Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Screen Fluency via The
Technium on 11/22/08
We were once People of the Book but now we are becoming People of
Screen. But to complete this transformation in full we need a set of
tools which will allow us to manipulate, create, and process moving
images with the same ease we have for words.

That's the thesis for a 4,000 word piece I wrote in this Sunday's New
York Times Magazine. I called the piece "Screen Fluency"; the Times
entitled it "Becoming Screen Literate." A few excerpts:

The overthrow of the book would have happened long ago but for the
great user asymmetry inherent in all media. It is easier to read a book
than to write one; easier to listen to a song than to compose one;
easier to attend a play than to produce one. But movies in particular
suffer from this user asymmetry. The intensely collaborative work
needed to coddle chemically treated film and paste together its strips
into movies meant that it was vastly easier to watch a movie than to
make one. A Hollywood blockbuster can take a million person-hours to
produce and only two hours to consume. But now, cheap and universal
tools of creation (megapixel phone cameras, Photoshop, iMovie) are
quickly reducing the effort needed to create moving images.


In fact, the habits of the mashup are borrowed from textual literacy.
You cut and paste words on a page. You quote verbatim from an expert.
You paraphrase a lovely expression. You add a layer of detail found
elsewhere. You borrow the structure from one work to use as your own.
You move frames around as if they were phrases.


If text literacy meant being able to parse and manipulate texts, then
the new screen fluency means being able to parse and manipulate moving
images with the same ease. But so far, these “reader” tools of
visuality have not made their way to the masses. For example, if I
wanted to visually compare the recent spate of bank failures with
similar events by referring you to the bank run in the classic movie
“It’s a Wonderful Life,” there is no easy way to point to that scene
with precision. (Which of several sequences did I mean, and which part
of them?) I can do what I just did and mention the movie title. But
even online I cannot link from this sentence to those “passages” in an
online movie. We don’t have the equivalent of a hyperlink for film yet.
With true screen fluency, I’d be able to cite specific frames of a
film, or specific items in a frame. Perhaps I am a historian interested
in oriental dress, and I want to refer to a fez worn by someone in the
movie “Casablanca.” I should be able to refer to the fez itself (and
not the head it is on) by linking to its image as it “moves” across
many frames, just as I can easily link to a printed reference of the
fez in text. Or even better, I’d like to annotate the fez in the film
with other film clips of fezzes as references.


With our fingers we will drag objects out of films and cast them in our
own movies. A click of our phone camera will capture a landscape, then
display its history, which we can use to annotate the image. Text,
sound, motion will continue to merge into a single intermedia as they
flow through the always-on network. With the assistance of screen
fluency tools we might even be able to summon up realistic fantasies
spontaneously. Standing before a screen, we could create the visual
image of a turquoise rose, glistening with dew, poised in a trim ruby
vase, as fast as we could write these words. If we were truly screen
literate, maybe even faster. And that is just the opening scene.

Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to The Technium using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your
favorite sites

Reply via email to