to cause miscommunication. In order to bypass this miscommunication it seems that Kress favors images. This being the case because when looking at an image spatiality is not questioned, what you see is what is meant.
ReplyDeleteWhat Kress proposes is nothing new. Everyone is aware that we are interpreting knowledge differently. There is no escaping that fact. How can the brain function the same when viewing letters on a stone tablet as they do a moving image on a screen? When technology advances the human brain must advance with it. The brain itself may not be changing, but the way it is utilizes does. Utilizing the brain differently however does not mean however that previously learned knowledge will vanish and not in turn be used. There will always be elements in life that do not change. There will always be a need for the written word.
In Gunther Kress's essay "Gains and Losses: New Forms of Text, Knowledge, and Learning", we learn about how multimodal texts are shaping the presentation of media. One "new" way that digital multimodal texts are changing the media has to do with tailoring to an audience. Kress says "The new media make it possible to use the mode that seems most apt for the purposes of representation and communication" (19). Authors can now tailor their work to appeal to a specific audience. Text on a screen or a page is still relevant, but many "readers" are now looking for colorful images, video clips, and sound to enhance their experience with the words, whether written or spoken. Kress also discusses this, saying "I can now choose the mode according to what I know or might imagine is the preferred mode of the audience I have in mind" (19).
ReplyDeleteI do not think that this is a new concept. Media companies, like newspapers and magazines, have always tried to have the most attractive interface to draw in readers and fans. Exciting photos, specific fonts, various punctuation, and use of space have always helped them do that job. There may be more to choose from now as we enter the age of digital media, but the idea is still the same.
In “Gains and Loses: New Forms of Texts, Knowledge, and Learning”, Gunther Kress discusses the possible advantages and disadvantages of representation made primarily through writing or primarily through images. One of Kress’ key points is the way in which order is created: In writing, order is created by the author; in images, order is created by the reader. In writing, we have a set of rules as how to engage with it – a reader reads from left to right, transitioning to the sentence directly below and repeating the process. Images, on the other hand, have no set standard for “reading” them. And digital multimodal texts, further still, contain multiple entry points and ways of interacting with them and reading them. As Kress would suggest, multimodal text drastically changes design philosophy. Now one of the primary drives of design is the reader, or visitor, rather than the author. As Kress puts it, “The (imagined) interests of the visitors provide the principles for and of the ordering and/or structuring of the message-entities” (11).
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that what Kress outlines in his essay is particularly new, it seems that the gains and losses to the use of different modes is an aged idea. However, I do think he posits some new additions to the subject, specifically in relation to new technology. He states that “the new media make it possible to use the mode that seems most apt for the purpose of representation and communication” (19). And he connects this to the new emerging importance of audience, with the audience now playing a role in design (as a designer will design a text differently -- use different modes -- depending on who is going to be consuming it).
In the text, “Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning,” by Gunther Kress, he explains the shift of the representation of knowledge from writing to image. Kress explains how the multimodal texts have created innovative ways of communicating and making new knowledge and sense. One of the examples that he talks about is under section two labeled “A revolution in the constellation of modes and media.” Kress explains the prospectus for the Institute of Education, where he worked, was organized much like a book. It was structured in a way that it explained “the structure of the institution, its departments and units, its courses and the regulations pertaining to them.” Whoever read the prospectus was reading it because the individuals might come to the institution as students and the knowledge they gained by reading it was a need of theirs if they wanted to attend. Another important point to mention is that the prospectus was written in 1992 and had only one-entry point. Now there is an updated home page for the institution. It is not displayed in the style of a book and is considered a “new” way of communicating and creating knowledge because of its image dominance and online web prominence. With this “new” way there are now 13 different entry points. Which can cater to the large diversified audience coming to the site to learn about the institution.
ReplyDeleteWhat Kress is outlining in this specific example I do not think is actually new in the sense of the information given but just in the accessibility that is retrieved. On page 11 he bullet points the differences in both the prospectus and the web page. The main point to take away from that list is that the prospectus was catering to a specific audience and it was basically throwing the information at you that you needed to know. However, the webpage gives relatively the same information but not all of it is something that you may need to know. So in that case you pick through the information until you find specific things that you need to make knowledgeable and relative for yourself.
Kress provides a perfect example of “new” ways in which multimodal texts have changed communication and knowledge making on page 9, in regards to the multiple entry points and the increase in access. Kress illustrates the differences in single-entry point “relatively” mono-modal texts such as novels, and digital, multimodal texts with many access points that can communicate with more culturally and socially diverse people. In regards to knowledge, the differences can be seen in that while authors would provide knowledge to an audience through a book, now readers must produce knowledge based on what they read/view.
ReplyDeleteI don’t feel that Kress is outlining something that is significantly new, because I don’t think it’s fair to compare the “representations primarily through writing” to “representations primarily through image” as it ignores the in-between. On page 11, Kress provides a bulleted list of differences in communication and knowledge in both paper-based and digital media. While the differences are clear and point towards the idea that multiple entry points and reader-designated paths are new, it leaves out the exceptions. Dictionaries and encyclopedias, for example, all have multiple entry points and are not by any means “new.” Kress even starts the article off with the assumption that all texts are multimodal; therefore share a commonality with texts prior to them (5). On page 20, Kress states “It seems clear to me that we cannon continue with existing theories of meaning given the facts of the changes in the social, economic, and cultural domain,” and while it is true that our ideas of meaning and knowledge must change as other factors change, the change is one that is progressive and not all-at-once as he seems to suggest. The evolution of communication and knowledge is more gradual and encompasses significantly more stages than the “new” ones he suggests.
In his case study titled “Gains and Losses…” Gunther Kress explains the innovation of writing technologies and its affect on society. Likewise, Kress analyses and compares written works that are based on the linguistic mode and depictions (images) that are based on the visual mode. His argument is that written works allow for a variety of interpretations while images are more specific. On page 15 he writes, “Unlike words, depictions are full of meaning; they are always specific.” Basically, a viewer sees what they see and a reader can interpret the words however he or she chooses. Society has adapted to require a quicker supply of information and a growth of innovation, and Kress is proving this point by exposing the growing use of images and multimodality. Since images don’t require too much time to interpret like written words do, it makes sense that images through a screen are more prevalent then traditional written words. Kress gives many examples of how multimodality has affected the reader/viewer. One example is the change in textbooks. “Textbook pages in school science are like that [images cover the page and there is less of a focus on linguistics]; forty, even thirty years earlier they would have been covered in writing” (19). He questions how the form of teaching will affect students and the subjectivity of the learning students and the teaching professors.
ReplyDeleteI do not consider Kress’s outline to be considered new. I think the technologies are new, but the modes have always been a part of writing. This is similar to our discussion about Baron’s theory of writing technologies. Technologies have become more advanced and common practices in our society, so multimodality is understood and accessible. The new technologies allow multimodality to be more common, but I believe multimodality has always existed.
In Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning, Gunther Kress outlines the way that multimodal texts create new ways of communicating and making knowledge. One specific example Kress outlines of this “new” way is the change in practices of reading and writing. He states that “in a multimodal text, writing may be central, or it may not; on screens writing may not feature in multimodal texts that use sound-effect and the soundtrack of a musical score, use speech, moving and still images of various kinds” (Kress 17). Thus, he is arguing that now reading has to be rethought, as text is being produced on a variety of mediums ranging from books to modes such as television commercials, billboards, and online content (Kress 17).
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Kress argues that with new multimodal texts comes an influx of both advantages and disadvantages including the question of authorship and rhetoric. Now the reader is able to become the author and has the capability of changing the text, which severely challenges the author’s authority. Rhetoric is also being questioned as the author struggles with the choice of genre, medium or mode subjectivity (Kress 19). These new modes also allow the author to choose the mode they will use depending on which will best suit their audience. Since the definition of text has developed, the author is able to expand its view on writing and simultaneously his or her audience. Thus, changing the practice of knowledge and communication itself.
I do not believe what Kress is outlining is actually new. My entire life, technology has been expanding and with each new growth, my writing style has had to change in order to adapt. At first I started out solely using pen and paper in school, however if you look at elementary schools today, kids are bringing tablets to class and have all their homework and textbooks on their devices. Therefore, the concept of the text has been evolving for as long as I can remember and with each new expansion comes a variety of both pros and cons. Multimodal texts have allowed writers to reach broader audiences and develop their writing styles as new ways of communicating and making knowledge continue to progress.
In his piece, Kress outlines a few ways that texts are straying from the traditional strictly linguistic mode. “Writing was the dominant mode in prospectus, though there were some (black and white) images.” (9) Writing has evolved from being strictly linguistic, to including photos and beyond to modern multimodal texts. In the past, writing dominated the organization of the page and was also the main presentation in the piece. Images were supporting material or took a backseat to the writing. Now there are many types of media that are dominated by visual and spatial modes. “Image dominates the organization of the page,” and “image and writing potentially co-equal for the presentation of material.” (11) Visual based media will use writing (captions or adjoining stories) as a supplement to the photos, completely contrasting from traditional texts. Implementing these new modes can communicate feelings or information that words sometimes cannot do on their own.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe Kress’ outlining is necessarily new. Although the way people have created and formatted texts have changed, we still use it for similar purposes. Whether on print or in newer forms of media like internet sites, people still communicate similar knowledge. The modes used and effectiveness may be a bit different but the overall idea is still the same.
In “Gains and Losses”, Kress describes multiple ways multimodal texts have created new ways of communicating and creating knowledge. Communication isn’t just defined as linguistics but now includes images. Practices of writing and reading have changed and are continuously changing. The new medium of the screen is becoming more dominant than paper-based media. An example Kress uses is the creation of the IoE webpage. This showed a change in the meaning of reading to “reading as a design” (17). The author of the page has to keep in mind that visitors come from different cultural and social spaces (9). The messages on the site are tailored to the interests of the visitors. The visitors come to the site for information. The readers create their own knowledge. This relates to the change in the situation of authors, readers and knowledge. The individuals use this knowledge to solve a problem in their own lives.
ReplyDeleteThe things Kress is outlining aren’t actually new. Kress talks about how image media is taking over print-based media. He states that the traditional pages will continue to exist. Kress believes this revolution is generation-related so it has a power dimension. The article also cites that the screen offers opportunities for the reader to become the author. People can edit the text they see on the screen. The author brings up the topic of authority. “When everyone can be an author authority is severely challenged” (19). The image can also be used to represent something better than words. Authors can now choose the mode according to the preferred mode of the audience. All of these points have been discussed previously.
Kress makes use of the term “mode” for ‘the culturally and socially produced resources for representation’ and “medium” for ‘the culturally produced means for distribution of [modes]’, and so in my response I will be doing the same (Kress 7). To me this means that a mode may be the contents of a book, as in the words on file to be printed onto pages, and the medium the form of the book itself, ink on paper with a specific design. This example is by no means new to us, so on page 9 Kress gives a more contemporary model: the home page. He remarks that ‘Writing was the dominant mode in the prospectus, though there were some (black and white) images. The current home page is profoundly different. It is not organized following the logic of the traditional written page but following that of the image-based logic of contemporary pages’ (Kress 9). With this I believe he hits the nail on the head; just as the ancient transition from scroll to codex as the primary medium for texts changed the style of writing by virtue of the new concept of random access versus the linear access of scrolls, the modern web page gives even more specific navigation for readers with menus and links. This concept is not a new one, but it is significant, and marks a change in text which I believe to be relevant to his point.
ReplyDeleteIn his piece "Gains and Losses," Gunther Kress analyzes how our growing visual culture affects writing and the way we interact with it. As he explains towards the beginning of the essay, his goal is "to provide means of navigating between the Scylla of nostalgia and pessimism and the Charybdis of unwarranted optimism." In keeping with this claim, the view of multimodality he expresses through the majority of the essay is neither outrageously positive nor alarmingly negative and provides us with a generally neutral look at gains and losses.
ReplyDeleteKress begins by explaining that the meanings of words are less objective than those of images; words have no fixed definition or object to which they refer, and in a written text, the task of piecing together their meaning falls into the hands of the reader. (Note the similarity of Kress' view to the beliefs of Aristotle and Plato). However, Kress notes that the internet exacerbates this effect; with a traditional text, the reader generally conforms more closely to the author's intentions, whereas in the case of websites, with all of their multiple entry points and lack of one correct format in which they are meant to be experienced, the reader's interpretation is even more decisive.
Later on, Kress makes a similar argument that images communicate ideas differently than writing; in writing, all details must be mentioned in a sequence. Whatever the author chooses to mention first can affect the reader's perceptions. With images, on the other hand, all elements are immediately present and are organized in the mind of the viewer. Also, images are significant because they can depict that which we do not have the words to describe. Finally, Kress summarizes the relationship by saying that writing has "a finite number of open, relatively vague elements in fixed order" and images "a possibility of infinitely many full, specific elements in an open order."
Finally, after several pages of objective analysis, Kress decides to end by praising images as the superior mode of communication due to that they don't force the author into an unwanted "expression of temporality and causality" which may actually distort reality.
Overall, I don't think that Kress' concerns are anything new, but simply another phase of the same arguments over communications technologies that have continued throughout the ages, that began in ancient times with the debate over writing versus speech.
In his essay, “Gains and Losses”, Gunther Kress explores the manner in which multimodal texts have changed the way in which we communicate. As he states here, “The new media make it possible to use the mode that seems most apt for the purposes of representation and communication” (19). What Kress is saying is that nowadays; the author has the option to choose a visual or aural mode before a linguistic one. No longer are we restricted to just words, for we now have the ability to use a wide range of modes. One of the examples Kress uses in his essay is the modern-day science textbook. Kress poses several questions regarding the figure in which the textbook appears, including: “What does reading mean here? How is this page read? Which mode is dominant? Which mode carries which kind of information? What kinds of information are not focused on here?” (19). In this case, “reading” may actually mean interpreting the images more so than actually reading the words. From the figure, it is obvious that the visual and spatial modes are most dominate, especially the visual. The visual mode carries visual information to the reader, giving them a detailed picture as to how something looks. The linguistic mode, through the more detailed descriptions of each image, carries specific information to accommodate the visual information. Kress suggest we consider what a textbook of the same subject would have looked like 40 to 50 years ago, for a textbook from then would surely be primarily words, not images.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think this is really anything new. Similar to asking whether or not the theory of multimodality was transformative, what Kress is outlining is surely interesting, but it isn’t transformative and it isn’t anything I haven’t already considered.
From Spencer Smith:
ReplyDeleteKress exemplifies multimodal changes when he compares the science textbook of today's science classrooms with one of several decades ago, and the webpage of IoE with the older webpage that is primarily text-only. He describes the ways in which these newer, more multimodal designs allow for a greater number of entry points in a given page, changing the role of readers to that of visitors, while also empowering them with epistemological ownership over the information that they choose to seek.
Kress is describing in greater detail the various ways in which historical "convention" in writing and print are being altered and modified by new technologies and methods. Depending on your time frame of reference, I would say that the multimodal phenomena of communication being described are becoming increasingly relevant in recent decades. There were beginning attempts at pinning down ways in which these new changes may be transformative in general audiences and readership, but Kress did not so much provide actual psychological or statistical data showing the effects of such changes than merely describe what paradigmatic changes are being made to old ideas and ways of communicating.
One of Kress’s most prominent arguments involved the shift in the relationship between a writer and his or her readers. As technology continues to progress, there arises new and more effective ways to accomplish more. It allows society to become more efficient in nearly every aspect of people’s lives. By making more things possible in less time, it follows that more things are expected as the advance continues. With this, society tends to demand that technology be capable of more and more. Accepting writing as a technology, those who use it, readers, shift their intentionality in reading a piece. As the relationship between a writer and his or her audience changes, it goes from a writer providing information to the reader selectively seeking information. The transition of literature from page to screen allows there to be twice as many sources of information, and with that, the information also becomes more accessible. The ease of accessibility allows the readers and consumers more room to choose what it is that they desire.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not find Kress’s argument particularly new or surprising. As computers were invented and continue to be developed, we have seen a sharp rise in the use of paperless sources. It is a constant societal debate that information is now almost “too accessible.” As we, as readers, demand sources at a higher quantity, we become accustomed not only to the luxury of choice, but also to a habit of seeking and receiving instant gratification.
As the delivery of text changes, the writer also changes. This goes for the author’s style of writing as well. Kress also goes into detail about how each affects the other. Even through his discussion of this, however, the concept is not a new, revolutionary one. In my opinion the very fact that Kress explores an already pressing societal issue in such detail and analysis is, itself, redundant.