i read the entire thing through a number of times and came to different conclusions about certain things whenever i came to the end of the passage. some of my questions remained constant though.
touching on Nechama's query about how to connect this to Blade Runner, i had a hard time keeping that in my mind as his intention past the first page. sure, the title is mentioned a slew of times, but all in the first page; once we plunge further into the passage, where has our comparison gone? is Blade Runner really what he means to focus on? there seems to be a lot more covered and many other subjects that reign supreme in this particular passage (the GUI, which itself is not fully exploited, due to hefty jargon). unless the audience was expected to carry that through with them, which i didn't, so it may not have been as affective as the author intended.
also, i researched Peter Lunenfeld's "permanent present" which is mentioned in the very beginning of the first paragraph. yet, i still don't understand the theory the way i think i should. doesn't it seem like it might contradict the idea of ever evolving culture and media by being deemed the "permanent present"?
No comments:
Post a Comment