In Literacy in the New Media Age, Gunther Kress describes the foundational shift in medium occurring in the New Media Age: from the page to the screen. Production and consumption, though multimodal, is shifting from an emphasis on modes of writing to modes of image. While writing will still be important, it serves to complement the image; the image remains the main form of expression.
This results in fundamental conceptual differences in composition. As Kress states beautifully, “the world told is a different world to the world shown” (14). The modality of writing and the modality of image both have very distinct logics and functions. The written word has a temporal logic; forms of expression, like a complex idea, come one after another, with a precise beginning, middle, and end. Positioning in the chronology determines meaning, such as in being first or last. The mode of writing creates a narrative chronologically. Images have a spatial logic. They occupy a given space simultaneously, and spatial positioning of information, white space, layout, etc., conveys meaning. However, because visual representation does not have a chronology, the viewer can ostensibly begin anywhere.
The differences in affordances really highlights the difference in mediums.
Epistemological commitment:
Written word is committed to developing relationships; that is, you always have to choose a word for an existence or an action. For example, Kress shows how the word “have” which indicates ownership can be used in sentences as an approximate where it does not indicate ownership.
EX:
I have a necklace.
I have a vacation coming up.
The cell has a nucleus.
Images don’t have that sort of commitment – you can simply show it. You can wear the necklace. A calendar can indicate the vacation. You can simply draw the nucleus in the cell. However, that requires that you commit to a location. This leads to the second affordances.
Filling meaning:
The written word requires that the mind “fill in” information. As Kress shows, a person can make the claim that every cell has a nucleus without even without knowing what a nucleus is. However, the image medium has to actualize meaning. IN the case of the cell example, Kress shows how the person must know what a cell is, what it looks like, etc. Thus, images are already full of meaning whereas words are waiting to be filled (Kress, 18).
This results in fundamental conceptual differences in composition. As Kress states beautifully, “the world told is a different world to the world shown” (14). The modality of writing and the modality of image both have very distinct logics and functions. The written word has a temporal logic; forms of expression, like a complex idea, come one after another, with a precise beginning, middle, and end. Positioning in the chronology determines meaning, such as in being first or last. The mode of writing creates a narrative chronologically. Images have a spatial logic. They occupy a given space simultaneously, and spatial positioning of information, white space, layout, etc., conveys meaning. However, because visual representation does not have a chronology, the viewer can ostensibly begin anywhere.
The differences in affordances really highlights the difference in mediums.
Epistemological commitment:
Written word is committed to developing relationships; that is, you always have to choose a word for an existence or an action. For example, Kress shows how the word “have” which indicates ownership can be used in sentences as an approximate where it does not indicate ownership.
EX:
I have a necklace.
I have a vacation coming up.
The cell has a nucleus.
Images don’t have that sort of commitment – you can simply show it. You can wear the necklace. A calendar can indicate the vacation. You can simply draw the nucleus in the cell. However, that requires that you commit to a location. This leads to the second affordances.
Filling meaning:
The written word requires that the mind “fill in” information. As Kress shows, a person can make the claim that every cell has a nucleus without even without knowing what a nucleus is. However, the image medium has to actualize meaning. IN the case of the cell example, Kress shows how the person must know what a cell is, what it looks like, etc. Thus, images are already full of meaning whereas words are waiting to be filled (Kress, 18).
This was a fascinating read. I really enjoyed tracing the relationships in logic between different modalities. However, most of the discourse was from and for a 1st world Western perspective.
I was very intrigued by chapter 9, where Kress argues that representation is always partial and tied to the specific moment in which it was created/displayed. I learned a lot about the dynamics of visual rhetoric that I hadn’t considered until now.
I was very intrigued by chapter 9, where Kress argues that representation is always partial and tied to the specific moment in which it was created/displayed. I learned a lot about the dynamics of visual rhetoric that I hadn’t considered until now.