I personally believe that Mishra's article could have been easily condensed and cut short. The first half of her article felt to me nothing more than a giant rant on the sufficent lack of research conducted on how imagery works and entwines with scientific and academic discourses. Throughout maybe the first six pages of the article I kept saying to myself "we get it; you're pissed off over the lack of research on this damn topic. You could have just as easily said it in one or two pages. Did you actually do some damn research yourself? Get to the point." It finally takes Mishra about to maybe half of page into page 6 before she finally dives into how it could be possible that imagery maybe hearting the academic discourses than some may believe. I guess if there was insuffifcent research into this topic it may make sense why she would go on for what really feels like half the entire article before she finally goes into the research she did herself. Maybe she didn't find enough evidence herself so she had to explain to those whom the article was intended for (ex. college professors and intellectuals) in order to cover her own tracks. (Yikes, I am now ranting on the ranting. I should stop myself right now).
As for Wolf, I wonder if he may object to the way I am reading his article. To tell you the truth, I got sick and tired of using so much paper, ink, and money printing out articles online, so I took the liberty of buyiing a laptop so I can download the articles myself and have them at the ready anytime I need them. It saves me so much time and saves up so many resources that I felt it worth it. I am actually using this laptop now to read Wolf's article which explains that the use of visual instruments actually refrain from obtaining actual knowledge because you're looking at the representation of the object and not the object itself. (Oops). I hope I didn't miss his point by actually using visual instruments to gain a better understanding of his language, rhetoric, and message he wants to convey. Then again, this is just a copy of the article and not the actually article he wrote that I can place in my hands. So by Wolf's own logic, the observation will be lost upon myself no matter what I do. (So me missing Wolf's point is actually not my own inheriant fault. Hahaha=)).
My comment on your blog post is just a representation of a representation of a subjective simulation of Wolf's idea. Whoa. Yeah, I wasn't a huge fan on Wolf. I don't think his ideas and mistrust of digital technology hold any merit in 2011. Is this because we are of a generation exposed to digital simulation from a young age, and we are just better at making the distinction between reality and virtual reality? Wolf would probably say the opposite, but I believe young people are more adept at distinguishing between the two.
ReplyDeleteHey Dan, was it Aristotle or Plato who said we couldn't achieve the ultimate ideal, that everything is only a representation of the ideal? Cause it did sound to me that Wolf tried too hard to bring that philosophy to his essay?
ReplyDeleteI thought the same thing with Mishra. I get tired of reading "scholarly articles" that are heavily infested with the author's personal thoughts. It seemed as if the first (did you say six pages) were all one large introduction that didn't seem necessary. But then again, as a student, I assume that a lot of the reading we do is unnecessary.
ReplyDelete