The clip here is in Finnish but worthwhile a look. It features the scratch-it poetry table designed by the artist group IC-98 for the Frankfurt book fair. Muistikirjoituksia – Recollected Writings is a site-specific installation where Finnish contemporary poetry can be unfolded in ways that hark back to earlier days. In the short clip, one of the members of IC-98 Patrik Söderlund tells how this is a way to approach digital literature – or perhaps we should call this installation more accurately post-digital in the way Florian Cramer defines the term referring to uses where it dismisses “the idea of digital processing as the sole universal all-purpose form of information processing. Muistikirjoituksia frames materiality and pre-modern site-specific forms of engaging with literature in the public. Söderlund challenges us to think of new literature not only in the short time span of new digital technologies but asks to consider literature in a thousand year horizon.
More on IC-98-group here.
(I am personally excited to see Patrik Söderlund’s name pop up as he was the designer of the cover of my first book, Koneoppi. He also designed the covers of the Eetos-publication series we started in 2004.)
Technological change comes with the parallel pace of commentators identifying the change and with enthusiastic attempts to name the new.
Big data is perhaps the most recent of the revolutionary turns that wants to invent the conditions of its own newness, including writing its own short histories. However, most of modernity can be seen in terms of control and management (of things turned data, a theme that some media scholars such as Bernhard Siegert identify already in the 15th century emergence of double-entry bookkeeping).
Such a media history of management comes out well in such by now “old” classics as James Beniger’s The Control Revolution.
The book, from mid 1980s, also includes a useful list of the enthusiasm for the changes in rhetorics of social and technological change after WWII. The old new and continuous discursive revolutions of social change, technology, information and data merge into an annual cycle of invention of a new turn and concept of change:
Fill in the various revolutions post-1984.
There’s an interview with me in the new issue of Modern Weekly (Shanghai) thanks to Paul Feigelfeld’s apt questions and incisive comments. The chat focuses on insect media, animals and technological culture. We are working on an edited and extended English version too.
During my MECS-fellowship at Leuphana-university in Germany also the DCRL-bunch interviewed me. Here is the video interview where I answer their questions about digital culture.
The “Post-NSA”-world implies the question of the Pre-NSA; Post-Snowden Leaks imply also the Pre-Snowden-Era: investigations into the longer histories and panics about the interception capacities of COMINT-specialists extend further back in time. A sort of a media archaeology of SIGINT: the necessity to see the long term build-up of such organisations, logistics, infrastructures and political conditions where a massive level technological snooping is able to take place (after all, it did not emerge over night but is an aftereffect of World War II in many ways).
Kittler’s No Such Agency-piece is one key writing alongside a lot of texts on signal intelligence. I am currently continuing my own short blog post about Teufelsberg and the ECHELON-network into a longer academic essay, and as part of that, referring to the debate some 15 years ago after some ECHELON-network revelations. Here, a quote, even if only in German but it’s the Pynchonian version of 20th century: the paranoid-technological century (where paranoia becomes more than a state of the psyche; it becomes infrastructurally embedded).
Der Spiegel wrote on 21st of May, 1999 (as a reaction to STOA Interception Capabilities 2000-report): “Eine Vorstellung wie aus der Phantasie eines Paranoikers: Ob wir über Handy oder Festnetz telefonieren, E-Mail schreiben, Dateien übers Internet verschicken – kein Wort sei sicher vor dem Zugriff internationaler Geheimdienste, die systematisch und in großem Maßstab nahezu alle Wege, auch den zivilen elektronischen Datenverkehr, belauschen und für ihre Zwecke auswerten.”
My good news of the day is that my university (University of Southampton) confirmed that I have been promoted to full professor. It comes with a fancy title Professor in Technological Culture & Aesthetics and kicks in next month for the new academic year! Big thanks to Winchester School of Art, its head Ed D’Souza and other colleagues for the support!
Or in other words:
meson press’ first book, Rethinking Gamification (PDF), was just released in Lüneburg. Part of the Hybrid Publishing Lab at the Leuphana University, the press focuses on digital culture and network media with the aim to “challenge contemporary theories and advance key debates in the humanities today.” I was interested in inviting one of the representatives of the press, Mercedes Bunz, to share in the style of some earlier mini-interviews I have conducted what she sees as the stakes in coming up with a multiple-format publishing house that focuses on theory.
Most of scholars are increasingly frustrated with the dinosauric habits of big academic publishers, but how to establish alternatives in the academic world that is challenged both by the necessity of new formats and by the only slowly changing recognition systems of the academic world?
The burning questions in publishing seem to be about the changing media ecology of academia of which publishing is one part – and inherently connected to institutional settings and subject-positions.
“What and why is meson press as a theory publishing project and does it connect with the wider question of the “post-digital scholar?”
Mercedes Bunz: “You are right: publishing itself gets profoundly questioned by digital media, it isn’t just that digital media is an exciting field for theory because it never stands still.
The interesting thing: while we all know that within publishing there is “disruption”, oddly enough this doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be change. It might be true that technology offers alternative ways of publishing. However, reputation management and academic recognition systems stand in the way and ensure that nothing changes. Thus, the situation we find ourselves in is slightly mad: technically there are many ways to publish and share intelligent thoughts by now. However, young academics can’t use those alternatives because then their book a) can’t find its way into academic libraries which means b) they don’t get cited, or c) the book isn’t recognized for their CV. For all of that it still needs an approved publisher. Our technical super-connected, post-digital world is left helpless.
Of course, one can’t accept this.
meson press works its way through this situation. Naturally as academics who are also media scholars, we are quite interested in exploring the question: What chances are there in digital book production for theory debates? Our answer so far is the following: We publish open access, and this makes books easily findable and pushes citation. Also we foster the findability of our books regarding search engines and catalogues, and take marketing quite serious. However, the most important difference in my opinion is the conceptual understanding of what this is: a book.
Similar to Mattering Press, or Christopher Kelty’s scholarly magazine Limn http://limn.it/ our publishing project is an academic cooperative: from academics for academics. This means in our view, a book becomes a place to meet and debate, similar to a lecture, a workshop, or a seminar. Editing a book was always a starting point for a discussion, copy-editing was always a way to connect or disagree. It is this tendency which now needs to be further amplified. In other words, we take quality assessment very serious and try to turn it into a concept: A book isn’t just a product that starts a dialogue between author and reader. It is accompanied by lots of other academic conversations – peer review, co-authors, copy editors – and these conversations deserve to be taken more serious. In a post-digital world one needs to understand that a book is a process that gives good reason to meet in person. Formats like book sprints have lead the way. Wendy Chun has also inspired us to create a writing group in which we constructively discuss a non-completed essay or chapter.
So I suppose this is how meson press connects to our situation as post-digital scholars. As a publishing house which is also a publishing project, we focus on the book as a form of communication, and this communication is an important part of its production. This is a way to optimize its task: to intervene, and challenge (which is not an easy task in our neoliberal societies). But we like the humanities, and we like them alive and kicking.
If I may give you a little overview of our upcoming publishing projects: After”Rethinking Gamification” we will publish two forgotten classics: The first will be by the Greek-French philosopher Kostas Axelos “On Marx and Heidegger”, which is edited with great care and expertise by Stuart Elden. We are very interested in Axelos’ take on technology and alienation. The second will be by Antonia Caronia “The Cyborg”.
Also we are very proud that Yuk Hui and Erich Hörl have started editing the series “After Simondon” with us, and we are preparing two edited collections “Diffracting Kittler: German Media Theory and Beyond” and “Critical Keywords for the Digital Humanities”.
Sorry, but may I end this little interview with an appeal? If anyone has an idea for a thrilling book proposal in the context of digital culture and media studies, please send us a short trenchant abstract and chapter overview to: firstname.lastname@example.org.”