In Ulmer's reading, "Electronic Monuments", an examination of MEmorials is made. Ulmer analyzes the hypothesis of electronic monumentality is that the context for the proposal is the need for compositional practice and the capability of supporting learning with digital technology. The idea of electronic monuments is one that does not need to be created for the purpose of commemorating events such as 9/11, but also smaller and more personal events. The commemoration of the electronic monumentality is a fundamental experience that joins the individual and collective identity; which must be adapted in any case to the emerging apparatus of electracy, (Electracy is most obviously emerging as a technology with the continuing evolution of digital media). The apparatus analogy that Ulmer explains includes the matrix of orality-which includes the technology of natural language, literacy-which includes the technology of alphabetic writing, culminating in print, the institution of school and others, as well as electracy- the evolution of digital media. The proposal of this article is that the internet makes it possible for monumentality to become a primary site of self knowledge, for both the individual and the community. The idea of electronic monuments provides a sit supporting new politics and ethics as well as a new dimension of education.
Analysis:
The concept of electronic monuments is one that we have discusses as a class previously. Commemorating events through the web is one that has not been present long, but it is quickly becoming one of the most common and effective ways to commemorate an event or a person. MEmorials have existed to develop a familiarity with the website and the internet as a media of an emergent language apparatus. The premise of the EmerAgency is the exceptional state, and the extremity of PTSD, and while I can't claim to understand the workings of the ideas that are proposed in this reading, I do understand the hypothesis of electronic monumentality and the commemoration that it strives to achieve. The proposal of electronic monumentality is to join the collective and the individual in a way that would not have been possible before the internet. The questions we must consider after reading Ulum's article are "What implications come from forming a MEmorial?", "To what extent do we rely on the communities that are formed from online communities to commemorate our losses or sacrifices?" and "What did you make of this reading? Did it answer your questions about online communities deeper than the previous readings we have done?"
Spread The Love, Share Our Article
Posts
This reading reminded me of Maya Socolovsky’s piece on “Cyber-Spaces of Grief: Online Memorials and the Columbine High School Shootings. Recall that in her piece she argues that memorials through the Internet, or “cyber-grief” attempt to hide the gap between the individual suffering and the dead. The Internet lacks the ghostly space, which carries the memory, might reside. This audience can arguably be for those who have a relative or close person die, or a “bereaved person” or for the American society who undoubtly lives day to day in a new mediated world of technology and easy access of the Internet. I think that to some extent the Internet takes away from the sacridity of those moments. “Web memorials offer us cites of death that are full, articulate and understood. It is in one sense comforting to finally know death through the safe haven of a computer monitor.” I understand the purpose these communities hold but I feel that it should not be seen as more reliable than actual physical memorials. At the same time those who join such communities are exercising their preference of dealing with grief and tragedy. The Internet is so beneficial to the process, but in my opinion can also shield and hinder its full course as well.
ReplyDelete