September 9th

"Linear perspective vision was a fifteenth-century artistic invention for representing three-dimensional depth on the two diminutional canvas. It was a geometrization of vision which began as an invention and became a convention, a cultural habit of mind" (Wysocki 358). We look at people who don't know how to use a computer, or aren't computer 'literate', as having a disadvantage to people who are proficient and even excel in the use of technology. But is that really the case? Wysocki talks about how the term 'literate' is messy and more complex than most of us are willing to admit. I entirely agree with her in the sense that being literate does not necessarily put one at the forefront of their generation. At the beginning of the 15th century, access to printed text were not readily available to all casts of a society. Texts were not at the fingertips of the youth waiting to be delved into and torn apart for all the knowledge they had to offer. However, art was. In this sense, at the turn of the 15th century, it was likely more useful to be literate in the arts rather than in reading and writing. As the occurrence of printed text became more widespread, being literate in reading and writing also grew in importance as it was the most efficient way to gain more knowledge. I also have to believe that religion also played a huge role in the importance of being literate in the art of printed text. Religion and faith was incredibly important in an era of scientific uncertainty, so the practice of religion and faith was much more widespread than it is today. Without being able to read, one would cut themselves off from one of the most important texts of their culture. Similarly, prior to printed text, art was used as a way to convey messages, negating the demand for written 'literacy.'

If we compare this evolution of technology to our own time, you could say that we are on a tipping point of relevant literacy. To be able to read in a time of limited printed text didn't necessarily prove useful. Similarly, many of the people we see as technologically 'illiterate' grew up in an era where computers were not only rare, they were an entirely different species of what we see today. My generation has grown up with technology at our fingertips. To ignore this resource would not only be nearly impossible, but foolish.

Society looks at textually 'illiterate' people as lesser or stupid. Instead of celebrating the skills they do hold, we zero in on something they were likely taught, and unable to grasp and pick at their inabilities. In a world full of text, with only one way to physically absorb the information it had to impart on us, this judgement was harsh and unfounded. However, in the technological advances we've seen in the past years, technological illiteracy should be relatively unapparent in developed nations where computer access is relatively easy. This rarity revolves on the ability for technology to convey information in ways other than just interpreting shapes on a page as complex information.

As technology advances, there are learning gaps, or 'illiteracy' in the groups the advancements take place on. So should we really call technologically 'illiterate' groups such a degrading word? Probably not. Instead we should look at it in a lag in information and do our best to fill this lag with alternative information sharing platforms, such as a more traditional text-based platform.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." -Donny Miller