Media Structures - Revision history

Wtrettien: /* Interface */

2020-05-26T17:27:17Z

Interface

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:27, 26 May 2020
Line 126:		Line 126:

	[[Andersen and Pold 2011]]		[[Andersen and Pold 2011]]

			[[Chun 2011]]

	[[Hookman 2014]]		[[Hookman 2014]]

Wtrettien: /* Interface */

2020-05-26T17:16:35Z

Interface

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 26 May 2020
Line 124:		Line 124:

	== Interface ==		== Interface ==

			[[Andersen and Pold 2011]]

	[[Hookman 2014]]		[[Hookman 2014]]

Wtrettien: /* Interface */

2020-05-25T22:32:39Z

Interface

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 25 May 2020
Line 123:		Line 123:
	N. Katherine Hayles, "Print is Flat, Code is Deep"		N. Katherine Hayles, "Print is Flat, Code is Deep"

	== Interface ==		== Interface ==

			[[Hookman 2014]]

			[[Drucker 2014]]

	== (Social Life) ==		== (Social Life) ==

Wtrettien: /* Inscription */

2020-05-11T18:36:05Z

Inscription

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:36, 11 May 2020
Line 110:		Line 110:

	== Inscription ==		== Inscription ==

			Gabriel Menotti Gonring, "Executable images: the enactment and distribution of movies in computer networks"

	== Code ==		== Code ==

Wtrettien: /* formalism */

2020-05-09T17:44:39Z

formalism

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:44, 9 May 2020
Line 186:		Line 186:

	argues that "A theory of digital objects demands a synthesis between Simondonian individualization and the Heideggerian interpretation of ready-to-handness (Heidegger would reject the idea that Simondon’s thesis regarding technical objects poses any ontological questions, while Simondon would very much like to separate the technical from the social)"		argues that "A theory of digital objects demands a synthesis between Simondonian individualization and the Heideggerian interpretation of ready-to-handness (Heidegger would reject the idea that Simondon’s thesis regarding technical objects poses any ontological questions, while Simondon would very much like to separate the technical from the social)"

			== "digital materialism" ==

			=== Nathalie Casemajor, "Digital Materialisms: Frameworks for Digital Media Studies" ===

			https://www.westminsterpapers.org/articles/10.16997/wpcc.209/

			“Since the 1980s, ‘digital materialism’ has become a new field of interest in communication and media studies, increasingly gaining momentum in the 2000s. Materialism as a theoretical paradigm assumes that all things in the world, including things of the mind and digital stuff, are tied to (and in some cases, determined by) physical processes and matter. Yet, within digital media studies, the understanding of what should be the core object of a materialist analysis is debated.”

			Outlining 6 frameworks “that share the assumption that digital materiality is composed of ‘material bits’”

			1. The Berlin School of media

			Kittler, “media materialism” or “information materialism”

			2. The field of software studies

			Lev Manovich, Fuller, Wardrip-Fruin, Bogost and Montfort; platform studies

			3. The literary critique of electronic texts

			Hayles, Kirschenbaum

			4. The forensic approach

			Kirschenbaum

			5. The ’new materialist’ media ecology

			“Reframed to address the entanglement of humans and non-humans, media ecology has become a site to investigate the link between nature and technologies, questioning the role of digital media in natural environments degradation.”

			6. And the field of Marxian critical studies

			“Marxist frameworks articulate the issues of materiality, politics and ecology around the traditional concepts of ownership, labour and class struggle. This version of digital materialism brings to the forefront the material nature of economy with the aim of criticizing capitalism and its excesses. It postulates that the material infrastructure of media industry acts as a determining force in the production of media content and discourse.”

			Three main tensions:
			* Between a semantic and an engineer’s perspective on media
			* Between technological and social determinism
			* Between critical or post-humanist political propositions

			“The great variety of traditions, intellectual trajectories and emerging trends that could qualify as ‘materialist’ prevents from picturing what is now labelled a ‘material turn’ in digital media studies as a homogeneous movement. As a matter of fact, this ‘material turn’ is profoundly indebted to cross-disciplinary influences and its contours extend well beyond the disciplinary boundaries of media studies.“

			Anthropology had material turn earlier, in 1970s

			“The key argument of digital materialism is that there is no ‘pure information’: code is inscribed; bits are written. Furthermore, the resources of computation are limited in terms of processing power, storage capacity and connectivity; its signals are prone to degradation, its devices to decay and toxicity.”

			“Taking as a starting point the physical substrate of digital reality, the four approaches described above focus on technologized memory (Kittler), user-experience of programmable objects (Manovich), electronic texts (Hayles) and forensic traces (Kirschenbaum). These frameworks provide tools to critique the trope of immateriality, but they do not address frontally the political dimension of digital materialism.”


	== formalism ==		== formalism ==

Wtrettien at 22:50, 8 May 2020

2020-05-08T22:50:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 8 May 2020
Line 11:		Line 11:

	John Durham Peters, Information: toward a critical history		John Durham Peters, Information: toward a critical history

			[[Kallinikos et al. 2012]]

	== (Infrastructure) ==		== (Infrastructure) ==

Wtrettien: /* (Infrastructure) */

2020-04-09T01:06:19Z

(Infrastructure)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:06, 9 April 2020
Line 12:		Line 12:
	John Durham Peters, Information: toward a critical history		John Durham Peters, Information: toward a critical history

	== (Infrastructure) ==		== (Infrastructure) ==

			Good short blog post on infrastructure, by Deborah Cowen: https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3067-infrastructures-of-empire-and-resistance

	== Platform ==		== Platform ==

Wtrettien: /* Yuk Hui, "What is a digital object," Metaphilosophy */

2020-02-06T16:37:23Z

Yuk Hui, "What is a digital object," Metaphilosophy

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:37, 6 February 2020
Line 178:		Line 178:

	=== Yuk Hui, "What is a digital object," Metaphilosophy ===		=== Yuk Hui, "What is a digital object," Metaphilosophy ===

			shifting from philosophy of substance to one of relations

			argues that "A theory of digital objects demands a synthesis between Simondonian individualization and the Heideggerian interpretation of ready-to-handness (Heidegger would reject the idea that Simondon’s thesis regarding technical objects poses any ontological questions, while Simondon would very much like to separate the technical from the social)"

	== formalism ==		== formalism ==

Wtrettien: /* "digital objects" */

2020-02-06T16:35:38Z

"digital objects"

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 6 February 2020
Line 123:		Line 123:
	== "digital objects" ==		== "digital objects" ==

	Jannis Kallinikos, Aleksi Aaltonen, and Attila Marton, "A theory of digital objects," ''First Monday'' 15.6-7 (June 2010)		=== Jannis Kallinikos, Aleksi Aaltonen, and Attila Marton, "A theory of digital objects," ''First Monday'' 15.6-7 (June 2010) ===

	https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3033		https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3033
Line 176:		Line 176:

	“In this respect, it would be interesting to observe that digital objects are objects only in an elusive and perhaps euphemistic way. For, the steady transfiguration and the permeable boundaries underlying them suggest that they are no more than operations by means of which they are assembled to proxies of objects (Ekbia, 2009; Manovich, 2001) only to be unpacked, edited, reprogrammed and reassembled again. The theory of digital objects thus draws attention away from fixed entities and the role they are supposed to serve. Instead, it focuses on the data–driven operations (editability, interactivity, openness) by which digital perceptions and practices are assembled and dissolve, and the complex ecology of relations (distributedness, openness) within which these operations are embedded. This is an important insight and a key contribution this paper claims it makes to the literature.”		“In this respect, it would be interesting to observe that digital objects are objects only in an elusive and perhaps euphemistic way. For, the steady transfiguration and the permeable boundaries underlying them suggest that they are no more than operations by means of which they are assembled to proxies of objects (Ekbia, 2009; Manovich, 2001) only to be unpacked, edited, reprogrammed and reassembled again. The theory of digital objects thus draws attention away from fixed entities and the role they are supposed to serve. Instead, it focuses on the data–driven operations (editability, interactivity, openness) by which digital perceptions and practices are assembled and dissolve, and the complex ecology of relations (distributedness, openness) within which these operations are embedded. This is an important insight and a key contribution this paper claims it makes to the literature.”

			=== Yuk Hui, "What is a digital object," Metaphilosophy ===

	== formalism ==		== formalism ==

Wtrettien: /* "digital objects" */

2020-02-05T20:12:19Z

"digital objects"

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:12, 5 February 2020
Line 128:		Line 128:


			This essay starts from within the tech determinism vs social construction debate, seeming to suggest we've moved to far to the social const view with approaches to digital objects; then attempts to outlines a theory of digital objects that assigns to them four primary characteristics: editable, interactive, open, distributed. Uses the example of web search to point out how the archivable document no longer exists in the same way, ontologically. Interesting perspective, but ends up being anti-materialist in describing digital objects as not in any meaningful way actually objects -- only effects. Useful in explaining new set of relations but not in identifying material/tangible infrastructures.


Line 175:		Line 176:

	“In this respect, it would be interesting to observe that digital objects are objects only in an elusive and perhaps euphemistic way. For, the steady transfiguration and the permeable boundaries underlying them suggest that they are no more than operations by means of which they are assembled to proxies of objects (Ekbia, 2009; Manovich, 2001) only to be unpacked, edited, reprogrammed and reassembled again. The theory of digital objects thus draws attention away from fixed entities and the role they are supposed to serve. Instead, it focuses on the data–driven operations (editability, interactivity, openness) by which digital perceptions and practices are assembled and dissolve, and the complex ecology of relations (distributedness, openness) within which these operations are embedded. This is an important insight and a key contribution this paper claims it makes to the literature.”		“In this respect, it would be interesting to observe that digital objects are objects only in an elusive and perhaps euphemistic way. For, the steady transfiguration and the permeable boundaries underlying them suggest that they are no more than operations by means of which they are assembled to proxies of objects (Ekbia, 2009; Manovich, 2001) only to be unpacked, edited, reprogrammed and reassembled again. The theory of digital objects thus draws attention away from fixed entities and the role they are supposed to serve. Instead, it focuses on the data–driven operations (editability, interactivity, openness) by which digital perceptions and practices are assembled and dissolve, and the complex ecology of relations (distributedness, openness) within which these operations are embedded. This is an important insight and a key contribution this paper claims it makes to the literature.”


	== formalism ==		== formalism ==