Media Structures: Difference between revisions

From Whiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 39: Line 39:
** is the difference not that such protocols exist but that they’re materially instantiated in networks of control? (Galloway) — by ignoring cultural codes of print, we strip away history from the investigation and set up a false binary, missing the actual difference (materialization of control)
** is the difference not that such protocols exist but that they’re materially instantiated in networks of control? (Galloway) — by ignoring cultural codes of print, we strip away history from the investigation and set up a false binary, missing the actual difference (materialization of control)
** so in some ways the different is not the dematerialization of text so much as a much stricter materialization of protocol
** so in some ways the different is not the dematerialization of text so much as a much stricter materialization of protocol
=== Thomas Tanselle, 'The Concept of Format' ===
proliferation of uses of term "format" -- "These usages at least beign to approach the bibliographer's concerncs by focusing on physical and design characteristics rather than intellectual content. But they still do not reflect what bibliographers mean by the term." (67)
"Bibliographers need a word to express the relationship between the physical structure of finished books and some of the printing-=shop routines that led to that structure, and they have long used 'format' for this purpose." (67) -- "does not mean simply the size and shape of a book"
In hand-press period, book trade “recognized that size and shape had to be conveyed by a combination of two terms, one indicating paper size and the other number of leaves produced by folding each sheet -- as in ‘Crown quqrto’” (70)
"One of the interesting and complicating facts about the development of bibliographical terminology in English is that 'format' came to refer, in bibliographers' hands, to process (imposition and folding) and the resulting structure rather than to dimensions." (71)
"If the authors of printers' manuals are like analytical bibliographers in their recognition of the fundamental connection between the imposed number of type-pages and the structure of books, they are different in that their approach to process is prospective: they fofer instruction in how to bring a book into existence. Bibliographers, in contrast, like all historians, work in the other direction and try to reconstruct processes from the traces that those processes have left." (74)
"Preciely how 'format' moved into English bibliographers' vocabulary I have not yet discovered. Presumably the interchange between English and continental incunabulists brought it about." (77)
Duff and Pollard still referred to "size" (but not measurement); finally shows up in McKerrow (1914) (78) -- "From McKerrow on, the concept of format, so named, was regularly explained in terms of paper-folding."  -- Bowers "never formally defined format" -- Gaskell includes folding and imposition as format (81) -- but Gaskell only focuses on paper evidence, not typographic evidence
"The unanimity of these influential introductory works shows that biliographers have thought of format primarily in terms of paper-folding, even though they understood that the folding is dictated by the prior imposition of the type-pages." (82)
"Format terms are meant to tell one something about the process of book production; and if, as McKerrow insisted, format must always be based on sheets as manufactured, regardless of the presswork procedures followed, it will sometimes obscure rather than clarify that process." (85)
proven differences in the history of papermaking -- for instance, double mould that would make the chainlines appear to run in "opposite" directions -- but that has to do with thistory of manufacturing paper, not imposition of type -- cannnot use chainline to determine format, although Greg et al. did, presuming that a pre-printing cut of a large sheet of paper constituted the same as a fold
whether a book is printed on mixed papers (cut down to size for instance) is irrelevant to format (90)
1570 Foxe's Acts and Monuments -- sheets pasted together to create folio sheet before printing
"I do not mean to suggest that paper evidence is irrelevant to the discovery of format but rather that typographical and presswork evidence should be drawn on as well -- a natural corollary to the idea that the number of type-pages involved is essential to the concept of format for prinnted books." (91)
19-20c papers harder, web-woven; can check deckle edge?
"If, after trying such approaches as these, and others that will inevid=tably be developed as more investigation is made of nineteenth-c and twentieth-century books, one still cannot in a given instance state with confidence the number of type-pages one the press at one time, one must clearly be content to give the structure of a book only in terms of the number of leaves per gathering." (94)
"The concept of format, if it is to be informative rather than confusing, must clearly remain constant as it is applied to books of different periods." (95)
broadside is not a format term, since it relates to distribution of material but not imposition; could use "broadside" th way we use "book" or "pamphlet" [then it is a ''platform''] -- and refer to impositionn like "full-sheet broadside," "folio broadsides," etc. (97)
is book of disjunct leaves a book of broadsides?
"If format is taken to refer to the number of page-units needed to fill oen side of a sheet, it follows that a disjunct leaf and a conjugate leaf are the same format if they both consiste of the same fraction of a sheet. ... Eliminating the idea of folding as an element of format makes clear that the essential concept comprehends without difficulty both broadsides and disjunct-leaf books as well as books made up fo sewn gatherings." (101)
"when paper is cut before printing, the original size is relevant to format only in those instances where the cutting is equivalent to folding after printing." (102)
"The routines of the earliest printers can be consistently and systematically accommodated to the same concept of format appropriate for later books, as long as one focuses strictly on the number of type-pages (and/or blank pages) used to fill one side of a full sheet, recognizing that any cutting before printng was only the equivalent of folding after printing." (108)
"just how much of the production process should be entailed in the naming of formats?" (108)
"If format is taken to express a relation between book production and book structure, it relies on analysis, even in the simplest cases." (108)
"Is the format of a book printed on full sheets from four-page formes to be tated differently from that of a book printed on half-sheets from two-page formes? Does format, in other words, encapsulate all that can be learned about the imposition, paper, and presswork for a given book, or does it have a more restricted meaning?" (109)
"In other words, format -- as I am defining it here -- refers only to the number of page-units required for one side of a full sheet, not to their precise arrangement." (112)
DEFINITION: "Format is a designation of the number of page-units (whetehr of printing surface, handwritten text, or blank space) that the producers of a printed or manuscript item decided upon to fill each side of a sheet of paper or vellum of the selected size(s); if paper came to a printing press in rolls rather than sheets, format can only refer to the number of page-units placed on the press at one time for the purpose of printing one side of the paper." (112-3)


== Substrate ==
== Substrate ==

Revision as of 21:46, 4 February 2020

begin by reading the rest of Vismann 2008, begin pg 13

will have to confront Galloway 2012 critique of formalism --> failure of formalism -- trying to define medium with reference to a specific 'language' or set of essential formal qualities, which then, following the metaphysical logic, manifest in the world a number of instances or effects" (19) -- object-thinking begets the problems of formalism

to read:

Kirschenbaum, "Editing the Interface" -- updating edition / impression / state / etc. for digital objects

Kittler: there is no software (http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=74)

John Durham Peters, Information: toward a critical history

(Infrastructure)

Platform

bookroll

codex

  • Flusser, "Book," Does Writing Have a Future?

palm-leaf books

khipu:

Format

Sterne 2012

Tenen 2017, “Form, Formula, Format”

  • distinction between print and digital books: print static, “we have no trouble operating a several hundred years old book”, digital changes on a monthly/daily basis (114)
    • this word operating shows up often in these distinctions — Ernst also makes it about manuscripts — but this seems wrong; depends on an entirely materialist concept of “operation”
  • “Whatever one designates as core content is enveloped within a multiplicity of standards, references, models, and formats, which in aggregate define the medium — the physical preconditions — of laminate text.” (123)
    • is the difference not that such protocols exist but that they’re materially instantiated in networks of control? (Galloway) — by ignoring cultural codes of print, we strip away history from the investigation and set up a false binary, missing the actual difference (materialization of control)
    • so in some ways the different is not the dematerialization of text so much as a much stricter materialization of protocol


Thomas Tanselle, 'The Concept of Format'

proliferation of uses of term "format" -- "These usages at least beign to approach the bibliographer's concerncs by focusing on physical and design characteristics rather than intellectual content. But they still do not reflect what bibliographers mean by the term." (67)

"Bibliographers need a word to express the relationship between the physical structure of finished books and some of the printing-=shop routines that led to that structure, and they have long used 'format' for this purpose." (67) -- "does not mean simply the size and shape of a book"

In hand-press period, book trade “recognized that size and shape had to be conveyed by a combination of two terms, one indicating paper size and the other number of leaves produced by folding each sheet -- as in ‘Crown quqrto’” (70)

"One of the interesting and complicating facts about the development of bibliographical terminology in English is that 'format' came to refer, in bibliographers' hands, to process (imposition and folding) and the resulting structure rather than to dimensions." (71)

"If the authors of printers' manuals are like analytical bibliographers in their recognition of the fundamental connection between the imposed number of type-pages and the structure of books, they are different in that their approach to process is prospective: they fofer instruction in how to bring a book into existence. Bibliographers, in contrast, like all historians, work in the other direction and try to reconstruct processes from the traces that those processes have left." (74)

"Preciely how 'format' moved into English bibliographers' vocabulary I have not yet discovered. Presumably the interchange between English and continental incunabulists brought it about." (77)

Duff and Pollard still referred to "size" (but not measurement); finally shows up in McKerrow (1914) (78) -- "From McKerrow on, the concept of format, so named, was regularly explained in terms of paper-folding." -- Bowers "never formally defined format" -- Gaskell includes folding and imposition as format (81) -- but Gaskell only focuses on paper evidence, not typographic evidence

"The unanimity of these influential introductory works shows that biliographers have thought of format primarily in terms of paper-folding, even though they understood that the folding is dictated by the prior imposition of the type-pages." (82)

"Format terms are meant to tell one something about the process of book production; and if, as McKerrow insisted, format must always be based on sheets as manufactured, regardless of the presswork procedures followed, it will sometimes obscure rather than clarify that process." (85)

proven differences in the history of papermaking -- for instance, double mould that would make the chainlines appear to run in "opposite" directions -- but that has to do with thistory of manufacturing paper, not imposition of type -- cannnot use chainline to determine format, although Greg et al. did, presuming that a pre-printing cut of a large sheet of paper constituted the same as a fold

whether a book is printed on mixed papers (cut down to size for instance) is irrelevant to format (90)

1570 Foxe's Acts and Monuments -- sheets pasted together to create folio sheet before printing

"I do not mean to suggest that paper evidence is irrelevant to the discovery of format but rather that typographical and presswork evidence should be drawn on as well -- a natural corollary to the idea that the number of type-pages involved is essential to the concept of format for prinnted books." (91)

19-20c papers harder, web-woven; can check deckle edge?

"If, after trying such approaches as these, and others that will inevid=tably be developed as more investigation is made of nineteenth-c and twentieth-century books, one still cannot in a given instance state with confidence the number of type-pages one the press at one time, one must clearly be content to give the structure of a book only in terms of the number of leaves per gathering." (94)

"The concept of format, if it is to be informative rather than confusing, must clearly remain constant as it is applied to books of different periods." (95)

broadside is not a format term, since it relates to distribution of material but not imposition; could use "broadside" th way we use "book" or "pamphlet" [then it is a platform] -- and refer to impositionn like "full-sheet broadside," "folio broadsides," etc. (97)

is book of disjunct leaves a book of broadsides?

"If format is taken to refer to the number of page-units needed to fill oen side of a sheet, it follows that a disjunct leaf and a conjugate leaf are the same format if they both consiste of the same fraction of a sheet. ... Eliminating the idea of folding as an element of format makes clear that the essential concept comprehends without difficulty both broadsides and disjunct-leaf books as well as books made up fo sewn gatherings." (101)

"when paper is cut before printing, the original size is relevant to format only in those instances where the cutting is equivalent to folding after printing." (102)

"The routines of the earliest printers can be consistently and systematically accommodated to the same concept of format appropriate for later books, as long as one focuses strictly on the number of type-pages (and/or blank pages) used to fill one side of a full sheet, recognizing that any cutting before printng was only the equivalent of folding after printing." (108)

"just how much of the production process should be entailed in the naming of formats?" (108)

"If format is taken to express a relation between book production and book structure, it relies on analysis, even in the simplest cases." (108)

"Is the format of a book printed on full sheets from four-page formes to be tated differently from that of a book printed on half-sheets from two-page formes? Does format, in other words, encapsulate all that can be learned about the imposition, paper, and presswork for a given book, or does it have a more restricted meaning?" (109)

"In other words, format -- as I am defining it here -- refers only to the number of page-units required for one side of a full sheet, not to their precise arrangement." (112)

DEFINITION: "Format is a designation of the number of page-units (whetehr of printing surface, handwritten text, or blank space) that the producers of a printed or manuscript item decided upon to fill each side of a sheet of paper or vellum of the selected size(s); if paper came to a printing press in rolls rather than sheets, format can only refer to the number of page-units placed on the press at one time for the purpose of printing one side of the paper." (112-3)

Substrate

parchment

  • Holsinger, "From Pig to Parchment"

hand-made European paper

amate paper

Inscription

Code

David Berry, "Contribution toward a grammar of code": http://thirteen.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-086-a-contribution-towards-a-grammar-of-code/

Rita Raley, "Code.surface | Code.depth": http://www.dichtung-digital.org/2006/01/Raley/index.htm

Mark Marino, "Critical Code Studies": http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/electropoetics/codology

N. Katherine Hayles, "Print is Flat, Code is Deep"

Interface

(Social Life)

formalism

Marjorie Levinson, "What is New Formalism," PMLA 122.2 (2007): 558-569

review of post-2000 turn toward formalism and what it means -- is a movement, rather than a theory or method

points out that many formalist interventions trace literary studies' "neglect of form to new historicism's alleged denunciation of form as an ideological mystification. The remaining studies see the eclipse of form as an unfortunate by-product of the institutional authority enjoyed by the historical turn." (559)

this leads to a practical division between 1) those who want to restore historicism to its original focus on form and 2) those who want to sharply distinguish history and art, discourse and literature, with form as the prerogative of art

"In short, we have a new formalism that makes a continuum with new historicism and a backlash new formalism." (559)

reinstating close reading at the center of the curriculum

"another feature marking new formalism as a whole: reassertion of the critical (and self-critical) agency of which artworks are capable when and only when they are (a) restored to their original, compositional complexity (the position of normative new formalism) or (b) for the activist camp, when they are released from the closures they have suffered through a combination of their own idealizing impulses, their official receptions, and general processes of cultural absorption." (560)

normative new formalism "makes a strong claim for bringing back pleasure as what hooks us and rewards us for reading" (562)

"new formalism as itself a kind of aesthetic or formal commitment. It seeks to fend off the divisiveness encouraged by the kinds of cognitive, ethical, and juridical commitments -- as it were, content commitments -- rife among and effectively defining all the critical practices summed up by the term new historicism, commitments that paradoxically (so new formalism argues) rob our scholarship of its potential for emancipatory and critical agency." (562)

Arthur Bahr and Alexandra Gillespie, "Medieval English Manuscripts: Form, Aesthetics, and the Literary Text," The Chaucer Review 47.4 (2013): 346-60

special issue on formalism + book history / codicology

Leah Price and Seth Lerer, special issue of PMLA, "The History of the Book and the Idea of Literature" -- shows how book history has been set up in distinction to literary theory and formalism

book history has found a home in new historicism, which it itself often seen as in opposition to formalism (see Levinson above)

in this issue, want to ask:

"Book history -- much like the New HIstoricism with which we here loosely group it -- has been set up as a foil to formalism and New Criticism. What can its role be now that questions about form and practices of close reading are of renewed interest?" (348-9)

Robert S. Lehman, "Formalism, Mere Form, and Judgment," New LIterary History 48 (2017): 245-263

Dennis Yi Tenen, "The Emergence of American Formalism," Modern Philology 117.2 (2019): 257-83

slew of plot devices and automated plot-generating machines in late 19 / early 20 c -- precursors to Russian and French branches of formalism and structuralism, forming a "school of American formalism, as I propose to call it, [which] differed fro mits European counterparts in being addressed primarily to the purposes of composition rather than analysis." (258)

a school "not only in the literary-theoretical sense -- manifested in preference for terms such as form, function, structure, technique, method, organizing principle, or mechanism -- but also more broadly, relating to the translation of abstract, often nebulous concepts, such as genius and creativity, into a set of concrete physical operations or procedures." (258-9)

"formalization of literary labor at the turn of the 20c" (260) -- a "species of an industrial modernism" (260)