I was thinking about change today. No, not nickels and dimes, but organizational, social and personal change. The way we make things different and the reasons some of those changes work and some do not. The key to me was the fact that any change has to have a reason, a purpose; otherwise it is just seen as a bothersome shuffling with no point.
Take William S. Burroughs for example. He pioneered something called the “cut-up” technique. (I know, some of you will argue against the word “pioneered”, but I think we can all agree that he made it popular) The cut-up technique can be explained as this: take a writing, cut it into pieces, (words, paragraphs or pages) rearrange the pieces and what you are left with is a new piece of writing. Some say this is not writing at all anymore, and some say this is a person’s thoughts at their purest, but the point is…it is change. It is taking the act of writing and changing it. Read about it from the man himself: http://www.manovich.net/vis242_winter_2006/New%20Media%20Reader%20all/07-burroughs-03.pdf
Now, without explanation, this change just seems crazy and purposeless and a quick way to make something confusing, but when you add reasoning, a little disclaimer that tells people WHY you did it, that change becomes something more. SO my point is, any change, whether it be organizational, social or personal, is ok, so long as it has a purpose and a meaning (even if only for you). Without reason, change can be chaos.
So, weigh in dear readers! Was Burroughs an agent of change in writing…or just a crazy writer looking to make a mess of things?
Dear A. Writer,
ReplyDeleteYou make some excellent points in your blog post. There should be reasoning and purpose behind change in order for it to take on meaning to an individual. Change for the sake of change leaves people annoyed and less likely to participate in future activities that require real change.
KC