What is assemblage? What -- if anything -- does assemblage add to your view of writing? Is assemblage a necessary condition of writing in the 21st century?
Assemblages are texts that are built first and foremost from already existing texts to further piece together answers for a problem in the existing writing that is out of context. According to J. Johnson-Eilola, creating assemblages have the same requirements as any other as any other text and therefore requires more work than just “downloading templates and replace their placeholder items with real content” (Johnson-Eilola, 391). The layouts in which assemblages are based on makes the situation more complicated due to adding another element to the rhetorical situation. Assemblages often borrow information that appears obvious, “even trading on their connections to other work” (Johnson-Eilola, 391). Ultimately, even tough there are “legal and ethical issues to consider”, the basis of assemblages is understandably rhetorical (Johnson-Eilola, 391). I think assemblage doesn’t change your view of writing unless you know the original document or information. Assemblages help to modify an existing message or data by upgrading it to be more readable and frankly, esthetically pleasing. Moreover, this is why I think assemblage is a necessary condition of writing in the 21st century because with the internet, especially via social media, providing information to consumers so much faster today, information needs to be brought together in a format here it looks interesting to read but also has all the information we want right there on front of us.
Assemblages, as defined in the text by Johnson-Eilola and Selber, are “texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context.” I don’t think that the view of assemblage adds anything to my writing. I just think the idea of it is something that I was familiar with but now I have a term to attach to the idea. Before reading this text I was unaware of what the term assemblage means. Now after reading through it, I agree completely “there is no neutral, non-regulated space from which to begin a writing activity.” For example, in the text, it was said how with specific genres like rhetoric and composition there are always going to be the concepts that writers use when working within those genres such as intetertexuality and citation. I wouldn’t say that assemblage is a necessary condition in the 21st century but instead more that it is evident and naturally going to happen. It is essentially a step up from plagiarism but not 100 percent the original work of the author. Using those forms or citations during assemblage is either frowned upon by some or praised. Either way, it is something that is prominent in writing and I don’t think it can be avoided. Avoiding assemblage would be like “reinventing the wheel” and to add on to what Johnson-Eilola and Selber say about this is that assemblage is basically adding onto an existing template but fitting it with your specific context in mind. I think I would have to agree on the final thoughts in this text when the authors say that trying to produce completely original texts all the time is something that can be difficult and also burdensome. Assemblage can sometimes be a good thing.
Assemblage is a writing theory which states that “remixed” or “assembled” texts have just as much value or potential to solve problems as purely original texts do. This theory plays with ideas of authorship, and originality. The authors of this text want to teach people to write in new ways because they believe that an author’s original text may not be as effective as a text that they could assemble from other authors.
I find the idea of assemblage to be a bit reductive. I think it is useful to view other author’s texts as potential tools. Most of the time I can find an author who said what I wanted to say and with better words. Assemblage adds to my view of mainly argumentative writing. However, I do not think it is useful to purely academic writing where the goal of the writing is to teach students to synthesize complex information using original thoughts. I really do not like how the author said that personal narratives and even individual words themselves are just remixes or assemblages. This is like creative writing teachers who claim “there are no new stories to be told.” It is disheartening, and it is an oversimplification. It makes people feel like machines when they are not.
It is difficult to say whether assemblage is necessary for 21st century writers because the author of this text did not precisely define where the line is between an assembled text and a mostly original text that interacts with the texts of others. Assemblage is necessary for visual texts, but probably not for alphabetic texts.
Assemblages are defined as texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context. From a writing standpoint, assemblage seems to mostly deal with concepts of intertextuality and citation, which can often fall into the realm of plagiarism, depending on how either one of these concepts is implemented. I don’t believe assemblage really adds to my view of writing because from what I’m understanding, it’s a concept that I was already a bit familiar with. From Johnson-Eilola and Selber’s writing, assemblage becomes a somewhat overcomplicated concept. To me, assemblage just seems to be a natural gravitation to use another person’s already existing work as a source of information, inspiration or even sometimes a template for your own creation process. It’s difficult to avoid assemblage in the 21st century because at this point, almost any idea that you’re planning to write about most likely already has a predecessor. So finding sources to cite and compare in your own work has become a common part of how people write. Even when it comes to more creative media (as opposed to an academic or research paper) like music and architecture, I would think assemblages are unavoidable. A text doesn’t need to be completely original to be considered valuable.
Assemblage is the use of others work as a framework of your own. This can be in the form of templates for the design aspect of a text or taking the thoughts of someone else and making them your own. While not completely original, assemblage relies on remixing to make something new. To retain originality the author should take into account how much of their text is framework and how much is their own thought. To an extent the assemblage theory has always been something I have notices, though I did not have a name for until now. Like some people say, there are no original thoughts, jut reworkings. Though this is something that I don't believe to be completely true. An example of originality would be someone mixing alphabets in a nonlinear way in varying styles of writing. The mainstream may not accept it and consider it nonsense but it would mean something to author while remaining an original work. How do we know someone just didn't have a similar thought that came out like someone else without knowing? There are too many factors when determining whether something truly is "original". So no, after reading about assemblage does it change my view of writing. Assemblage is not a necessary element of the 21st century; however it is an inevitability, an inevitability that is not necessarily a bad thing.
According to Johnson-Eilola and Selber, assemblages are text constructed from existing texts to “solve a writing or communication problem in a new context.” It is built from borrowed concepts like intersexuality and citation. Johnson-Eilola and Selber argue that in order to participate in our present culture we must accept that there is no “neutral, non-regulated space” to write about and information will always be recycled by writers (Johnson-Eilola and Selber 381). Furthermore, an assemblage is not viewed as a replacement of other methods of writing but is more of a valid practice among many. Instead of replacing, writers augment practices by including more equally valued approach (Johnson-Eilola and Selber 382). Even though there are legal and ethical issues with assemblage such as copyright problems, “the context for assemblages is decidedly rhetorical” (Johnson-Eilola and Selber 391). Exchange and re-appropriation is encouraged amongst our society in order to produce quality work.
This theory doesn’t necessarily add anything to my view of writing, as it is prevalent in everyone’s writing today. Even by writing a response to this blog I am incorporating assemblage as I am building off Johnson-Eilola and Selber’s idea after citing them in my response. Assemblage has proven to be a necessary condition of writing in the 21st century. Mostly everyone today owns an electronic device that has a vast amount of information and research they could use to inspire or build off their works. Furthermore, the stories we read in books often inspire writers in creating their own tales. No matter what, no work can be completely original anymore. Our society absorbs an immense amount of information through what we read, hear, and observe in this world. The use of assemblage doesn’t take anything away from writing, but instead makes concepts challenging and more elaborate by building on previous content published by writers.
According to Johnson-Eilola and Selber assemblages are texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context. Although that’s not to confuse with the idea that we are simply removing an replacing one method, as a new one develops to social constraints, but rather adding a method. Basically the methods evolved in layers rather than in a strict linear fashion. Of course there are constraints to this method such as legal issue with copy right laws, plagiarism and etc. which need to be taken into consideration. I’m on the fence on whether or not assemblages really add something new to my writing, more just confirm the ideas and the theories that I already know or use. Is any “new” idea, thought, or work really something that hasn’t been remolded by an older version. I think this challenges claims of things having originality, or are they an updated model its preceding origin. In research essays were always told to use sources, quotes various authors, and etc. and this is building on the idea of assemblages. Our work is never really our own because we were building off of other people ideas, others claims, and I’m sure there are other research papers on the same topic, so there are always other circuits other parts interacting this complex idea of assemblages. Although, what does that say about those majoring in creative writing? Is it fair to discredit the individualism of their story, just because there may be another one similar, but never the same? I think assemblages are necessary for the 21st century because, especially with visual texts like webpages, in which the adaptability to the audience needs is more important than making sure the design, the style, layout, etc. is necessarily original.
Assemblages, as defined by Johnson-Eilola and Selber, are texts “built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context” (381). The term ‘assemblage’ is introduced as a means of legitimizing texts that appropriate and repurpose existing material – it acts as a counter to the claim of “plagiarism”. It places value in the practice of reuse as a form of writing, rebuffing the overvaluation of the notion of “originality”. I don’t think assemblage necessarily adds anything new to my view of writing, however it does give me terminology in which to discuss it. It’s useful in attempting to create a distinction between texts that are considered “plagiarism” and texts that appropriate existing texts and recontextualize/reuse them for a different purpose. It’s difficult to say whether or not assemblage is a ‘necessary’ condition of writing in the 21st century – certainly it’s a useful one, and something that is often difficult to avoid. Academic texts, for example, are assemblages of external source material to create a base on which to form an argument, to engage in discourse. As is expressed in the readings, “to participate productively in culture, we must recognize that previous discourse always-already shapes and constrains the activities or writers, that there is no neutral, non-regulated space from which to begin a writing activity” (381). This, in essence, means that we are always assembling: assembling ideas, narratives, images, etc. ‘Assemblage’ gives name to an explicit instance of this.
Assemblages are texts created from existing texts to achieve a purpose such as a social change. Therefore, they focus on the effect of the text and less on the originality of the work. It is written in the essay “assemblages are interested in what works, what has social effects.”
After reading the authors’ theories about assemblages, their ideas did add to my view of writing. For instance, I agree with their theory that teachers create a hierarchy within composition, believing that the original work of the student is at the top while cited works are beneath. Because of this system of hierarchy, students are more likely to hide their borrowed work and therefore, plagiarism occurs. The essay says, “we want to change the goal of the writing from performance to action or effect in context.” The hierarchy they described has been a part of my academics since grade school, and I think that is why it has gone unnoticed to me. I just went along with their authority of judgment and never questioned their outlook on composition. This essay revealed the implied hierarchy, and it has made me question plagiarism’s negative connotation. This essay also makes a strong argument that very little composition is actually “original.” Likewise, I do think assemblage is necessary for the 21st century simply because it is almost unavoidable. Also, I think access plays a role in assemblage. The Internet has increased public accessibility and has blurred the lines between who owns what texts. In addition, I like the authors’ argument that assemblage is a way to advance action depending on the context.
Assemblage is this process of producing texts as a compilation of other texts. The idea of assemblage removes the emphasis on "original works" and instead encourages a "remix" of existing texts and concepts. Through examples Johnson-Eilola and Selber try to make the point that plagiarism exists only because we force it to by validating "originality" as being more important in academic context.
In regards to what assemblage adds to my views on writing, it isn't much. I think there are certain ideas assemblage provides that are useful, but none of them are as necessary as this paper seems to try and say. I can see how texts rely on each other and how they are social by nature but I think to make such a point out of that is unnecessary. The authors discuss what would happen if we were to make purely remixed texts, but in all honesty I believe that is what most writing already is. The nature of writing is compiling experiences and ideas and knowledge and none of those things are particularly original.
I think it's important to be aware of assemblage and to enforce the idea that "originality" is not what we think it is. One quote from the article states: "At least one set of social forces suggests to students that using citations and quotations from source material will be valued less than their own original text..."(378) and I think that idea is far more important in the 21st century than assemblage. I'd rather emphasize the importance of good research and synthesis of multiple sources than on compiling existing texts.
In “Plagiarism, originality, assemblage”, Johnson-Eilola and Selber define assemblages as “texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context (381). Texts are influenced by other texts they come in contact with. Assemblage brings together a wide range of texts from communities that might protest their mixing with others. An example the text gives is a free website template. The assemblage draws on and differs from this previously designed work. The template stays the same but users can change the content or mix other content. Assemblages are open to association and remixing into other assemblages by other writers and readers. Weblogs remix a wide range of materials. They contain quotations, links, summaries of other texts, commentaries and essays. All of these add to the overall quality of the weblog. Johnson-Eilola and Selber believe creating assemblages requires the same rhetorical sophistication as any text.
I don’t think assemblage adds to my view of writing. I was already using other existing texts in my writing. While creating a blog for a client, I used a variety of materials from existing sources. For the company Juice Press, I compiled customers Instagram posts featuring the juice drinks. Even commenting on this blog post for class is assemblage. Students answer questions including material from our readings. I believe assemblage is a huge part of writing in the 21st century. With a main focus on technology, it is easy to mix a wide range of texts to enhance writing.
According to the essay: “Assemblages are texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context” (381). The idea allows for a writer to write wwhile openly using other’s ideas without any constraints.
I see assemblage as a helpful tool for writing. It allows a writer to connect better with his or her audience by the choice of words they chose to make their point across with. Assemblage also allows for old ideas to be reintroduced and the “remix” of works allows for two old concepts to also be reintroduced as something brand new. Assemblage is a necessary condition because it allows for new ideas to be developed and flow with the help of old ideas. In the 21st century it is difficult and almost impossible to write something that hasn't been written about. Also, most ideas that are already out there are easily accessible to readers and writers. At the same time, I think the writer should be careful when using an assemblage; having to deal with copyright issues and such legal matters are a constraint to writers. Overall, assemblage is useful in the 21st century and can be seen as in advancement. It makes it the goal of a writer a bit simpler and allows for multiple thoughts to be put together as one.
In J. Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber's essay, "Plagiarism, originality, assemblage", assemblage is defined as "texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context" (7). I believe this concept is extremely drawn out in their essay. The way in which they go into ridiculous detail for certain examples seems unnecessary. In my opinion, this concept is pretty straight-forward and seems to be one of those "goes without saying" kind of concepts. Similar to that of multimodality, the impact assemblage has on my view of writing is minimal. Once again, I just now have a term to put to a concept I was already familiar with. This being said, I was interested with some of the things Johnston-Eilola and Selber put in their essay. Specifically, I was intrigued with their commentary on the originality of students work. They mentioned how teacher are often mostly concerned with students papers/assignments being original, that is to say non-plagiarized. In today's society, plagiarism has become such a huge focus in academic environments. This pressure to be original has serious secondary effects. Rather than encouraging students to be original, it tempts them to "conceal their sources" (4). As a student who faces this pressure to be "original" on a daily basis in school, I can confirm that this is often true. Since text put in quotes is often thought of as less valuable than "original", unquoted text. It's all backwards, man, the system is flawed. But that's old news. To comment on the last part of the blog post, I would say that, to an extent, assemblage is a necessary condition for 21st century writing. This is just because most things created nowadays is just a "remix" of something that has already been created. But based on that understanding, assemblage has been a writing condition far longer than the term itself has been around.
Johnson-Eilola and Selber define assemblage as texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context. As a person grown in a technological age, I don’t find this to be anything particularly new or groundbreaking, and it doesn’t change my view of writing—at least, not from what that view has evolved to with past classes on text. In a way, I might say that some level of assemblage is unavoidable in writing; no person or work exists in a void, there will always be similar sentiments or elements or things incorporated for inspiration. At the same time, in writing at least there is usually a pretty clear line between plagiarism and originals, with perhaps satire in between in some cases. It reminds me of something my professor taught in What is a Text? last semester, something she called play-glarism, which is a type of manipulation used in text such as artist’s books to convert an original to what isoften meant to be viewed as a new original.
Assemblage is defined as, “texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context.” This is overall a very fascinating concept to me because my entire life as a student I’ve been told to create my own work. Therefore initially this sounded a lot like plagiarism to me. However, I found that as I read further it made perfect sense. There is no way that everything we write about today is a new writing or text. There are only so many writing topics that means frequently we’re writing similar words to other writers. Therefore the concept of plugging in more relevant ideas into a previously used sentence is logical. I don’t believe the idea of assemblage really furthered my writing. It is a very logical term, that in the 21st century where we have access to the world through the internet, makes perfect sense. I believe assemblage is a necessary condition of writing in the 21st century because it is so hard to avoid and it occurs naturally. It is nearly impossible to create a completely original text in our day and age.
“For our purposes here, assemblages are texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context. Under our definition, “assemblage” is itself constructed from the conceptual, linguistic, and sociopolitical forces active in several different locations.” (pg. 381) I don’t feel assemblage is a necessary condition of writing, but I feel it is very helpful and makes sense for a forward moving society. I unfortunately do believe most ideas have been done in some sort of way before, so to make more complex ideas, it makes sense to build off of others. I find it humorous how artists don’t want anyone to use their work in some way, when the point of most creative endeavors is for people to feel or react. At the same time I understand an artist or person wanting to have credit for their work. I wish that our human nature felt it was more important to create beautiful and important things, than to have credit for a sole idea, but that isn’t how most of us our programmed. I think the solution is starting off with companies like Creative Commons and then slowly finding more ways to share work while still having credit given to everyone involved. Assemblage is something it will take society to adjust to, but through chaos, we will. Assemblage slightly changes my view of writing in the way that it makes me want to write about how depressing the conversation surrounding it is. I always find it weird to discuss creative works in a structured way, and in this case a way that prevents people from creating while trying to help creative people think their work is original.
Assemblages are texts that are built first and foremost from already existing texts to further piece together answers for a problem in the existing writing that is out of context. According to J. Johnson-Eilola, creating assemblages have the same requirements as any other as any other text and therefore requires more work than just “downloading templates and replace their placeholder items with real content” (Johnson-Eilola, 391). The layouts in which assemblages are based on makes the situation more complicated due to adding another element to the rhetorical situation. Assemblages often borrow information that appears obvious, “even trading on their connections to other work” (Johnson-Eilola, 391). Ultimately, even tough there are “legal and ethical issues to consider”, the basis of assemblages is understandably rhetorical (Johnson-Eilola, 391). I think assemblage doesn’t change your view of writing unless you know the original document or information. Assemblages help to modify an existing message or data by upgrading it to be more readable and frankly, esthetically pleasing. Moreover, this is why I think assemblage is a necessary condition of writing in the 21st century because with the internet, especially via social media, providing information to consumers so much faster today, information needs to be brought together in a format here it looks interesting to read but also has all the information we want right there on front of us.
ReplyDeleteAssemblages, as defined in the text by Johnson-Eilola and Selber, are “texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context.” I don’t think that the view of assemblage adds anything to my writing. I just think the idea of it is something that I was familiar with but now I have a term to attach to the idea. Before reading this text I was unaware of what the term assemblage means. Now after reading through it, I agree completely “there is no neutral, non-regulated space from which to begin a writing activity.” For example, in the text, it was said how with specific genres like rhetoric and composition there are always going to be the concepts that writers use when working within those genres such as intetertexuality and citation. I wouldn’t say that assemblage is a necessary condition in the 21st century but instead more that it is evident and naturally going to happen. It is essentially a step up from plagiarism but not 100 percent the original work of the author. Using those forms or citations during assemblage is either frowned upon by some or praised. Either way, it is something that is prominent in writing and I don’t think it can be avoided. Avoiding assemblage would be like “reinventing the wheel” and to add on to what Johnson-Eilola and Selber say about this is that assemblage is basically adding onto an existing template but fitting it with your specific context in mind. I think I would have to agree on the final thoughts in this text when the authors say that trying to produce completely original texts all the time is something that can be difficult and also burdensome. Assemblage can sometimes be a good thing.
ReplyDeleteAssemblage is a writing theory which states that “remixed” or “assembled” texts have just as much value or potential to solve problems as purely original texts do. This theory plays with ideas of authorship, and originality. The authors of this text want to teach people to write in new ways because they believe that an author’s original text may not be as effective as a text that they could assemble from other authors.
ReplyDeleteI find the idea of assemblage to be a bit reductive. I think it is useful to view other author’s texts as potential tools. Most of the time I can find an author who said what I wanted to say and with better words. Assemblage adds to my view of mainly argumentative writing. However, I do not think it is useful to purely academic writing where the goal of the writing is to teach students to synthesize complex information using original thoughts. I really do not like how the author said that personal narratives and even individual words themselves are just remixes or assemblages. This is like creative writing teachers who claim “there are no new stories to be told.” It is disheartening, and it is an oversimplification. It makes people feel like machines when they are not.
It is difficult to say whether assemblage is necessary for 21st century writers because the author of this text did not precisely define where the line is between an assembled text and a mostly original text that interacts with the texts of others. Assemblage is necessary for visual texts, but probably not for alphabetic texts.
Assemblages are defined as texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context. From a writing standpoint, assemblage seems to mostly deal with concepts of intertextuality and citation, which can often fall into the realm of plagiarism, depending on how either one of these concepts is implemented. I don’t believe assemblage really adds to my view of writing because from what I’m understanding, it’s a concept that I was already a bit familiar with. From Johnson-Eilola and Selber’s writing, assemblage becomes a somewhat overcomplicated concept. To me, assemblage just seems to be a natural gravitation to use another person’s already existing work as a source of information, inspiration or even sometimes a template for your own creation process. It’s difficult to avoid assemblage in the 21st century because at this point, almost any idea that you’re planning to write about most likely already has a predecessor. So finding sources to cite and compare in your own work has become a common part of how people write. Even when it comes to more creative media (as opposed to an academic or research paper) like music and architecture, I would think assemblages are unavoidable. A text doesn’t need to be completely original to be considered valuable.
ReplyDeleteAssemblage is the use of others work as a framework of your own. This can be in the form of templates for the design aspect of a text or taking the thoughts of someone else and making them your own. While not completely original, assemblage relies on remixing to make something new. To retain originality the author should take into account how much of their text is framework and how much is their own thought.
ReplyDeleteTo an extent the assemblage theory has always been something I have notices, though I did not have a name for until now. Like some people say, there are no original thoughts, jut reworkings. Though this is something that I don't believe to be completely true. An example of originality would be someone mixing alphabets in a nonlinear way in varying styles of writing. The mainstream may not accept it and consider it nonsense but it would mean something to author while remaining an original work. How do we know someone just didn't have a similar thought that came out like someone else without knowing? There are too many factors when determining whether something truly is "original". So no, after reading about assemblage does it change my view of writing.
Assemblage is not a necessary element of the 21st century; however it is an inevitability, an inevitability that is not necessarily a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Johnson-Eilola and Selber, assemblages are text constructed from existing texts to “solve a writing or communication problem in a new context.” It is built from borrowed concepts like intersexuality and citation. Johnson-Eilola and Selber argue that in order to participate in our present culture we must accept that there is no “neutral, non-regulated space” to write about and information will always be recycled by writers (Johnson-Eilola and Selber 381). Furthermore, an assemblage is not viewed as a replacement of other methods of writing but is more of a valid practice among many. Instead of replacing, writers augment practices by including more equally valued approach (Johnson-Eilola and Selber 382). Even though there are legal and ethical issues with assemblage such as copyright problems, “the context for assemblages is decidedly rhetorical” (Johnson-Eilola and Selber 391). Exchange and re-appropriation is encouraged amongst our society in order to produce quality work.
This theory doesn’t necessarily add anything to my view of writing, as it is prevalent in everyone’s writing today. Even by writing a response to this blog I am incorporating assemblage as I am building off Johnson-Eilola and Selber’s idea after citing them in my response. Assemblage has proven to be a necessary condition of writing in the 21st century. Mostly everyone today owns an electronic device that has a vast amount of information and research they could use to inspire or build off their works. Furthermore, the stories we read in books often inspire writers in creating their own tales. No matter what, no work can be completely original anymore. Our society absorbs an immense amount of information through what we read, hear, and observe in this world. The use of assemblage doesn’t take anything away from writing, but instead makes concepts challenging and more elaborate by building on previous content published by writers.
According to Johnson-Eilola and Selber assemblages are texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context. Although that’s not to confuse with the idea that we are simply removing an replacing one method, as a new one develops to social constraints, but rather adding a method. Basically the methods evolved in layers rather than in a strict linear fashion. Of course there are constraints to this method such as legal issue with copy right laws, plagiarism and etc. which need to be taken into consideration.
ReplyDeleteI’m on the fence on whether or not assemblages really add something new to my writing, more just confirm the ideas and the theories that I already know or use. Is any “new” idea, thought, or work really something that hasn’t been remolded by an older version. I think this challenges claims of things having originality, or are they an updated model its preceding origin. In research essays were always told to use sources, quotes various authors, and etc. and this is building on the idea of assemblages. Our work is never really our own because we were building off of other people ideas, others claims, and I’m sure there are other research papers on the same topic, so there are always other circuits other parts interacting this complex idea of assemblages. Although, what does that say about those majoring in creative writing? Is it fair to discredit the individualism of their story, just because there may be another one similar, but never the same?
I think assemblages are necessary for the 21st century because, especially with visual texts like webpages, in which the adaptability to the audience needs is more important than making sure the design, the style, layout, etc. is necessarily original.
Assemblages, as defined by Johnson-Eilola and Selber, are texts “built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context” (381). The term ‘assemblage’ is introduced as a means of legitimizing texts that appropriate and repurpose existing material – it acts as a counter to the claim of “plagiarism”. It places value in the practice of reuse as a form of writing, rebuffing the overvaluation of the notion of “originality”. I don’t think assemblage necessarily adds anything new to my view of writing, however it does give me terminology in which to discuss it. It’s useful in attempting to create a distinction between texts that are considered “plagiarism” and texts that appropriate existing texts and recontextualize/reuse them for a different purpose. It’s difficult to say whether or not assemblage is a ‘necessary’ condition of writing in the 21st century – certainly it’s a useful one, and something that is often difficult to avoid. Academic texts, for example, are assemblages of external source material to create a base on which to form an argument, to engage in discourse. As is expressed in the readings, “to participate productively in culture, we must recognize that previous discourse always-already shapes and constrains the activities or writers, that there is no neutral, non-regulated space from which to begin a writing activity” (381). This, in essence, means that we are always assembling: assembling ideas, narratives, images, etc. ‘Assemblage’ gives name to an explicit instance of this.
ReplyDeleteAssemblages are texts created from existing texts to achieve a purpose such as a social change. Therefore, they focus on the effect of the text and less on the originality of the work. It is written in the essay “assemblages are interested in what works, what has social effects.”
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the authors’ theories about assemblages, their ideas did add to my view of writing. For instance, I agree with their theory that teachers create a hierarchy within composition, believing that the original work of the student is at the top while cited works are beneath. Because of this system of hierarchy, students are more likely to hide their borrowed work and therefore, plagiarism occurs. The essay says, “we want to change the goal of the writing from performance to action or effect in context.” The hierarchy they described has been a part of my academics since grade school, and I think that is why it has gone unnoticed to me. I just went along with their authority of judgment and never questioned their outlook on composition. This essay revealed the implied hierarchy, and it has made me question plagiarism’s negative connotation. This essay also makes a strong argument that very little composition is actually “original.” Likewise, I do think assemblage is necessary for the 21st century simply because it is almost unavoidable. Also, I think access plays a role in assemblage. The Internet has increased public accessibility and has blurred the lines between who owns what texts. In addition, I like the authors’ argument that assemblage is a way to advance action depending on the context.
Assemblage is this process of producing texts as a compilation of other texts. The idea of assemblage removes the emphasis on "original works" and instead encourages a "remix" of existing texts and concepts. Through examples Johnson-Eilola and Selber try to make the point that plagiarism exists only because we force it to by validating "originality" as being more important in academic context.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to what assemblage adds to my views on writing, it isn't much. I think there are certain ideas assemblage provides that are useful, but none of them are as necessary as this paper seems to try and say. I can see how texts rely on each other and how they are social by nature but I think to make such a point out of that is unnecessary. The authors discuss what would happen if we were to make purely remixed texts, but in all honesty I believe that is what most writing already is. The nature of writing is compiling experiences and ideas and knowledge and none of those things are particularly original.
I think it's important to be aware of assemblage and to enforce the idea that "originality" is not what we think it is. One quote from the article states: "At least one set of social forces suggests to students that using citations and quotations from source material will be valued less than their own original text..."(378) and I think that idea is far more important in the 21st century than assemblage. I'd rather emphasize the importance of good research and synthesis of multiple sources than on compiling existing texts.
In “Plagiarism, originality, assemblage”, Johnson-Eilola and Selber define assemblages as “texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context (381). Texts are influenced by other texts they come in contact with. Assemblage brings together a wide range of texts from communities that might protest their mixing with others. An example the text gives is a free website template. The assemblage draws on and differs from this previously designed work. The template stays the same but users can change the content or mix other content. Assemblages are open to association and remixing into other assemblages by other writers and readers. Weblogs remix a wide range of materials. They contain quotations, links, summaries of other texts, commentaries and essays. All of these add to the overall quality of the weblog. Johnson-Eilola and Selber believe creating assemblages requires the same rhetorical sophistication as any text.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think assemblage adds to my view of writing. I was already using other existing texts in my writing. While creating a blog for a client, I used a variety of materials from existing sources. For the company Juice Press, I compiled customers Instagram posts featuring the juice drinks. Even commenting on this blog post for class is assemblage. Students answer questions including material from our readings. I believe assemblage is a huge part of writing in the 21st century. With a main focus on technology, it is easy to mix a wide range of texts to enhance writing.
According to the essay: “Assemblages are texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context” (381). The idea allows for a writer to write wwhile openly using other’s ideas without any constraints.
ReplyDeleteI see assemblage as a helpful tool for writing. It allows a writer to connect better with his or her audience by the choice of words they chose to make their point across with. Assemblage also allows for old ideas to be reintroduced and the “remix” of works allows for two old concepts to also be reintroduced as something brand new.
Assemblage is a necessary condition because it allows for new ideas to be developed and flow with the help of old ideas. In the 21st century it is difficult and almost impossible to write something that hasn't been written about. Also, most ideas that are already out there are easily accessible to readers and writers. At the same time, I think the writer should be careful when using an assemblage; having to deal with copyright issues and such legal matters are a constraint to writers.
Overall, assemblage is useful in the 21st century and can be seen as in advancement. It makes it the goal of a writer a bit simpler and allows for multiple thoughts to be put together as one.
In J. Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber's essay, "Plagiarism, originality, assemblage", assemblage is defined as "texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context" (7). I believe this concept is extremely drawn out in their essay. The way in which they go into ridiculous detail for certain examples seems unnecessary. In my opinion, this concept is pretty straight-forward and seems to be one of those "goes without saying" kind of concepts. Similar to that of multimodality, the impact assemblage has on my view of writing is minimal. Once again, I just now have a term to put to a concept I was already familiar with. This being said, I was interested with some of the things Johnston-Eilola and Selber put in their essay. Specifically, I was intrigued with their commentary on the originality of students work. They mentioned how teacher are often mostly concerned with students papers/assignments being original, that is to say non-plagiarized. In today's society, plagiarism has become such a huge focus in academic environments. This pressure to be original has serious secondary effects. Rather than encouraging students to be original, it tempts them to "conceal their sources" (4). As a student who faces this pressure to be "original" on a daily basis in school, I can confirm that this is often true. Since text put in quotes is often thought of as less valuable than "original", unquoted text. It's all backwards, man, the system is flawed. But that's old news. To comment on the last part of the blog post, I would say that, to an extent, assemblage is a necessary condition for 21st century writing. This is just because most things created nowadays is just a "remix" of something that has already been created. But based on that understanding, assemblage has been a writing condition far longer than the term itself has been around.
ReplyDeleteJohnson-Eilola and Selber define assemblage as texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context. As a person grown in a technological age, I don’t find this to be anything particularly new or groundbreaking, and it doesn’t change my view of writing—at least, not from what that view has evolved to with past classes on text. In a way, I might say that some level of assemblage is unavoidable in writing; no person or work exists in a void, there will always be similar sentiments or elements or things incorporated for inspiration. At the same time, in writing at least there is usually a pretty clear line between plagiarism and originals, with perhaps satire in between in some cases. It reminds me of something my professor taught in What is a Text? last semester, something she called play-glarism, which is a type of manipulation used in text such as artist’s books to convert an original to what isoften meant to be viewed as a new original.
ReplyDeleteAssemblage is defined as, “texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context.” This is overall a very fascinating concept to me because my entire life as a student I’ve been told to create my own work. Therefore initially this sounded a lot like plagiarism to me. However, I found that as I read further it made perfect sense. There is no way that everything we write about today is a new writing or text. There are only so many writing topics that means frequently we’re writing similar words to other writers. Therefore the concept of plugging in more relevant ideas into a previously used sentence is logical. I don’t believe the idea of assemblage really furthered my writing. It is a very logical term, that in the 21st century where we have access to the world through the internet, makes perfect sense. I believe assemblage is a necessary condition of writing in the 21st century because it is so hard to avoid and it occurs naturally. It is nearly impossible to create a completely original text in our day and age.
ReplyDelete“For our purposes here, assemblages are texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts
ReplyDeletein order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context. Under our definition,
“assemblage” is itself constructed from the conceptual, linguistic, and sociopolitical forces
active in several different locations.” (pg. 381) I don’t feel assemblage is a necessary condition of writing, but I feel it is very helpful and makes sense for a forward moving society. I unfortunately do believe most ideas have been done in some sort of way before, so to make more complex ideas, it makes sense to build off of others. I find it humorous how artists don’t want anyone to use their work in some way, when the point of most creative endeavors is for people to feel or react. At the same time I understand an artist or person wanting to have credit for their work. I wish that our human nature felt it was more important to create beautiful and important things, than to have credit for a sole idea, but that isn’t how most of us our programmed. I think the solution is starting off with companies like Creative Commons and then slowly finding more ways to share work while still having credit given to everyone involved. Assemblage is something it will take society to adjust to, but through chaos, we will.
Assemblage slightly changes my view of writing in the way that it makes me want to write about how depressing the conversation surrounding it is. I always find it weird to discuss creative works in a structured way, and in this case a way that prevents people from creating while trying to help creative people think their work is original.