Matthew Kirschenbaum on how reading is changing, in response to the US National Endowment for the Humanities’ rather retro report on “reading”, To Read or Not to Read:
To Read or Not to Read deploys its own self-consistent iconography to tell us what reading is. In the pages of the report we find images of an adolescent male bent over a book, a female student sitting alone reading against a row of school lockers, and a white-collar worker studying a form. These still lives of the literate represent reading as self-evident ó we know it when we see it. Yet they fail to acknowledge that such images have coexisted for centuries with other kinds of reading that have their own iconography and accouterments: Medieval and early modern portraits of scholars and scribes at work at their desks show them adorned with many books (not just one), some of them bound and splayed on exotic devices for keeping them open and in view; Thomas Jefferson famously designed a lazy susan to rotate books in and out of his visual field. That kind of reading values comparison and cross-checking as much as focus and immersion ó lateral reading as much as reading for depth.
if:book also has an interesting critique of the NEA report, responding to Kirschenbaum’s comments.
Related
Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Eiriks forfatterblogg :: Oppf??lging av “To Read or Not to Read”
[…] (Via Jill, takket v?¶re tips fra Jorunn) […]
2ndhandsoul
Intriguing. The other side of the coin here. Is this an evolution unfolding before us? Are we accelerating ourselves along with our technology into something different? I wonder how this will eventually change education. My daughter has known how to use a computer and browse the net since she was three…