As I watched these various videos laid down by the teacher, I begin to wonder - are we really at this apex of beautiful digital composition, or are we just trying to pick flowers out of the rubble? I agree with what Miller says, what "why teach digital writing" says, with Informational R/evolution says (although, I still never figured out why revolution has a slash in it). My issue with all of these is just that this "world" of information isn't as grand as we think it is. Sure your Wikipedia is humongous, but after having ten classes in a row telling its students to stay the hell away from its information because it has 200,000+ contributors, does that really make Wiki a good thing or is it simply just a neat concept to stem from the digital world? There are plenty of neat concepts to come out of this digital age, but does that mean we need to strive to reach them? Or does that mean we need to be the next person to think up the new concept?
The internet is huge, and yes, a really cool way to find things out..... Yes, we should know how to use it so we know how to get to the valuable sources and aren't floundering in a world of "You're the 1,000,000th visitor! You Win!" I firmly believe in that. But with these 5000 ways to do one thing, couldn't we say that being a digital composer mirrors this? How can we define what makes a "good" digital composition when the digital world proves there's no one right way, one "good" way, to do anything?
I'm not sure how you can have "teachers of writing" and how they can create "consequences for students" if there are a 1.7 million different ways to have something detailed, found, interpreted. For a class to consider itself a "teacher" of digital composition, I don't think having "consequences" is a way to conduct class. Maybe if the goal was to let every student develop their own style and create something totally their own on their blog, or whatever medium they choose to use, sure. But I don't think there can even be a definition of "consequences" when barely anyone with their own style and is a well known identity on the internet suffers consequences. To me, writing is a compilation of your own thoughts fueled by the input of others. I'm a journalism major and if I write but fail to interview anyone, it's not a good piece. Just running around saying "this is what digital is" is about as powerful as someone with no expertise telling me about the newest breakthrough in medical vaccines. If you don't know, you don't know. If you want to know, go ask someone in person who's really got the knowledge you're seeking. Don't bother the internet unless you're doing basic research. And I mean basic. Like how to pronounce a word, or what exactly a medical term means before you start walking around spouting bullshit like an idiot. I write for other people. Not to make myself feel like a glorified prince among peons. I don't know anything better than the average person and I write so they know just as much as I do and can interpret or take away what they will from there.
Honestly, I'm not even sure if I answered the prompt for this blog. The arbitrary guidelines don't leave much room for concrete thought. You've either got to have a topic, or you have nothing at all. It's not just "writing," its developing and creating through your findings and discussion with others. Maybe I'm missing the whole point of all of this but it seems so frivolous the roundabout way the videos and website go about talking about "how" I should do something. How can you be an expert in a world where everyone and no one is as expert simultaneously?
No comments:
Post a Comment