Up until yesterday I thought I understood what digital meant. Now I don’t know what to believe. Eyeman understands in general we believe it’s linked with “electronic.” But it’s way more complex than that. It will melt your brain trying to come up with a tangible definition. And trust me, it did.
The word has multiple meanings so that also makes it difficult. It can be referred as our fingers, digits, as mentioned in class and in Eyeman’s chapter. The fact that even writing is digital is mind blowing. Any “individual elements” a system has can fit under the umbrella. Interesting, right?
My Digital Understanding
I found what Eyeman had to say about the topic as a metaphor in a postmodern setting and with rhetoric to be confusing. I have reread this section multiple times and when I think I almost have it, I lose it. For now, this is the understanding I have of this section: Eyeman argues that these works can not only be remade but broken down. Isn’t that the case for everything?
I have researched what “simulacra and fissure” mean so I could understand a bit more what Eyeman means. I’m more confused than I was before. The short answer? I think Eyeman believes the postmodern world will be full of these works we can constantly tweak.
The world is evolving digitally and with that we will say goodbye to some standards or guidelines we had in this setting and make way for new ones. As mentioned in the last post, we have to develop new kinds of material for this new age. For example, our standards for rhetoric must change to accommodate for this new setting. As time continues and more developments take place we must adjust our guidelines to fit with the new time. It’s up to us to create those new guidelines and standards.
Leave a Reply