Literacy (1-34)

Sorry for doing the wrong assignment previously!

I thought Kress had some very interesting things to say. Much of what he touched on was incredibly philosophical in reference to language, speech, meaning, and an assortment of other things. There is one thing that I particularly want some clarification on. The passage on the bottom of 24 to the top of 25 says "The danger of... for it to exist." This passage is utterly confusing. He explains to the reader the myriad of applications that the term literacy can mean, but says that literacy should not go into these domains. Why not? If literacy is an all-encompassing term especially socially, economically, and politically, then why ask for its exclusion from certain social aspects of life?

Another interesting question that came up while I was reading this was if the author is claiming that image and text are the best form of mediation, then why is the author strictly adherring to the book form? He goes on and on about the decline of the book as the main form of receiving information, yet procedes to use the form anyways.

Another interesting aspect of Kress's chapter was his passage about returning to visuals. On page 7, he writes "It is possible to see writing once again moving back in the direction of visuality." This reminded me of cave paintings, or pictures that people used to use centuries ago because a majority could not read. I found it very thought provoking that it seems like we are moving BACK in history in regards to mediation.