Tutorial 4 - Week 5

When I think of archiving, I think of dusty books in some underground basement that has a flickering light and leaking pipes. I had never interpreted archiving as a mechanism by which we write the rules of society, or as Derrida says " the technical structure of the archiving archive also determines the structure of the archivable content even in its very coming into existence and in its relationship to the future. The archivization produces as much as it records the event."


I find it interesting what material gets archived and what gets discarded. As is suggested in the quote above, the material that is archived has the potential to shape the future. What sort of modern world would we have if works like Shakespeare and Van Gogh were not archived?

Source: http://cadlbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/shakespeare-blog-comic1.jpg

As Matthew Ogle explained in his blog Archive Fever, with the introduction of technology, we have obviously increased our ability to archive a greater volume of content and "open the future". However, will this alter the way in which we decide what to keep and what to get rid of? With the internet storing every tiny piece of information we upload to it, are we creating a more diverse future for later generations or are we forcing them into a life that is shaped by which shopping centre one checks into on Facebook? One of the benefits that Derrida explains about this new form of archiving is that we now have records of events as they happen. No longer do we rely on recounts being written after the event (that may result in significant details being lost or forgotten). Now events worldwide are recorded, stored and constantly accessible, as demonstrated by the archive of people's experiences of Cyclone Yasi on the ABC website. Another interesting point about modern archiving is the multitude of forms it can take. Archiving no longer involves storing away books and pieces of parchment. Now, rather, archives can consist of photographs, videos, podcasts, music files; Google is an archive of websites, resources, news, images and videos - Google Archives. 


I am thoroughly enjoying the notion of archive fever, constantly being distracted by photo blogs whilst I write this. I hope that the progression and evolution of archive fever continues as we are now able to store more, access more and experience more through our archives.

Tutorial 3 - Week 4

I was slightly confused by this week's readings and initially thought that actor-network theory looked like this:

Source: http://www.seopher.com/images/internet.jpg

It took a couple of attempts to grasp an understanding of the concepts but hopefully I now have enough of an idea. I did some research to in an attempt to understand more about Actor-Network Theory and found this great video that explains it in "plain English".




The relationships between things, human and non-human, animate and inanimate, have all influenced the history and development of the processes, and ultimately, the assemblage of publishing. Essentially, the question is, which part of publishing can be attributed to social interactions, and which part is attributed to technology and technological advances. Therefore, the process of publishing cannot be considered to be solely social, or solely technological, rather it should be considered to be a combination of both. This also means that one cannot be valued higher than the other; both social implications and technological implications should be viewed as equal entities. Through the interactions between these entities, a network, or assemblage, is created.

As the readings describe, these networks are transient and constantly need to be 'performed' and remodelled otherwise they will dissolve. With that in mind, would it be fair to state that the concern over the disappearance of traditional print publishing is unfounded? If publishing was not re-made for a modern, technologically-savvy audience, then the network of publishing would dissolve completely, would it not? I suppose, however, that the publishing assemblage holds itself together because it is driven by the unquenchable desire people have to constantly make their thoughts, feelings and actions public knowledge.

These networks are involved in a push/pull relationship with the other assemblages and entities around them. In the readings there was mention of some criticism of ANT, and I would essentially argue that whilst the premise of ANT involves the push/pull relationship, without the actions of living things, most of these networks would not exist. How would technology exist in the first place if humans weren't around to create it? Whilst technology does play an important part in the theory of ANT and in the creation of assemblages, I feel that the creation of a network is more in the hands of living things. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation.  

Hopefully now, ANT looks more like this in my mind:

Source: http://images.wikia.com/psychology/images/6/63/Venn_diagram_cmyk.png

Tutorial 2 - Week 3

The debate over whether digital news content should attract the same prices as printed news is highly topical and heated debate. I can understand why it is that certain news corporations want consumers to pay for the news they provide, but I don't think it's a realistic option. As the article by Steve Busfield in The Guardian explains, society is shifting and adapting to the new forms of technology, and none of their expectations is that news institutions will provide the news they require in a digital form, and preferably for no extra cost. Interestingly, the comments posted by general members of the pubic at the end of both articles demonstrate this notion, with one reader saying "when I reach my limit on free articles, I'll simply stop surfing". Counter to this of course are those who sympathize with those involved in the industry who are trying to make a living out of the news. Unfortunately though, I feel modern society has become so used to accessing free content via online platforms that they will generally resist the concept of pay-per-view news content.

This then begs the question, who will pay to keep the news afloat? Can online news sources survive on the revenue generated by advertisers? (Who the public seem even more reluctant to deal with online than in print) Or are we able to treat printed news and digital news as separate entities, just like books and e-books are considered to be different? Or, as another alternative, could online news simply become a forum in which the headlines/outlines of a story are made, and the print news be the location of the full, in-depth article? Surely publications like mx newspapers have demonstrated that a news service can provide free news to it's customers.

One of the readers of the New York Times article made the interesting point that the aspects of digital news that most people wanted to access (e.g. Breaking news, entertainment news and sport) be free, but make niche services specific to news sites, such as crosswords or classifieds, areas in which consumers need to pay. This could allow for news corporations to make money whilst still providing the service that everyone wants for free.

I think that devoted supporters of news institutions will continue to pay for their regardless of what sort of digital form their provider takes. Besides, aren't all those people who casually flick through newspapers and magazines without buying them doing the same thing as those who browse online news for free? I don't see the news industry mounting an attack on them!

Tutorial 1 - Week 2

For me, publishing is like electricity; you know it’s there but you’re not really aware of the mechanics behind it, and you just expect it to work when you want it to. Whilst always being conscious of the notion of publishing, I was never familiar with the intricate foundations and processes of the publication system, in particular the legal implications and the multitude of people involved. Nor had I ever put a great deal of thought into the variety of avenues that publishing presents, such as open publishing or the commons.

I feel that my oblivion stems from being a product of a technology-obsessed society. The printing press made an enormous impact when it was introduced, with immense effort and thought put into each publication. Nowadays, however, the act of publishing as become so common-place, with people publishing statements about what they had for dinner and which supermarket they recently checked-in at, generally without a second thought from the publisher. For this reason, I feel many people are unaware of the impact that publishing material has (hence all the recent scandals involving Twitter-rants or the uploading of an inappropriate photo to Facebook) and the importance of being savvy about what you tell members of the general public.

I had generally assumed that it was relatively simple to publish in a newspaper or book; I had no idea that the method of publication involved the multiple, complicated steps of a design stage and a sales stage. With the advent of technology, the way in which media is published has been altered; as John Naughton said “concepts of what constitutes a magazine or a newspaper are already changing” (Naughton, J. (2009) ‘The original Big Brother is watching you on Amazon Kindle’ The Guardian) with books now published online and available on your phone. 

I am hoping that by studying this course, I will gain a greater understanding (and sensibility) about the ways in which myself and others publish, and the values and risks involved in displaying work in the public arena.