When we think of the word ‘digital’, we think of our devices that can access the internet. I thought so too, that’s until Eyman showed me that what we think as ‘digital’ is actually just ‘analog’? I couldn’t believe it at first but then going further into the text, I get why people have misinterpret the word. IT’S ALL CLAUDE SHANNON’S FAULT! I’m kidding, it’s not Shannon’s wrongdoing but it’s because of Shannon’s “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”, our idea of ‘digital’ has shifted into using computers and cellphones. In reality, digital means our fingers inputting codes- it can be both print (morse code) and tech (texting).
But like I said before, it’s not Shannon’s fault. In fact, we just found out about this interpretation issue recently. This is because we have developed new ways of transferring information into something multimodal (presentations, emails, etc.). I also like how in the article, Eyman focuses on both digital arts and communication- since they need each other. But that also reminded me, our society today strives off of using visuals to provide information- a lot. For example, if you were to go to NY Times Square right now there would be a bunch of visual advertisements around. Those advertisements provide information of companies, services, new products and much more just by showing visuals. And guess what? those advertisements were made by burnt out employees who had to work tirelessly to get that advertisement up there.
If you want to get a deeper understanding of the term digital, I highly suggest Oliver’s blog post on this same topic. In their post, Oliver also brings up a good question about which is better- digital or analog. This is something that English majors would have a feud over (except for me). Let’s just hope that Eyman doesn’t come back.
Leave a Reply