Art - What is the Point?

Because I live in New York, my mother took any and every opportunity to take my younger brother and I to the many museums in the city. From the Met to the MoMA and everything in between, my brother, who is three years younger than me and was not interested in art in the least, and I were constantly being exposed to culture. I always enjoyed visiting the museums and, to this day, still travel into the city a few times a years to visit the museums.

Metropolitan Museum of Art

I suppose that my life-long exposure to art was the reason that M.T. Anderson's Feed shocked me so much, especially a quotation from the point of view of the main character, Titus.

After being hacked by a man while visiting the moon (just a casual way to spend spring break...), Titus and his group of friends are disconnected from the rest of the "feed" network. Titus spends his days in the hospital doing nothing but staring at a painting of a boat, which causes him to think

"I couldn't figure out even the littlest reason to paint a picture like that."

My favorite work of art at the Met...
will its appeal one day be lost?

I was quite taken aback by Titus' comment, which got me thinking about the "purpose" of art. I think that one of the many beauties of art is that there is no one tangible point to it. Art is the expression of one's thoughts, emotions, beliefs, and experiences. Art allows the viewer to interpret it in any way. I believe that openness and abstractness of art makes it beautiful. It is also one of the few things that has lasted in our society for centuries, an accomplishment that not many parts of culture can claim.

I fear that there are too many people in today's technological world who feel the same that Titus does. In this fast-paced progressive world, most people, at least people my age, do not take the time to stop and look at a work of art for a little bit and try to put themselves in the artist's shoes. The concept of art is truly a beautiful thing, and more people should stop and take the time to appreciate it, before we all begin to think the same way that Titus does.

Project 3 Draft - Neo-Luddites on the Loose!

For as long as there has been innovation and progress, there has been resistance to such advancements. Whether ideological, religious or personal, the reasons behind these oppositions have led to a large spectrum of behaviors and actions which have had varying degrees of significance on society. One such group of resistors has been present since the first Industrial Revolution began in England nearly two centuries ago; the Luddites. Led by Ned Ludd, an English weaver who lived at the time of the First Industrial Revolution, the original Luddites broke the factory machinery that they believed were the reason that they were becoming insignificant in their place of work. The Luddites’ actions may not have had the impact that they had desired, but their founding ideologies have lasted until and have sparked a new group of opposers; the Neo-Luddites. 

It is more difficult to define Neo-Luddism, when it started, and who the leader of the movement is. These difficulties stem from the broader goals and varying degrees of intensities found within the more contemporary groups of Neo-Luddites. As Neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale describes, contemporary Neo-Luddism ranges from “narrow single-issue concerns to broad philosophical analysis, from aversion to resistance to sabotage, with much diversity in between” (Sale, 241). The wide spectrum of Neo-Luddites present in the contemporary world has led me to draw the conclusion that Neo-Luddism is much more prevalent than I had originally believed and should be taken much more seriously than most people do.

Personally, I find that the peaceful Neo-Luddites to be at the more interesting end of the spectrum of Neo-Luddism. These activists are almost more comparable to the Amish, as embodied in magazine editor Scott Savage. Described as “a plain Quaker who lives in an area of Ohio where there are many Amish” (Fox, 330), Savage and his family has given up all technologies that most would consider vital in today’s world; “their computer, their television, their radio, and even their car” (330). Instead, Savage uses a horse and buggy to travel, a technology that was considered to be innovative in the early 19th century. Savage has been quoted criticzing the modern world, stating that:

[w]e spend too much time at work. We earn, not to sustain ourselves alone, but to indulge 

ourselves in too much food, too many gizmos, extravagant educations for our children, and 

overly large houses in oft-times impersonal communities. Our fast paced lives separate use

from our families and our God (333).

Contradiction of our world and Savage's

While Savage is a man who is extremely passionate about his beliefs (even in his line of work, which, for most, is very reliant on technology nowadays, Savage does not use a computer and uses an old fashioned printing press instead), he would not use violence or aggression to have his beliefs known. Rather, he calls for a “‘nonresistant Luddism’ that would transform industrial society without confrontation” (Bauerlein). However, it remains unclear as to how Savage intends for such a nonresistant Luddism to take place in today’s technological age.

A figure similar to Savage is found in James Howard Kunstler, an author who is critical of the increased use of technologies in the United States, yet utilizes the very technology he is critical of to spread his ideas. On the biography portion of his website, one will find Kunstler’s Saratoga Springs home address, a P.O. Box, a telephone number, yet no e-mail address. One will, however, find the e-mail addresses of both Kunstler’s literary and lecture agents. At first, one may find it strange that a Neo-Luddite would advertise his anti-technological ideas while using a technology which he is supposedly against. Neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale explains that some of his fellow Luddites, such as John Davis, editor of Wild Earth quarterly, are inclined “toward the view that technology is inherently evil” but will disseminate “this view via e-mail, computer, and laser printer” (Sale 256). It appears that some Neo-Luddites, such as Kunstler and Davis, have come to the realization that it would be impossible in today’s technological world to set their ideas forth without using the very thing that they are against. This contradiction of beliefs and actions is one which is extremely present in the world of Neo-Luddism and will continue to be until either one world is destroyed or the two can learn to live harmoniously. 

Nichols Fox’s in-depth investigation into Neo-Luddism in the 21st century brought him to the other side of the Atlantic Ocean where the original Luddist movement began; England. According to Fox, there are many Neo-Luddists who are also pacifists in the nation where violent resistance to technology was born. One of the most striking nonviolent Neo-Luddites with whom Fox came into contact with was Richard Morton, a cobbler who, like Savage, is passionate about the negative aspects of technology and violence. Fox writes:

His biggest concern is the loss of skills that technology has allowed. Machine tools have done 

away with craftsmanship. Calculators leave children unable to do math. Literacy is declining

as more information comes in a visual format. ‘Technology is used for laziness, not for raising standards,’ [Morton] says. He could never be violent against technology, however. ‘You’ve got 

to look at your own situation and decide what’s best for you. It’s about living in harmony. It’s

about finding the right livelihood (Fox, 347). 

The tranquility and understanding that oozes from Morton’s words is particularly striking. The reader gains the impression that Morton is aware that much of the rest of the world is extremely reliant on the technologies that he rejects. He seems to have accepted that he cannot change how others view innovation and progress, and appears to be perfectly content with his place as a minority. 

Morton’s openness to others’ viewpoints on technology is amicable, and a stark contrast to many Neo-Luddites on the aggressive end of the anti-technology spectrum. Those who are more extreme and violent are often highlighted by the media and give the Neo-Luddite movement a bad name. Two of the most famous violent Neo-Luddites of the 20th century are Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, and certain members of the Earth First! movement. 

Kaczynski's Lincoln, Montana cabin

Before becoming the infamous Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski was considered to be a mathematical prodigy. After being accepted to Harvard University at the tender age of 16, Kaczynski went on to earn his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan and become an associate professor in mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley. Then, after two years of teaching, Kaczynski left the university and moved to the woods of Lincoln, Montana. It was there that Kaczynski transformed from a mathematical genius into the madman that was the Unabomber. For nearly twenty years, Kaczynski sent homemade explosives to members of the academic communities and airline services, seriously injuring twenty-three people and killing three. His beliefs were similar to those of Savage and Morton, but considerably more extreme; that technological advancements were taking the human race to a place that it was never intended to go and that the continuation of such progress would lead to the destruction of humanity. The difference between Kaczynski and the more passive Neo-Luddites, according to one of Kaczynski’s many biographers, Alston Chase, was his extremist nature, which caused him to be “more serious about ideas and more ready to use violence” (Chase, 32). Chase also compares Kaczynski’s beliefs to those of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the two young men involved in the Columbine High School shooting, and Osama bin Laden, stating that these four men “feel threatened by civilization. They despise the contemporary nation-state, which they see as a big, repressive and unresponsive to the needs of people. In response, they would destroy everything” (368). This chilling comparison emphasizes how far Kaczynski was willing to go in an attempt to have his ideas made legitimate in a time in which technology was becoming increasingly prevalent. 

Possibly the most interesting aspect of Chase’s biographical work, Harvard and the Unabomber, is his concentration on Kaczynski’s time at Harvard University. The author brings a particularly interesting perspective to the life and time of the Unabomber because of the many similarities between the two men. Both attended Harvard within a decade of each other, went on to earn their Ph.D.s in their respective areas, became professors at prestigious universities, and eventually moved away from their careers in academia in order to become closer to nature. Their time spent in Midwestern United States wilderness is where their similarities end, however. Chase’s perspective adds yet another layer to the complexity of the Unabomber. He writes:

        It was at Harvard that Kaczynski first encountered the ideas about the evils of technology 

that would provide justification for and a focus to an anger he had felt since junior high school. 

It was at Harvard that he began to develop these ideas into his ideology of revolution. It was at 

Harvard that Kaczynski began to have fantasies of revenge, began to dream of escaping to the 

wilderness. And it was at Harvard that he fixed all dualistic ideas of good and evil, and on a 

mathematical cognitive style that led him to think he could find absolute truth through the 

application of his own reason (18-19).

Chase’s focus on Kaczynski’s education as a reason to his eventual madness is given greater validity because of the similarities between the two men. Chase appears to, almost, blame Kaczynski’s consistent exposure to higher education caused him to gain an “arrogant tendency to put ideas above common humanity” and to “commit hubris, the sin of intellectual pride...[which] seduces them into believing that they have the right to decide what is best for others” (369). The education that Kaczynski received at Harvard, it seems, may have had some impact as to the person that he ended up becoming in the future. 

Earth First! is a contemporary environmentalist group with similar ideologies to those of Kaczynski, but takes a slightly different approach. The radical group was created in the 1980s and proudly holds a slogan which demonstrates their extremist stance; “No compromise in defense of Mother Earth”. The Earth First! website states that they “believe in using all the tools in the tool box, ranging from grassroots organizing and involvement in the legal process to civil disobedience and monkeywrenching” (http://earthfirst.org), but the movement is much more than that. The group has been known for actions ranging from tire slashing and road blocking to drilling spikes into trees in forests in order to prevent chainsaws from cutting them down (Sale, 248). According to one Earth First!er, these actions were done for the purpose of “dismantling...the present industrial system”, as well as throwing “‘a monkey wrench’ into the industrial machine” (249). 

Earth First!, as a self-proclaimed radical group, has gained significant media attention in the thirty years that the group has been a part of the Neo-Luddite movement. They are one of many groups that Robert Atkinson, founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, believes is cause for increasing attention and concern to Neo-Luddism. He writes, “[w]hat is especially troubling is that in contrast to the past, when Luddites were often consigned to the fringes of political debate, today they enjoy widespread legitimacy” (Atkinson, 48). The increased organization among Luddite groups is also a concern of Atkinson’s, as well as “how seriously they are taken by the media and how effectively they use the political system to advance their agendas” (48). As a non-Luddite, it is understandable that the increased attention to Neo-Luddites is somewhat intimidating to Atkinson, whose very viewpoints and beliefs are most likely being questioned by the growing movement. 

Similar viewpoints were expressed by Professor Joseph Harris of Columbia University, in his article “Computer Luddism”. Written in 1984, the article provides the reader with an almost prophetic warning on how anti-technological feelings could develop as technology became more and more prevalent. Harris criticizes the original Luddites, claiming that their movement failed because the men focused on the machine as the problem, when it was actually the emerging system which was causing the workers to become increasingly insignificant. Harris writes:

  We cannot ignore the computer. But to focus on it as a technology will be to repeat the 

failure of the Luddites. It is the computer as a metaphor - of our culture, of our notions, of 

mind - that demands our study and criticism. The computer is an artifact of our Information 

Society; its importance lies in what it reveals of society. Put simply, we need to learn not

what the computer can do but what it means - what values it stands for, whose interests it 

represents. Only then can we avoid a computer luddism. (Harris, 59-60).

It appears that Harris may be slightly critical of how Neo-Luddist viewpoints have developed since his writing was published. Through research, it has become clear that most people have developed Neo-Luddite ideals when focusing in on specific technologies and not viewing the system and society as a whole. Chellis Glendinning, for example, and her book, When Technology Wounds, focuses solely on the human consequences that have been paid through technological progress, including negative effects that have been produced from weed killer and artificial sweeteners. Glendinning is biased, however, against such technological progress, as she herself suffered an illness due to an intro-uterine contraceptive device. Perhaps Neo-Luddites must begin to focus ton the psychology behind human decision-making, rather than criticizing the society that they believe “forces” us to make such decisions. 

Having no knowledge on the history or prevalence of Luddites or Neo-Luddites, researching such a topic was an eye-opening experience. It is my belief, as a result of my research, that the varying degrees of Neo-Luddism require more attention rather than the sole focus on the anarchist and aggressive end of the spectrum. 

Works Cited

Atkinson, Robert. “The Luddites Are Coming!.” CIO 20.1 (2006): 48-50. Computers & Applied Sciences Complete. EBSCO. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.

Bauerlein, Monika. “The Luddites Are Back.” Utne Reader Mar.-Apr. 1996. Utne Reader. 1 Mar. 1996. Web. 21 Mar. 2011. http://tinyurl.com/Bauerleinarticle.

Chase, Alston. Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Terrorist. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2003. Print. 

Earth First! Worldwide. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. http://earthfirst.org.

Fox, Nichols. Against the Machine: the Hidden Luddite Tradition in Literature, Art, and Individual Lives. Washington, DC: Island/Shearwater, 2002. Print.

Glendinning, Chellis. When Technology Wounds: the Human Consequences of Progress. New York: Morrow, 1990. Print. 

Harris, Joseph. “Computer Luddism.” ETC: A Review of General Semantics 41.1 (1984): 56-60. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.

Kaczynski, Ted. “The Unabomber Manifesto.” The New York Times. 19 Sept. 1995. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. 

Kunstler, James H. James Howard Kunstler. 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 20 Mar. 2011 http://kunstler.com/index.php.

Rourke, Matt. Amish School Shooting. 2006. Photograph. AP Images. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. 

Sale, Kirkpatrick. Rebels Against the Future: The Luddites and Their War on the Industrial Revolution: Lessons for the Computer Age. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub., 1995. Print. 

Thompson, Elaine. Unabomber. 1996. Photograph. AP Images. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. 

Is This Real Life...?

Before taking this particular FYS, I had never been exposed to many of the ideas that are covered in the course. As the semester has continued, however, I have realized that there are many aspects of other courses that relate to the study of technology and innovation that I had not realized before taking this class. 

Take, for example, The Matrix. This sci-fi movie was one that I had never seen before taking this course. But, over this past weekend, when my workload was quite low, I sat down and watched the movie, giving it my full attention. Being a fan of action movies, I found the movie extremely enjoyable from the opening scenes. But soon I realized that the movie was more than just a conglomeration of action scenes involving people who were always wearing sunglasses, even inside at night. Many aspects of previous classes I had taken were present in the film, something that drew me even further into the movie. 

It is also important here to mention that my high school was not a typical AP high school. My average-sized high school employed a more unique, at least in the United States, IB (International Baccalaureate) program, in which we were required to take a course called Theory of Knowledge. In this class, we wrestled with ideas of past philosophers, including Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. 

Essentially, the Greek philosopher proposed an idea in which humanity was only exposed to “shadows” or “shapes” of the real world and that the world in which we perceived was not, for lack of a better word, existent. In the Allegory of the Cave, one of the members of humanity is allowed to leave the cave and enter the real world, a vision which corrupts him. After reentering the cave and telling his fellow cave-dwellers of what he has seen, the other members of the human race become so frightened with his ideas that they kill the man. 

I remember that the classes in which we discussed the Allegory of the Cave, many of my high school classmates seemed to be as frightened of the idea as the other cave-dwellers that Plate wrote of. They began to ask my teacher if their desk was real, if their books were real, if they were even really in the classroom. My teacher struggled to assure my classmates that Plato was simply expressing his viewpoints on the world and that we may never actually know what is real and what is not. 

This memory came flooding back when watching The Matrix. I think that the film did an excellent job of giving Plato’s Allegory of the Cave a futuristic twist, and a much more frightening one at that. I think that if my high school classmates had watched The Matrix after learning about the Allegory, their fear would have become magnified and my poor teacher would have struggled to reassure many of them about their perception of reality. 

Personally, I am not sure what I believe. I suppose that I would like to believe that the world in which I am living in (and will be living in for years to come) is real, but I guess you can never be sure. The only people who can be confident in the presence, or lack of, reality is the man who left the cave and those who chose to take the red pill. 

The Future of Expressions

While in my FYS, Alan Turing’s Turing Test has been brought up a few times. I always thought that it was an interesting, and frightening, assessment of the advancement of technology, but I felt that I was a little bit disconnected from it and that I wasn’t completely sure that I was getting the gist of what the test entailed.

“Mind vs. Machine” by Brian Christian helped to clear up any of my confusion. 

Christian was a confederate in the 2009 Turing Test and won the “Most Human Human” award, which he was pleased about, to say the least. 

Christian describes his experiences with the Turing Test in great detail and includes numerous transcripts of “conversations” (if you can call them that) between confederates, computers, and judges. After reading the article, I was even more intrigued with the Turing Test and what it could mean for the future of technology. 

But Christian brought up an interesting point, one which I had not previously considered. 

Before the age of the digital computers that we eat, sleep and breathe with today, computers were human workers who completed calculations for different corporations, most of the time using nothing more than a simple calculator. As digital computers began to develop, people began comparing the machines to the humans, saying that the machines were similar to their human counterparts. But, as time went on, and computers became even more and more advanced, the terms were switched. Nowadays, if someone is very good with numbers or memorizable facts, it is often said that they are similar to the machine, the exact opposite of what was said in years past. Christian writes, “[i]t’s an odd twist: we’re like the thing that used to be like us. We imitate our old imitators, in one of the strange reversals in the long saga of human uniqueness.”

I must admit, this notion surprised me a little bit. I suppose that because of the time period that I have grown up in and currently live in, I never really considered what (or in this case, who) computers were before the age of digital computers. It is odd for me to think that a comparison which I have used to describe someone was once used in the opposite way to describe the machine that I am typing this blog post on. 

I think that the point made by Christian is an interesting comment on the extent to which  technology has changed the world that we live in today and has even affected the expressions that we now use. It’s strange to think about the expressions that we could be using years from now and how they will relate (or go against) expressions that we use today. 

Project 3 Proposal

The topic that I am interested in exploring for Project 3 is the development and spread of Luddism in both the United States and the rest of the world. I was inspired by Ted Kaczynski’s “Unabomber Manifesto” and became interested in resistance to technologies. The Luddism movement began in England during the Industrial Revolution, but I am more interested in how it has developed since then, particularly more contemporary times. I think that it is important for me to gain background information regarding Luddism, particularly Ned Ludd, who began the entire movement. I think that I will end up focusing my research on contemporary resistance to technology, Neo-Luddism and Ted Kaczynski. Some critical questions that came to mind when I began my research were regarding how the Luddites spread their anti-technological ideas, especially in contemporary times when technology is vital to most communication. Additionally, I wonder what some experts believe the future of Luddism looks like as the world becomes increasingly advanced in the fields of technology and innovation. Will the movement collapse or simply grow stronger? Although that is a question that can only be answered with speculation, I hope that I can find some opinions which would help me to form my own. I must admit that I have a few biases, however. Because I am an avid user of many different kinds of technologies, I may have difficulties accepting some of the ideologies that have been presented by Luddites, particularly more modern Luddites who criticize technologies that I use on a daily basis. Additionally, extreme behaviors, such as Kaczynski’s letter bombs, are extremely frightening to me, which may cause me to become uncomfortable when divulging into more radical manifestations of Luddism, like those of Ted Kaczynski. I hope that I will be able to put my feelings aside so that I will be able to fully understand the motivations behind Kaczynski’s, and other radical Luddists’, actions. I find it difficult to form even a tentative thesis at this time because a majority of my current research has been background information that I cannot draw conclusions from. 

Sources

Atkinson, Robert. “The Luddites Are Coming!.” CIO 20.1 (2006): 48-50. Computers & Applied Sciences Complete. EBSCO. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.

This article is more focused on more contemporary Luddites...Neo-Luddites. Atkinson describes the growing Neo-Luddite movement and seems to be fearful of how organized and legitimate the group is. Atkinson pleas with the reader, particularly those who work in technological fields, to be aware of the Neo-Luddite movement and what they are capable of today. I would definitely be able to make use of this article in Project 3 because it presents how Neo-Luddites are organized and operate in a more contemporary time period. I think that it would be important to my paper to be able to compare Luddism today and in the past, and I believe that this article would definitely help me in that comparison. 

Chase, Alston. Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Terrorist. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2003. Print.

In Harvard and the Unabomber, Chase explores Kaczynski’s collegiate years at both Harvard and Cambridge University. Chase, like Kaczynski, graduated from Harvard and, therefore, adds a more personal tone to his writing, having been in the same environment as Kaczynski had. I would utilize this source in my research project in order to better understand Kaczynski and, possibly, draw some conclusions as to why his ideologies, and eventual madness, developed. I think that because Chase faced the same pressures that Kaczynski had during his time at Harvard, he will be able to better assist the reader in understanding some of the reasons that Kaczynski eventually developed into the Unabomber. 

Fox, Nicols. Against the Machine: the Hidden Luddite Tradition in Literature, Art, and Individual Lives. Washington, DC: Island/Shearwater, 2002. Print.

In this book, Fox takes a look at the different, and many, Luddites who have presented themselves throughout history. Fox presents numerous cases of Luddites beginning during the Industrial Revolution and ending in the 20th century. Many of the Luddites which Fox writes about were people of historical significance that I was not aware were “machine breakers”, including Mary Shelley, Charles Dickens and Ralph Waldo Emerson. I would potentially use this book in Project 3 in order to better understand how the Luddite movement developed over time and became what it has today. I also think that I could utilize this book to possibly predict the direction that I believe Luddism is headed in the future. 

Harris, Joseph. “Computer Luddism.” ETC: A Review of General Semantics 41.1 (1984): 56-60. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. 

In this article, Harris focuses mainly on computers and how they have affected our society over time. He believes that in order to understand how and why computers have affected our world to such a great extent, it is important to understand first where they came from. Harris writes beautifully, insisting that we must think of the computer as a metaphor for the world’s culture which demands our study rather than thinking of it as a technology, which would bring about a new wave of Luddism. I think that this article could be a good part of my Project 3 because it was written in the 1980s, before the computer age really began. It could be interesting to compare Harris’ predictions for the future of computers and to see if they actually came true. 

Haynes, Deborah J. “On the Need for Ethical Aesthetics: Or, Where I Stand Between 

Neo-Luddites and Cyberians.” Art Journal 56.3 (1997): 75-82. JSTOR. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.

This article is a bit different from the others which I have cited previously, but I found it to be interesting nonetheless. Haynes is a member of the art community and uses this article to discuss her feelings on the use of technology in the art world. I thought that this was an unusual form that the Neo-Luddite-Cyberian debate would take place, but I think that it does a good job of displaying how prevalent technology is in today’s world. I could use this article in Project 3 to demonstrate that Neo-Luddism can display itself in many different intellectual communities, including the art world. 

Sale, Kirkpatrick. Rebels Against the Future: The Luddites and Their War on the Industrial Revolution: Lessons for the Computer Age. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub., 1995. Print. 

Kirkpatrick Sale, in his book Rebels Against the Future, describes the origins of Luddism, which began during the Industrial Revolution with Ned Ludd. Sale describes the struggle which the Luddites were faced with during the Industrial Revolution, a time in which the entire world that they knew was changing. Sale also compares the Industrial Revolution to the more contemporary technologically advanced world which we live in today. He, as the title of the book describes, uses the struggles faced by the Luddites as a warning to present day technology users, an aspect which I could definitely utilize in Project 3. I would also use this book in order to better understand the origins of the Luddite movement and the grounds on which they stand. 

The Lost Books

Sven Birkets originally struck me as a snobbish, elitist, obnoxious jerk. His writing and the answers that he gave to members of an online forum that he was partaking in were the main reasons that I made such intensely negative assumptions about him, which I try my best not to do regularly. 

But after rereading Birkets and discussing his ideas in my FYS, I realized that the man had a point. The future that Birkets fears is turning into reality faster than anyone can even imagine and his fears are quickly turning into my own. 

Birkets’ critiques are many and most are well supported, but one of his strongest critiques is one which would definitely apply to my classmates and, unfortunately, to myself. Birkets writes, 

“A change is upon us - nothing could be clearer. The printed word is a part of a vestigial order that we are moving away from - by choice and by societal compulsion.”

With these few sentences from “Into the Electronic Millennium”, I realized that Birkets and his elitist attitude did have a point. Personally, I love books. I love reading both classics and contemporary works; F. Scott Fitzgerald is my absolute favorite. Reading books allows you to enter a world that no virtual world, computer game, or really good movie can create. Reading allows you to expand your imagination and use an author’s art form to create your own inside your head. 

Will this still exist in the future?

One of my favorite things about books is physically holding a book and reading it. But today, in the world of Kindels, iPads and the plethora of books available online, that experience is lost. Birkets explains this difference when he participated in an online forum:

“...[P]aper books dead-end you on the page and drive you back into yourself, while electronic writing sends you into the strange sorcery of the circuit.”

I suppose that I had never really thought about electronic writing as a “sorcery”. But, after much consideration, I find myself in agreement with Birkets’ words. The difference in reading experiences between the printed word and electronic word do not even begin to compare. I think that one loses something when reading literature online and that the experience of physically holding and reading a book is something that cannot be rivaled. 

What I think Birkets would most harshly criticize is the fact that nowadays, especially in high schools and universities, most young people will not read a book unless it is assigned to them in class, if at all. What has happened to reading for pleasure?

I know that, personally, I made a lengthy list of books, classics mostly, that I was set out to reading over my winter break a few months ago. How many did I get through? Zero. Between being on the Internet, watching movies with my boyfriend, or watching TV with my friends, I found myself three and a half weeks later with no more literary knowledge than I had had when I first went on break. I was disappointed in myself. 

As I stated at the beginning of this post, I still believe that Sven Birkets is somewhat of a jerk. With that being said, I think that in the electronically-based world that we are currently living in, the only way to get your critiques of a technology that everyone utilizes is to stand out, even if that means making people hate you.