What difference if any does medium make in invention? We have three media we might consider--print, screen, and network--although we could consider image and words as well.
Again, please connect your thinking with the responses of colleagues who got here first ;)
Looking forward.
I would argue that while medium often plays a large role in invention, some of this difference is in response to communally understood conventions surrounding these media rather than composing differences intrinsic to them. Much of Leesig and Porter’s discussions of new media centered on remix and collaboration, which, as Porter notes, are not practices that were born recently. These discussions have much less to do with the limitations and possibilities of form and tools (factors we noted in our discussion of genre that seem to dramatically change invention strategies) than with genre conventions surrounding ownership and anonymity. The invention strategies used to produce a text within a context where anonymity and/or collaboration is celebrated will certainly be different than a text produced in a context that allows only for a single, named author. These differences, however, may likely prove similar across several media. An editorial composed by an editorial board (or at least published as though it were composed by an editorial board) might use comparable invention strategies to a similarly constructed website. In the same way, I take issue with Lessig’s assertion that remixing functions only secretively in literature but openly in music. I would argue that remixing is both accepted and celebrated in “high art” (e.g. A Thousand Acres, Wicked, March and the not-so-high Clueless, 10 Things I Hate About You, She’s the Man) when, like in music, the original source material is widely known and recognized, the new work pays tribute to the author of the original work, and the new product produces a transformation of the original.
ReplyDeleteMedium might make a difference in invention. Porter discussed the role of copying and memorizing texts in order to eventually “add transformative value through other rhetorical strategies” in the Roman education system. I think the medium plays a large role in the success of the invention here. I know that the act of copying words in my handwriting allows me to meditate on the words and reach for that transformative value, that invention, that may come. Typing words as I see them takes less time, so there is time for meditation. Using the copy/paste features on screen allows for little to no meditation during copying. So here is an invention practice that, at least for me, works best in the medium of pen and paper.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marian that Lessig’s evaluation of remix in culture outside of music seems off. What I see as interesting in Lessig’s piece is that “the network-enabled process of collaboration, networking, and exchange is a valuable form of contemporary culture, regardless of whether it results in any ‘objects’ or not.” Perhaps this is invention’s time to shine! The characteristics of new media culture allow for invention to be privileged and explored without the constant pressure of “product.” What a fun place to be.
Adding to Elizabeth's discussion of medium and copying, I agree that there are times when writing by hand allows me to understand and organize information better, for example in note taking and writing up schedules. I'm not sure whether this is an invention activity, though, at least not in the way that I use it. I think perhaps that the use of various composing media for invention specifically is tied to the strengths and preferences of the individual writer/composer. For me, writing by hand is often too slow to capture my ideas and weave them together effectively, whether I am composing original words (for whatever value we choose to ascribe to original) or engaging in remixing. It is this moment that I would see as a primary moment of invention, when I can see the words coming together in my mind and need to transfer them to the page (well, screen really) as quickly as possible for fear that fragile order may be lost.
ReplyDeleteAgain, responding to Elizabeth, I was honestly confused by Lessig's claim that digital/new media collaboration does not produce "objects." By what measure of an object is this the case? Perhaps here we could say that medium influences invention deeply as it causes us to reevaluate what is and is not to be considered an "object," a composition, a result of invention.
Lessig discusses the subject of open source software at length. Open source software by its nature is constantly being modified and updated, but the programs it produces are real. They are objects. At least I would certainly say so. Depending on the function of the specific program, they may also be objects which then produce other objects (the invention by selection model), but they are something unto themselves.
Are blog posts not also objects? Again, they may be inventions which inspire further inventions (i.e. comments or responses on other blogs), but then again, they might not. They are still their own kind of thing regardless. Yet it could be said that many, probably most blog authors consider the success of their invention in how many responses it garners. Perhaps the very nature of networked invention is a sort of continual process of invention upon invention. But still, in order to inspire further invention, mustn't there be objects from which to work?
And then further, I could cite cases where networked invention has produced print objects. Hacking the Academy, which began as a digital project, will now be published as a print book. The novel, Havemercy was coauthored digitally by two women who had never met in person. Yet I can go to my bookstore and pick up the object of this invention (and its two sequels) and turn the pages.
Regarding screen invention (simple word processing now, not networked writing) I would say it differs greatly from page/print invention. I can easily delete, replace, and reorder my text (as well as images and other elements) with no record of the previous incarnations of the document. On the page, any changes must be whited out or scratched out or wedged into the empty spaces, and eventually the document must be rewritten entirely, but the changes all remain as a record of the process. Do we in some way come full circle when we look to networked invention? The claim is that nothing is every truly erased from the internet. It leaves a digital trail that can be traced, although only by those with the requisite skills to do so.
Does medium affect invention? Yes, but not in ways that are easy to define or delineate . And that is where I'll leave my rambling and present the object of my invention, if this is, in fact an object, and I have, in fact, invented it.
I found Porter’s attempt to find roots for remix culture in classical rhetoric problematic in that Porter seems to oversimplify the relationship between classical rhetorical practices and practices in the Web 2.0 era. For example, Porter makes it clear that in the classical era, writers “were [. . .] expected to add transformative value” to the texts they composed. My assumption is that the community then would have had a pretty clear idea by what is meant by “transformative value”--it would have been clear to Brutus’s readers whether he was being original or faking it and stealing from other thinkers. I am not so sure that we have any sort of clear idea of what this means for us today. What texts, composed in the networked sphere of the Internet through remix and sampling, now have “transformative value” and which ones are mere mashups? And is there such a thing as a “mere” mashup?
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is an important question when we look specifically at invention in the digital age because it points to a qualitative question over what can be considered invention at all (which is something we come back to again and again) and brings us back to the issue that both Elizabeth and Stacy have spoken to, that of the nature of the “object” Lessig writes about. Perhaps it is not just that invention strategies or practices are altered by new media, but also that the nature of invention is altered, and arguably altered into something more distinct from classical rhetorical practice than Porter would have.
I agree with Elizabeth that the medium often changes the way I interact with a text and think about a text. This seems like a similar conversation to the one we had last week. I think invention changes according to the kind of material, kind of writing, kind of writer, etc and that certain strategies lend themselves best to particular activities.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem, like Caleb said, that the issue becomes what we consider invention. The readings led me to believe that each medium differs a little in what is considered invention and some of their inventional practices. Remixing, for example, seems like something that occurs in many mediums and tends to be what I see students doing with their research papers and they make something new even if it isn't a particularly novel idea.
I would add too that collaboration in any of these mediums does seem to offer some distinct inventional practices. I tend to use the same ones because they are the ones that work for me, but when I'm working with others, I rely far more on dialogue as a starting place for invention.
To suggest that medium doesn't affect invention is to also deny that medium and message (McCluhan) (and possibly remix) are not intertwined--but weirdly the argument made by Lessig is that the audience making meaning and the author making composition is not collaborative, and I can deal with that, but it beings into question some of what Porter has to say about remix.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I am just as troubled by Lessig's "The notion of collaboration assumes some shared understanding and the common goals between the collaborators..." which comes a page or so down from suggesting that changing texts over the courses of centuries is a form of collaboration.
So I guess I'm with the crowd on medium changing invention (just as it changes message), but I think there is also a question of medium changing remix--one that is not really dealt with in the pieces. Or perhaps I would be more correct to say that Lessig's dating remix to track use in music completely ignores the entire process of biblical authorship--at the very least.
But if, as Porter says we are all enacting remix and by extension remix as invention strategy whenever we use language, and if we take that along with Lessig's "Mixing, mashing, merging — these are fundamental writing processes that have analogs in classical Greek and Roman rhetoric..." what we have is something I've been thinking about a lot lately.
All culture is a matter of taking the old and applying it to/in the new. This requires invention. It requires movement throughout medium. It is also, I think, proof of the impossibility of anything "new under the sun."
This connects me back to the thing that stuck most for me last week: we talked about invention as being ideological as if there is anything in the world that is not. If all our lives are ideological. If all language is remix. Then we are forever (re)inventing and (re)creating culture. It is only through distance (valances of change and technological movement--note I didn't say advance) that we find invention.
Porter reminds us “remixing is not just a byproduct of the digital age… the basic process is fundamental to all language use, and always has been” and likewise “collaborative authorship is not unique to new media” says Lessig--- “historically, we will see collaborative authorship represents a norm rather than exception”--- all well and good, you ask, but how is it different?
ReplyDeleteAs Stacey and Elizabeth question: is a composition an “object”? This flies in the face of time-worn Platonic dis-embodiment… the “body” of the text implies taking up space. This segues into (Lauer briefly mentioned in her --very short, on p. 141-- gesture toward Visual Rhetoric) Jim Porter and Patricia Sullivan’s book Opening Spaces: Writing Technologies and Critical Research Practices, in which they “proposed postmodern mapping as a heuristic” taking geography, or space as a metaphor to “map” layers, or one data set over another. This idea moves toward an object-like existence for compositions and leans toward proportion—Greek’s Golden Mean, Burke’s ratio? The argument takes us back to some terms from the first week—is “originality” important and/or real? Is there any such thing. I also get very confused by all the words for re-composing: re-mix, mash-up, sampling, quoting, etc. I do think the medium itself/themselves makes us think differently and approach composing (composting?) differently. Yet it seems shocking that Lessig says: “World Wide Web redefined an electronic document as a mix of other documents”. By definition, electronic=remix?
The audience changes and moves more toward author as Lessig points out, through mechanisms of choice,and the software itself becomes “author” at least in part, or—the meeting place of user/audience and software creates a third something and this does seem like a space, not pre-determined. Both feedback from user and off-label use become active parts of the design.
When Lessig talks about “OPUS” (by Raqs collective), “both a software package and software theory… at its best: theoretical ideas translated into a new kind of cultural software” with its “data that can identify all whose who worked on it”--- all I can think of is that “recension” means authorship as of a Wikipedia page—all edits are archived? Lessig sees the software as an entity that stands for a designer/designers who are invisible: “authorship and copyright in our society will be implemented in actual software that will control who can access, copy and modify the cultural objects, and at what price”---- again, Lessig: “To quote Poscardt one last time, “however much quoting, sampling and stealing is done – in the end it is the old subjects that undertake their own modernization” (is this a way of saying nothing is new, we have always borrowed to make culture and built on old foundations?) “Even an examination of technology and the conditions of productions does not rescue aesthetics from finally having to believe in the author. He just looks different” (This last line I don’t quite get). Two commands: Don’t steal and don’t re-invent the wheel. Between them lies the contested territory.
So, yes. I’m with the crowd. I think medium influences invention in a fairly major way. Marshall McLuhan flies to mind saying, “the medium is the message.” I think too, that medium influences how we think. Here, I’ll reference program interfaces with our computer. Writing in Microsoft Word – and the accompanying invention practices – shifts along with the shift in the framing mechanisms of the writing experience. Another reason for this reciprocal influence between invention and material seems to be that different materials have different affordances for what and how we invent. Computer, pen and ink, play dough, sidewalk chalk, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe posts above lead me to re-reflect on the nature of invention and the “object” that has come up repeatedly. Caleb in particular questioned the nature of the object that is created as a result of invention. Lessig writes, “Often, no tangible objects or an even definite event like a performance ever comes out from these collaborations, but this does not matter.” After thinking about this passage a little more, there seems to be a suggestion that shifts in materiality not only shift invention practice, but shape the goals of these practice. In the case of music remixing, for example, the conception of what a “product” or “composition” is seems distinctly different from traditional textual conceptions of product. It seems too, that some of the mediums that he discusses in terms of remix/sampling/ and Open Source are never used for compositions that are intended to ever not be (re)invented. We invent, therefore, to create “objects” of (re)invention.
I'm mostly in agreement with the crowd. Yes, I think that the medium in which one works may exert a powerful influence on how a rhetor invents, but that's provided the rhetor makes use of the medium's particular affordances. In other words, the medium in which one works has the potential to alter the methods by which we invent, but I question whether it necessitates a fundamental shift in invention practices. Perhaps my hesitation arises from my agreement with Porter that remix is nothing new (we see examples of it throughout the history of text production, from classical speeches and epics to photography in the late 19th century to the networked texts of today). Certainly, digital media provide ways of remixing not available in other media (cutting and pasting, mashing language with images and sound, etc.), but I still tend to think that, underlying such activity, we have a process of invention that very much depends on the texts and traditions that precede us, whether we're conscious of it or not.
ReplyDeleteOf course, one of the problems here is the implication that invention is universal, that it's only the methods by which we invent that change (I cringe at the idea of universality). And yet, how can the method change without altering the act (invention), without changing our understanding of the act?
Obviously I have more to think about.
I like Caleb's point about classical remixing vs. web 2.0, and I think it's an interesting one, but I'm going to disagree with him w/r/t his distinction between the transformative value of classical remixing and that of today. I believe users of Web 2.0 see themselves as adding transformative value to the works to which they subject their imitatio. To the creators, viewers, and critics of the web 2.0 remix, the "mere mashup" is the remix that has failed to transform. Caleb (sorry, Caleb -- I'm not trying to call you out) argues that the community in classical times would have known when a work had transformative value and when it did not, implying that the web 2.0 community of today is not sophisticated enough to discern which remixes have transformative value. I take his point here, but I would still present to you, as evidence of the web community's ability to decide what has transformative value, the internet meme. The internet meme is the remix that spreads and has been remixed so thoroughly that its transformative value insinuates the production across the web. Whether we disagree with the ultimate value of the meme to the greater culture, the fact remains that the act of remixing did give the original meme subject transformative value.
ReplyDeleteSince the medium serves here to serve as merely the means of invention, I might argue (as others here have) that new media only affects invention in means by which we invent, not the ends of our inventive endeavors (intention, purpose). But then I start to think about what a quick process invention must be now when compared to the days pre-internet, at least as far as information-gathering, argument-formation, etc. Surely the pace by which we invent has some bearing on what we invent and how?
I'd say medium has everything to do with invention. But the collective "we" must understand medium and content in the same way in order for the invention to convey intended meaning. Caleb makes the point that there are problems with collaboration from ancient times to 2.0; this can be true but not necessarily because of the time difference but in the way we understand as an audience. Collaboration can break down just as easily in the same time frame. Scott references his hesitation to accept universality - I agree. It is the assumption of universality that breeds a breakdown in collaboration; individuals understand and assume things differently within a collective, so the idea that a collective is universal doesn't sit well with me. It's just a collective.
ReplyDeleteThe other interesting point about medium influencing invention is the freedom afforded by new media and social media. Collaborators in these media are bound less to tradition but to the collective good, as Lessig points out in the examples of Open Source software and gaming, etc. We experience this as students and scholars - it is not always clear how to cite a new media source, and the rules keep evolving. Just this morning on the WPA list there was such a question, which is an example of the collective knowledge-making that digital media demands.
I also thought about the global influence and implications as I read. In many other cultures, the appropriation that Porter talks about the ancients engaging in is still practiced - composers give a nod to those who came before by using their work, often without reference. So as digital media bring cultures together how will this affect the practices we must share? And will we, as a collective, really be any more collaborative or are we simply sharing information?
For me, the question is not whether medium changes invention, but which media (both whose definition and which one), which invention(al processes), and under what circumstances. For example, Gunter Kress and Henry Jenkins have definitions of medium that are almost complete opposites-- and both of those differ from McLuhan's definition. Past semantics (as if that were possible), though, there is also the question that I think Elizabeth (and others) bring up: HOW does medium affect invention. Elizabeth mentions that it slows some inventional processes. Does it also transform them? Is the process of inventing different if I brainstorm a project using PowerPoint or on posterboard? And if so, are those differences specific to a PPT/posterboard relationship or are they generalizable across print/digital relationships? And, as Porter might ask, are they similar or different across history?
ReplyDeleteWhile these posts are fascinating to read, I’m struggling with the notion that we are all defining “media” differently. Matt alludes to this above as does Katie with her discussion of McLuhan. Some of us are thinking tangible (more like computer, pencil, tv) others are thinking like McLuhan (medium as a way of perceiving and see the world). These are only the two most prominent ones here. I think, as most of us do, that it would simply be silly to say “medium” had no effect on invention; quite a while ago we agreed that one cannot separate form and content. What a lot of us are trying to do is define HOW it affects invention. I simply cannot see anyway to answer that besides saying that the effects would be highly individual, contextual, and historical. Each of us is going to be affected by the media in a different way depending on the experiences we have had various media. Yes, there are likely pattern to be found among users/creators—McLuhan asks us to search for pattern in an age of information overload—however, I have to ask, like we all have, how different these patterns of creation are from the pattern that existed before the “digital age.” My inclining is that it is a difference of degree, not kind (to throw my two cents into the epic Caleb/Stephen showdown ☺)
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree: different media changes the way in which we invent. In class, I type class notes into my laptop, but I also have a legal pad at hand to draw these same ideas in terms of images or networks (or sometimes even grids). I am aware of how I think and invent in response to these different media, and I consciously use them this way. On the page I invent via the image (integrate, absorb, “view” ideas in relation to each other); on my screen, I collect information as a way to invent (by re-writing the ideas discussed in class and in readings I invent). In other words, my use of image and word produce different processes of invention, but I’m not entirely convinced whether that the difference is of degree or kind. I agree with Katie that the change in materiality shifts my practice (I think the answer to Matt's question would be yes, medium does transform invention) but, in this case, although the methods of invention are altered by the materiality, ultimately the two media are pointed at a similar goal (comprehending, assimilating the ideas being discussed). I think Stephen is right that different media do not necessarily alter intent, but, like Scott suggests, the different media put into play different methods of invention.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the network alters invention purely by the fact that such a network suggests increased velocity of circulation. I wonder, then, if it is fair to consider circulation itself as a form of invention?
I’ll play sheep and agree with everyone else: medium affects invention. That much seems clear. What we need to explore further, I feel, is Matt’s question: “HOW does medium affect message?” Many of us have referenced McLuhan; in particular, his famous quote, “the medium is the message.” The point of that quote isn’t so much about form and content (as many of us erroneously believe) but rather about the way a medium creates a lens through which to see a “reality.” In terms of invention, then, the medium would necessarily favor certain practices and elide others (as Scott suggests, it’s about “affordances”), but more than that, the medium creates for us an understanding of what constitutes text and inventional practices.
ReplyDeleteAs for the ongoing discussion about the differences and/or similarities between the Roman imitatio and Web 2.0 remixing, I’d just like to add that we appear to be overlooking slightly the private/public issue. In other words, when the Roman students were practicing imitatio, they did so in a relatively private space. We often think of school as public, but I position it as private in that I doubt these “remixed” texts were circulated in the public. Instead, they were circulated within the school, making the practice in a contemporary sense legal in a “fair use” sense. That isn’t the case with Web 2.0, whose very nature makes anything published public (at least to those with access). Yes, one is able to use new technologies to remix and then keep that remix private (i.e., available only as a file on one’s computer), but we all know most remixes exist out on the Interwebs, waiting to be heard.
Referring to the general consensus above (and something we touched on in group last week), the general consensus is of course, medium affects invention strategies simply because each medium has its own advantages and disadvantages with regards to how meaning is conveyed. Different, specific forms of invention must be utilized in order to utilize the affordances of a particular medium fully. Liane mentions that digital media demand collaborative knowledge-making and thus social invention practices. I totally agree with this. However, as Porter and Lessig acknowledge that, because knowledge is inherently tied to the shared premises of one’s social/cultural/historical position and moment, ALL forms of invention are inherently social: even the “romantic…solitary author” constructs her/his texts in response to their milieu and socially constructed perceptions. Thus, I am cautious to privilege digital media, the web, and online collaboration as “more social” forms of invention just because they acknowledge that they are in fact collaborative.
ReplyDeleteTo bring us full circle, I will return to the hermeneutic/heuristic debate (oh yeah, I went there). If invention strategies have always been inherently geared towards re-mixing (and furthered by the collaborative nature of digital age), I would argue that invention becomes a framework by which we re-interpret texts (by taking bits and pieces from pre-existing ones) and creating new meaning(s).
Scott’s above response made me question if medium is in fact the most influential factor for inventional practices. As he said, “[W]e have a process of invention that very much depends on the texts and traditions that precede us, whether we're conscious of it or not.” As writers develop, we experiment with different invention strategies and learn which approach works best for us. Growing up and learning how to write without a computer, my invention activities were performed with paper and pen. With the advancement of technology, I sometimes incorporate digital and electronic spaces into my invention practices, but I still feel most comfortable in print with pen and paper. I wonder if my students feel more comfortable engaging with invention activities through digital venues since this is what they’ve grown up with.
ReplyDeleteOthers consented that medium does make a difference, but I question what kind of difference—in what capacity, to what extent. Katie makes a great point when she says “that medium influences how we think.” This made me think of one of my students: he’s very interested in the music industry. He has a passion for composing music, specifically rap and R&B. However, when it comes to composing his papers, he struggles…a lot. It’s quite difficult for him and he’s currently quite frustrated with the whole writing process. He has such a talent for composing musical compositions (both writing lyrics and sampling). Given the prompt for the first paper, he asked if he could respond with a musical composition instead of in “essay form.” I asked him why it was so effortless for him to create lyrics that would respond to the prompt but couldn’t construct paragraphs with the same ease. He couldn’t articulate the difference, so we are still working on figuring out what his invention process is for composing music and hoping that we can translate the approach for his class assignments. This connects back to what Dr. Yancey mentioned in class last week about the invention processes of scholars in other fields—the artist’s sketchpad, for example. Can different inventional strategies translate successfully into another field? In other words, will my student be able to understand how he composes musically and take that with him to the composition classroom? Will the strategy transfer, I wonder?
One way that I like to think of invention is as the process that one goes through to answer the question, “What do you make of that?” I suppose it is logical to assume that the process will vary somewhat depending on how the “that,” of which an individual is making something, is represented or conveyed. As others have suggested, the possibilities for what one might make of "that" might also change as does the form or nature of the medium. But I have to agree with Natalie that it’s hard to get any more specific than that outside of a particular context o4 situation, and I think Leah’s point that what we make of something is always limited and informed by ideology, and Liane’s point that “individuals understand and assume things differently within a collective” both reinforce this argument.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Logan that all forms of invention are inherently social, and the point that even the "solitary author" is really pulling from the ideas circulating in the social milieu connects, in my mind at least, with Lessig's assertion, referenced by Marian, that remixing functions only secretively in literature but more openly in music. Marian disagreed with that assertion, but it strikes me that there does seem to be a strong emphasis in literature (and in composition) on authors coming up with their "own" words, as if they're creating something that's never been said before when the fact is that all the words we have and use were ones we heard or read in another context. If we really used only our “own” words when writing or speaking, no one would understand what we were trying to say, right? Yet we still tell students, don’t we, that they need to use their “own” words when they write. So it seems to me that if we are not being secretive about the fact that all invention is a form of remix, then we’re at least in some denial about it.
Ok, so since I’m one of the last to post (again), I have to wonder about something: why is it that everyone agrees that medium affects invention? I’ll play devil’s advocate here (and really I’m just continuing on some of the points others have made):
ReplyDeleteFirst note—
I think Natalie made a good point when she said a lot of us were operating from different definitions of the word “medium.” So, it seems we might need to define the term before we can decide, if indeed, there are differences among media especially since we are discussing print, screen, and network. Each of these media can operate in multiple playing fields.
Second note (to bounce off some of what Scott and Josh were saying)—
Does the medium really make a difference in ALL inventional strategies? I’m thinking here of our first-year composition courses, but really it could be applied to any of the course we teach. Do we teach different inventional strategies based on the different types of media we ask them to compose in? Do the students (or even us for that matter), when they sit down to compose a draft (or any draft), use a different inventional strategy based on the medium in which they are composing? Do we teach them that the medium makes a difference, and if we do teach them this, do they understand it enough to implement it into their composing process(es)?
Third note (to think with what Logan and others were saying)—
Invention, as we have learned, can be defined in a wide range of ways based on the period, the context surrounding the period, and the person defining it. So before we can begin to think through the implications the medium has on invention, we first need to define invention based on the context surrounding our situation. I think this means that any difference that the medium may or may not have on invention begins with the definition of the two terms. That said I have to wonder if we truly believe that with each new media comes a new inventional strategies because I have to also wonder if we practice what we preach: if we believe that mediums have a different effects on invention, shouldn’t we then put this into our practices (e.g. in our teaching and in our composing practices)?
Lots of questions in my post, but I couldn’t help but “go against the grain” since I was one of the last to post. ;-)