Wednesday May 2nd I’ll be speaking at the Radio 2.0-event of the Cool Media Hot Talk Show at De Balie, Amsterdam. Here’s a copy of the text and statements that frame the event:

Questioning the relevance of radio in the internet age

Internet radio or net.radio is now so much part of the daily practice and experience of the internet that it has become alsmost ‘vernacular’, i.e it is almost impossible to perceive it for what it is (audio on-line), and more importantly to see it as something that could be imagined differently. The adoption of the metaphor in such mainstream software packages as iTunes strengthens the adherence to the old and accustomed model of ‘radio’ with a critical mass of internet users. In a sense, most befitting to a show about media hot and cool, it expresses beautifully the idea of McLuhan that “the content of any new medium is an old medium” and that we are thus “moving into the future looking backwards”…

We want to question what the relevance of radio is (as an artistic form and as a medium) in the internet age. Why stick to the notion of ‘radio’ when the ways of handling and experiencing audio in an on-line environment (on the internet) can be so much more versatile? Is not a concept like net.radio, popular in internet-art circles such as the xChange network, already a reactionary move towards the past?

If artists want to explore, continue or reinvigorate the legacy of ‘Radio Art’, why connect this with an internet related practice? Looking back at the history of radio as a medium and the artists involvement it is important to remember that already in the late 1920s Bertold Brecht famously explored the idea of radio as a distributed interactive communication space consciously as an artistic and a social / political tool. Technically also traditional radio has the capacity of transforming every receiver into a transmitter, thus enabling a communication structure pretty similar to the internet. However, it was not technology but regulation and legislation that killed this transformative potential of the radio medium.

Looking at this today two ideas present themselves: First that we need to be aware of this history in order not to make the same mistakes vis-à-vis the internet (allowing it to be closed down by regulation and legislation). Secondly, now that a mass of users has become accustomed to the open media of the internet, would it not be a more productive and interesting idea to take the internet to radio, rather than the other way around? Why not try to open up the traditional radio space in a way similar to the internet, taking the internet-attitude of the youtube generation to radio?

This is also important locally in Amsterdam, where after all this show is physically staged, which had a huge tradition in open media and free radio, but where the radio space has recently been forcefully closed down by new regulation, legislation ánd enforcement!

Statement of Adam Hyde

Radio is not as it seems. It has never been live. It has always been a rather fast method for delivering an archive. It is now time to confront the great pretender and investigate the nuances of the reigning principle of radio – delay.

Radio is the best archival media there is. Copy your digital files into sound, broadcast them into space, – they will exist forever. Retreiving them does require some work still as the speed of light remains a barrier for indexing and retrieving radio waves, but given time science cures even the most anxious archivists worries. Archive now, let science take care of the rest later.

But is radio really an archival medium? Or is it live? Are radio waves themselves a guarantee of liveness or do they simply deliver archival material really quickly? What does ‘live’ actually mean and does it even matter? Further, what role does the internet have in this debate, is it possible to say that a downloaded mp3 file is live radio?

Adam will talk about various projects he has worked on including r a d i o q u a l i a s Radio Astronomy (http://www.radio-astronomy.net) and Wifio ( by Simpel – http://www.simpel.cc). Radio Astronomy is a live online radio station broadcasting sounds from space. Wifio is a radio tuner that allows you to listen to the internet. It captures data traffic on open wireless connections and translates emails, webpages, voip and irc to speech. With wifio you too can listen to the internet in your neighbourhood….

Adam Hyde (.nz), is an artist, educator, tactical media practitioner, streaming media consultant, and sometime curator. He is involved in numerous projects that fuse (sound-) art, radio, and the internet, a.o. r a d i o q u a l i a, Radio Astronomy, and Polar Radio. http://www.radioqualia.net/, http://www.xs4all.nl/~adam/.

Statement of Arie Altena

What is radio? Maybe the only way of explaining what radio nowadays signifies, is by taking radio as a sort of mock-latin for “I am beaming”, or “I am sending”. In the West we are getting quite far removed from ‘radio’ as a specific way of transmitting signals through the air, or a format where someone in a studio makes a programme for us to listen to. The word radio is grifted upon many of our media-uses. We can even conceptualize of every carrier of an iPod or laptop with an open internet-connection and iTunes (or another sound-programme running) as radio-stations, stations that others can tune into. Radio then is – like the commercial channels – an operation upon an archive (selected play lists from a huge database of sound files), possibly remixed.

I like this re-use of the word radio – taking all those stations streaming sound as radio. Most of that is utterly uninteresting to most (even when I sit down in places like De Balie or V2_ and proceed to check on the shared iTunes-‘radio stations’ in my immediate environment, I hardly ever see anything I’d like to listen to, and I imagine the same will be true of people checking on my archive.) If we have something like radio, it is radically personalized (more personalized than Last.fm).

This is the perspective of the listener who in some sense, involuntary, becomes a radio station himself, by carrying around networked equipment. It’s a technology-effect, it has not much to do with a (conscious) decision to start sending.

What then does the same technological change signify for someone who takes the conscious decision to send? To become a disembodied voice? To represent – what?

I am always a bit disappointed when alternative radio – say artists taking up radio – uses the formats of classic, mainstream radio from the twentieth century, from the high times of ‘radio stations’, with talk shows, jingles, announcements, phone-ins, and a deejay who talks in between records that he spins. Of course, that was a strong genre.

A note: all the radio programmes that I have fond memories of were held together by a distinctive human voice (like that of Michiel de Ruyter).

http://www.coolmediahottalk.net

Anne Helmond has a nice bit about the Ubiscribe-event at DEAF, and beautiful photo’s: http://www.annehelmond.nl/2007/04/16/deaf07-ubiscribe-collocollaboracontentquery/.

And I promise, from now on I will not use Powerpoint anymore for presentations. (Why did I ever choose to use Powerpoint for my Ubiscribe-sheets? A decision once made, on a morning, with little time, then one is stuck with it builds on those sheets? Something like that…)

Writing takes time. Blogging takes time. My time is taken by packing, unpacking and moving stuff around. Boxes with books, boxes with papers, boxes with stuff. (The paper trail of one’s life). My time is taken by getting used to new things – I started working at V2_ last week. I will be moving house over the next few weeks. Blogging is not on my mind these days.

And then I’m part of the Offline – Online Publishing event at De Balie on the 19th of January: http://www.debalie.nl/artikel.jsp?articleid=92553&podiumid=media. With Alessandro Ludovico, Simon Worthington and Georg Schollhammer of resp. Neural:http://www.neural.it, Mute: http://www.metamute.org/ and Documenta 12 Magazines.

I will be speaking about Ubiscribe: http://www.ubiscribe.net, the POD we made, and about different time-regimes of editing. (Maybe I’ll use a different term in a weeks time – have to check on the exact significance of ‘regime’ in English, but for now the term is stuck in my mind.)

The days pass by quiet. A bit like the weather: quiet and grey. I am waiting more than anything else. Waiting to move. First back to Amsterdam. Then start a new job. Then move on to a new appartment in Amsterdam. In the meantime I am writing. (F. is also finishing work – so I’m not much of a spoiler of Xmas-festivities).

I am writing in a strange way, working on the same article now since 2 weeks? It’s a round-up of my research at the Jan van Eyck; the story is the one I’ve been telling in the public lectures earlier this month.

The framework was already there (in my head, in the powerpoints that I used in the lectures). I basically wrote everything down and added all the necessary or nice quotes and references. I could only get it ‘out’ by not being totally involved with the sentences that I typed out – by simulating that I was not wholly present while writing. Simply too much material. maybe afraid to finish? And although I consciously threw out quite a few subjects (like a comparision of blogging and notebooks, of blogs and commonplace books; and the whole public – private issue), I still ended up with over 20.000 words.

That was 4 days ago.

So it feels almost as if I’m trying to write a thesis.

I’m used to write texts of 1000 – 2000 words. Sometimes, sometimes I may write 4000 words.

I spent the past days making a first edit. Not working too hard – a few hours a day. Cleaning up, deleting doublures (there are still a lots – I tend to state everything five times in the same text), shifting whole paragraphs. Again doing that while feeling not totally involved.

The first edit is done. It still is 20.000 words long.

And I am afraid it still is too much of a simple description of the history, present and possible future of blogging – zooming in on issues of authorship and software – mostly software. (Well, I know what Latour says about descriptions, but I’m not so sure that my description fits his criteria…)

But, well, I hope I now have all the ‘material’ – to get fully involved with the ‘sentences’. I know I’ll be able to throw out at least 10.000 words.

“To me, book is a tool for marketing the online writer, not the other way round.” Sez Finnish writer Leevi Lehto at http://nypoesi.net/?id=tekst&no=33. [Via http://jilltxt.net.]

“An author who is writing specifically for a public is not really writing; it is the public that is writing, and for this reason the public can no longer be a reader; reading only appears to exist, actually it is nothing. This is why works created to be read are meaningless: no one reads them. This is why it is dangerous to write for other people, in order to evoke the speech of others and reveal them to themselves: the fact is that other people do not want to hear their own voices; they want to hear someone else’s voice, a voice that is real, profound, troubling like the truth.” p. 365

Maurice Blanchot, ‘Literature and the Right to Death’ in The Station Hill Blanchot Reader, Barrytown, Station Hill, 1999, p. 359-399.

Sometimes I can read Blanchot, and what he writes I find beautiful and deeply true. Sometimes I cannot read Blanchot, and what he writes is to me as words from an ideal, transcendental realm, unconnected to lived reality.

I’ve put a pdf of my presentation at the RFID-workshop online, for download. In my talk I dealt with the development of blogging-software as an example of the co-development of software and uses/users, using both Latour and Andrew Liu’s ‘Discourse Network 2000’ as an inspiration. Showing how a genre is constituted both by needs of users/writers and by software that is developed in response to those needs. Well, this goes through stages — for instance at one point it is blogging software that actually defines the genre. Next stage — where we are now — is when blogposts can & are used and re-used in different contexts, aggregation/syndication, when one is blogging without ever looking at the back-end of the blogsoftware, or even ‘blogging’ automatically. (Et cetera — hope you catch my drift). I’m trying to formulate what this means for the concept of ‘publishing’.

This is also what I will be discussing next week in my lecture in Groningen (15.00, Radesingel 6, Frank Mohr Institute).

Anyway, the pdf is for download here: http://www.ariealt.net/mediamatic_rfid/.
The first half is the actual presentation I did, what follows is a recap, and it ends with a collection of reserve ‘sheets’ that cover issues that I expected Julian Bleecker to talk about (but that I wanted to have handy, in case someone would ask me about it).

Haven’t been blogging so much lately — at least not here. So I sort of feel that I have to update you (invisible readers) on my activities. Thing is that I’m feeling the pressure of the nearing end of my stay at the Jan van Eyck Academy. I’d like to leave here with 2 nice finished articles and, well, a some sort of ‘grouping’ of all the other stuff I’ve done/published here. (Like, for instance the bits & pieces on this blog, the many quotes I’ve gathered et cetera).

Now I am very very bad at organizing my own research, organizing my ‘findings’, thoughts, everything that comes before actually writing an article. If the preferred outcome is a text of say 1500 words, there’s no problem (I can do that relying on what’s in my head). If the outcome is a presentation, I have no problem at all: I’m not afraid to speaking in public and when speaking the words will roll out of my mouth. I have a scenario in my head, a rough form & direction and I can freely improvise around that. I love to do that.

(I’m afraid this is actually one of my weaknesses, since it enables me to do presentations without ever actually writing down my thoughts and theories beforehand, or for that matter, afterwards. Which means I’m left with, well, nothing definite & if I’m asked to come up with a paper afterwards I have a lot of work to do.) (Whoever cares for exact references in a talk?)

Well, so I have some very nice deadlines coming up:

Coming wednesday I’ll do a presentation at the Mediamatic RFID Workshop. I’m quite excited since Julian Bleecker will be speaking after me: http://www.mediamatic.net/artefact-11944-en.html. (I hope my bio is updated, since it came out scrambled after a translation process — ah, yes, it’s updated). Also I’m looking forward to being in a more media/technology minded environment for a few days.

On wednesday 29th of November I will do a public lecture at the Frank Mohr Institute in Groningen – that one will basically be an outline/summary of the research of the past year. It’s part of the series “Future’s Past: Re-Imagining Art & Media”: 15.00-17.00 Singelzaal, Radesingel 6, Groningen.

Well, and then there are the texts I’d like to write.

So, I decided to get organized. I gathered everything that I had saved in some form or another since january (webpages, quotes and remarks and sketches in rtf- and voodoopad-files, images, pdfs, print-outs, photocopies, and: the Ubiscribe POD plus this blog), sifted and put everything that I will use in one folder, all the text in one Voodoopad document. Partly this was procrastination, or it felt like it because it took much longer than I had expected. This time I made a point of registering the references; so I’m sort of halfway with a nice bibliography (still have to include some books). It is nice work. It feels like ‘working’. It’s clear what has to be done. (Unlike writing a text [as in: putting sentences in the right order]).

I also gathered all the screenshots (of using various blogging softwares for instance), organized them and made some that I was missing. Again: material to use.

I decided that I wanted to have handy the statistics – how many blogs there are (Sifry’s Technorati-statistics), what softwares are most used, et cetera. There are some good academic papers on that. I have, if I remember well now without looking at my Voodoopadfile, 4 different statistics of blogsoftware-use, and they vary so much that they render each other (almost) meaningless when compared. (And 3 of these researches are conducted in the proper scientific way, and in the same year). The researches do not say much about ‘blogging in general’,. They say something about blogging in the chosen sample, but what they state is quite general… Funny enough that makes my own simple not too proper scientific research (counting 204 blogs from my own environment) more significant. (?)

After looking at statistics for a while I again discovered that I am simply not so interested in those numbers. Although, yes, it is nice to note that many mp3-blogs use Blogger, and amongst philosphy and theory-blogs there is a rather large amount that use Typepad. And yes, it is interesting to look at things like average lenght of posts and frequency of linkage. But well, and then?

How much do the softwares actually differ — and are they used differently? (They do differ, but they also allow for identical use). I’m trying to come up with a bit a good writing there (using screenshots…), but I’m not sure it will lead somewhere….

So now I am preparing my presentation for wednesday – making use of all the organized material (well, sort of organized in any case). To my own surprise I began having fun with Powerpoint, the software I probably hate most. Using Powerpoint to organize my argument. Ough. (Usually I make HTML-sheets, but in this case I thought it would become too cumbersome. I have used Preview for presentations twice, and both times encountered computer problems during the talk (they had nothing to do with Preview, but still, I’m a bit superstitious in that respect). I do not have Keynote; I have Appleworks — but well, were’s the difference?) I know I should use OpenOffice. I probably will regret having a .ppt-file that is not easily reusable in another context, but well, I’m too far now… Actually, I have far too many sheets already and I am not finished with the argument yet…

Henry Jenkins’ whitepaper Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture, pdf at http://www.digitallearning.macfound.org/etc… seems to be (I haven’t read it yet…) a very good outline of what new media literacy is.

Found it via Peter Morville http://www.findability.org/archives/000138.php, who sums it up as follows:

“Henry presents eleven new skills or literacies…

Play – the capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem solving.

Performance – the ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and discovery.

Simulation – the ability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real-world processes.

Appropriation – the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content.

Multitasking – the ability to scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed to salient details.

Distributed Cognition – the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental capacities.

Collective Intelligence – the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal.

Judgment – the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources.

Transmedia Navigation – the ability to follow the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities.

Networking – the ability to search for, synthesize, and disseminate information.

Negotiation – the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms.

…and three concerns:

The Participation Gap – the unequal access to the opportunities, experiences, skills, and knowledge that will prepare youth for full participation in the world of tomorrow.

The Transparency Problem – the challenges young people face in learning to see clearly the ways that media shape perceptions of the world.

The Ethics Challenge – the breakdown of traditional forms of professional training and socialization that might prepare young people for their increasingly public roles as media makers and community participants.”

[end of quote]

Note: these are “new” literacies. I’d say they add to competencies as knowing how to write –as in: constructing sentences that makes sense and can be understood by others… :-)

It’s so nice sometimes to just make something, however simple it is, using old-skool html and some pictures.

This time I made screenshots of the different stages — or maybe different screens (rather than actions) — of writing & publishing a blog post. Respectively Blogger Beta, WordPress, Twoday.net and blogging from Flock.

No Typepad since I immediately erased my account after activating it and checking it out.

Big html-page here (may need refresh to have all the pictures load…): http://www.xs4all.nl/~ariealt/jve/2006_to_blog_small/to_blog.html.

Well, it won’t earn the prize for best design, and probably I should’ve resized the screenshots differently, but still, I like these kind of mosaics.