- I really enjoyed today’s homework (which is not somethin I can say often). I think it’s so intresting that there is scientific evidence backing up this phenomon. When I was younger, I was never given access to technology, my parents only let me read. In fact, in middle school I was reading a 1,000 page version of Narnia. Similarly to what we read about, as soon as I was introduced to technology, I lost my attention span. These days I can barely read an article without drifting off. I wonder, if technology was taken away, would my attention span ever be able to recover?
- One thing that really stood out to me in this article was the quote “‘thoughts’ in music and language often depend on the quality of pen and paper” (pg 3). Although this seems trivial, I think that good materials really influence the art’s outcome. Not necessarily because they are good quality, but because they influence the atmosphere of creation. When I write, the process feels ritualistic in some ways: I cannot be in pajamas, I have to be in certain rooms, and I need to be using either my computer or a specific pen and notebook. It may sound silly, but the materials and process used in creation have an almost ritualistic connection to the process. Does atmosphere and supplies actually have an effect on quality, or do we trick ourselves into believing so?
- The final concept I wanted to talk about was the idea that reading is not human instinct (pg 3).. When I initially read that I wanted to disagree with it. However, after some thought I found some validity within the claim. I think as communication it’s instinct, however as a method of communication it is not. If that is the case how important can it be?
