[-empyre-] An "other" view of writing

Yvonne Martinsson yvonne at freewheelin.nu
Wed Oct 7 19:06:13 EST 2009


Hi,

I'm excited about this discussion but I find the precepts for  
choosing a wiki or a blog, to be blunt, false.

The wiki format answered to the need to edit on the frontend. At the  
time, most web pages were static and we couldn't edit in real time on  
the frontend. Today we can. There is nothing inherent in the blog  
format that wouldn't allow for editing on the frontend and to save  
revisions, just as in a wiki. Both formats rely on the same technology.

Unless there is a Wordpress plug-in for editing on the frontend that  
I don't know of, not being able to edit on the frontend is simply a  
limitation of Wordpress, not of the blog format. The blog and wiki  
genres are social constructs, nothing else. Whereas the wiki format  
has a given rather rigid form that has gained acceptance, the blog  
can be flexible, depending on how you set it up, even though consenus  
seems to be that a blog is a fixed format, very much so as most  
blogging software decide what a blog should look like. But, as I  
said, there is nothing inherent in the blog format. It's an industry.


Yvonne Martinsson

====================================================

http://freewheelin.nu

====================================================



7 okt 2009 kl. 03.00 skrev empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au:

> Send empyre mailing list submissions to
> 	empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	empyre-owner at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: An "other" view of writing, performance (Green Jo-Anne)
>    2. Re: An "other" view of writing, performance (Anna Munster)
>    3. An "other" view of writing, performance (Lichty, Patrick)
>    4. WIKI Historigraphy (Lichty, Patrick)
>    5. Re: WIKI Historigraphy (G.H. Hovagimyan)
>    6. Re: An "other" view of writing, performance (Green Jo-Anne)
>    7. Re: WIKI Historigraphy (Marco Deseriis)
>    8. Re: An "other" view of writing, performance (Anna Munster)
>
> Från: Green Jo-Anne <jo at turbulence.org>
> Datum: tisdag 6 okt 2009 01.28.57 GMT+02:00
> Till: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Ämne: Re: [-empyre-] An "other" view of writing, performance
> Svara till: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> The other voices are not those of the authors; they're (hopefully)  
> those of the "readers."
>
> The open history is meant to allow both unknown artists/authors to  
> add their voices, and for the original authors to revise their  
> texts over time.
>
> The present book is not the future book ... unless no one  
> participates in updating and revising it. One of the most striking  
> features of Wikipedia is how quickly history is revised as real- 
> time events impact various texts -- a Tsunami wipes out three  
> villages in Indonesia; the Indonesia page on Wikipedia is  
> immediately and forever changed. Ted Kennedy dies; within moments,  
> his Wikipedia page reflects his passing; tenses are changed; date  
> of death is filled in.
>
> Networked can be this kind of book.
>
> Some parts of your essay will not change, because they are fixed in  
> time. Sections that refer to a more recent past may change to  
> reflect insights you've gained from critical distance.
>
> The print version is a big maybe. I don't see any reason to print  
> the texts as they are. On the other hand, if people take the time  
> to argue with and add to the original texts, the possibility of  
> printing a version 2.0 and, later, a version 3.0 would be worthwhile.
>
> One last point. Some of these texts are inaccessible to many in our  
> own community. It's not that they're illiterate, it's that the  
> language is rather dense. One can admonish readers for not being  
> intellectually sophisticated, or one can learn to communicate with  
> a wider demographic. My personal preference is for the latter.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Jo
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Lichty, Patrick wrote:
>
>> I have been quiet in the conversation (and on many of the lists in  
>> the last year or two) in order to listen more and talk less.
>>
>> It's very strange; some of the points that have been offered in  
>> the last week seem to be larger and smaller ones.
>>
>> In regards to the idea of "other" histories, I am a classical  
>> Libra personality on this.  The Networked book does create a  
>> salient metaphor by framing discourse within a medium and setting  
>> its processes upon it.  In so doing, the project acts as a multi- 
>> tiered probe into technoculture, and sets up an alternate  
>> methodoilogy that suits the authors quite well.  In regards to  
>> other voices; I might say that most of us are "regulars" to the  
>> New Media scene, and therein lies the conundrum, but unless  
>> someone wants to run with that, I will probably say that the  
>> 'otherness' of our discourse in the book is with approach and  
>> methodology.
>>
>> I also agree with Johannes that there are differing expectations  
>> amongst the creators of the project.  Johannes rightly states that  
>> in the age where information is rising at an exponential rate, how  
>> does one validate the necessity for reflection on any text or  
>> another, or to digest the Networked Book and reply to it in the  
>> space of a month?  This is parallel to what I am getting at in my  
>> essay, that in an age of information overload, artists and writers  
>> are forced to read index tags and use trending algorithms or that  
>> texts must be legible at the seventh-grade level, given the  
>> average literacy in the US (but I am being polemic).
>>
>> What I am also interested in regarding some of the ideas regarding  
>> performance and media.  We can go back to the death of the author  
>> (barthes) and the text as performance, and the performance of  
>> completion in reading (Foucault), but I might be more interested  
>> in a performance of situation of discourse or habitus.  The  
>> Networked Book responds to a culture, and tries to reflect upon it  
>> in a McLuhanesque marriage of medium and message.  Perhaps the  
>> performative elements are the call to response, as well as the  
>> presentation of the propositional form of the book.
>>
>> Lastly, regarding history, I had a great talk witht he people at  
>> the Long Now Foundation regarding the Rosetta project, which is an  
>> archive of 15,000 texts of different languages etched into a metal  
>> disc.  We live in a time where languages are being lost by the  
>> month, and as more media is being archived digitally (an  
>> inherently media ecologically unsustainable practice), I agree  
>> with the Long Now that we will enter a "Digital Dark Age", in  
>> which digital archives will either degrade, crash, or simply not  
>> migrate over decades. Therefore, i am very grateful, and  
>> appreciative that the book will be published after a year, as  
>> atoms trump bits every time.
>>
>> In regards to this, another family member (a tenured historian)  
>> was talking to me this weekend about her difficulty in writing a  
>> history of artists that were not dead yet, and that their context  
>> keeps changing over time.  The traditional baseline for historians  
>> versus theorists is that one writes about those who are dead/long  
>> inactive, and the other not. While I replied that one merely has  
>> to localize their discourse (set a very tight context), her  
>> problem compared to the discussion here seems as if we are trying  
>> to write histories concurrent with the events, which is  
>> problematic to say the least.  It is the greates exercise in  
>> control - desiring to control one's own historical context before  
>> the other historians get to you. But them one can look to  
>> computational culture and Engelbart's idea of the "bootstrap", or  
>> pulling together a project from the grass roots... I see what we  
>> are doing here as an important experiment to which any  
>> proclamations, or declamations about its rel
>>  ative worth will only be borne out in time.
>>
>> To refer to Johannes, who has time?  Well, while I think there  
>> were expectations for the book to be a viral sensation, I am much  
>> more concerned with it being an importane experiment and good  
>> solid book on the subject, a tome that will sit on the shelf with  
>> proper gravitas, in a period early enough in the history of new  
>> media that it will demand attention.
>>
>> In my opinion, all one can do is to present a proposition that  
>> others will see, and hopefully that will resonate with others.   
>> Throw a log on the fire, and hope it burns.
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> Jo-Anne Green
> Co-Director
> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>
>
>
>
>
> I can't see this kind of feature on Networked up front. That means  
> the proc=
> ess of changing its text is not a publicly archived one and hence  
> the chang=
> es and differences are not available as part of its history to the  
> public a=
> ccessing it. The changes, then, are for the authors more than  
> anything....
> Just something I thought I'd raise in terms of what/why one chooses  
> to desi=
> gn with when writing in a networked context
> cheers
> Anna
>
> A/Prof. Anna Munster
> Director of Postgraduate Research (Acting)
> Deputy Director Centre for Contemporary Art and Politics
> School of Art History and Art Education
> College of Fine Arts
> UNSW
> P.O. Box 259
> Paddington
> NSW 2021
> 612 9385 0741 (tel)
> 612 9385 0615(fax)
> a.munster at unsw.edu.au
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre- 
> bounces at lists.cofa.unsw=
> .edu.au] On Behalf Of Green Jo-Anne [jo at turbulence.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2009 10:28 AM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] An "other" view of writing, performance
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> The other voices are not those of the authors; they're (hopefully)  
> those of=
>  the "readers."
>
> The open history is meant to allow both unknown artists/authors to  
> add thei=
> r voices, and for the original authors to revise their texts over  
> time.
>
> The present book is not the future book ... unless no one  
> participates in u=
> pdating and revising it. One of the most striking features of  
> Wikipedia is =
> how quickly history is revised as real-time events impact various  
> texts -- =
> a Tsunami wipes out three villages in Indonesia; the Indonesia page  
> on Wiki=
> pedia is immediately and forever changed. Ted Kennedy dies; within  
> moments,=
>  his Wikipedia page reflects his passing; tenses are changed; date  
> of death=
>  is filled in.
>
> Networked can be this kind of book.
>
> Some parts of your essay will not change, because they are fixed in  
> time. S=
> ections that refer to a more recent past may change to reflect  
> insights you=
> 've gained from critical distance.
>
> The print version is a big maybe. I don't see any reason to print  
> the texts=
>  as they are. On the other hand, if people take the time to argue  
> with and =
> add to the original texts, the possibility of printing a version  
> 2.0 and, l=
> ater, a version 3.0 would be worthwhile.
>
> One last point. Some of these texts are inaccessible to many in our  
> own com=
> munity. It's not that they're illiterate, it's that the language is  
> rather =
> dense. One can admonish readers for not being intellectually  
> sophisticated,=
>  or one can learn to communicate with a wider demographic. My  
> personal pref=
> erence is for the latter.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Jo
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Lichty, Patrick wrote:
>
> I have been quiet in the conversation (and on many of the lists in  
> the last=
>  year or two) in order to listen more and talk less.
>
> It's very strange; some of the points that have been offered in the  
> last we=
> ek seem to be larger and smaller ones.
>
> In regards to the idea of "other" histories, I am a classical Libra  
> persona=
> lity on this.  The Networked book does create a salient metaphor by  
> framing=
>  discourse within a medium and setting its processes upon it.  In  
> so doing,=
>  the project acts as a multi-tiered probe into technoculture, and  
> sets up a=
> n alternate methodoilogy that suits the authors quite well.  In  
> regards to =
> other voices; I might say that most of us are "regulars" to the New  
> Media s=
> cene, and therein lies the conundrum, but unless someone wants to  
> run with =
> that, I will probably say that the 'otherness' of our discourse in  
> the book=
>  is with approach and methodology.
>
> I also agree with Johannes that there are differing expectations  
> amongst th=
> e creators of the project.  Johannes rightly states that in the age  
> where i=
> nformation is rising at an exponential rate, how does one validate  
> the nece=
> ssity for reflection on any text or another, or to digest the  
> Networked Boo=
> k and reply to it in the space of a month?  This is parallel to  
> what I am g=
> etting at in my essay, that in an age of information overload,  
> artists and =
> writers are forced to read index tags and use trending algorithms  
> or that t=
> exts must be legible at the seventh-grade level, given the average  
> literacy=
>  in the US (but I am being polemic).
>
> What I am also interested in regarding some of the ideas regarding  
> performa=
> nce and media.  We can go back to the death of the author (barthes)  
> and the=
>  text as performance, and the performance of completion in reading  
> (Foucaul=
> t), but I might be more interested in a performance of situation of  
> discour=
> se or habitus.  The Networked Book responds to a culture, and tries  
> to refl=
> ect upon it in a McLuhanesque marriage of medium and message.   
> Perhaps the =
> performative elements are the call to response, as well as the  
> presentation=
>  of the propositional form of the book.
>
> Lastly, regarding history, I had a great talk witht he people at  
> the Long N=
> ow Foundation regarding the Rosetta project, which is an archive of  
> 15,000 =
> texts of different languages etched into a metal disc.  We live in  
> a time w=
> here languages are being lost by the month, and as more media is  
> being arch=
> ived digitally (an inherently media ecologically unsustainable  
> practice), I=
>  agree with the Long Now that we will enter a "Digital Dark Age",  
> in which =
> digital archives will either degrade, crash, or simply not migrate  
> over dec=
> ades. Therefore, i am very grateful, and appreciative that the book  
> will be=
>  published after a year, as atoms trump bits every time.
>
> In regards to this, another family member (a tenured historian) was  
> talking=
>  to me this weekend about her difficulty in writing a history of  
> artists th=
> at were not dead yet, and that their context keeps changing over  
> time.  The=
>  traditional baseline for historians versus theorists is that one  
> writes ab=
> out those who are dead/long inactive, and the other not. While I  
> replied th=
> at one merely has to localize their discourse (set a very tight  
> context), h=
> er problem compared to the discussion here seems as if we are  
> trying to wri=
> te histories concurrent with the events, which is problematic to  
> say the le=
> ast.  It is the greates exercise in control - desiring to control  
> one's own=
>  historical context before the other historians get to you. But  
> them one ca=
> n look to computational culture and Engelbart's idea of the  
> "bootstrap", or=
>  pulling together a project from the grass roots... I see what we  
> are doing=
>  here as an important experiment to which any proclamations, or  
> declamation=
> s about its rel
>  ative worth will only be borne out in time.
>
> To refer to Johannes, who has time?  Well, while I think there were  
> expecta=
> tions for the book to be a viral sensation, I am much more  
> concerned with i=
> t being an importane experiment and good solid book on the subject,  
> a tome =
> that will sit on the shelf with proper gravitas, in a period early  
> enough i=
> n the history of new media that it will demand attention.
>
> In my opinion, all one can do is to present a proposition that  
> others will =
> see, and hopefully that will resonate with others.  Throw a log on  
> the fire=
> , and hope it burns.
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> Jo-Anne Green
> Co-Director
> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, this is true, and a good point.  One of the great strengths of  
> the Net=
> , as I have seen through exploring the communities of Second Life,  
> is how s=
> urprising open networks are in creating substantive, and emergent  
> forms of =
> creativity.  One thing I love about the Foucault/Barthes dialectic  
> is the s=
> lipperiness of the reader/author continuum.
>
>
> The open history is meant to allow both unknown artists/authors to  
> add thei=
> r voices, and for the original authors to revise their texts over  
> time.
> ************************************
> Certainly (see above), and I think it is interesting to consider  
> the config=
> uration of history; 1: in terms of the relation to the subjects  
> that New Me=
> dia theorists engage in context with to traditional historical  
> writing, 2: =
> in terms that the authors here do, 3: the notion of historiography  
> given th=
> e time compression that technology, especially  the Net imposes  
> (Virilio), =
> and 4: how histories have become such that scholarship has allowed  
> them to =
> become closer to the moment (examples being the books written on  
> numerous a=
> rtists, like Abramovic, Anderson, Indiana), and the difference  
> between the =
> history and the retrospective view.
>
>
> The present book is not the future book ... unless no one  
> participates in u=
> pdating and revising it. One of the most striking features of  
> Wikipedia is =
> how quickly history is revised as real-time events impact various  
> texts -- =
> a Tsunami wipes out three villages in Indonesia; the Indonesia page  
> on Wiki=
> pedia is immediately and forever changed. Ted Kennedy dies; within  
> moments,=
>  his Wikipedia page reflects his passing; tenses are changed; date  
> of death=
>  is filled in.
> ************************************
> I agree completely.  Since there are two new chapters, things seem  
> to be he=
> aded well into this direction and it is an exciting one.  There are  
> already=
>  two new examples I have found in terms of hypernarrative - TOC, a  
> DVD nove=
> l, and a nonlinear novel reconstructed in space in Second Life.
>
>
>
>
> The print version is a big maybe. I don't see any reason to print  
> the texts=
>  as they are. On the other hand, if people take the time to argue  
> with and =
> add to the original texts, the possibility of printing a version  
> 2.0 and, l=
> ater, a version 3.0 would be worthwhile.
> *************************************
> There is a metaphor that was handed down to me by a mentor in the  
> 1990's - =
> that while history/discourse is in motion, it is like throwing half- 
> congeal=
> ed gelatine on the wall.  One may drive nails in the wall to try to  
> secure =
> the gelatine, but to no avail.  What you have, however, is an  
> epistemic arc=
>  (the trail), and the nails (the records/events), all of which give  
> shape t=
> o a historiographic discourse.   I look forward to where it all  
> goes, and h=
> eartily invite that interaction.  However, I'll go on record with a  
> desire =
> to go to print someday, if only that ink, cellulose and Carbon-14  
> are prett=
> y safe bets.
>
>
> One last point. Some of these texts are inaccessible to many in our  
> own com=
> munity. It's not that they're illiterate, it's that the language is  
> rather =
> dense. One can admonish readers for not being intellectually  
> sophisticated,=
>  or one can learn to communicate with a wider demographic. My  
> personal pref=
> erence is for the latter.
> **************************************
> I'd be the last to admonish our own community, as lists like this  
> one are s=
> elf-evident in terms of the level of sophistication.  Secondly, in  
> my own t=
> eaching philosophy that one of the essential cornerstones of a  
> pedagogy is =
> that of translation.  Trying to teach Foucault to freshmen is a  
> daunting ta=
> sk, but as Richard Feynman has stated, just about anything can be  
> translate=
> d so that a freshman can get the gist.  It isn't that there isn't  
> any lack =
> of sophistication at all, it's the matter of culturally specific  
> languages =
> amongst certain communities, which opens up a Pandpra's Box of  
> issues - int=
> entionality, audience, modes of articulation - and that our  
> interests are s=
> hared with a larger community, which I hope.
>
> This is not to say that we do not live in challenging times in  
> regards to i=
> ntellectual discourse.  I have certain biases derived from deeper  
> insights =
> to collaborations that color my opinions towards the Wikipedia  
> culture, so =
> I have to recuse myself.  Conversely, we stand between the the  
> cornucopia o=
> f excess digital production, such as the Long Tail/"free"conomics  
> (Anderson=
> ), versus "The Cult of the Amateur" that Keen would argue conflates  
> the exp=
> ert with expertise. The nature of the regard for intellectual  
> discourse is =
> very much in debate at the moment.  Neil Postman believed in  
> "public schola=
> rship", in his use of language in great books like Technopoly and  
> How to Wa=
> tch the TV News (although he was a collaborator on that book),  
> versus the c=
> urrent indictments of Western anti-intellectualism put forth by  
> Susan Jacob=
> y in The Age of American Unreason and Chris Hedges' The Empire of  
> Illusion.
>
> I am actually quite a fan of Andrew Keen, and I'll let it stand at  
> that.
>
> My statement of citing US literacy studies is in no means an  
> admonition of =
> the readership of Networked whatsoever; it is a statement that  
> statesmen, s=
> cholars, and professionals navigate difficult waters in regards to  
> intent, =
> language, and audience because of the general population and the  
> "flattenin=
> g" of power and intellectual communites in light of networked  
> societies and=
>  the democratizing functions that they serve.  I know that I am  
> often still=
>  hobbled by having been "raised" under the general rhetorical  
> banner of pos=
> tmodernism and an academic writing tradition, even before I became  
> one.  Ag=
> ain, the tensions between "New Scholarship" and more traditional  
> forms is m=
> erely one example of a larger syndrome of articulation of thought  
> in the la=
> rger networked society.
>
> How I hope that my commentary might be seen is that of a series of  
> question=
> s regarding the way culture is produced in the culture that  
> Networked addre=
> sses. How is history constructed, and how has it changed?  What is  
> it to re=
> ad and write in open communities, and how do they change the social/ 
> power r=
> elations when compared to the traditional academic/mass publishing  
> traditio=
> ns?  How is mass culture affecting intellectual discourse, and  
> given that t=
> here is a general distrust for "academicism" in mass culture, when  
> does one=
>  negotiate between a mass cultural market and more specific  
> traditions that=
>  may be unpopular, or even currently outmoded...
>
> These are very tough questions, and ones that I hope are salient to  
> the dis=
> cussion of Networked in a broader context, and they are submitted  
> with the =
> highest respect for the readers, the organizers, and our fellow  
> writers, ma=
> y they blossom in numbers.
>
> As it was said in The Second Renaissance (The Animatrix), "Bless  
> all forms =
> of intelligence."
> May they pave the way.
>
> Best,
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *****************************
> Now, THIS is something really interesting (and new) when  
> considering the hi=
> storiography of electronic media.  Imagine actually being able to  
> map the r=
> evision change of one's historical records!  This could be a thesis  
> paper i=
> n itself - the historiography of the revision chain.
>
> So then, what does it mean in terms of a WIKI to be able to see the  
> arc of =
> one's revision over time spread out before them.
>
> Excellent question!
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:22 AM, Lichty, Patrick wrote:
>
>> Imagine actually being able to map the revision change of one's
>> historical records!
>
> G.H. Hovagimyan
> http://nujus.net/~gh/
> http://artistsmeeting.org
> http://turbulence.org/Works/plazaville
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Från: Green Jo-Anne <jo at turbulence.org>
> Datum: tisdag 6 okt 2009 15.56.24 GMT+02:00
> Till: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Ämne: Re: [-empyre-] An "other" view of writing, performance
> Svara till: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>
>
> Hi Anna,
>
> Actually, this feature is part of Networked. If you get a whole lot  
> of comments and want to make substantial changes to your chapter,  
> you would put up a new post. Once the new version is up, readers  
> will be able to compare it to the older version.
>
> Patrick's chapter is set up as a wiki, not a blog. So one can  
> revise the text oneself (as a reader), and the revised version then  
> takes the place of the first version. Again, you can compare the  
> various versions side by side, just as one can on a wiki.
>
> Jo
>
> On Oct 6, 2009, at 12:01 AM, Anna Munster wrote:
>
>> Interesting points about print. archiving and revision to text  
>> coming up here from Patrick and Jo. One point I'd like to raise on  
>> this is that the wikipedia comparison may not be the best one to  
>> Networked and that has to do with the technical architecture being  
>> deployed. Wikipedia has the advantage of being a wiki which means  
>> that it also allows for an archiving of its own textual history.  
>> While its true that events change its most recent text, it's also  
>> the case that one can return to older histories/archives of the  
>> entry at hand. In fact this is something I spend a lot of time  
>> pointing out to my students as one of its most salient features  
>> and I get them to spend time with which and what version of  
>> information they are using.
>>
>> I can't see this kind of feature on Networked up front. That means  
>> the process of changing its text is not a publicly archived one  
>> and hence the changes and differences are not available as part of  
>> its history to the public accessing it. The changes, then, are for  
>> the authors more than anything....
>> Just something I thought I'd raise in terms of what/why one  
>> chooses to design with when writing in a networked context
>> cheers
>> Anna
>>
>> A/Prof. Anna Munster
>> Director of Postgraduate Research (Acting)
>> Deputy Director Centre for Contemporary Art and Politics
>> School of Art History and Art Education
>> College of Fine Arts
>> UNSW
>> P.O. Box 259
>> Paddington
>> NSW 2021
>> 612 9385 0741 (tel)
>> 612 9385 0615(fax)
>> a.munster at unsw.edu.au
>> ________________________________________
>> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre- 
>> bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Green Jo-Anne  
>> [jo at turbulence.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2009 10:28 AM
>> To: soft_skinned_space
>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] An "other" view of writing, performance
>>
>> Hi Patrick,
>>
>> The other voices are not those of the authors; they're (hopefully)  
>> those of the "readers."
>>
>> The open history is meant to allow both unknown artists/authors to  
>> add their voices, and for the original authors to revise their  
>> texts over time.
>>
>> The present book is not the future book ... unless no one  
>> participates in updating and revising it. One of the most striking  
>> features of Wikipedia is how quickly history is revised as real- 
>> time events impact various texts -- a Tsunami wipes out three  
>> villages in Indonesia; the Indonesia page on Wikipedia is  
>> immediately and forever changed. Ted Kennedy dies; within moments,  
>> his Wikipedia page reflects his passing; tenses are changed; date  
>> of death is filled in.
>>
>> Networked can be this kind of book.
>>
>> Some parts of your essay will not change, because they are fixed  
>> in time. Sections that refer to a more recent past may change to  
>> reflect insights you've gained from critical distance.
>>
>> The print version is a big maybe. I don't see any reason to print  
>> the texts as they are. On the other hand, if people take the time  
>> to argue with and add to the original texts, the possibility of  
>> printing a version 2.0 and, later, a version 3.0 would be worthwhile.
>>
>> One last point. Some of these texts are inaccessible to many in  
>> our own community. It's not that they're illiterate, it's that the  
>> language is rather dense. One can admonish readers for not being  
>> intellectually sophisticated, or one can learn to communicate with  
>> a wider demographic. My personal preference is for the latter.
>>
>> Warm Regards,
>> Jo
>>
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Lichty, Patrick wrote:
>>
>> I have been quiet in the conversation (and on many of the lists in  
>> the last year or two) in order to listen more and talk less.
>>
>> It's very strange; some of the points that have been offered in  
>> the last week seem to be larger and smaller ones.
>>
>> In regards to the idea of "other" histories, I am a classical  
>> Libra personality on this.  The Networked book does create a  
>> salient metaphor by framing discourse within a medium and setting  
>> its processes upon it.  In so doing, the project acts as a multi- 
>> tiered probe into technoculture, and sets up an alternate  
>> methodoilogy that suits the authors quite well.  In regards to  
>> other voices; I might say that most of us are "regulars" to the  
>> New Media scene, and therein lies the conundrum, but unless  
>> someone wants to run with that, I will probably say that the  
>> 'otherness' of our discourse in the book is with approach and  
>> methodology.
>>
>> I also agree with Johannes that there are differing expectations  
>> amongst the creators of the project.  Johannes rightly states that  
>> in the age where information is rising at an exponential rate, how  
>> does one validate the necessity for reflection on any text or  
>> another, or to digest the Networked Book and reply to it in the  
>> space of a month?  This is parallel to what I am getting at in my  
>> essay, that in an age of information overload, artists and writers  
>> are forced to read index tags and use trending algorithms or that  
>> texts must be legible at the seventh-grade level, given the  
>> average literacy in the US (but I am being polemic).
>>
>> What I am also interested in regarding some of the ideas regarding  
>> performance and media.  We can go back to the death of the author  
>> (barthes) and the text as performance, and the performance of  
>> completion in reading (Foucault), but I might be more interested  
>> in a performance of situation of discourse or habitus.  The  
>> Networked Book responds to a culture, and tries to reflect upon it  
>> in a McLuhanesque marriage of medium and message.  Perhaps the  
>> performative elements are the call to response, as well as the  
>> presentation of the propositional form of the book.
>>
>> Lastly, regarding history, I had a great talk witht he people at  
>> the Long Now Foundation regarding the Rosetta project, which is an  
>> archive of 15,000 texts of different languages etched into a metal  
>> disc.  We live in a time where languages are being lost by the  
>> month, and as more media is being archived digitally (an  
>> inherently media ecologically unsustainable practice), I agree  
>> with the Long Now that we will enter a "Digital Dark Age", in  
>> which digital archives will either degrade, crash, or simply not  
>> migrate over decades. Therefore, i am very grateful, and  
>> appreciative that the book will be published after a year, as  
>> atoms trump bits every time.
>>
>> In regards to this, another family member (a tenured historian)  
>> was talking to me this weekend about her difficulty in writing a  
>> history of artists that were not dead yet, and that their context  
>> keeps changing over time.  The traditional baseline for historians  
>> versus theorists is that one writes about those who are dead/long  
>> inactive, and the other not. While I replied that one merely has  
>> to localize their discourse (set a very tight context), her  
>> problem compared to the discussion here seems as if we are trying  
>> to write histories concurrent with the events, which is  
>> problematic to say the least.  It is the greates exercise in  
>> control - desiring to control one's own historical context before  
>> the other historians get to you. But them one can look to  
>> computational culture and Engelbart's idea of the "bootstrap", or  
>> pulling together a project from the grass roots... I see what we  
>> are doing here as an important experiment to which any  
>> proclamations, or declamations about its rel
>>  ative worth will only be borne out in time.
>>
>> To refer to Johannes, who has time?  Well, while I think there  
>> were expectations for the book to be a viral sensation, I am much  
>> more concerned with it being an importane experiment and good  
>> solid book on the subject, a tome that will sit on the shelf with  
>> proper gravitas, in a period early enough in the history of new  
>> media that it will demand attention.
>>
>> In my opinion, all one can do is to present a proposition that  
>> others will see, and hopefully that will resonate with others.   
>> Throw a log on the fire, and hope it burns.
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>
>> Jo-Anne Green
>> Co-Director
>> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
>> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
>> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
>> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
>> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
>> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
>> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
>> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> Jo-Anne Green
> Co-Director
> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>
>
>
>
>
> here is Marco, one of the authors of Networked. I am supposed to  
> discuss
> my chapter later this month, but I'll take to freedom to jump ahead of
> the line to say something about wiki as used in Wikipedia vs. wiki as
> used in Networked. As we all know, wiki is an Hawaiian word that means
> "fast" and the potentiality of the software is harnessed at its best
> when there is an active community using it constantly and frequently.
>
> In his recent Here Comes Everybody, Clay Shirky points out that wiki's
> popularity (and Wikipedia's success) lies in its openness, i.e. in its
> ability "to take a staggering  amount of input with a minimum of
> overhead." (p. 120) This allows a large number of contributors to
> participate, no matter how amateurish or idiosyncratic their
> contributions may be. Everyone can start an article on Wikipedia (in
> Wikipedia's jargon "write a stub"). No matter how short and  
> rudimentary
> this article may be, argues Shirky, a stub "can be the anchor for the
> good article that will eventually appear. *It is very inadequacy
> motivates people to improve it.*" (pp. 121-122) We may say that
> ultimately the power of Wikipedia lies in a low-fi, DIY punk  
> ethics. (An
> ethics which is perhaps also an "aesthetics," depending on how you
> define the term).
>
> Networked on the other hand is making quite a different use of the  
> wiki.
> We have been invited to use a wiki when the chapters were still
> unpublished, i.e. for the editing process. After Helen, Jo, and  
> Eduardo
> finished commenting on our drafts, and we responded to their  
> comments by
> editing more or less extensively our writings, the chapters were moved
> to the current Wordpress blog, which enables readers to add comments,
> but not to change the main text. So the difference is not only, as  
> Anna
> says, that readers cannot access previous versions of the chapters,  
> but
> mostly that they cannot intervene in our chapters with the same  
> level of
> freedom a wiki user would have. In other words, Networked is based  
> on an
> entirely different model of publishing from Wikipedia, less based on
> collaborative production and more on a diffused social testing of some
> critical and theoretical positions.
>
> Obviously, one may say that a Wikipedia contributor can benefit  
> directly
> from his/her own intervention, in that he/she can see the result of it
> immediately. Networked on the other hand may not advance such a clear
> "bargain" (another keyword in Shirky's book) in that it is unclear  
> what
> kind of pleasure and reward a user may get from posting a comment  
> on the
> Wordpress blog. But here is where, I believe, the fact that the  
> chapters
> are not bound together and do not form a coherent whole (yet) becomes
> crucial. Because each chapter is, in a sense, part of many possible
> books, there is a gap there for readers to pick what interests them,
> develop a dialog with one or multiple authors, use a chapter for a  
> class
> or a performance for instance, thus slowly contributing to the  
> migration
> of the book from its current 1.0 phase to the 2.0 and 3.0 stages Jo  
> was
> mentioning in her previous post. It obviously requires time and
> dedication to do that, but empyre seems to be one likely  
> conversational
> space where people may be attracted to some of the themes developed in
> the book.
>
> Cheers,
> Marco Deseriis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lichty, Patrick wrote:
>> Wikipedia has the advantage of being a wiki which means that it  
>> also allows for an archiving of its own textual history. While its  
>> true that events change its most recent text, it's also the case  
>> that one can return to older histories/archives of the entry at  
>> hand. In fact this is something I spend a lot of time pointing out  
>> to my students as one of its most salient features and I get them  
>> to spend time with which and what version of information they are  
>> using.
>>
>> *****************************
>> Now, THIS is something really interesting (and new) when  
>> considering the historiography of electronic media.  Imagine  
>> actually being able to map the revision change of one's historical  
>> records!  This could be a thesis paper in itself - the  
>> historiography of the revision chain.
>>
>> So then, what does it mean in terms of a WIKI to be able to see  
>> the arc of one's revision over time spread out before them.
>>
>> Excellent question!
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> With respect to Networked, it's true that in addition to the  
> wordpress faci=
> lities, Patrick's chapter is also in wiki form but that's not the  
> case with=
>  the other chapters and I do think that different 'architectures of  
> partici=
> ation' make for particular writing forms and genres. Actually I am  
> not so i=
> nterested in the wiki aspect for this project/book. I have found  
> wiki's gre=
> at architectures for small group projects that take place in  
> relatively tru=
> stworthy contexts ie one knows the otehr project members in some  
> way. Altho=
> ugh wikipedia is always used as a 'model' of great collaborative  
> knowledge =
> sharing etc, one should remember that the organisation (as opposed  
> to the a=
> rchitecture) is extremely complex and not 'open'. In fact wikipedia  
> deploys=
>  a raft of 'editors' and in order to become an editor one must work  
> one's w=
> ay up and through the organisational side of its network. There are  
> wikiped=
> ia wars and various controversial issues get edited out and in.  
> Depending o=
> n what the issue is (religious/cultural for example) one could say  
> that ele=
> ments of wikipedia are in fact  closed to 'others'. Rather than an  
> 'open' n=
> etwork, I think we could look at wikipedia as an expanded  
> encyclopeadic pro=
> ject in the tradition of many other great encyclopaedic projects -  
> the oxfo=
> rd dictionary for example or the Encyclopaedie....all of which have  
> been cr=
> eated via broad participation. teh difference with wikipaedia is  
> that it ac=
> knowledges and designs for this rather than pretends to be the  
> final word o=
> f truth or knowledge on  a subject
>
> For me the appeal of the wordpress/commentpress architecture is  
> that does a=
> cknowledge the editorial/commentary function up front and it allows  
> for  a =
> slower pace of comment. reflection and incorporation. I also think  
> it's an =
> ideal tool for something like a seminar and I intend to set various  
> of its =
> chapter for a course next year.=20
>
>  Also Jo can you clarify how/where readers would have access to  
> older and n=
> ewer versions of the chapter? Do you mean that they would have read  
> an olde=
> r version and then they will read a newer version?=20
>
> A/Prof. Anna Munster
> Director of Postgraduate Research (Acting)
> Deputy Director Centre for Contemporary Art and Politics
> School of Art History and Art Education
> College of Fine Arts
> UNSW
> P.O. Box 259
> Paddington
> NSW 2021
> 612 9385 0741 (tel)
> 612 9385 0615(fax)
> a.munster at unsw.edu.au
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre- 
> bounces at lists.cofa.unsw=
> .edu.au] On Behalf Of Green Jo-Anne [jo at turbulence.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 October 2009 12:56 AM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] An "other" view of writing, performance
>
> Hi Anna,
>
> Actually, this feature is part of Networked. If you get a whole lot  
> of comm=
> ents and want to make substantial changes to your chapter, you  
> would put up=
>  a new post. Once the new version is up, readers will be able to  
> compare it=
>  to the older version.
>
> Patrick's chapter is set up as a wiki, not a blog. So one can  
> revise the te=
> xt oneself (as a reader), and the revised version then takes the  
> place of t=
> he first version. Again, you can compare the various versions side  
> by side,=
>  just as one can on a wiki.
>
> Jo
>
> On Oct 6, 2009, at 12:01 AM, Anna Munster wrote:
>
> Interesting points about print. archiving and revision to text  
> coming up he=
> re from Patrick and Jo. One point I'd like to raise on this is that  
> the wik=
> ipedia comparison may not be the best one to Networked and that has  
> to do w=
> ith the technical architecture being deployed. Wikipedia has the  
> advantage =
> of being a wiki which means that it also allows for an archiving of  
> its own=
>  textual history. While its true that events change its most recent  
> text, i=
> t's also the case that one can return to older histories/archives  
> of the en=
> try at hand. In fact this is something I spend a lot of time  
> pointing out t=
> o my students as one of its most salient features and I get them to  
> spend t=
> ime with which and what version of information they are using.
>
> I can't see this kind of feature on Networked up front. That means  
> the proc=
> ess of changing its text is not a publicly archived one and hence  
> the chang=
> es and differences are not available as part of its history to the  
> public a=
> ccessing it. The changes, then, are for the authors more than  
> anything....
> Just something I thought I'd raise in terms of what/why one chooses  
> to desi=
> gn with when writing in a networked context
> cheers
> Anna
>
> A/Prof. Anna Munster
> Director of Postgraduate Research (Acting)
> Deputy Director Centre for Contemporary Art and Politics
> School of Art History and Art Education
> College of Fine Arts
> UNSW
> P.O. Box 259
> Paddington
> NSW 2021
> 612 9385 0741 (tel)
> 612 9385 0615(fax)
> a.munster at unsw.edu.au<mailto:a.munster at unsw.edu.au>
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<mailto:empyre- 
> bounces at lists.cof=
> a.unsw.edu.au> [empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<mailto:empyre- 
> bounces=
> @lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>] On Behalf Of Green Jo-Anne  
> [jo at turbulence.org<mai=
> lto:jo at turbulence.org>]
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2009 10:28 AM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] An "other" view of writing, performance
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> The other voices are not those of the authors; they're (hopefully)  
> those of=
>  the "readers."
>
> The open history is meant to allow both unknown artists/authors to  
> add thei=
> r voices, and for the original authors to revise their texts over  
> time.
>
> The present book is not the future book ... unless no one  
> participates in u=
> pdating and revising it. One of the most striking features of  
> Wikipedia is =
> how quickly history is revised as real-time events impact various  
> texts -- =
> a Tsunami wipes out three villages in Indonesia; the Indonesia page  
> on Wiki=
> pedia is immediately and forever changed. Ted Kennedy dies; within  
> moments,=
>  his Wikipedia page reflects his passing; tenses are changed; date  
> of death=
>  is filled in.
>
> Networked can be this kind of book.
>
> Some parts of your essay will not change, because they are fixed in  
> time. S=
> ections that refer to a more recent past may change to reflect  
> insights you=
> 've gained from critical distance.
>
> The print version is a big maybe. I don't see any reason to print  
> the texts=
>  as they are. On the other hand, if people take the time to argue  
> with and =
> add to the original texts, the possibility of printing a version  
> 2.0 and, l=
> ater, a version 3.0 would be worthwhile.
>
> One last point. Some of these texts are inaccessible to many in our  
> own com=
> munity. It's not that they're illiterate, it's that the language is  
> rather =
> dense. One can admonish readers for not being intellectually  
> sophisticated,=
>  or one can learn to communicate with a wider demographic. My  
> personal pref=
> erence is for the latter.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Jo
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Lichty, Patrick wrote:
>
> I have been quiet in the conversation (and on many of the lists in  
> the last=
>  year or two) in order to listen more and talk less.
>
> It's very strange; some of the points that have been offered in the  
> last we=
> ek seem to be larger and smaller ones.
>
> In regards to the idea of "other" histories, I am a classical Libra  
> persona=
> lity on this.  The Networked book does create a salient metaphor by  
> framing=
>  discourse within a medium and setting its processes upon it.  In  
> so doing,=
>  the project acts as a multi-tiered probe into technoculture, and  
> sets up a=
> n alternate methodoilogy that suits the authors quite well.  In  
> regards to =
> other voices; I might say that most of us are "regulars" to the New  
> Media s=
> cene, and therein lies the conundrum, but unless someone wants to  
> run with =
> that, I will probably say that the 'otherness' of our discourse in  
> the book=
>  is with approach and methodology.
>
> I also agree with Johannes that there are differing expectations  
> amongst th=
> e creators of the project.  Johannes rightly states that in the age  
> where i=
> nformation is rising at an exponential rate, how does one validate  
> the nece=
> ssity for reflection on any text or another, or to digest the  
> Networked Boo=
> k and reply to it in the space of a month?  This is parallel to  
> what I am g=
> etting at in my essay, that in an age of information overload,  
> artists and =
> writers are forced to read index tags and use trending algorithms  
> or that t=
> exts must be legible at the seventh-grade level, given the average  
> literacy=
>  in the US (but I am being polemic).
>
> What I am also interested in regarding some of the ideas regarding  
> performa=
> nce and media.  We can go back to the death of the author (barthes)  
> and the=
>  text as performance, and the performance of completion in reading  
> (Foucaul=
> t), but I might be more interested in a performance of situation of  
> discour=
> se or habitus.  The Networked Book responds to a culture, and tries  
> to refl=
> ect upon it in a McLuhanesque marriage of medium and message.   
> Perhaps the =
> performative elements are the call to response, as well as the  
> presentation=
>  of the propositional form of the book.
>
> Lastly, regarding history, I had a great talk witht he people at  
> the Long N=
> ow Foundation regarding the Rosetta project, which is an archive of  
> 15,000 =
> texts of different languages etched into a metal disc.  We live in  
> a time w=
> here languages are being lost by the month, and as more media is  
> being arch=
> ived digitally (an inherently media ecologically unsustainable  
> practice), I=
>  agree with the Long Now that we will enter a "Digital Dark Age",  
> in which =
> digital archives will either degrade, crash, or simply not migrate  
> over dec=
> ades. Therefore, i am very grateful, and appreciative that the book  
> will be=
>  published after a year, as atoms trump bits every time.
>
> In regards to this, another family member (a tenured historian) was  
> talking=
>  to me this weekend about her difficulty in writing a history of  
> artists th=
> at were not dead yet, and that their context keeps changing over  
> time.  The=
>  traditional baseline for historians versus theorists is that one  
> writes ab=
> out those who are dead/long inactive, and the other not. While I  
> replied th=
> at one merely has to localize their discourse (set a very tight  
> context), h=
> er problem compared to the discussion here seems as if we are  
> trying to wri=
> te histories concurrent with the events, which is problematic to  
> say the le=
> ast.  It is the greates exercise in control - desiring to control  
> one's own=
>  historical context before the other historians get to you. But  
> them one ca=
> n look to computational culture and Engelbart's idea of the  
> "bootstrap", or=
>  pulling together a project from the grass roots... I see what we  
> are doing=
>  here as an important experiment to which any proclamations, or  
> declamation=
> s about its rel
>  ative worth will only be borne out in time.
>
> To refer to Johannes, who has time?  Well, while I think there were  
> expecta=
> tions for the book to be a viral sensation, I am much more  
> concerned with i=
> t being an importane experiment and good solid book on the subject,  
> a tome =
> that will sit on the shelf with proper gravitas, in a period early  
> enough i=
> n the history of new media that it will demand attention.
>
> In my opinion, all one can do is to present a proposition that  
> others will =
> see, and hopefully that will resonate with others.  Throw a log on  
> the fire=
> , and hope it burns.
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> Jo-Anne Green
> Co-Director
> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> Jo-Anne Green
> Co-Director
> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre mailing list
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20091007/d50efcc2/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the empyre mailing list