After reading Eisenstein I was left with tons a question
more than I was answers. Though that may
be there were a few interesting parts that stuck out. First, when Eisenstein explains the invention
of printing caused an abrupt change rather than a gradual one. This is the first time I have come across
anyone claiming this, after so many years learning about the printing press,
history class after history class. Every
one made it seem as if it were a gradual change. I believe here is where the Internet differs
as an invention. The Internet to me was
a gradual change, solely because it took time to get to web 2.0.
The
most important of all changes are spread of literacy, which also includes the change
of mental habits from learning to read to learning by reading, and preservation
of content. It must have been so
difficult before the printing press to be a scholar not saying it isn’t difficult
still. Printing allowed for old content to
reproduced on a large scale and be kept longer in circulation. This introduced cross-referencing. It was fascinating to hear that it was
because of printing all the old theories could be used to create new theories,
continue where one left off. The Internet
comes in handy in the same way. There is
a database that holds all prior information we're able to reference and base
future theories on.
What
I thought was the coolest part of the reading was how printing created
childhood/youth culture. That blew me
away. All because “The more adult
activities were governed by conscious deliberation and going by the book, the
more striking the contrast offered by the spontaneous and impulsive behavior of
young offspring.” It was a gap between
once culture and another. This is definitely
how the Internet is. There was a gap
between print culture and online culture. Print culture wanted online to be by the book. It created a whole new youth culture and childhood. What I wonder is what’s the next invention to
change our culture? What’s the next gap going to be?
Alex, I appreciate the way you have isolated some of Eisenstein's points that didn't arise in other posts, including her section on childhood and the overall thesis that the changes induced by print were almost immediately revolutionary (abrupt, rather than gradual, as you say). We talked a bit about this difference between "learning by doing" and "learning by reading" in class this week, but it's worth keeping this tension in mind throughout the rest of the course. We could argue, for instance, that we are still "doing" something when we read, especially when that reading is more obviously mediated by electronic or digital interactive technologies.
ReplyDelete