Wednesday, December 2, 2009


If we question the meaning of print, then we question the necessity for a tangible form of information. For some of us, we appreciate the tactility of a newspaper, book or magazine between our fingers. We relish the smell of great paper or even the feel of fibers and ridges. Typeface is not the same when it is displayed on a monitor, projector or any digital output. It is to take something as simple as communication between two individuals and attempt to digitize what cannot be fully translated. No matter the quality of the pixels or amount of artificial interaction, how can anything replace the actual practice of interpreting what we hold or speaking to someone who is in front of us. It is not a matter of authenticity or adherence to tradition, but rather it is a completely opposite method of information intake. While the pros of the situation may outweigh the cons, in favor of the digitization of information, what will we lose as a society that continually puts our trust and neediness into the age of technological advancements? As is the question that haunts all of history and its pioneers, where do we draw the balance that benefits the majority of those who care?

No comments: