Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Multimodality 1
One of the reasons I’ve been studying different forms of media for so long is because I am interested in how the world works. A lot of my theoretical research boils down to advocating media literacy in less advantaged groups. There are data that shows those with less access technology are at a disadvantage of getting staying informed or being able to reach specific goals. This said, the first half of Gunther Kress’ Multimodality (Routledge 2010) seems to be leading up to advocacy of new media literacy. He notes three features that mark our contemporary media landscape – forms of knowledge production, forms and principles of text making composition, and social and semiotic blurring. These concepts stuck out at me because they recognize that new media literacy entails not only being able to navigate technology but also becoming a participant in authoring and composing new media as well as understanding how society is negotiated through communication.
I kept returning to Kress’ explanation of how simple grammar can signify positions of power under a lens of social-semiotics. He writes that the first part of the question “I wanted to ask, could I have an extension for my essay?” distances the speaker from a weak position of not being able to complete a task by putting in the past tense. Furthermore, when this question is auditory, there is nuance in inflection and tone that give the receiver of the message cues of its meaning. I would say this translates into atheistic design choices as well. Kress touches on the concept that choices in color, form and mode are part of sign making and meaning making in multimodal communication. Kress only mentions creativity in passing but it is fairly obvious that a good design by the sender can incite interest of the end of the receiver. For that reason, if a message is to be welcomed by a specific group, the sender needs to be aware of their audience, its culture and the signs that are meaningful within it.
Kress writes that he has a problem with the notion of universals like the ‘universals of language’ or the ‘universals of communication.’ He writes that “the universe of cultures and of cultural difference on our small planet is too vast for such generalization.” While I agree with the whole of this, it does not mean that we cannot make sense of different cultural modes of communication and meaning making, especially when concepts of globalization makes virtually everything so accessible and leads to repurposing. This is to say that there can be one end message – say new media literacy for example – but the way the message is presented can - and needs to - change for each intended audience. The message sent to inner city kids advocating media literacy may differ from the message intended for rural citizens which shouldn’t be the same campaign for the elderly.
I kept returning to Kress’ explanation of how simple grammar can signify positions of power under a lens of social-semiotics. He writes that the first part of the question “I wanted to ask, could I have an extension for my essay?” distances the speaker from a weak position of not being able to complete a task by putting in the past tense. Furthermore, when this question is auditory, there is nuance in inflection and tone that give the receiver of the message cues of its meaning. I would say this translates into atheistic design choices as well. Kress touches on the concept that choices in color, form and mode are part of sign making and meaning making in multimodal communication. Kress only mentions creativity in passing but it is fairly obvious that a good design by the sender can incite interest of the end of the receiver. For that reason, if a message is to be welcomed by a specific group, the sender needs to be aware of their audience, its culture and the signs that are meaningful within it.
Kress writes that he has a problem with the notion of universals like the ‘universals of language’ or the ‘universals of communication.’ He writes that “the universe of cultures and of cultural difference on our small planet is too vast for such generalization.” While I agree with the whole of this, it does not mean that we cannot make sense of different cultural modes of communication and meaning making, especially when concepts of globalization makes virtually everything so accessible and leads to repurposing. This is to say that there can be one end message – say new media literacy for example – but the way the message is presented can - and needs to - change for each intended audience. The message sent to inner city kids advocating media literacy may differ from the message intended for rural citizens which shouldn’t be the same campaign for the elderly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
