A quick note: when I write “text” in this post, imagine simultaneously a book, a painting, or a sculpture.

With today’s technology, we can easily admire a beautiful painting through a computer screen, and even analyze it to a great degree; however, it still does not compare to looking at it in person. There is, first, a sense of distance from the subject. When looking online we know of course what we are looking at is no where near us; it could be anywhere in the world. Though this physical distance may afford the critical distance so important in textual analysis, it nonetheless provokes an emotional sense of detachment. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, when one views a text through the internet or computer, the text itself is not there. What we see is an image of the text; a visual copy. Rationally, how can you say you’ve seen something if the actual thing, the original, is not in front of you? Think of a Polaroid.  No one goes around saying “Yes, I’ve seen the Eiffel Tower” after looking at a photograph of it in their hand. However, this causes more serious consequences: without the whole text in front of you, it is impossible to truly analyze it. Though you can see it, and use all the historic and theoretical  context you can, you cannot engage the text with all senses. This information is relegated to a caption: The book is printed on animal skin, it feels like soft paper, it smells rotten. These senses, when actually experienced, enhance learning.