Week 4 Readings

Kress, Gunther. "Multimodality."

Gunther begins with the idea that in order to understand multimodality, written language must be dislodged from its position as the central mode of public communication. He provides the examples of music and art as other modes of communication, which he asserts have thus far only been theorized as modes of expression, and should be reimagined as modes of communication in addition to expression. He also examines the idea of different modes of representation, stating that sight and sound have been specialized to focus on speech as an aural representation and written language as a visual representation of communication; our senses have been trained to privilege representations of language. Kress goes on to suggest that we should view language as a multimodal form of communication, rather than a single mode, positing that graphology (the physical aspect of writing) can have a different meaning-making potential from lexis (word order), and thus should be regarded as separate modes. Thus, because it is comprised of more than one mode of representation, language is a multimodal form of communication. Language is the result of integrating different modes to form a complex but coherent message.
Kress asserts that the focus on written language engages the visual sense, but closes of the other senses; in this manner, he seems to agree with McLuhan's premise that print culture is fragmenting and alienating. He also suggests that the phenomenon of privileging certain sensory modes (such as the visual mode) disadvantages cultures and individuals who are more adept at utilizing different modes for learning. Kress provides three ways to think about multimodality:

• All texts are multimodal
• There are texts which exist in a (multi-)mode other than language
• There are systems of representation which are acknowledged in the culture to be multimodal, when in fact all such systems are multimodal

Kress believes that recognizing the multimodality of all systems of representation will help to undermine the privileging of written language and create more texts that engage multiple senses. He also challenges the assumption that language can express anything within the realm of rational thought, citing the inability to articulate certain tastes and smells using only language. He theorizes that any grammar, linguistic or otherwise, must be able to:

• Communicate about events and states of affairs in the world

• Communicate about the social relations of the participants in a communicational interaction

• Have the ability to form internally coherent entities (messages)

Thus, language is not the only mode of representation that can be used for communication; for example, visual arts can communicate all of the above with utilizing written language.

I strongly agree with Kress' idea that language is unduly privileged as a mode of communication; I know that when I watch films, the most poignant and meaningful scenes are often those with no dialogue. Similarly, I find myself highly affected by certain pieces of visual art. For example, I used Frida Kahlo's painting "What the Water Gave Me" in an essay last year; it took me nearly page to explain everything I felt was communicated in the painting. It would seem to me that sometimes a picture truly is worth a thousand words. I do not necessarily agree with Kress' interpretation of print culture as alienating, but I appreciate his ideas on how to move beyond focusing solely on print culture and appreciating other modes of representation as equally valid methods of communication.

McLuhan, Marshall. The Medium is the Massage.

McLuhan's book engages the reader in a variety of ways. Emphasizing his belief that print culture alienates the other senses, McLuhan prioritizes images over text, and forces the reader to examine their tactile relationship to the book through techniques such as mirroring text, or placing text upside-down on the page. These techniques, as well as the predominance of images, also deemphasize the content of the text, reflecting McLuhan's anti-content thesis.

While reading the book, I was acutely aware of the ways in which the layout of the book demonstrated McLuhan's ideas on the nature of media; he quite effectively makes a case for his anti-content thesis and the alienation caused by print by communicating these ideas through the act of reading rather than the information gleaned from the reading. I was tempted throughout my reading to skip the text entirely, read pages out of order, or even stop reading completely because I felt that I could understand McLuhan's message without paying careful attention to the written language he includes. While I found the book extremely thought-provoking, I still disagree with McLuhan's essential claims about the nature of media (I still believe they are social processes rather than artefacts) and the alienating effects of print culture. For example, we are all coming together tomorrow to talk about this book. While I understand that the act of reading can shut off the other senses, print materials can facilitate discussion as well as the creation of non-verbal artistic expressions (based a piece of music or art on a piece of literature is quite common). McLuhan's radical claims are provocative, but I believe that the nature of media and how it functions in society is more complex than he suggests.