Goldsmith’s “Revenge of the Text” chapter strips down our normal, narrow understanding of language and widens both the definition and our minds, to include the raw material behind digital imagery (coding, binary etc…)
It deliberates the ways in which data is preserved, carried and handled through the affluence of the digital world, and turned into information, often by way of what Flusser terms ‘black boxes’ (Flusser, “The Future of Writing, 67).
He feels that having such powerful technology at our fingertips, with laptops, tablets, “apps” and social media networks, opens up endless possibilities for people as writers and we should, as a result, question our positions, as well as think about the changes to the “what” and “how” of the things we’re writing… “The writer’s role is being significantly challenged, expanded and updated” (Goldsmith, “Revenge of the Text”, 24). Essentially, Goldsmith is saying that the integration of writing with digital innovation has blurred the lines between parts of the “old” world and parts of the “new” one; digital media has ‘set the stage’ for a literary revolution (Goldsmith, “Revenge of the Text”, 15). He doesn’t see written language to be under threat, as he feels that the digital world is powered and underpinned by it; language is seen to be the foundation for the building and expansion of our opportunities and potential pathways in societal development. …show more content…
This transition from paper to screen is not viewed with anywhere near as much cynicism by Goldsmith, as it is by Flusser; his opinion considers text to be something “self-perpetuating”, running behind and throughout everything we do.
In “The Future of Writing”, Flusser questions both the societal and individual changes that will happen as written communication unavoidably gives way to digital expression, in an increasingly-technological age.
His introduction proposes a lack of a future for the written word, because virtually everything that is currently borne in writing can be chronicled and communicated by other, namely digital, means.
He argues that the act of writing is being surpassed by a new system of coding and digital progressions; there will be drastic revolutions in the way we conceive and communicate a range of critical societal concepts like history and politics (Flusser, “The Future of Writing, 63). In his opinion, in spite of its restrictions in comparison to digital methodology, writing is the foundation upon which historical consciousness, societal progress, and critical analyses are built. From a cultural viewpoint, while text and writing may eventually become redundant, he argues that writing will “evolve” into new and innovative means of manifestation, as opposed to a complete disappearance; the rise of a “digital age” does not necessarily mean that writing will instantly die out, but rather that it will lose its significance as a reputable and efficient form of communication. Goldsmith and Flusser present two differing perspectives on the increasing technologisation of reading and writing practices, with each man at either end of a continuum, in terms of how open they are to the “digital immersion movement” Flusser has a much more cynical view, seeing digital works as nothing more than a ‘spanner in the works’, acting as one of many phases of an eventual end to society and civilisation as we know it. Goldsmith, on the other hand, has a more open attitude to digital media, seeing it to carry an art form that continues to evolve with time, new developments and new additions; “the text cycle is primarily additive” (Goldsmith, “Revenge of the Text”, 32). The background knowledge that Goldsmith possesses, in relation to his ability to manipulate code (Goldsmith, “Revenge of the Text”, 20, 23) and discuss complex concepts like “favicons” (Goldsmith, “Revenge of the Text”, 21) looks to have an effect on the way he views technology and the potential it has for our world, while Flusser (living through the middle of the twentieth century) only survived to see the beginning of this digital movement and the early stages of the internet. Perhaps his cynicism can be attributed to this lack of understanding, for as Marie Curie said, “we only fear that which we do not know.” While both authors acknowledge the fact that the world as we know it is evolving, they disagree on the effect it could have on written language;
It deliberates the ways in which data is preserved, carried and handled through the affluence of the digital world, and turned into information, often by way of what Flusser terms ‘black boxes’ (Flusser, “The Future of Writing, 67).
He feels that having such powerful technology at our fingertips, with laptops, tablets, “apps” and social media networks, opens up endless possibilities for people as writers and we should, as a result, question our positions, as well as think about the changes to the “what” and “how” of the things we’re writing… “The writer’s role is being significantly challenged, expanded and updated” (Goldsmith, “Revenge of the Text”, 24). Essentially, Goldsmith is saying that the integration of writing with digital innovation has blurred the lines between parts of the “old” world and parts of the “new” one; digital media has ‘set the stage’ for a literary revolution (Goldsmith, “Revenge of the Text”, 15). He doesn’t see written language to be under threat, as he feels that the digital world is powered and underpinned by it; language is seen to be the foundation for the building and expansion of our opportunities and potential pathways in societal development. …show more content…
This transition from paper to screen is not viewed with anywhere near as much cynicism by Goldsmith, as it is by Flusser; his opinion considers text to be something “self-perpetuating”, running behind and throughout everything we do.
In “The Future of Writing”, Flusser questions both the societal and individual changes that will happen as written communication unavoidably gives way to digital expression, in an increasingly-technological age.
His introduction proposes a lack of a future for the written word, because virtually everything that is currently borne in writing can be chronicled and communicated by other, namely digital, means.
He argues that the act of writing is being surpassed by a new system of coding and digital progressions; there will be drastic revolutions in the way we conceive and communicate a range of critical societal concepts like history and politics (Flusser, “The Future of Writing, 63). In his opinion, in spite of its restrictions in comparison to digital methodology, writing is the foundation upon which historical consciousness, societal progress, and critical analyses are built. From a cultural viewpoint, while text and writing may eventually become redundant, he argues that writing will “evolve” into new and innovative means of manifestation, as opposed to a complete disappearance; the rise of a “digital age” does not necessarily mean that writing will instantly die out, but rather that it will lose its significance as a reputable and efficient form of communication. Goldsmith and Flusser present two differing perspectives on the increasing technologisation of reading and writing practices, with each man at either end of a continuum, in terms of how open they are to the “digital immersion movement” Flusser has a much more cynical view, seeing digital works as nothing more than a ‘spanner in the works’, acting as one of many phases of an eventual end to society and civilisation as we know it. Goldsmith, on the other hand, has a more open attitude to digital media, seeing it to carry an art form that continues to evolve with time, new developments and new additions; “the text cycle is primarily additive” (Goldsmith, “Revenge of the Text”, 32). The background knowledge that Goldsmith possesses, in relation to his ability to manipulate code (Goldsmith, “Revenge of the Text”, 20, 23) and discuss complex concepts like “favicons” (Goldsmith, “Revenge of the Text”, 21) looks to have an effect on the way he views technology and the potential it has for our world, while Flusser (living through the middle of the twentieth century) only survived to see the beginning of this digital movement and the early stages of the internet. Perhaps his cynicism can be attributed to this lack of understanding, for as Marie Curie said, “we only fear that which we do not know.” While both authors acknowledge the fact that the world as we know it is evolving, they disagree on the effect it could have on written language;