[-empyre-] Spells, meaning and folksonomy

[Sue Thomas <Sue.Thomas@dmu.ac.uk>]

Hi again

It seems to me that the kind of writing discussed here at the moment is
largely about inscription - the use of text as a component of something
else. As a writer, when I encounter words used in such a way i frequently
feel frustrated because for the most part isolated words, or randomly
associated words. have very limited meaning. In such cases words are being
invested with much more meaning than they are actually able to hold in
isolation. They are being used as magic spells rather than as components of
a larger thought. For example, the word STOP! has a spell-like quality when
we first see it on a page because it resonates with our memories of previous
occurrences in situations where we have been afraid, surprised, or whatever.
But this is a very fleeting impact, one which is soon diluted to nothing
unless accompanied by more associations providing meaning and context.
Designs and programs which generate such words produce typography but not
any kind of complex meaning.

So, text can be produced in many permutations, but its most interesting
function is in its ability to convey complex thought directly to the reader
in a solitary interaction between that individual and the text, one which is
not dependent upon an an appreciation of the theory behind the production of
the text. This is why many people cling to print - precisely because it is
no longer visible to them. They forget the existence of the printing
technology and the history, culture and industry behind it. As readers they
don't want to know what produced the writing they are consuming, they simply
want the text to be allowed to function as a communicator of meaning.

However, that is not to say that words can't function well in isolation in
some instances beyond the usual ones of immediate information (STOP! etc),
because when they are part of a larger communication chain they take on a
peculiar function where meaning remains tied to context, but the context is
not tied to the text in the same way. 

A good contemporary example of this is folksonomy, the inscriptions which
build the network of connections we now inhabit.  Writing / text in the form
of social tags make up the cogs in the machine of the blogosphere, each word
on its own a sharply-engineered tooth fitting into a complementary notch to
turn the system along one more step. I'm intrigued by the way in which this
abundancy of information is connected by single tags / words. Del.icio.us
http://del.icio.us/ for example is a particularly fascinating illustration
of what can happen when there is no limit on the number and variety of
links. The user can wander forever from one tag to the next, like stepping
through mirrors between personalised but public del.icio.us pages.  What's
also interesting about folksonomy and the blogosphere is that all this
complexity is happening via a partnership between corporate innovation and
open source, with the potential for unique new conceptual and possibly
political constructs.  

Indeed, Web 2.0 is largely expected to be a user-created environment , and
it will be interesting to see how writing fares in that context, and whether
it will remain the medium of choice or whether images and icons might
supersede text.  Interesting reference points on social networks driven by
text-based tags are Many2Many http://www.corante.com/many/ and Howard
Rheingold's work on cooperation - an excellent course earlier this year at
Stanford http://cooperation.smartmobs.com/cs/ and most recently his seminar
at Berkeley http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2005/08/23/smart_mobs_clas.html


Folksonomy is a refreshing social and textual phenomenon which generates a
potent, complex and highly navigable landscape of meaning from connections
between single words. 

I am wondering whether there are any artists here who are using folksonomies
in their work? 

best

Sue

http://www.mti.dmu.ac.uk/~sthomas/