Last writes

Handwriting is disappearing - we are far more likely to use our hands to type or swipe than pick up a pen. But in the process are we in danger of losing cognitive skills, sensory experience and a connection to history?

- Christine Rosen

Humming away in offices on Capitol Hill, in the Pentagon and in the White House is a technology that represents the pragmatism, efficiency and unsentimental nature of American bureaucracy: the autopen. The device stores a person's signature, replicating it as needed using a mechanical arm that holds a real pen.

Like many technologies, this rudimentary robotic signature-maker has always provoked ambivalence. We invest signatures with meaning, particularly when the signer is well known.

During the George W Bush administration, the secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, generated a small wave of outrage when reporters revealed that he had been using an autopen for his signature on the condolence letters that he sent to the families of fallen soldiers.

Fans of singer Bob Dylan expressed ire when they discovered that the limited edition of his book The Philosophy of Modern Song, which cost nearly $600 and came with an official certificate "attesting to its having been individually signed by Dylan", in fact had made unlimited use of an autopen. Dylan took the unusual step of issuing a statement on his Facebook page: "With contractual deadlines looming," Dylan wrote, "the idea of using an autopen was suggested to me, along with the assurance that this kind of thing is done 'all the time' in the art and literary worlds." He also acknowledged that: "Using a machine was an error in judgment and I want to rectify it immediately." Our mixed feelings about machine-made signatures make plain our broader relationship to handwriting: it offers a glimpse of individuality. Any time spent doing archival research is a humbling lesson in the challenges and rewards of deciphering the handwritten word.