Helprin: A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn’t Its Copyright?

No offense, but this article seems a bit pompous and haughty. Perhaps this came from citing the Constitution, its Framers, or speaking in their breathy, British bull. While I get the claim about copyrighting, and do in fact agree that an artist's work should be theirs, and continue to be theirs forever, I don't particularly think that speaking like Jefferson will help get that point across. Let him have his art, and you can have yours.

Response to Articles Concerning Blogs and Wikis

Rosen, Nicholas, and Dunlop all add interesting insight into the world of blogging. Rosen comments on how we are an audience and should remain in the position to see and hear, lacking any interaction at all. He focuses in on stories wherein blogging is concerned as journalism without the media. This is an interesting way to look at the situation - as journalism and the media being separate entities that only traditionally have been a couple. Another of the stories discusses "team coverage" as having a new definition. We have been programmed to think that the team covering any news story is an outside team of reporters, cameramen, and people that only exist on a specific channel, but now we can be a part of that team and cover stories together, reaching places that otherwise may go unnoticed. Finally, his article made use of the quote, "Bloggers do views, not news." I, however, quite disagree here. Why does news have to involve a sense of formality to be credible? It's not like network or cable news channels don't incorporate a level of bias. During the past San Diego fires, I heavily relied on the Union Tribune's blog (fireblog.blogspot.com) to give me the most up to date information, albeit it came form different sources and "uncredible" writers. Nicholas goes on to write that there are over 12 million bloggers in the US - how then are all of those 12 million people to be considered uncredible. There have to be some reliable and highly intelligent sources in that mix. Also, he goes on to discuss citizen journalists as opposed to the average blogger, but I'm left to wonder if this is anything more than just a title, allowing these citizen journalists to maintain somewhat of an elite status. Dunlop then carries on the conversation discussing blogs as a rebirth of participatory democracy. He, like the others, mentions that few bloggers strive for objectivity - a strength and weakness at the same time. Again, I wonder who says it has to be formal to be credible and a true, standing argument.

The discussions about wikis I found a bit less captivating, probably because while I use a wiki in class, I am much more involved in blogs because it occurs more often and on a more participatory fashion. There few a few comments and notes that I found interesting, though again often disagreed with. Terdiman mentions how news can be one of the most effective uses of wikis. I see how that could be true, but I think the worlds we have discussed like educational and professional presentations and collaborations are much more easily facilitated with tools such as wikis, or as he calls them multipurpose interactive phenomena. Finally, he mentions how wikis are, "particularly significant in the age of increasing distrust of mainstream media." I completely agree, yet I wonder why this doesn't make blogging, then, more significant. Further, in Pink's discussion on the topic, he speaks of contributors to sites like Wikipedia as addicts - WHAT?! I don't even find this point valid enough to argue, so I'll just leave it as that.

Bordo: Beauty Rediscovers the Male Body

Loved it, loved it, loved it. I thought this article was fantastic and I really enjoyed Bordo's commentary. It was funny, poignant, and very honest. I loved the contrasts between male and female advertised sexuality. I really have nothing to criticize or question about Bordo's claims, or the tactics she used to get there. I really enjoyed her discussion of the male body - it was very honest and arousing and quite thought provoking. It's also nice to see a new medium, such as male consumer-driven sexuality and appearance, being explored and questioned. Great article.

Fleming: Can Pictures be Arguments?

Throughout Fleming's ramblings of research, I found myself quickly overwhelmed and annoyed by his overanalysis of the term argument and what that term entails. Much as pictures are ambiguous, as discussed in his paper, so too I think are arguments. He discusses the difference between influence and argument, and concludes that picture cannot, independent of language, be an argument. Despite his heavy research, I still disagree. There are very powerful, convincing, and life-changing images that have consumed American culture and affected the way we think as a culture. Why does their have to be a rigid distinction, then, between argument and influence? I believe that images come with a certain amount of argument which the viewer then internalizes and analyzes, building its own set of powerful qualities which then have the ability to influence our opinions and behaviors.

Eisenstein: Defying the Initial Shift

To be honest, a lot of what Eisenstein speaks of is so wordy and dated that I find myself a bit overcome and disconnected from the text. There were a few moments that stuck out to me as very interesting and ground-breaking. For instance, the discussion of the rivalries in printing is pretty entertaining. I don't know if it's because I assume that in its early stages, printing would be highly limited and thereby not competitive, yet clearly my assumptions were incorrect. Also, the idea that for so long handwork and presswork were indistinguishable despite innovations in the field show a couple of things. One, that quality and preservation were highly valued and, two, that innovations don't always mean celebrating change. Finally, the sentiment of a communication revolution was discussed, and this section made its strongest points for me because it seems the most easily understood. Of course these big changes and developments in the field are going to amount to a revolution, so people might as well embrace the idea and run with it.

Argumentative Strategies in Documents Regarding Iraq War

After reading the document on argumentation strategies, it was easy to notice the clear an deliberate qualities in "War and Wisdom" that define it as an argument. The article is not only divided into sections, but these sections are clear indicators of types of strageties being put into direct use. The piece begins with a clear and meaningful claim. Then the author goes on to provide authority by citing generals as havng opposition, with direct quotes. He goes on with analogies about the war, the US, Sadaam, and Iraq. He even provides concessions in claiming that Bush was right for waving a red flag, but then goes on to indict him for following through with inappropriate action. The piece continues with evidence and warrants about the cost of war, summed up with a rebuttal about how the money could be better spent.

The other articles about the war were just as argumentative, but as a whole, they seemed much less organized and precise than thier predecessor. They did, however, use a language of ethos and a personal tone that often felt much less critical or formal than "War and Wisdom". They did provide counterexamples, for instance of Sadaam's brutality, which were then followed up by showing a lack of evidence to support a war. It seemed that the body of the works were mostly made up of qualification. Finally, some of the pieces also seemed to show holes in other's contrasting arguments as a means to strengthen their own arguments. Overall, I was much more impressed by the organized manner of argument that was achieved in "War and Wisdom".

Tamara Plakins Thornton and Langdon Winner Responses

I found Thornton's article to be interesting, although I didn't agree with a main theme she discussed. I liked her mentioning of the, "marking of handwriting with telltale signs of class and gender." I couldn't imagine reading something today and being able to tell, off the bat, which demographic that piece came from. In her distinction between the written and printed word, I am not sure if she hit the nail on the head, though. If the written word is the only one which truly presents itself to the reader, then what am I doing right now? This blog was created specifically for the purpose of expressing my thoughts and opinions to an open array of peoples interested in the subject. Also, what about the incorporation of graphic design with fonts, colors, bolds, italics, and even the insertion of images into the printed word. I would say that this text needs to be updated to reflect the shift in the roles of printed and written word, as printed word is, today, much more dynamic, and personal than it's written counterpart.

Winner's article was really interesting because I had never thought about the topic in quite the same way. I had always assumed technology to be more of a digital thing, than the wider forum which he discussed. And Winner did make a point to acknowledge this difference and discrepancy between what we modernly assume, compared to what actually is. In this way, it is not only informative, but I would argue important, to analyze what Winner calls, "the social and economic system embedded within technology." For instance, his discussion of the overpasses in Long Island as discriminatory is a captivating analysis, which was very eye-opening for me. In this example particularly, I completely am for the idea that, yes, artifacts do have politics, though then we may be left in a discussion of what defines artifacts. I don't understand, though why the piece comes at such a stand still here instead of criticizing and perhaps offering pleas to remedy the situation. Why haven't these bridges been rebuilt if everyone is aware of their social significance? If so many things can be reconstructed to accomodate the handicapped, then why can't these bridges be rebuilt?