[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bridges to the past; links to the future SELF DISCLOSURE
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Bridges to the past; links to the future SELF DISCLOSURE
- From: R Starr <rstarr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 11:00:12 -0500
- In-reply-to: <01IIR9NZMT1U00BYG8@UMBC2.UMBC.EDU>
- Message-id: <199705121502.IAA19117@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Has anyone tried to figure out the curve along which new information
technologies is progressing? Is it exponential, will there be an
asymptote, etc? My question comes from having had an Apple 2 for many
years, then a succession of IBM clones ending with my current one which
is 9 years old. In a mailing that I just received from Gateway 2000 they
note that a new computer will not be obsolete in 2.5 years. Even
considering that this is a merchandisers sales attempt, let's say 5 years
for a technology; thus we will all spend out time preserving and will
have no time for creating.
This thread reminds me of a book by Sherwin Newsom (sp?), a professor of
the history of medicine (Yale?): How We Die. In it he talks about death
as the outcome of life in an incredibly humanistic way. If we all lived
forever, there would be no room/resources for new people. Should we not
view created materials in the same light? It would allow more time for
creating and would eliminate debate about what materials are great enough
to be worth saving in the format currently in vogue. Just take a look at
what items are currently the "hot" collectables and you'll see how
transient everything is.
In the spirit of the list, a brief, hopefully non-narcisstic description
of me, my interests, and why I'm a subscriber:
1) I am not Ringo Starr (in spite of the opinion of a local record
store). Technically, I am Raymond H. Starr, Jr but I have been known to
go by the name, Pete, in order to make everyone else as confused about my
identity as I am. For those who are curious, I am Matthew's father (he's
the famous one in the family - NY Times front page, 1/2/90).
2) I have a sick sense of humor and love bad puns.
3) I have gradually been changing from being a photographer (large, color
panorama prints and wierd black and white images) into a book artist,
print maker and paper maker. I've been working on combining these
techniques. Hopefully I will get a web site soon and get some images on it.
4) I am a professor of psychology at the University of Maryland Baltimore
County (UMBC, the only university in the country named after a county.
Note: It is not the University of Maryland Bible College as some have
thought.) Don't worry, I'm not a shrink type. I have been doing
research on child abuse and neglect for more than 25 years and my
training is in human experimental psychology and infant development. I
am also an inveterate workshop junkie -- I like the group process and its
the only way I gat away from 60+ hours a week of work with research,
grants, committee work and 9 doctoral students to feed and care for.
5) Incidentally, as you can probably quess if you've read this far, I
reside in the Baltimore area.