Disaster(ous) Logo(s)

Cosmopedia

Κόσμος + παιδεία —> the comprehensive organization of knowledge.

The ultimate, all-encompassing, information archive.

Pierre Levy’s “cosmpopedia” vision of the Web as knowledge space suggests a deterritorialization of knowledge with misleadingly democratizing undertones (at least to participatory culture enthusiasts such as Henry Jenkins).  The advocating of the democratization of access to online information does not necessarily imply a simultaneous advocation of the democratization of knowledge production. When it comes to the provision and creation of knowledge in cyberspace, information is still -for the most part- organized under an implicit hierarchy that assigns legitimacy and authority accordingly (or, alternatively, it exists in a random and chaotic state and is thus not easily searchable and retrvievable to outsiders).  This is one way of filtering out “unnecessary” information/ web junk, but it inevitably means that an oligarchy (compared to the number of people who use the Internet) gets to determine what is unnecessary and what is considered of substance. Yes, the creative bounds are much more relaxed in cyberspace and more people can share their contributions, but there are still systems that help us determine what is “real” and what is “fake”, what is from a legitimate source and what is unreliable (e.g. website ratings, website reputation etc).

Conversely, we could also cautiously say that new media have changed (or, rather, expanded) not only the ways in which we access and process information, but also the ways in which information is organized and accumulated. Arguably, we are becoming less responsible for the information we share online. Case in point: this very blog. I do not fully cite my sources. Sometimes I paraphrase too loosely. I mix and match with no coherent transitions. My writing is haphazard.  But does that change the legitimacy of the information I have to share? Does it inevitably make it less reliable?Perhaps, but at least I am putting my thoughts out there. Will the future break down the still-existent barriers between the professional and the amateur, the academic and the non-scholarly? While this scenario seems to pave the way towards a more democratic access to information, it will probably not ameliorate the *quality* of information-production. It will, instead, make the quality of information more diverse, without necessarily improving or expanding it.

But for the sake of argument, let us consider the potential of the Web as archive and a site of  knowledge-production alongside Levy’s assertion that:  “no one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity.” Will electracy lead the way towards a true cosmopedia, same as the one originally envisioned by the Ancient Greeks? According to Levy, cosmopedia “serves as a site of collective discussion, negotiation, and development… Unanswered questions will create tension within cosmopedic space, indicating regions where invention and innovation are required.” In light of this, electracy combined with heuretics can contribute to the expansion of an archive of knowledge, where information is accumulated through idea negotiation, exchange and collaboration.

Nevertheless, the question remains: who will organize this information in a way that is easily accessible and easy to navigate?  We may not need “gatekeepers” in the future, but we will still need referees, right? Of course, then the question that persists is whether this task will be open to “experts” and non-experts alike, and/or whether it will rest on a combination of the two groups.  The premise of electracy is that it’s “easy” or intuitive in some ways, and thus everyone can potentially gain mastery over the same skillset. However, heuretics is what will separate the “just” electrate from those who use electracy to invent. Just because someone can write does not mean they can produce something brilliant; the same goes for electracy.

Will heuretics within the electracy apparatus produce something useful/practical (in any way you choose to define that), or just something new?

Do I have anything to say – or does the network already take care of it? Mongrel  – NetMonster

παιδεία, εκπαίδευση, μόρφωση

Software Takes Command

Lev Manovich’s most recent new media theory attempts to – once again – historicize the non-historicized. This time, he tackles the “field” (or what perhaps aspires to become at least a subfield) of software studies.  Up to this point, software studies – in the shape of  “cultural software” – does not exist simply because it has never been extensively contextualized and historicized. Manovich equates the understanding of software with the understanding of culture at large, since – according to him – software permeates all aspects of society. Manovich asserts that software has become the “new engine of culture”  – a phrase that, to me, evokes images of automation and mechanization. This is probably not what Manovich’s primary intention was in theorizing the significance of software studies, since automation and mechanization (among other functions, such as recombination and modularity) are more directly related to code studies.

The emergence of new fields of study (or, again, wannabe-disciplines – and not necessarily within the academia) suggests that we are confronted with new sensibilities that seem to demand theorization, historicization, and – above all – legitimization.

Software and Pedagogy/ Electracy

German media and literary theorist Friedrich Kittler has argued that students ought to know at least two software languages because, according to him, only “then they’ll be able to say something about what ‘culture’ is at the moment”.

But, does “saying” something through software languages guarantee that it will be heard? Is this a case of confusion -or, conflation- of the terms “software studies” and “code studies” ? I believe so, to some degree.

Does “saying” something in a software language inevitably involve an act of prosumption, where consumption and production both occur  (though not simultaneously or to an equal extent) ?

Random thoughts

210,660 bloggers, 184,346 new posts, 42,104,231 words today.

Preferred Language: English EspanolDeutschPortugues do BrasilFrancaisItalianoBahasa IndonesiaNederlandsSvenskaPortuguesTurkce More Languages

Nearly democratized internet access (at least in developed countries) and easy to use web production tools (such as our very own wordpress) make it easier for the average person to make their mark on cyberspace. However, this also facilitates the accumulation of “webjunk” – new media objects that are just a waste of webspace.

But, one person’s junk could be another person’s treasure, right? So, what qualifies as webjunk ? How do we assign value to digital creations? Is there still an implicit hierarchy under which information and content usefulness are categorized and accessed (not just through search engines like Google) ?

What exactly does democratization entail? Free (?) access, free sharing, creative commons, collective [media] intelligence, a free flow of information, a free flowing exchange of creative input, democratization of production tools, globalization, etc ….  ?

Ancient/ Classical Greek is not a dead language. At least not in the academia. Perhaps in parts of the the Greek academia it has already been buried, but not in schools in the U.S. and the U.K. This is not directly related to the ubiquity of the Internet, but it is nonetheless facilitated and accelerated by the advent of global and virtual networking. Now everyone can “speak” Greek thanks to electracy. You can google Greek, translate into Greek, and pretend you know Greek (or at least Greeklish).

But do you? I stumble upon so many misinformed definitions and uses of a language so close (yet so remote) to me, that I can’t help but wonder why some languages are conjured back from the dead.  Does citing Plato and Aristotle or tracing Greek roots legitimize one’s accumulation of knowledge? What purpose does the Greek ancient civilization serve in the academia, besides adding to its pretentiousness? Does it really help “us” understand and explain better? And don’t give me all that “founding fathers of our civilization” crap. Yes, this crap is true, but it is also what is keeping Greek culture from being internationally recognized as part of  a *modern* society. By remembering Greece, you are also forgetting it. Remembering means never knowing it at all.

I can’t really speak my language like I used to. The “native” has migrated to another language, another culture.

* Shhh *

PASTICHE.  COLLAGE. SYNTHESIS. COPY/ PASTE mnemonic. Cheese!

A photograph. A snapshot. A digital image. Encoded. Conveyed. Accessed. Thank you, Boston.com.

Image of vandalism. Vandalized Image.

Rigas Feraios stood before me. The interface separating us, yet bringing us closer.

Blasphemy.

His statue lay before my eyes. Black paint defacing it.  Beautiful picture. “Not just paint,” says Boston.com, “it is the anarchy symbol.”

Whatever.