3-30-09 Freewrite

Text messaging affects the way that people think by forcing them to find new ways to express their messages. This is the case because of two factors. Firstly, sms text messages limit a single message to 160 characters. Secondly, people that use text messages are often in a situation which limits the amount of time that they can spend writing and sending a message. Both of these limitations require the writers of these messages to condense their message, either in the amount of words and characters or the amount of content that they choose to convey in their message. In other words, text messages have the potential to force people to think in terms of their priorities. Would they rather sacrifice part of their message or simply use abbreviations to convey it? Would they rather save time or send a message using proper English? These are simply a few examples of how someone using a text message as a medium for communication could be forced to change how they think.

Text messaging affects communication in a similar fashion, creating shorter messages and forcing people to condense their thoughts and words. Written communication over blogs and through email can be much different from that used in text messages or on twitter for this very reason. In formats that do not have small limits on communications, people are able to say more and are able to do so in a format that allows more options for the writer.

Response to Txting: The Gr8 Db8

When I began reading David Crystal’s book about texting, it was immediately clear to me that he understood the growing importance and popularity of this method of communication around the world. It was also clear that he believed that there should be some sort of book that could describe this phenomenon to others inside and outside of the literary community.

I was in strong disagreement with the discussion about texting destroying the English language in the beginning of the book. While it is obvious that text messages do not encourage the use of proper grammar, spelling, or even real words, this does not lead to the destruction of our language. The fear that young people will consistently use the language of texting rather than proper English seems rational but does not prove to be true in actual practice. I would be willing to assume that everyone in our class has sent a text message at some point in their lives and furthermore, that they have used a typical texting abbreviation in a text message. However, this does not mean that each, or any, of the students in our class are not capable of writing and speaking with proper English. It simply proves that people are capable of using proper written English and are also able to reformat their messages so that they can fit the constraints of text message size limits and self-imposed time limits.

It is clear that text messaging and the unique language that comes with it offers some advantages, which seem to be acknowledged by Crystal. The largest advantage, I would consider to be almost instantaneous communication of brief messages that do not necessarily require a verbal conversation. The most useful example of this, which Crystal discusses, is the use of text messaging in an effort to coordinate, change, or cancel a meeting. Additionally, Crystal makes clear some of the disadvantages. These include the often unnatural “keyboard” of the cell phone and the 160 character constraint on text messages. However, I think that the constant use of text messages has taught texters to easily overcome these disadvantages and, in many ways, texting has become a very natural activity for many.

Crystal’s discussion of who uses text messaging and where is it used was very informative. His assertion that many people saw texting as something that only young people did was no doubt true at one time. At this point, however, it is evident that kids and adults are frequently using this method of communication. In addition, the popularity of text messages by institutions such as businesses and universities is clearly on the rise. This is something that those here at George Mason have experienced firsthand. The most surprising part of his discussion of the spread of text messages, in my mind, was their usage around the globe. I was previously unaware that text messages were popular in so many other languages including Chinese, Hungarian, Russian, and French. I was especially surprised to read that text messaging was a popular technology in the United Kingdom before it truly became popular in the United States.

The text message is an extremely important writing technology in the today’s world. Many people, including myself, have come to depend on it as a convenient and relatively efficient method of communication. The description of text messaging by Sandra Barron (pg. 96) as “combining the immediacy of a phone call with the convenience of an answering machine message and the premeditation of e-mail,” is probably the most apt description of this technology that I have heard to date.

3-23-09 Freewrite

I would imagine that flarf is not usually taught as a form of poetry in schools because of its controversial use of language and ideas as well as its controversial nature within the poetry community. It was evident through the readings for this week that flarf is a random and lawless form of poetry which can lead to inclusion of controversial topics and controversial language. Additionally, it was also apparent that many within the poetry community question the validity of this form.
However, I would argue that flarf should be considered in the same category as all other forms of poetry. While it is really not structured, it can be considered to be a form of expression on the same level as other forms of poetry.
The definition of flarf as "world poetry," I would argue, is a relatively accurate one. Through the use of Google and other search engines, words and phrases can be pulled from websites, advertisements, or blogs from around the world, essentially in any language. Thus giving this form of poetry a uniquely global feel.

Response to Flarf and Spoetry Readings

When I first started reading about flarf poetry and spoetry, I was surprised by their lack of standard form and equally surprised and encouraged by their use of creativity. It had not previously occurred to me that the vast resources of text, words, thoughts, and information provided by web search engines like Google could be used for creative purposes in such a random and non-standardized method. The idea that Google searches could be used for this purpose was remarkable in my view because my use of Google has always been for more strictly defined and determined purposes. I frequently use search engines like Google for the completion of academic assignments, most of which have strictly defined boundaries and purposes. When searching Google or Google Scholar, as I often do when completing school work, I am looking for definitions, descriptions, and other sources that meet relatively specific purposes in order to fit into a well defined thought for an essay or for studying. This is clearly not the case for forms of poetry like flarf and spoetry. In these instances, poetry writers have no order imposed on them from the outside, but rather only from themselves and arguably the search engine itself. In the composition of these poems, the search engine and its results play a large role in defining the words, text, and imagery that can be used in a specific poem

The controversy surrounding the validity of this form of poetry, within the poetry community, was also greatly surprising to me. Some of the more essay like writings within our assigned list of reading touched on the idea of the value and legitimacy of this form of poetry. It was apparent that many within the poetry community did not believe that this form was attractive or very useful. On the other hand, it was clear that many poets feel that it is useful and can serve as a form of poetry that can say a lot about our society and its priorities. This is obvious through the increasing popularity of this form of poetry as well as its usage in discussing popular topics in current events and world affairs such as the September 11^th attacks in New York City.

The use of this flarf and spoetry in discussing current events is a perfect lead in to discussing its intrinsic controversial nature. It was immediately obvious to me that many flarf and spoetry readers set out to make there poems more controversial in their nature. This can be seen through the use of what many would consider to be “inappropriate” language and its unapologetic discussion of controversial issues. This mixture of the use of controversial language and controversial topics makes it easy to see how this form of poetry could be seen as offensive by many in mainstream society. However, I would argue that the usage of these controversial items is a reflection of our society as a whole. In order for these things to be placed within spoetry and flarf, they must be found in emails or found on the internet through the use of search engines. In other words, the usage of controversial ideas and language must first be performed by others before it can be used by a poet as a part of a flarf poem or spoem.

3-16-09 Freewrite

In prompt #4, Jason B. Jones discusses the iconography and process of the use of typewriting as described by Darren Wershler-Henry in The Iron Whim. Working of this and the reading of the book, one of the things that struck a chord with me during my reading was the idea of the process of using the typewriter as an enterprise that involves the work of multiple people or things. This is something that I had never considered prior to my reading of this book but also something that is very true. It is clear that multiple thought processes and actions, taken by both humans and machines, must take place in order for a typewritten document to be produced. It truly is, as Wershler-Henry writes, a "collective enterprise." Additionally, I think that this "collective enterprise" process is analagous in many ways the process seen in the use of computers and even the use of pen and paper.

However, I think, throughout the book that too much power within this process is assigned to the typewriting machine itself. Wershler-Henry and others that he cites in the book make it seem as if the typewriter and typist or dicator have almost an equal role. In one instance, he even discusses the idea that the typewriter in some way may even be "pulling the strings" of the typist in a puppet and puppetmaster type relationship. I think that this is crediting the typewriter itself with more of the substance of the "collective" process than is accurate. Without the fingers and brain of the typist, the message, style, and organization of a piece of writing would not exist. While it is true that the typewriter itself plays a crucial role in the creation of these aforementioned parts of writing, its role could easily be replaced with a pen and paper in past times or a computer in modern times. Thus, I think that the idea put forth in The Iron Whim that the typewriter in a large way controls the writer is a false notion when applied to the larger picture of creating a piece of writing. However, I can see how it is responsible, in a more minor sense, for dictating the the format of a particular document or piece of writing.

On the other hand, the book's description of the relationship between the typist and the dictator of words in the "collective enterprise" of writing is somewhat more accurate. This relationship involves the interaction of actual human brains which can create true friction in this writing process.

Visual Text

Response to The Iron Whim

When I began reading this book, I was initially skeptical of many of the author’s ideas and his methods for explaining them. However, as I continued to read, I began to realize that Darren Wershler-Henry and others cited in the book were making some accurate observations and assertions about the typewriter and the ideas and myths that surround it.

One example of this is David Sedaris’ notion that writing on a typewriter can create the illusion of “doing more work” than simply writing on a computer. When a person writes on a computer, it is easy to delete and fix mistakes but this is not the case on a typewriter. Often times, one must start from the beginning of a paper in order to fix a mistake made on a typewriter, causing multiple pages to be crumpled up and thrown in the trash in order to be replaced by new ones with corrected text. I see this as an accurate thought partly because I find myself doing this when I am writing things by hand. I will often scrap a piece of paper, throw it in the trash, and begin writing again on a new piece, thus creating the illusion that I might be doing more work than if I had done my writing on a PC.

Wershler-Henry also points out the fact that typewriters are frequently seen on book covers and other print items in order to provide a sense of authenticity. This is something that I had not previously thought about but is very true. Even though they are seldom or never used today, we often see typewriters pictured in modern print and online media and I can see how this is used to convey a sense of “authenticity” and “hard work” in a piece of writing. One of the most interesting examples of the usage of a picture of the typewriter in modern media can be found towards the end of this book. On page 283, there is a poster featuring a girl at a typewriter with a message promoting the idea that blogging is an important part of American democracy.

One part of this book that I thought was particularly accurate and timely was the section when the author discusses the possibility of the end of journalism. While I think that the demise of the typewriter is not and will not contribute to the “end of journalism,” I think the ever improving and increasing use of computers and Web 2.0 technologies is bringing about the end of journalism as we know it. The 24/7 news cycle is prevalent on the internet and now has participants that can contribute while simply sitting in their homes at their computers. Typewriters and print media are no longer as necessary or as popular as they once were in our society. This is evidenced, in concert with recent economic woes, by the closure of several print newspapers.

One of the most important thoughts in this book can be found in the author’s discussion of the relationship between typewriter and the typist. This discussion, in my opinion, is also analogous to the relationship between the typist and a computer and the writer and his/her pen. The author pushes, what I think is an inaccurate notion that the typewriter could be “pulling the strings” of the typist. However, I think looking through this lens at the process of writing with a typewriter (or computer keyboard) makes a logical point that writing is a “collective enterprise” no matter how many parties (defined as people or equipment) are involved. In order for the writing to be completed, each party must hold up its end of the bargain. The writer must provide the ideas and the motivation behind the writing but the typewriter and each of its individual keys and parts is responsible for providing the means for creating the text and placing the words on paper.

Response to Graffiti Lives

When I first began reading this book I quickly became curious as to how the dictionary defined graffiti. The definition I found was pretty much what I expect, basically, markings/writings/drawings on surfaces in public places. A quick lookup of “graffiti” on dictionary.com yielded this definition and also showed that the society’s general view of graffiti is much like what Snyder describes in the book, something troublesome that is meant to gain public attention. For example, the sentence used in the dictionary definition to demonstrate the meaning of “graffiti” was “These graffiti are evidence of the neighborhood’s decline.” This ties in with the “broken windows” theory that Snyder describes in the introduction of this book and, I think, reflects societies apparent belief in this theory.

In his introduction, Snyder describes the role of race in the graffiti world. I thought he assumed too much about the race of participants in graffiti art and their interaction with the law and the police. Snyder was quick to infer that white participants in graffiti art had less to lose than the black participants. While this may very well be true, he failed to cite specific examples and only relied on the premise that cops are likely to be racist against “black and brown” individuals, particularly males, and therefore, harsher and more violent towards them.

In the section “Crime Space vs. Cool Space,” Snyder’s argument against the “broken windows” theory does not convincingly prove its falsehood. While he does prove that less crime exists in the neighborhood with more graffiti, this doesn’t prove that the “broken windows” theory which (stated in Snyder’s words) is that “petty crime increases the propensity for more serious criminal activity.” The hole in his argument is that, while the graffiti may be located in one area, it is not necessarily created by someone that lives in that area. In fact, the person that creates graffiti in SoHo could live in Prospect Heights where the rate of crime in most of the categories he specified was higher than in SoHo.

Again in his section about VERT where he discusses the role of “beef” in the graffiti world, he goes against his earlier argument against the “broken windows” theory. He begins by talking about how “beef” is the aspect of his research of which he is most fearful. He then goes on to say that “Graffiti is violent and competitive” and “lots of graffiti writers like to fight.” He also says that if graffiti writers are unwilling to fight, they will have a short career in the art of graffiti. These statements clearly prove that graffiti can lead to and is often times intertwined with larger criminal activities such as assault and other violent crimes. It is clear throughout the entire book that Mr. Snyder brings a political agenda to his writing. While this made me more interested in the book, I was disappointed in his lack of evidence for most of his arguments.

Throughout the book, I was extremely impressed with the talent and ability behind the graffiti shown in the pictures. It is clear that those that are major players in the graffiti culture are individuals with significant gifts in the field of art. Additionally, I was realized that I was previously unaware of the importance of the artists’ names or nicknames in the culture and in the graffiti itself. This reminded me of a type of “branding” that you would see in corporate and political advertising with consistent repetition of the names in support of a message or idea.

Graffiti Exercise

The above graffiti samples that I chose to photograph were all located in the men’s bathrooms on the 1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd floor of Enterprise Hall on the Mason campus. All of the photographs were taken on Saturday 2/28/09 around Midnight. Unlike much of the graffiti discussed and shown in Snyder’s book, the tool for this bathroom graffiti was simple. The only necessary outside item would have been a typical Sharpie or another basic felt-tip marker. Using the qualifications laid out by Snyder, these examples of graffiti would most like be considered “throw-ups” or “tags.” These relatively simple writings would probably be considered to be to basic and small to be considered a “piece” or masterpiece.

Chances are that the “writers” of these examples were George Mason students as this would be the group that most uses these facilities. Additionally, one would assume that these writers were males. However, there is really no clear evidence to prove that Mason students are responsible or that females entered these men’s rooms in order to create this graffiti. I think that the reason for writing in the stalls in these is that the walls and doors provide a sense of privacy and security from authorities. In this environment, the artists or writers are able to think more clearly than they would in a situation in which there were several people around them or they were at risk of getting in trouble with campus authority figures. However, the size of these writing spaces is limited not only by the physical size of the stalls but also by the amount of previous writing that has taken place in this specific spot. Interestingly, almost all of the graffiti that I found was located in the handicap accessible stalls and not in the standard sized stalls which were actually almost entirely free of graffiti. This leads me to believe that the writers are looking for a larger canvas for their graffiti.

Unfortunately, a few of the examples that I found were related to racist thought/culture. One was based on popular culture. One was just appeared to be kind of a funny drawing. And a few of the others were symbols, letters, or signs which I was not familiar with. Judging from clues within this last group of writings, I would guess that they are symbols for local groups or graffiti artists. One writing includes “VA, DC, MD.” This same writing along with another includes the text “MEEP!” Since this word or phrase is located in two of these samples, I would assume that this is the name of the artist. Much like in Graffiti Lives, these names are in different shapes, sizes, and areas within each of these writings but the inclusion of the name serves the purpose of bringing public recognition to the artist. Another similarity to the graffiti discussed in Snyder’s book was that one of MEEP’s drawings was crossed out by someone else. This could present the possibility of a “ beef” or conflict between graffiti writers or groups.

Some of the writing does not, in my opinion, clearly define the writers. However, the writing that includes Nazi symbols and phrases clearly shows a significant part of the writer. The writers of this racist graffiti hold beliefs in line with the Nazi party. I also think that the fact that they wrote their message in prominent positions with such large letters and symbols shows that their racist beliefs are a priority in their lives and that they wish to demonstrate this to others as well as spread their beliefs.