Betsy_Ch6_Cayley_Q

"I'm trying, as it were, to turn our attention from lines of verse to the letters of literal art and to place the latter in a significant contructive relationship with the pixels of digital graphic art." (213-214)

Cayley is trying to create a meaningful relationship between letters and pixels. --- I think.

"My argument is that the material manipulation of pixels derives, culturally, from an underlying gasp of the manipulation of letters." (214)

Is he trying to say people have been holding their breath to finally be able to manpulate letters??

RAFAEL_CHAPTER 6_CAYLEY_I

I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH MR CAYLEY. IN PAGE 210 HE CITES THE FOLLOWING: THE WORLD OF LETTERS HAD PLAYED A CRUCIAL ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF DIGITAL ART AND CULTURE.
THEN HE GOES ON: TEXT IS INDEED "THE WEB'S PRIMARY FOUNDATIONAL MEDIA"
I DISAGREE HERE. A BOOK PRIMARY FOUNDATION IS TEXT (PHONEMES), IN MAGAZINES TEXT (PHONEMES) BECOMES THE SECONDARY SOURCE AFTER PHOTOGRAPS. I THINK "EFFICIENCY" IS THE PRIMARY FOUNDATION OF THE NEW MEDIA.
VIVA ZAPATA!!!!!

Nick_Ch6_Seaman_Q

"Thus text presents one field of meaning force that can only be understood contextually in relation to other "neighboring" meaning forces - other media elements and living processes" (p. 230).

I know this is probably getting old, but Seaman states the above example, like many other comments in his article, as if it is something new and revolutionary. I don't understand when it was that context wasn't important in any type of visual art or narrative?

I also don't like that there is an advertisement for Seaman's upcoming work, funded by Intel, in the article.