Exciting news (well, for me): I’m on the program of the McLuhan-conference that takes place next year in Bayreuth, 14-18 February. I will be speaking about Esther Polak’s work, about GPS as a medium for art. The ‘line-up’ is awesome: De Kerckhove, Kittler, Pias, Zielinski, Broeckmann, Sloterdijk, Bolter, et cetera… Will be, well, very exciting to say the least.
http://www.americanstudies.uni-bayreuth.de/ls/conference_more.php?nr=1&program=1
Before getting to work (it’ll be mainly translating for the Stedelijk, the next few days) I click through a few music blogs and find this clip of Keiji Haino & Machizo Machida:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXrPFO6uvDA
More good stuff of Kaoru Abe, the legendary Japanese freejazz saxophonist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6gyIHldJyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqvwBos9HQk
“The idea of communication directly from those who first discovered an idea as the best way of gaining understanding is the basis for Adler’s argument in favor of the reading of the Great Books. He claims that any book that does not represent original communication is an inferior source to the original, and, further, that any teacher, save those who discovered the thing which they are teaching, is inferior to these books as a source of understanding.”
Well, one has to be very conservative-minded to truly believe this. (Yet, in reading philosophy I do prefer to go back to the source.) It is hard to combine with ‘reading & writing on the web’ — though the web makes checking sources easier. But that’s slightly different.
Btw 1: Adler distinguishes 3 types (stages) of reading a book: structural, interpretative, critical.
Btw 2: More stuff from the business/communication perspective — definitely not my world –. A look at the book titles sez all… Annotation to books by Matt Vance on Minezone: http://www.minezone.org/wiki/MVance/BookNotes.
I’m beginning to wonder why I’m looking at these things…. I’m just going through a lot of tabs that I opened while browsing & reading about blogging, tagging, reading & knowledge…
Found this great post: http://ideamatt.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-read-lot-of-books-in-short-time.html. Title says it all.
It’s a summary of various methods from knowledge management, tips & tricks regarding how to process information quickly (well, how to parse it through the brain and only act on the important bits).
It sure isn’t novel-reading, it assumes text is just applicable information. One could ask the question if these methods, gathered by Matt Cornell, should properly be called ‘reading’ at all.
I use texts like this:
1. look at index, glossary, contents
2. quick look at a few passages, read conclusion
3. go read the book or part of the book, [or put away]; tag sentences with post-its
4. type (or copy-paste) (selection of) tagged sentences in blogpost, voodoopad or texteditor, for future use.
Does it work? I don’t know. What really counts is what I remember. And that process isn’t so one-dimensional. But I am happy with post-it-tagged books, and I can find quotes quicker now, and sometimes I remember texts better than I used to.
Btw: the methods mentioned by Matt Cornell also explain why I find it impossible to ‘properly’ read business books: too many superfluous sentences, too many skippable examples, everything get repeated. Those books are written for speed-reading.
Back in 1986 Michael Heim wrote in his book Electric Language: “A month in hyper-space can scatter the brain. Traditional books offer readers respite from hyperactivity. The book’s definitive, closed, linear argument lets mind and sensibility enjoy moments of inner harmony. Linear text offers the kind of contemplative thinking that goes beneath the surface” (xvi). Read “web” or ‘internet” or “blogosphere” for “hyperspace”. I’d say this is still true. But how much of this respite/contemplation do we need it to keep the world (and culture) running?
(Copy-pasted the quote from Dennis Jerz’s http://jerz.setonhill.edu/resources/blogtalk/index.html).
Sometimes I think advertising & marketing is so far in front of ‘us’ that we’ll never be able to catch up on what ‘they’ are doing. But a recent marketing-conference in Maastricht, http://www.marktpleindm.nl/, suggests that ‘they’ are not ahead. (Came across it through one weblog, http://ross.typepad.com/, referring to a social networking workshop for the CIA, led by a.o. David Weinberger, and checking Weinberger’s blog, http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/index.html, and finding out he’s in Maastricht at the moment). The whole conference is centered around the Cluetrain Manifesto, of 1999. Yes, that’s 7 years ago. ?!? So while the CIA is hiring ‘the big shots’ for a workshop to learn better how to use social networking tools and wiki’s, the marketeers are only now getting onto the idea that ‘markets are conversations’? Hmmm. I don’t believe it. Well, it’s a bussiness networking conference. That explains.
What strikes me more is that it takes me three clicks to go from literary theory to blogging theory, to software development, to the CIA, to marketing and back again.
Reading through about 20 papers composed for three Blogtalk conferences — some of which are very good, some of which I’m not interested in (the ones measuring & analyzing the ‘blogosphere’) — it becomes clear to me again, that my interest is in the perspective of the writer, the author. How does a writer/author use the tools of writing and publishing nowadays? I do not look at the whole blogosphere, I do not look at how we could design our tools better, or look at why certain tools are used and others are not. My question is: how does an author posit him/herself? By writer or author I do not, in this instance, refer to anybody publishing something, but to those one’s whose life depends on it — either economically or because it’s felt from ‘the soul’. This definition rules out, in a sense, those bloggers who blogs because he/she wants to join in, or start a conversation. What we see with blogging is that we get writing that is not dominantly ‘about’ something, or about itself (let’s say Jakobsons poetic function), but writing that is dominantly an invitation to chatter. (In that sense not all writing and publishing is aimed at starting or joining in a conversation). Open the channel and keep the channel open. ‘Let’s talk, it doesn’t matter about what, because I feel like talking’. Yet the boundary is very shady and will become shadier in the future. My questions concern exactly that boundary too.
Now browsing through Blogtalk-papers: http://blogtalk.net. (I’m not there, don’t ask why, earlier this year I thought about maybe going, then apparently decided not to, since I’m here, not there).
The blogtalk-presentations (happening now) are all online at Googlevideo: click from the program: http://blogtalk.net/pmwiki.php?n=Main.Program
Some links — very different btw — with somewhat web 2.0 related stuff:
http://sioc-project.org/
http://www.peopleaggregator.net/
http://structuredblogging.org/
http://www.newsvine.com/
http://www.blogdigger.com
http://itags.net/index.php/Main_Page
http://www.ourmedia.org/
http://www.digg.com/
http://www.techmeme.com/
http://wink.com/
And a very interesting small study of tagging here: http://itags.net/index.php/Study_of_tagging_with_bloggers”
Picked up the current issue of thee Irish magazine on contemporary arts Circa (Online stuff here: http://www.recirca.com. And come across a very interesting interview with of San Diego-based art historian Grant Kester — had never heard of him. His work deals mainly with collaboration in the arts. It seems he has a much more interesting view on the state of contemporary art than Jacques Ranciere — or no, more precise, might have an answer to some problematic point in Ranciere’s theories. Good links from his university homepage: http://digitalarts.ucsd.edu/~gkester/.