Anatomy books and Interactivity

Somehow I was lucky enough to come across a terrific blog that has a post on anatomical flap books, something I didn't know existed. After I do some research on these flap books, I plan on incorporating them into a couple of paragraphs in my dissertation. Like Ms. Trettien, the author of the diapsalmata blog, I'm intrigued by the relationship between old and "new" media, particularly the idea that new media is not, in fact, so new.

The image above is from the Hardin Library at the U of Iowa. The creators of the site say the following about trying to capture the experience of interactivity: "The detailed views of the various flaps were taken at a very slight angle to better simulate the perspective of one using the book. Including the fingers and hands of the user in the images also helps to lend a sense of proportion and depth to the images. Each of the plates measure 48 X 36 cm."

Part of my dissertation focuses on what facsimile means--how we interact with a facsimile, what we expect, what we perceive. The OED has the following on etymology of the word:

[Orig. two words, and before this cent. usually written as such, L. fac, imper. of facre to make + simile, neut. of simil-is like. The form factum simile, occurring in quot. 1782, is often stated to be the original; but of this we find no evidence.]

I think this look at the etymology proves fruitful--basically, it expresses the facsimile is an imitation, but often we regard facsimiles as exact copies. We treat them that way. Facsimiles are copies, but they are not exact. A scanned image is not exactly what it appears to be--that is, a scanned image actually is binary code--ones and zeros in a data file. I have much more to say about this...later...

Facsimiles are copies, but they are not exact. A scanned image is not exactly what it appears to be—that is, a scanned image actually is binary code—ones and zeros in a data file. I have much more to say on this, but later...