Barta-Smith and DiMarco – "Same Difference: Evolving Conclusions about
\nTextuality and New Media," 159-178
\nIn "Same Difference," Barta-Smith and DiMarco argue for an evolutionary view of
\nnew media (precedent rich) rather than a revolutionary view (precedent creating
\nor precedent exploding). Beginning with "what is a visual<\/i>
\nrevolution?" and concerns about discussions of new media that "suppress
\ncontinuity" (161), they apply a sophisticated reading of Maurice Merlau-Ponty as
\na way to "celebrate imitation as combination and succession" (163). An
\nevolutionary frame tacks new media to certain historical trajectories (there’s
\nbeen visuality ever since the first eyeball!). The article rings solidly
\nwith a developmental view (in fact, it reminded me of Emig’s "The Origins of
\nRhetoric: A Developmental View," speaking of evolution) and there are frequent
\nreferences to perspectives from cognitive science. Visual evolution is
\ndistinct from imitation (which emphasizes the causality connecting visual
\nassimilation to sensorimotor activity) in that it recombines and leads to
\n"structural integration" (173) and reorganizes existing cognitive patterns.
\nTheirs is a nuanced argument, and it’s interesting to me because I haven’t read
\nmuch about on new media and cognitive science. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Briefly, there is one small thing about this article that didn’t work for me.
\nMerlau-Ponty’s critique of Piaget is accepted but never really opened up.
\nWhere does Piaget get it wrong exactly (tertiary circular reactions?)?
\nIt’s difficult to say, and the article doesn’t refer directly to Piaget, only to
\nMP. I don’t know whether the standard applies, but I was surprised to find
\nPiaget invoked without really being explored first-hand in the imitation and
\nperception discussion. Oh…I should go read Merlau-Ponty? Right.
\nThat would only be fair.<\/p>\n
So if we accept visual evolution over visual revolution, what does it mean?
\nBarta-Smith and DiMarco write that we need to: "Accept the continuity among
\noral, print and visual media and search for it," and "Create and user-test new
\nforms of writing in real contexts" (175). I wonder, though, if the
\ncontested frame (evolution v. revolution) substantively impacts how we practice
\nnew media. <\/p>\n
Passages:
\n"Meaning presents itself even without words. To this way of thinking, the
\nbest innovations in writing and new media will value existing forms,
\ncoordinating them into new arrangements rather than celebrating their demise"
\n(176).
\n"Likewise, we may find that the most revolutionary ideas about writing and new
\nmedia emerge as mixtures of existing text, voice, and image, that is, as
\nevolving combinations rather than definitive conclusions about textuality and
\nnew media" (175). <\/p>\n
Keywords: imitation (167), visual, new media, evolution, revolution
\nFigures: Ong, Piaget, Merlau-Ponty, Tebeaux, Ann Russon<\/p>\n
Wiley – "Cognitive and Educational Implications of Visually Rich Media:
\nImages and Imagination," 201-215
\nComing from an educational psychology perspective, Wiley undertakes what we
\nmight call a cost and benefit analysis of images in text. Do images help
\nor hinder learning? According to Wiley, cognitive science research on this
\nissue is conflicted, demonstrating that images may either help understanding in
\nsome instances and hinder it in other situations. The chapter’s purpose:
\n"examine the educational implications of visual adjuncts and how they may affect
\nthe processing of conceptual information and therefore, the transmittal of
\nknowledge within particular subject matter areas" (201-202). On the
\nupside, images may be more efficient (quicker to scan for meaning) and memorable
\n(visualizations as mnemonic devices), and they can serve conceptual modeling
\n(204). On the downside, they can minimize reading engagement, substituting
\n"intimacy and intensity" with superficiality (207), and they can act as
\n"seductive details" (206) that recruit attention away from substantive meaning
\nand "actually prevent readers from developing understanding" (208).
\nNotably, one of the anti-images sources is S. Jay Samuels, dated 1970. <\/p>\n
Passages:
\n"Hence, figures, graphs, or flowcharts that may enable the reader to think about
\nabstract concepts through images may allow for the creation of more complete
\nsituation models and as a consequence may in fact improve comprehension of text,
\nas the studies of Darrell Butler (1993) and William Winn (1988) have
\ndemonstrated" (205).
\n"Visual adjuncts can serve an important role in clarifying and providing vivid
\nexamples of evidence and in exciting the reader about a topic, perhaps even in
\nproviding an aesthetic or persuasive experience, but the images and animations
\nthemselves can hardly stand along in terms of subject matter learning" (212). <\/p>\n
Keywords: seductive details (206), emotionally interesting adjuncts (210), joy
\nof discovery (212)<\/p>\n
This is my last entry on Eloquent Images<\/i> for a while (sorry…I know
\nyou wanted me to take the series even higher, but the trifecta has got to be
\ngood enough for now). For the independent study, I’m moving on to Lanham
\nfollowed by Bolter and Grusin. In method~ologies, Durst’s Collision
\nCourse<\/i> tomorrow (students as reflective pragmatists, give ’em what they
\nwant)…in 307, c. 5 in The Cluetrain Manifesto<\/i>, and Thursday, I’m
\nstepping to the mic for a lunchtime talk about Why Blog. It starts, "Blog
\nbecause…." Gonna be great. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Barta-Smith and DiMarco – "Same Difference: Evolving Conclusions about Textuality and New Media," 159-178 In "Same Difference," Barta-Smith and DiMarco argue for an evolutionary view of new media (precedent rich) rather than a revolutionary view (precedent creating or precedent exploding). Beginning with "what is a visual revolution?" and concerns about discussions of new media that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[167],"tags":[135,492,318,361,493,443,433],"class_list":["post-6434","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reading_notes","tag-cognition","tag-evolution","tag-new-media","tag-piaget","tag-revolution","tag-text","tag-visuality"],"yoast_head":"\n