I hope everybody has read this article about David Byrne's forays with PowerPoint. It's completely genius.
"PowerPoint is evil" was actually my own mantra for years. I totally refused to work with it throughout my first year of library school, choosing instead to work from notes when presenting papers or projects. Eyes focused on me rather than on dumbed-down points and concepts. It seemed more casual and engaging.
Eventually, however, I had to give in to PowerPoint's omnipotence. Whether I was forced into it by mandate of a professor or through the dynamics of group project, I can't remember. But it happened. And suddenly I had my hands on a tool that allowed me to create a presentation from thin air. Magic! With all the busy work and deadlines of an MLIS degree, I became a willing love-slave to my new master.
Although I love this article, I don't necessarily agree with the basic premise of PowerPoint's critics. The idea that PowerPoint is a dumbing-down tool is well taken, but I think it could be argued that the modality of dumbing-down concepts can potentially be a superior method to communicating in academic techno-babble. What I mean is: dumbing-down isn't necessarily always a bad thing -- it just depends on the needs or limitations of one's audience. One would never expect a PowerPoint presentation from a notable author summarizing metaphors in a work of fiction. However, for a group of sleep-deprived, incurious students, dumbing-down might have a catalytic effect in terms of igniting initial interest or comprehension of a given subject.
I see PowerPoint as having social benefits that may in turn promote the cause of understanding or comprehension. For example, the ability to draw eyes off a nervous speaker might in turn allow the presenter to expand upon an idea more casually, putting the audience more at ease and more willing to ask for clarifications or subject expatiation.
PowerPoint is an empty template. It can be as boring and limiting or as exciting and non-static as the speaker wills it. It is limited only by the mind of the utilizer. David Byrne demonstrates this clearly. I interpret his project only as a warning about taking the easy way out -- that is, being satisfied with a set of parameters and the limiting social norms of the world around us. Dumbing-down is a choice that occurs at the subjective level; PowerPoint is only an amplification device.
Byrne's PowerPoint arrows that lead nowhere are likewise a reiteration of his famous war-cry to Stop Making Sense. Only through abstraction, absurdity, and the refusal to abide by the limiting rules of PowerPoint (and the social order around us) can real meaning or comprehension be realized.
"PowerPoint is evil" was actually my own mantra for years. I totally refused to work with it throughout my first year of library school, choosing instead to work from notes when presenting papers or projects. Eyes focused on me rather than on dumbed-down points and concepts. It seemed more casual and engaging.
Eventually, however, I had to give in to PowerPoint's omnipotence. Whether I was forced into it by mandate of a professor or through the dynamics of group project, I can't remember. But it happened. And suddenly I had my hands on a tool that allowed me to create a presentation from thin air. Magic! With all the busy work and deadlines of an MLIS degree, I became a willing love-slave to my new master.
Although I love this article, I don't necessarily agree with the basic premise of PowerPoint's critics. The idea that PowerPoint is a dumbing-down tool is well taken, but I think it could be argued that the modality of dumbing-down concepts can potentially be a superior method to communicating in academic techno-babble. What I mean is: dumbing-down isn't necessarily always a bad thing -- it just depends on the needs or limitations of one's audience. One would never expect a PowerPoint presentation from a notable author summarizing metaphors in a work of fiction. However, for a group of sleep-deprived, incurious students, dumbing-down might have a catalytic effect in terms of igniting initial interest or comprehension of a given subject.
I see PowerPoint as having social benefits that may in turn promote the cause of understanding or comprehension. For example, the ability to draw eyes off a nervous speaker might in turn allow the presenter to expand upon an idea more casually, putting the audience more at ease and more willing to ask for clarifications or subject expatiation.
PowerPoint is an empty template. It can be as boring and limiting or as exciting and non-static as the speaker wills it. It is limited only by the mind of the utilizer. David Byrne demonstrates this clearly. I interpret his project only as a warning about taking the easy way out -- that is, being satisfied with a set of parameters and the limiting social norms of the world around us. Dumbing-down is a choice that occurs at the subjective level; PowerPoint is only an amplification device.
Byrne's PowerPoint arrows that lead nowhere are likewise a reiteration of his famous war-cry to Stop Making Sense. Only through abstraction, absurdity, and the refusal to abide by the limiting rules of PowerPoint (and the social order around us) can real meaning or comprehension be realized.
Comments
Post a Comment