The Death of Print

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
thanks for sharing your idea OP.
I'd like to add how the death of print started. I'm a creative director / designer and worked in print for 20 years and still going strong.

it started when computers came into the scene. us designers started doing our own typography on the computer and printing it out and taking that to the camera house. there used to be type houses, a service that type set your print design job. you would give the specs like point size and leading and font, then they would set the type and give you that type in print on paper so you could go and get it put on film to strip into your piece your working on.

we stopped using the type houses, the type houses went under.
soon after that stat camera services went away.
just in a matter of about 4 years that part of the print service industry died.
we then started developing art on the computer and giving the files to a service beauro to have them.

now the entire process has been digitized. unless you print in spot colors, then there's some old school techniques involved. overall, our beloved computers helped the evolution of the digital age and the demise of print as we 'knew' it.

print is costly, and Eco-unfriendly, but I still love a good book and nicely designed printed material.




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 


It's funny you should mention this, and it reminds me of something i have been noticing:

When i am going through Google Reader (specifically CNN), I can't tell you how many times i click on a compelling title only to be directed to a CNN "Video Story."

Even on ATS, it seems that a large number of people are posting threads with "Video (Stories)."

Now, i grew up an avid reader. I studied journalism. I prefer to read, even though I LOVE Movies/film (and work in the industry). But i HATE watching videos on the computer/web, and i loathe video stories.

It does seem like most people would rather be immersed in hot media like video stories versus cooler media like print. What does this say about out culture? I think you touched on it in your OP. I don't think it's so much "they" (the media) as much as they are adapting themselves to technological evolution within our culture.

When i click on a title and and am brought to a "video story" i immediately click out. One thing, a video story requires X amount of time to view it (if viewed in its entirety), but one can read print at one's own pace. I can skim, re-read, skip to the end, etc, a lot easier. In such a fast-paced technological world, it is easier (and more enjoyable, for me) to read. The video stories feel like "entertainment" and like i am wasting time.

I think the emergence and prevalence of this video culture speaks both to people's lifestyles (and our culture) and changing brain chemistry. TV video is hot; it doesn't require as much thinking/participation, and it allows the user to me more passive, which is a negative, I think.

In additional, many people's attention spans are getting shorter, so videos helps maintain that attention versus, say, the attentive dedication required to read a book.

As an aside, i do not own an e-reader, and i have generally been against them simply because i like physical books and digital reading takes its toll on my eyes (and attention). The feel, the smell, i can underline, highlight, make notes. BUT, i am starting to see where they might come in handy: one can pack a whole library into one tablet-sized device, and i generally like to carry several books around, which can be difficult when they are large volumes.
edit on 2-1-2013 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I spend a lot of time online but don't restrict my reading to it. I read books, magazines, newspapers daily. I would miss hard print.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter42
Books make people think. Books are concrete. They make people use their imaginations, and the last thing the Powers That Be want is a group of imaginative, thinking people.

I don't think TPTB needs to push people in this direction... it seems we're all heading the same way without their help.

I find it ridiculous when people say "I love books, so I want a Kindle/Nook". Rubbish - if they love books - they'd read a blooming book! What they mean is that they don't love books at all, they love reading.

I love books... I love books as much as I love reading. I treat the words with respect, and the books with love... my books have folded pages, underlined/highlighted sentences that I like, cat scratches and pepsi marks... but they are loved and used! I love the smell of a brand new book, and equally I love the smell of an old book.

My favourite book in the house in a really old Bible I got at an auction... it's huge, tattty and beautiful. Although having read a fair bit of the Bible, I've never read this one in particular, to me it's a visual enjoyment to see this gorgeous old book in my livingroom.


Originally posted by LeLeu
I love antique books, I have many that are 300-500+ years old.

So jealous! I only got a few that's really old, and no-where near as old as yours. (And by the way, these books aren't read whilst drinking pepsi and letting the kitties play with them... I don't actually get them to read, I just want to touch them, and look at them) I'd love to get some more, but old books are difficult to find now (for the price I can afford!). Nevertheless, I got high hopes for the auction I'll be going to in a little over a week, hopefully there's a nice treasure there... a box full of old books for a few pennies!



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 


I find it to be a bad thing when people think less. People used to seek consciousness expansion, and now all they want is to shrink their minds and make the world look simpler. They think about Good vs Evil when they read about it in the paper. "GOVERNMENT BATTLES IT OUT WITH EVIL ENEMY AT THE GATES".

The people have been conditioned to see everything in black and white. Not a good thing for a thinking man's society, but then again, when has it ever been one? Maybe people have always been this dumb, and natural selection would just bump them off before they could do any real damage. Or maybe it's something in the water, or just the changing times.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I ONLY read printed books. Besides there use in schools I see no reason to want to own a nook or anything like it. Books are personal, they have a unique smell, touch, they just feel right in my hands. I like that I can underline passages if and when I see fit, (though I rarely deface a book) I like having the option if I decide to.

The government wants you to give up printed books because with the technology now they can take out and put in what they see fit. like the N word is being stripped out of all new copies of Huckleberry Finn. I, we, deserve to read a book in it's entirity the way the writer had intended for us to do, offensive or not. That is only the beginning though, they will rewrite more and more books as time goes on and people will care less and less because they are so hooked on facebook, twitter etc.... that they dont even see the world around them anymore.

I love to read old books, new books, doesnt matter. I use to buy and sell antiquarian books but had to give it up because almost everytime I held an older book in my hands I fell in love with it and couldnt part ways. I have quite the collection now. For one small moment I am holding history in my hands and what a beautiful feeling it gives me. To know that such a book was passed around to imagine who held it before me, wow I just love books. I only wish more people loved them as much as I do. I have actually been known to scold others who rip up old books and sell them piece by piece.

Dont give up on books people they are the gateway to knowledge, the past, the future and the stories they tell can take you anywhere you could ever imagine.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I think it depends on your upbringing and level of education.
Personally I read lots of books in many genres as does Mrs C. All my family read print and christmas was amongst many other enjoyable activities a massive book swap.
We all have different tastes but occasionally a book jumps out and we all enjoy it.

Where I live there is high unemployment (despite there being jobs available) strangely the only people I discuss books with are the ones that work. The difference is the personal motivation to learn, and improve oneself.
The trouble is it's easier to let the kids watch TV or play PS3 or whatever than take the time to indulge thier imaginations. That would take work and effort. Again the kids of those employed tend to be the ones that read, I've lost count of the times I've lent The little prince to someone, and really enjoy discussing it both from a child's, and an adult's perspective.

So the death of print ? I doubt it, the intelligent ones tend to be the ones that read and would see right through the ruse.

The increase in the dumming down of the nations ? Unfortuntely true, but not in this household, we hold our imaginations too dear to sacrifice as do 99% of my friends and thier kids.Besides ATS is proof that there is intelligent life out there, a few loonies as well, but hey we all love a pet loony.


Power to the readers



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   


I don't actually get them to read, I just want to touch them, and look at them) I'd love to get some more, but old books are difficult to find now (for the price I can afford!). Nevertheless, I got high hopes for the auction I'll be going to in a little over a week, hopefully there's a nice treasure there... a box full of old books for a few pennies!
reply to post by aspiechick
 


Oh dear
sounds remarkebly like The book of human skin !

Stop scaring me
* hides
edit on 2-1-2013 by cody599 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter42
reply to post by LipstickMystic
 


You all sound like very intelligent people who read a lot of books. For now, everything seems fine but keep in mind that IQ is dropping globally and people are becoming less and less literate every day. You see teenagers clicking out pidgin english in text messages. I'm in my twenties and I hate that gibberish.

It's like George Orwell predicted, what with Newspeak. Only it's not invented by the government but by the incredibly dumb. P0ST M073 L8R


Literacy levels are at the highest they've ever been. If you read more you'd probably know that


Teenagers use shortened text because it's easy. If they understand each other, why not? Saves them spending minutes writing each individual text in decent English, which is about how long it takes me!



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Sure, but WHAT people are reading these days has gone down hill. And just because it's convenient doesn't mean it isn't a butchering of the English language.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrandStrategy

Originally posted by Grifter42
reply to post by LipstickMystic
 


You all sound like very intelligent people who read a lot of books. For now, everything seems fine but keep in mind that IQ is dropping globally and people are becoming less and less literate every day. You see teenagers clicking out pidgin english in text messages. I'm in my twenties and I hate that gibberish.

It's like George Orwell predicted, what with Newspeak. Only it's not invented by the government but by the incredibly dumb. P0ST M073 L8R


Literacy levels are at the highest they've ever been. If you read more you'd probably know that


Teenagers use shortened text because it's easy. If they understand each other, why not? Saves them spending minutes writing each individual text in decent English, which is about how long it takes me!



If it were only that simple.
Our various technologies seem to be robbing us of the power of reasoning, and problem solving skills. Communicating with time efficeint methods does nothing to increase our power of expression, our attention spans or reading comprehension. What it does do is limit all these things, and in particular, our attention spans, so that if it takes much effort or requires too many brain cells, it isn't worth it for many, and the art of applying the mind is lost entirely, eventually. Also, the more homogenized we, our minds, and therefore our populace becomes. Ergo, easier then to manipulate.

I wonder, increasingly, that no one seems to ever question the term for the camps in WWII: concentration camps. And I believe it illustrates the direction we've been pushed and guided to ever since. Intelligence is more and more less appreciated, I think. There is a thread today talking about disagreeing with policies of governments now being categorized as a mental illness. Although the "study" that the thread cited seems to have been faked, there have been real and scary changes to the DSM and some of those seem to make thinking for oneself increasingly discouraged, in both subtle and very real, tangibly obvious ways.

On another note, I'd like to cite Occam's Razor, here, and perhaps not so much what it truly is and means, as for how it is used and often misused. The simplest explanation is frequently not at all the case, in fact. But if you increasingly simplify something, robbing it of its fine distinctions, pretty soon there is no truth to anything at all any longer, and truth becomes a completely malleable quantification. Language, for instance. Without its fine distinctions, never mind outright warring definitions, the meaning of expression becomes more and more diluted, and therefore, easier to apply the basest applications to. Introducing duplicity in definitions then creates total mayhem.
edit on 2-1-2013 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-1-2013 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter42
Sure, but WHAT people are reading these days has gone down hill. And just because it's convenient doesn't mean it isn't a butchering of the English language.


Well, it is, but it's a text message. Text messages have character limits, breaching character limits has financial implications. There's nothing wrong with using txt spk, I'd argue that it's logical by every measure. If text speak is used only for texting, I don't see an argument against it, other than one rooted in snobbery.

People have been texting for a good decade, yet we're still having this conversation in English. Words today are the same as they were in the late 90's and throughout the noughties, ditto for punctuation. The English language hasn't been brought to its knees because of teenagers dropping letters in text messages, or, more recently, Twitter.

Whether teenagers are reading books of lesser quality, or just generally more thick than they once were, I couldn't really say



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrandStrategy

Originally posted by Grifter42
Sure, but WHAT people are reading these days has gone down hill. And just because it's convenient doesn't mean it isn't a butchering of the English language.


Well, it is, but it's a text message. Text messages have character limits, breaching character limits has financial implications. There's nothing wrong with using txt spk, I'd argue that it's logical by every measure. If text speak is used only for texting, I don't see an argument against it, other than one rooted in snobbery.

People have been texting for a good decade, yet we're still having this conversation in English. Words today are the same as they were in the late 90's and throughout the noughties, ditto for punctuation. The English language hasn't been brought to its knees because of teenagers dropping letters in text messages, or, more recently, Twitter.

Whether teenagers are reading books of lesser quality, or just generally more thick than they once were, I couldn't really say


It is sad you play the snob card here. This is a deflection argument, one employed to engender an emotional rather than logical response in one reading so as to disregard the importance of a point.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 

When I was a kid, You couldn't get me to read a book either. There were more interesting things to do than waist my time behind a container of dancing letters. Donald duck or tintin, f-off with anything else. I know the pre tv generation saw my generation as stupid brain-dead lazy good for nothing comic readers. When I grew older I got interested in sf. First in comics, later in boring old time waisting letter containers. There was no push but my own interest. Why would the newer generations not go that path?

This era of declining print and upcomming ebooks are heaven for me. I can buy like 15 books for €5,- (thats like $35, I believe) at the sec hand store. The real deal sf classics. No one wants them, their all mine. (MWUUUHAHAHAHaaaaa.)

I don't think this will stay this way though. The novelty of the ebook or whatever will wear off. People will want to go back to the real deal, like vinyl is coming back for music right this moment. Books are out, make the best of it and get them cheap while you can. The best thing about real deal preebook oldskool is, it will be valued when print does its come-back.

Books are a fun investment. I'll almost guarantee a win-win. Your dime will become a dollar and all you got to do is have fun reading while you hold on to them.

Don't tell everyone though.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tetra50
It is sad you play the snob card here. This is a deflection argument, one employed to engender an emotional rather than logical response in one reading so as to disregard the importance of a point.


He's actually right. "Text speak" came about because a carrier would nail you for excessive character limits. It just kept on from there. As an older person and an English major I don't like it but I can understand what they are saying.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Yes, I am aware of what you are saying, and don't disagree with that point. That point, extra characters=extra money, is completely understandable on an indivicual response level. But surely, here of all places, we can look beyond such responses, which are part of survival, to the facet above and/or beyond that. This was what I was trying to speak to, such as a larger effort introduced via technology to get us to stop using our intellect, to simplify as a means to easier manipulate. Putting the snob comment in there I reiterate takes the focus from that, and engenders a response whereby the whole picture is rejected on an emotional level.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tetra50
This was what I was trying to speak to, such as a larger effort introduced via technology to get us to stop using our intellect, to simplify as a means to easier manipulate.


I see what you're saying and don't disagree. Take it a step further. We don't need to use our memory anymore. We can just Google. It IS a dumbing down.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 





He's actually right. "Text speak" came about because a carrier would nail you for excessive character limits. It just kept on from there. As an older person and an English major I don't like it but I can understand what they are saying.


I'm sure Chaucer and Shakespeare would shudder at our use of the english language.
English as all languages evolves, true maybe not at such a great rate as at this moment and we definately are losing some of the richness of the language. But how many times a day do you hear or read thee, thou, byre lakin, or for more modern times verbose for example ?
edit on 2-1-2013 by cody599 because: crap at typing
edit on 2-1-2013 by cody599 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 

Exactly. Don't know if you read my post earlier in the thread, but this is what I was talking about, and suggest this has been the endeavor for quite some time now.
As to what you said about Google, and memory, I have an interesting experience about that--actually many such experiences, this being the most recent.

There was a thread earlier today about facial reading as a "science." It reminded me of something I read about a few years ago called Senpaku eyes. Don't get me wrong here--I am not endorsing any of this as accurate. My point is that years ago when I ran across the three white sided eye thing, the info I read was that it was indicative of one who may become dangerous. Today when I googled Senpaku eyes, the info had changed to indicate that the person who had these eyes was in danger. Subtle change, but nevertheless significant in what we are discussing.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 


This is something I have thought about, the problem is not the format but the quality of content.In general all quality (in every aspect is on the decline).

I read a lot and I find myself reading lots of crap in the mix, and the pattern of decreasing quality of content is obvious (I'm not talking of content I disagree or disapprove off).

I haven't "read a book" for a while, that is a fact but I have "listened" to them. My reading today is resumed mostly to the WEB and some e books that I browse (not really reading them cover to cover, especially the technical ones that I use for references). I still read some magazines and we have in my family the habit of trading news slips (of discardable media magazines, paper etc) of what we thing are relevant news, that would be of the interest of the others. In that I find that in static media the relevance is gone because it soon becomes outdated in comparison to what transpires in the more active media, the only saving points are good writers or personalities (especially in columns) and those are diminishing.





top topics
 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join