Form and Void

April 29, 2019

The reading was a complicated one. As far as my understanding goes, it was about modes for engagement about something and how the person engaging in the scene should keep in mind about what modes are there to use and how to best utilize whatever resources of modes he can afford. For example, using visual, sound, signs etc. A YouTube video about something will be an example of engaging in a visual mode. Although a mode has its dimensions that involve almost aesthetic choices which still evolves into how the piece is taken. An example here would be a badly made video on let’s say the German philosopher Husserl that has bad (subjectively) visuals and the person talking doesn’t have an aesthetically pleasing voice to a particular audience. But the video although insufferable (much like the article we read) is fairly accurate in terms of what the thought of Husserl was. And there can be many meta problems arising from multimodal presentations. Even these problems have dimensions. We can think about enacting the very problems a particular set of people have with an idea in the visual of the piece we’re creating. For example, to attack religious fundamentalists we add visual clues (sometimes clear) attacking certain systems of religious thought.

Maybe there is still a conversation to be had about the complexities of translating a text into meaning. And I’m talking about all forms and modes of text. Meaning can never be derived from just the content. Form and content always emerge together into the symbolic space where the reader or interpreter gives meaning. And where written texts have always had problems of meaning and how there’s contradictions and irregularities. Multi modal texts have even more of these problems. Because there’s more forms involved that give rise to more meanings and symbolic spaces for possible meanings.