[iDC] Keen as amateur media theorist
Myron Turner
mturner at cc.umanitoba.ca
Sat Aug 25 13:21:05 UTC 2007
One of the comments posted to crowdsourcing.com in connection with Jeff
Howe's piece on Keen refers to a an Scott Mclemee's article on Michael
Gorman, whose analysis of Web 2.0 is being serialized in the
Encyclopedia Britannica’s blog. Gorman earlier published an essay in
Library Journal, referring to "the Blog People," whom he doubted were
"in the habit of sustained reading of complex texts."
(See http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/06/20/mclemee ).
Gorman has a hieratic predisposition, for which the welter of digital
information is an abuse of learning, overwhelming the critical faculty:
we are ‘educating’ a generation of intellectual sluggards incapable of
moving
beyond the Internet and of interacting with, and learning from, the
myriad of
texts created by human minds over the millenia and perhaps found only in
those distant
archives and dusty file cabinets full of treasures unknown. What a
dreary, flat,
uninteresting world we will create if we succumb to that danger!
His use of "flat" is very telling; it implies an undifferentiated mass
of information and reflects the anxieties inherent in critiques of "mass
culture" that appear during the second and third quarters of the last
century and had sympathetic literary forebears in writers like T.S.
Eliot and Ezra Pound, whose intolerable social attitudes were overlooked
by critics who themselves would have been kept outside the castle walls.
Gorman, of course, is not one of those. He is, by McLemee's telling, to
put it rather baldly, on the side of "standards". And of course, we are
all on that side, if we are on the side of intelligent use of
information. But Gorman's idea of intelligence is washed in the twilight
of nostalgia--"millenia", "archives", "dusty file cabinets full of
treasures". I know that world first-hand, having spent numerous hours
with 16th century texts in the watery light of the British Museum. And
so I also know that. in the early days of printed books, typography and
design were also nostalgic, nostalgic for the look and feel of manuscripts.
That nostalgia wasn't just aesthetic; it was for an earlier time when
culture was more easily managed but difficult to access. To begin with,
most literate culture was housed in institutional libraries and the
libraries of the wealthy. One of the interesting sidelights to the early
printed book is that italic type was first designed to fit more
characters to a page, so that books would be less expensive for the less
affluent scholar and easier to travel with. Our own world is the result
of such cheap knowledge. At first this cheap knowledge presented readers
with the many of the same dilemmas' as digital information, in
particular reliability. People had to learn how to read and evaluate
books. But on the other side, one has to ask how effective was the
cloistered system of knowledge that antedated printing. In 'How Prints
Look', William Ivins, gives a fascinating account of the limitations of
manuscripts for the transmission of technical information. First off,
physical processes had to be described in words, and many of us will
know the frustrations of trying to walk someone through a computer
problem over the phone. But more importantly, even where there were
diagrams, these diagrams had to be copied by hand from manuscript copy
to manuscript copy and so suffered the inevitable distortions of manual
transmission. Standardized, reproducible engraved diagrams made for the
reliable transmission of technical knowledge and techniques.
Renaissance intellectual life grew out of a tradition of respect for
authority. With the wide dissemination of cheap knowledge through books,
education outgrew the safe boundaries of cloister and castle, the
knowledge base grew, and the old authorities were often found unreliable
or reprized in new ways. Cheap knowledge challenges old knowledge. We
may have to have our critical faculties alert when we Google a topic,
but on the other side we never know what we may come up with that we
never would have found before.
In all of this, I am reminded of Bejnamin's distinction between
"auratic" and reproducible art. Auratic art is in the keeping of the
privileged, while mechanical reproduction in effect cheapens it, by
making it widely available. Benjamin's description of auratic art
radiates nostalgia, but he never lets that nostalgia get in the way of
his belief in the value and utility of art in the age of mechanical
reproduction. We continue to live an attitude of ambivalence about both
art and information.
Myron Turner
Howe, Jeff wrote:
> Not true. I¹m a longtime contributing editor at Wired Magazine, a blogger
> (crowdsourcing.com) and have something of my own stake in these arguments as
> I¹m writing a book on the ways in which peer production and other forms of
> group problem solving are changing the nature of production. Like many of
> the people on (and off!) this list, I found Keen¹s arguments to be
> dangerously misleading. When the book was still in galleys my editor at
> Wired and I decided we should force Keen to defend some of his more
> indefensible positions (not everything in the book is indefensible). While
> we declined to run that particular mano-a-mano interview in the pages of
> Wired (his attack on Wired¹s Chris Anderson threatened to make us look
> vindictive), I did run it on my blog
> (http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/cs/2007/06/andrew_keens_cu.html). I
> subsequently debated him at the Strand Bookstore in New York (broadcast on
> CSPAN) as well as on a very short, very unsatisfactory segment on Fox News.
>
--
_____________________
Myron Turner
http://www.room535.org
http://www.room535.org/woodblocks
http://www.mturner.org/XML_PullParser/
More information about the iDC
mailing list