Archive Fever (a brief but alarming overview)

Jacques Derrida, author of Archive Fever (1997, Chicago University of Chicago Press) claims that all forms of media exist and extend from archives. He says that archives are always important because they become the basis for what counts within society. He also says it can account for a sense of ourselves.

Derrida says that archives constitute the most fundamental level of social and individual institutions and practices. He explains that archives lay the basis for authority, what is considered "inside" and "outside" the culture, and the history and future of the public. Any arrangement of principles and concepts that arise from different organizations have been drawn from past records which are stored in archives. Thus, it is these archives that dictate the future possibilities and the potentials of us all.

Is it any wonder that the library is the most important building on any given university campus? The library rests as the focal point of knowledge, research and ideas for any research or academic institute. This is where the most historical text is stored but also where the innovative technologies of the computer lab are held. Where does the inspiration come from? What dictates the success of the research?

Derrida focuses his ideas on archive fever. Different forms of publishing form different modes of living, institutions, organizations, etc. These varying forms of publishing all have some kind of archive. And as stated before, these archives dictate the possibilities of the future because they record the significance of the past. We are all struck with "archive fever," according to Derrida because we all have a constant desire to play with archives. (pg 19, course outline).

Aside from Facebook and other mediated networks, we all have constructed our own archive. The farther back we archive, the more of our future can be dictated. That is to say that archive fever might have some kind of 'sling-shot effect.' It will be interesting to see who from our generation will be able to run for a political office without their archive coming back from the past to haunt them. With our lives all perfectly digitized online, we all have a paper trail of our youthful indiscretions. Not just a paper trail, but a tagged picture, blog post, tweet. So many haunting, impulsive moments will follow us into our careers. Will this generation's contagious archive fever be what limits our future?

Personal reflection:
For as long as I can remember I have archived art and graphic design into blank books that can be purchased at any art supply store. What they are actually intended for, I'm not sure. But for me, these black books represent a place for me to store what inspires me, from movie stubs and funny disposable pictures to unique business cards and flyers... these books have no rules. I make them as I see fit in that given moment. I referred to it as my "ARTchive" for years. I use it as my inspiration, a vessel for new ideas. But it is through this old record, this archive I have created, that I generate new ideas and new inspiration. In a sense, I have created a sense of my self (my inspiration) through this archive.

Below is a picture of the mess I create when creating these books. This photograph was taken by me with a disposable camera in October 2011.

Another idea that sparked from this reading is my obsession with photography.
My most recent photography portfolio: http://student.tcu.edu/cratelle/

Aside from my Flickr (which I consider a work in progress photo-blog that I update regularly), I have published a few final versions of photography projects. It is interesting that although I have published a recent version of a final portfolio (as linked above) that I continue to save over 10,000 images on my hard drive. In itself, the folders on my MacBook are an archive--why else would I spend so much time backing them up on external hard drives? Why don't I delete them ever? Why do we save every version of every project?

The fear of "just-in-case." Must be a symptom of archive fever. 

Sources:
ARTS 2090 Course Outline, Week Five

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2003/06/130.ars

http://emn.sharonhoward.org/2007/09/reposted-archive-fever-a-dusty-digression/

Actor Network Theory and the Assemblage of Me

Actor-Network Theory: a brief overview:
According to the Wikipedia article, the actor-netowrk theory (ANT) can be more technically described as a “material-semiotic” method, although it is defined as a theory that maps simultaneous relationships between material things and between semotic things (concepts). Actor-network theory is a way of exploring the relationship ties within a network, developer Bruno Latour explains, it is not a theory 'of' anything but rather a method, or a 'how-to-book.' The method is directly in line with the insights of ethnomethodology, a methodology that studies people and how they interact with objects. It attempts to summarize how material-semiotic networks come together to function as a whole. There are actors within each network that create meaning; those clusters of actors involved in creating meaning are both material and semiotic.

ANT explores explicit methods for relating different elements together into a network so that it forms a cohesive whole. Latour describes the networks as transient, or impermanent. The networks, existing in a constant making and re-making, will dissolve if relations are not repeatedly performed. Once actors engage with an the actor-network, they are caught up in the web of relations, and it all becomes part of the "Entelechy,' which was Aristotle's definition of motion. (Entelechy, Wikipedia).

"Actor-Network Rochambeau," an article posted to Any-Space-Whatever blog, reviewed Bruno Latour's Politics of Nature, with a satirical spin of criticism. Latour's writings remind his audience of the implications of flat ontology, in which all entities receive equal treatment and ontological status, none subordinate to any others. All entities can be defined as animate or inanimate, human or nonhuman. Flat ontology, or the study of essence, implies there is no hierarchy or power relations to take into consideration between entities. This criticism is unique because it highlights a unique perspective: computer are just as influential on humans as humans are on computers. There is controversy over this approach because it postulates that human actors and non-humans actors deserve the same treatment. According to the ANT Wikipedia article, actor-network theory assumes that all entities in a network can and should be described in the same terms. ANT defines this aspect of thinking as the 'principle of generalized symmetry.'

Understanding through examples:
Wikipedia used an effective example of a car to portray the dynamics of the actor network theory. Cars are viewed as a single object, but it serves as an effective example of a complex system in which any actor can be considered a sum of other, smaller actors. A car is an example of a complex system. Many electronic and mechanical systems are built into the car and hidden from the driver's view. When we experience a series of small networks as a whole, we are experiencing that object as punctualized. It is not until the battery dies or the oil needs changing that we experience the object as de-punctualized. De-punctualization occurs when networks become visible as separate systems because of a glitch or failure. Like this car breakdown example, this can occur when any elements of a network act contrarily to the network as a whole.

I created my own example in a mind map to show the assemblage of my own life. This mind map can be understood in thinking of each individual as a network. I exist as a network of people and I am a combination of all these people, places, concepts and things. If something where to shift in one of these areas of life, my life would also change.

This is how I made my mind map!

Sources:
‘Actor Network Theory’, Wikipedia

‘A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity’, Wikipedia

‘Actor Network Rochambeau’, any-space-whatever blog

'Entelechy', Wikipedia

Modes of Publishing and Paywalls

This week in ARTS 2090, we examined the transformation of the written word. Before considering how our languages are communicated and published for others, the written text itself needs to be understood. From cave paintings to live feed tweeting, the written word is the database of human record. It is the only systematic way we have archived the human civilization from its very beginning. In Orality and Literacy, Walter J. Ong comments on how the written word has transformed the human thought process. According to Ong, written text is why cultures have transitioned from primarily oral to literate. Ong writes of ‘writing’ as its own technology arguing that our other modern technologies cannot be understood until we know how powerful ‘writing’ is to our culture.

After a thought or a word is written down, the act of publishing it remains. With the dawn of electronic literature coupled with accelerating social media usage, there seems to be no limit to online publishing--no limit and no cost. What someone can and can’t say and where they can say it--there are no rules. Modes of publishing seem to be limitless with the internet. The essence of the internet is freedom and collaboration. Publishing is instant. Redistribution takes seconds. Modes of publishing are limitless. But who reaps the benefits of success? Can ideas and media content be regulated online without destroying the essence of the free space?

Online newspaper content along with scholastic journals and academic publications have turned to paywalls to block internet users from accessing the entirety of their content without paying for a subscription. 'Hard' paywalls, implemented by the Wall Street Journal and The Times, forbid users from accessing any of their content. Requiring up-front subscription allows these news sites to provide added value to their articles, target a specific market (or niche audience), and reaffirm their dominance over their dedicated consumers and controlled market (Wikipedia: Paywall). 'Soft' paywalls operate with more flexibility with viewing content before they request for a subscription. The site tracks the number of articles and content being read by a specific user; after a certain number of pages, the paywall comes up. This is easy to get around if internet users delete their 'cookies' from their internet browser history. But because there are ways around it and other means of access, Felix Salmon, a Wired finance blogger, describes the New York Times paywall as porous. Salmon, however, sees this as a unique feature, not a technical flaw. He claims it keeps their news content opening and inviting. Salmon concluded their paywall works because they treat their readers as a civilized and mature audience. The New York Time's 'soft' paywall has exceeded most expectations with more than 250,000 online subscribers and counting (The Guardian, Dan Gillmor).

Initially, Rupert Murdoch introduced paywalls for access to all of his newspaper websites, including The Times, Sunday Times and News of the World. In 2011, The New York Times also confirmed that it would implement a paywall to its online content. Steve Busfield reported an interview between Murdoch and Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of The Guardian, who argued against paywalls. Rusbridger claimed, "By having a paywall, you are cutting your journalism off from the world." (Guardian editor hits back at paywalls). He continued to explain that erecting a paywall around news content suggests, "you are turning away from a world of openly shared content." Rusbridger highlighted that although there are brilliant business models backing the use of paywalls, he said, "Editorially it is about the most fundamental statement anyone could make about how newspapers see themselves in relation to the newly-shaped world."

Personal reflection and side thoughts:

1. With limitless mediums of publishing, how will anyone ever track the author of the original thought? Author of Invisible Monsters, Chuck Palahniuk wrote, "Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everyone I've ever known." This statement could expand across all time. We are all publishers of the days and people that have come before us. The modes of publishing have changed but have the publishers?

One of the most inspirational essays I have ever read and perhaps the most insightful perspective on the issue of copyright in the modern world:

"The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism," by Jonathan Letham (Harpers Bazaar Magazine)

2. Another interesting tangent...Situated in central London, The School of Life, an enterprise offering classes and sermons about good ideas for everyday living, announced a new event to its April calendar. The School of life is offering a class about “How to Thrive in a Wired World.”

Readings and other sources:
Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy

The Printing Press as an Agent of Change

Wikipedia: Paywall

Salmon, Felix (2011) ‘How The New York Times Paywall is Working’, Wired

Busfield, Steve (2010) ‘Guardian editor hits back at paywalls’, The Guardian

Dan Gillmor (2011) ‘The New York Times paywall: the faint smell of success', The Guardian



The Cult, the Official Chuck Palahniuk Site

The dawn of social e-reading and what it means for the future of publishing

John Naughton, writer for The Guardian, urges 'Publishers to take note' because the iPad is revolutionizing what we think of as a book. He described the ingenuity behind the design of the Economist's new iPad app. He claims that this app will be the first of many to create, "a genuinely 'immersive' reading experience." Naughton aruged that apps like this should serve as a wake-up call for the print business in publishing. He explained, "The success of Amazon's Kindle has, I think, lulled print publishers into a false sense of security... If that's what publishers are thinking, then they're in for some nasty surprises." Sachin Kamdar, CEO and co-founder of Parse.ly, published a guest post for PBS: Media Shift. Kamdar explained, "The publisher side of technology hasn't kept up with the pace. Publishers have been running a marathon in a pair of shoes that are four sizes too small." Kamdar went on to explain that 2012 will the year that publishers grow up and make use of new tools. Erick Schonfeld, blogger for TechCrunch, highlighted one of the interesting new technologies that publishers have benefited from offering through the iPad. Bookmarking apps like Read It Later and Instapaper allow users to time-shift their online reading to better fit their own schedules; It is the same concept used by DVR technicians that allow viewers to shift their TV viewing times to preference (Schonfeld, 2011). If publishers can design effective apps for their content and utilize the technologies of the iPad correctly, Schonfeld explained, it could become the ultimate time-shifting reading device of choice.

Just as the concept of the magazine and newspaper have changed with new technologies, the concept of the 'book' will be transformed under the pressure of iPads-type experiences (Naughton, 2010).
Naughton suggests that this does not mean the end of print as everyone fears, but it does mean that print publishers will have to adapt to the new digital environment. He said, "In particular, they will have to add serious in-house technologies competencies to their publishing skills."

Jason Johnson and Jason Illian are two of those "in-house" masterminds backing the interactive reading experience that Naughton attempted to capture. Johnson and Illiam hope to revolutionize the solitary experience of reading by introducing a new mobile application, Social Books. According to Jenna Wortham’s article in the New York Times, the two entrepreneurs are interested in taking the advent of social media and applying it to the way e-readers use their tablets. This app will allow readers to highlight specific portions of text, like a unique passage or controversial topic, and share them via Twitter, Facebook and other platforms. Wortham said that the main difference for Social Books is that users will be able to post public notes and ideas about the book so that when a specific title is downloaded through the app, all of its social content will come with it. So how social can the individual reading experience become? How social can anyone one person become?

Naughton's article also referenced David Eagleman's Why the Next Matters, which Naughton described as, "an eight chapter manifesto that seeks to explain the significance of the internet for our future. The iPad app of Eagleman's essays is read with a split screen: one side displays the conventional text and the other features corresponding illustrations, 3D models, and photographs that the reader can manipulate to engage in the reading.

Ed Hawco from Montreal commented on Wortham’s article with an enlightening perspective, “I don’t understand this need to always make everything ‘social’… has the idea of personal introspection and “alone time” completely disappeared with the Facebook era?” Our generation thrives in the digital world, whether we e-read, tweet, tumble, stumble, blog, tag, post or pin. We have built webs within webs of social networks online and shared limitless content through social media. There will always be content to distribute and news to spread around. Naughton (2010) concluded his article, "The question now is: will there always be publishers?"

Personal reflection:
If reading is to become social, what is left to do alone? If we can't read a book without commenting about it on Facebook or through some other social app, can we do anything by ourselves? If everything we do on our own expands into a social dimension then we might risk losing an essential notion of self-knowledge. It is important for a portion of our brains to remain self-reliant. Often the most insightful thoughts evolve from challenging ourselves to dig deeper introspectively. If we divert all of our thoughts to our social network then how will we ever get to know our own brains? While our reliance on our social networks constantly connects the individual to the world, it might actually be disconnecting the individual from the self.

So as reading becomes more social, does our experience of reading socially become less personal?

Sources:
Lehrer, Jonah (2010) ‘The Future of Reading’, Wired

Naughton, John (2010) ‘Publishers take note: the iPad is altering the very concept of a ‘book’ The Guardian

Kamdar, Sachin (2012) ‘Why Publishers are about to go Data Crazy’, Mediashift: Your Guide to the Digital Revolution

Schonfeld, Erick (2011) ‘How the Ipad Time Shifts Online Reading’, Techcrunch

Wortham, Jenna (2010) ‘Social Books Hopes to Make E-Reading Communal’, New York Times