"The article presents information on the dinner party at Droog's Amsterdam, Netherlands headquarters. The dinner party entitled as Infinity Dinner, will be a holiday meal of 10 small courses. In the beginning there will be microgreens and young meats like veal. Movable seating will be arranged in a DNA-like shape and diners will slide every few minutes. For this party, one will wear a black dress with an overlay of twigs."
- Walsh, S. Kirk. "Grand New Party." New York Times; 12/2/2007, Vol. 157 Issue 54146, Special section p176-176, 1p
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
public scholarship
Domke argues that scholars have an obligation to make their ideas and findings accessible to the public. I completely agree with this idea, and not just because many universities are funded by taxes. Thinking about this way too abstractly, if ideas and information travel from the World to the University, but not back again, then, for one thing, there's no immediate reason that the integrity of the University's reflection of the World matters. The implication of this is two systems that need not have anything in common, where all of the ideas or laws in one are completely irrelevant in the other. Consider a city and a university in a world where such a scenario exists. The city has long ago stopped sending people to the university or funding it, and the citizens live as though the university doesn't exist; in the university, the dominant theory holds that the city is a fiction created by philosophers who had nothing else to study. Both places can exist autonomously, which is fine, but I am going to make a value judgment and say this situation is bad. Don't contradict me.
Both Domke and Ellison speak about hope. This is directly associated with caring--with being invested in an outcome. Impartiality is traditionally considered the most objective, scientific stance. As we've been talking about in class, however, the scholar is never without bias, so perhaps the most objective position is one of open, authentic subjectivity. This is what I think these authors mean by hope.
In terms of my group's research project, this reading has provided great arguments for why it is important for us to make our results available outside of academia. I am also inclined to be more transparent about my own opinions about all this--still being careful not to let this become an excuse not to do authentic research. That is--and maybe I should really have emphasized this above--it's important to acknowledge one's subjectivity while still striving toward impartial research methods!
Both Domke and Ellison speak about hope. This is directly associated with caring--with being invested in an outcome. Impartiality is traditionally considered the most objective, scientific stance. As we've been talking about in class, however, the scholar is never without bias, so perhaps the most objective position is one of open, authentic subjectivity. This is what I think these authors mean by hope.
In terms of my group's research project, this reading has provided great arguments for why it is important for us to make our results available outside of academia. I am also inclined to be more transparent about my own opinions about all this--still being careful not to let this become an excuse not to do authentic research. That is--and maybe I should really have emphasized this above--it's important to acknowledge one's subjectivity while still striving toward impartial research methods!
Monday, May 19, 2008
Heights of Fashion
The first thing to notice about this troika--and the central accessory--is in the third (bottom) partition: the piece of chair wood in the lower left corner. The hierarchical opposite of the blue knee monolith, it asserts itself as an essential subject, without which the knee's power would seem vain, if not ridiculous. Humble yet unassailable, it stands apart from the rest, and for viewers it provides almost a surrogate perspective or vantage point. It is through this item, then, that the outfit assumes a character of preeminence.Studying the knee in particular, we observe four primary dark, nearly triangular patches along the river of the seam--a metaphor for the countryside, no doubt. The serpentine though trough-like extension to the southeast further suggests an irrigation channel; the even texture on the opposite side evokes uniform fields of wheat or spinach.
The next partition is clearly a communications grid, whereby we recognize that we are at the central nervous system. White hubs in the center are not merely decorative formalities, but serve as informational relay points. Messages are combined at these units into complete and lucid memories, which facilitate the direct communication between left furrow and right furrow, or Idea and Praxis, respectively. The colors indicate that the bearer is of or related to the Malcolm Clan.
Finally, at top, the outfit puts on a more leisurely expression for the end of the day. The thick, coarse weaving pattern and chaotic but dichromatic incorporation of materials recalls the Hungarian revolution of 1956--the hope, the daring, but ultimately the disaster; just so, the two colors attempt to integrate, but lose cohesion and ultimately distract. Whence the element of repose? It is just this transduction from historical event to vestimentary appendage that produces the energy required for genuine peace of mind. Blocking out all other detail, the sock cannot be denied.
-------------------------------------------------After reading what the author of the above has written about what I'm wearing, I have to say that I'm not sure that I completely buy his analysis. I could try to give an account of the reasoning that went into my dress in order to contradict him, but on a broader level this would be irrelevant and, even worse, arbitrary: how can a series of rational actions have anything to say about what is immediately, obviously, and empirically apparent? And rational is just the right word--any memory that claims to be the authoritative account of an event is really just a rationalization.
So I won't try to oppose what he has written, especially not by crossing levels. I could, however, add my own level of description, which could serve to complement the other. The sections of sock, shirt, and jeans shown here are part of a larger set of clothing that includes a complete pair of socks, a pair of jeans (one item), and the rest of the shirt, as well as a black t-shirt underneath, and olive-green boxer shorts under the jeans. The jeans are much lighter than they were originally, and the bottoms are slightly torn. This suggests either that I like this worn look, or I don't buy clothes very often. Maybe I'm not interested in my clothes, or maybe I just don't get very many opportunities to buy them. Or maybe it represents an ideal of getting the most out of items and only replacing them when necessary. Being myself, and believing that I know at least certain levels of my thoughts about these things, I can say that the truth is probably a combination of all of these things, to varying degrees. The plaid shirt is very difficult for me to read. It looks newer than the jeans, and obviously has more color, but I think it's pretty mute in another sense. As for the socks, they cannot be denied.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Mieke Bal Question 2
..THURSDAY, YES! (why not?)
In discussing Ken Aptekar's After his license was suspended, Bal points out that the reframing of the Herbert Regnault original, rather than creating or maintaining a distinction, as frames usually do, serves to "de-otherize" or familiarize the subject of the original portrait. Is that just because it is reframing something in a way that is less otherizing than the original frame, or can an original framing also lead to an "embrace" in some way? In the context of social research, then, can a theoretical frame be empowering to or embracing of a group only if it reframes an existent, divisive frame? I mean, I guess the answer is yes, because there can only really be no frame around something if no one is aware of it as a distinct category. And in that case, any indication of a distinction is necessarily divisive in some way. But maybe that's taking this idea too literally. So how does a researcher use a frame to empower? Bal says that "for art to empower, it must be performative." I'm not sure I understand this concept, or the concept of theatricality in this context. And if Carrie Parker was necessary to make Aptekar's piece empowering, who is the Carrie Parker of research?
In discussing Ken Aptekar's After his license was suspended, Bal points out that the reframing of the Herbert Regnault original, rather than creating or maintaining a distinction, as frames usually do, serves to "de-otherize" or familiarize the subject of the original portrait. Is that just because it is reframing something in a way that is less otherizing than the original frame, or can an original framing also lead to an "embrace" in some way? In the context of social research, then, can a theoretical frame be empowering to or embracing of a group only if it reframes an existent, divisive frame? I mean, I guess the answer is yes, because there can only really be no frame around something if no one is aware of it as a distinct category. And in that case, any indication of a distinction is necessarily divisive in some way. But maybe that's taking this idea too literally. So how does a researcher use a frame to empower? Bal says that "for art to empower, it must be performative." I'm not sure I understand this concept, or the concept of theatricality in this context. And if Carrie Parker was necessary to make Aptekar's piece empowering, who is the Carrie Parker of research?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
they rob gas stations
Question 1: What is the gastronomy of squatting in Amsterdam?
____Attendant question: Is squatting a counterculture, or a subculture?
________Attendant question: What is the difference between a counterculture and a subculture?
________Preliminary response: A subculture is "a cultural group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger culture" (OED). A counterculture is a subculture that has beliefs or interests directly opposed to those of the larger culture. This doesn't address what these two terms might mean in a social research context, but it's a start. For one thing, it makes the distinction seem less consequential for a research question that doesn't address it directly.
Question 8: M. de Certeau writes that "Everyday life invents itself by poaching in countless ways on the property of others. How (a) do squatters (b) use this idea of "poaching"? How is this related (c) to the gastronomy of squatting?
(a) "How do squatters _____?" assumes that the answer to "do squatters _____?" is positive. This will need to be accounted for either by incorporating it into the question, or using earlier research to establish it in the background.
(b) "Squatters" could stand for a movement in general, or it could stand for a particular group of squatters (which has yet to be located).
(c) Either one could influence the other, or both (or neither...).
=====================================================
In general, having a conceptual framework can make observation a lot easier, because it can give a picture of what one would expect to see, so then one knows what to look for, and what to look for the absence of, and can frame one's research in terms of how the image(s) observed are similar to or different from the expected or reference image(s).
For an analytic frame, I've been thinking about M. de Certeau's idea of productive consumption, or "poaching" (i.e., squatting). This, or any theoretical framework, would be useful in framing (by case) observations (of behavior and of physical traces) in terms of how well they fit this model. This frame suggests some questions I could ask about my observations: are they examples of using finished products (especially of the "larger culture") in ways that turn them into something different? In the broadest case this is pretty obvious: squatters use empty buildings and turn them into places to live. What about with respect to gastronomy? Do squatters appropriate other "products" and resources creatively to produce and consume food? Or do they acquire, prepare, and consume most of their food the "conventional" way?
The connection between this framework as applied to squatting, and the concept of gastronomy, still seems tenuous. So I'm in search of another, food-framing theory. Also, I don't know if M. de Certeau's theory is going to be common to the whole group, and it would be a good idea to have at least one overarching theory, within which the focus-specific frames could vary.
In other words, we're not finished with this part yet.
fun with formatting
_____Another thing about M. de Certeau's essay:
_____as he himself says,
_____it's not a complete framework in itself;
_____it's more of an outline for future frameworks to be made from.
_____Its biggest contribution is its emphasis of usage,
_____as opposed to only social relations and behaviors.
_____M.C. develops this usage idea further with his conception of it as a productive consumption,
_____but this is still rather domain-general.
_____This is why I need to find another framework that either gives a more specific account of squatting and/or gastronomy,
_____or else provides a more complete body of theory.
_____M.C.'s framework is really an appendage,
_____or else a meta-framework that can filter my application of other frameworks
_____--or else an inter-framework,
_____mediating between other frameworks and evidence by crossing buses.
____Attendant question: Is squatting a counterculture, or a subculture?
________Attendant question: What is the difference between a counterculture and a subculture?
________Preliminary response: A subculture is "a cultural group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger culture" (OED). A counterculture is a subculture that has beliefs or interests directly opposed to those of the larger culture. This doesn't address what these two terms might mean in a social research context, but it's a start. For one thing, it makes the distinction seem less consequential for a research question that doesn't address it directly.
Question 8: M. de Certeau writes that "Everyday life invents itself by poaching in countless ways on the property of others. How (a) do squatters (b) use this idea of "poaching"? How is this related (c) to the gastronomy of squatting?
(a) "How do squatters _____?" assumes that the answer to "do squatters _____?" is positive. This will need to be accounted for either by incorporating it into the question, or using earlier research to establish it in the background.
(b) "Squatters" could stand for a movement in general, or it could stand for a particular group of squatters (which has yet to be located).
(c) Either one could influence the other, or both (or neither...).
=====================================================
In general, having a conceptual framework can make observation a lot easier, because it can give a picture of what one would expect to see, so then one knows what to look for, and what to look for the absence of, and can frame one's research in terms of how the image(s) observed are similar to or different from the expected or reference image(s).
For an analytic frame, I've been thinking about M. de Certeau's idea of productive consumption, or "poaching" (i.e., squatting). This, or any theoretical framework, would be useful in framing (by case) observations (of behavior and of physical traces) in terms of how well they fit this model. This frame suggests some questions I could ask about my observations: are they examples of using finished products (especially of the "larger culture") in ways that turn them into something different? In the broadest case this is pretty obvious: squatters use empty buildings and turn them into places to live. What about with respect to gastronomy? Do squatters appropriate other "products" and resources creatively to produce and consume food? Or do they acquire, prepare, and consume most of their food the "conventional" way?
The connection between this framework as applied to squatting, and the concept of gastronomy, still seems tenuous. So I'm in search of another, food-framing theory. Also, I don't know if M. de Certeau's theory is going to be common to the whole group, and it would be a good idea to have at least one overarching theory, within which the focus-specific frames could vary.
In other words, we're not finished with this part yet.
fun with formatting
_____Another thing about M. de Certeau's essay:
_____as he himself says,
_____it's not a complete framework in itself;
_____it's more of an outline for future frameworks to be made from.
_____Its biggest contribution is its emphasis of usage,
_____as opposed to only social relations and behaviors.
_____M.C. develops this usage idea further with his conception of it as a productive consumption,
_____but this is still rather domain-general.
_____This is why I need to find another framework that either gives a more specific account of squatting and/or gastronomy,
_____or else provides a more complete body of theory.
_____M.C.'s framework is really an appendage,
_____or else a meta-framework that can filter my application of other frameworks
_____--or else an inter-framework,
_____mediating between other frameworks and evidence by crossing buses.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Godzilla vs. Mothra
Message:
The video medium and the print medium inherently convey different kinds of messages. There are plenty of ideas that are broad enough or simple enough that they can be communicated through both adequately, but there are many more whose contents are affected. I won't go into what these inherent differences are, mainly because I don't know where to begin. But I might return to this.
Audience:
Another difference is in the audience that either medium is more likely to reach. This is partly a result of the kinds of messages that are usually conveyed through each--so that an "academic" is traditionally more likely to be exposed to a message published in a book or scholarly journal than one posted in a video on YouTube, because the kind of messages that many "academics" would be interested in are usually printed. Of course there are some dramatic exceptions to this (depending on the field, for instance), but in any case the converse is almost certainly true, and a message disseminated via YouTube is more likely to be viewed by a lot of non-academics than is a scholarly article.
Time:
A video is also more likely to reach more people in general, in part because of its relationship with time; videos take less time, but--unlike a book, which can be read at different speeds, and picked up or put down at any time--they also demand a fixed amount of time to watch (it's pretty uncommon, I think, for someone to watch the first 30 seconds of a YouTube video and pause to come back to it later). Hence, for the typical internet flâneur/flâneuse, they relieve him/her of the "responsibility" of surfing/wandering; they demand attention--often forcefully--and for the duration of the video, the viewer is committed to a worthy (read: focused) undertaking.
Context:
Another important and related effect is created by the context or connotations of the chosen medium. To grossly over-generalize, a printed article is typically expected to give a well-researched, sober argument, with a thorough (lengthy) discussion, and should appeal primarily to the intellect. A video, on the other hand, is often informal and entertaining, brief, and emotionally affecting. Of course it's possible (and desirable) to reverse these tendencies. For instance, if we publish our research as a video, we will still need to be just as rigorous in our research as if we had printed it (though we may also put more effort into making our video entertaining).
Goals:
I would like my group's research project to reach a large number of people, and change both they way they think about squatting in particular, and how they apply the associated values to their own lives in general. The most effective way to affect people's values is with an emotional argument; the most effective way to affect people's ideas is with a rational one. To these ends, I think a video would be the most appropriate medium, because it is most capable of a mix of these two types of appeal.
Update:
Exchange:
Before video, the screen was, along with radio, the most linear of communication media. A message that was broadcast--either to theaters via film or to homes via television--was in some sense "injected" into the veins of culture. This still occurs today of course, but, since the emergence of video, the screen has also become a medium capable of multilateral exchange. Or maybe it was just since the rise of video on the internet; it's hard to imagine a lot of people actually communicating by mailing VHS tapes back and forth (unless you've seen Videodrome enough times).
Internet videos have become, like academic publications, media of discussion.
Well, I lost my train of thought. More later...
Update 5/14:
Goals 2: I might have been too hasty in this part. If we're doing social research as it is described by C. C. Ragin, then emotional appeal is not a concern, or at least shouldn't be more than a secondary goal. He does say that social researchers "use traditional text media almost exclusively." I understand that we're not being typical social researchers, but I'm not sure to what extent (beyond medium of presentation) what we're doing differs. Are we being innovative with respect to just form, or form and content, or formal content, or contentious form?
The video medium and the print medium inherently convey different kinds of messages. There are plenty of ideas that are broad enough or simple enough that they can be communicated through both adequately, but there are many more whose contents are affected. I won't go into what these inherent differences are, mainly because I don't know where to begin. But I might return to this.
Audience:
Another difference is in the audience that either medium is more likely to reach. This is partly a result of the kinds of messages that are usually conveyed through each--so that an "academic" is traditionally more likely to be exposed to a message published in a book or scholarly journal than one posted in a video on YouTube, because the kind of messages that many "academics" would be interested in are usually printed. Of course there are some dramatic exceptions to this (depending on the field, for instance), but in any case the converse is almost certainly true, and a message disseminated via YouTube is more likely to be viewed by a lot of non-academics than is a scholarly article.
Time:
A video is also more likely to reach more people in general, in part because of its relationship with time; videos take less time, but--unlike a book, which can be read at different speeds, and picked up or put down at any time--they also demand a fixed amount of time to watch (it's pretty uncommon, I think, for someone to watch the first 30 seconds of a YouTube video and pause to come back to it later). Hence, for the typical internet flâneur/flâneuse, they relieve him/her of the "responsibility" of surfing/wandering; they demand attention--often forcefully--and for the duration of the video, the viewer is committed to a worthy (read: focused) undertaking.
Context:
Another important and related effect is created by the context or connotations of the chosen medium. To grossly over-generalize, a printed article is typically expected to give a well-researched, sober argument, with a thorough (lengthy) discussion, and should appeal primarily to the intellect. A video, on the other hand, is often informal and entertaining, brief, and emotionally affecting. Of course it's possible (and desirable) to reverse these tendencies. For instance, if we publish our research as a video, we will still need to be just as rigorous in our research as if we had printed it (though we may also put more effort into making our video entertaining).
Goals:
I would like my group's research project to reach a large number of people, and change both they way they think about squatting in particular, and how they apply the associated values to their own lives in general. The most effective way to affect people's values is with an emotional argument; the most effective way to affect people's ideas is with a rational one. To these ends, I think a video would be the most appropriate medium, because it is most capable of a mix of these two types of appeal.
Update:
Exchange:
Before video, the screen was, along with radio, the most linear of communication media. A message that was broadcast--either to theaters via film or to homes via television--was in some sense "injected" into the veins of culture. This still occurs today of course, but, since the emergence of video, the screen has also become a medium capable of multilateral exchange. Or maybe it was just since the rise of video on the internet; it's hard to imagine a lot of people actually communicating by mailing VHS tapes back and forth (unless you've seen Videodrome enough times).
Internet videos have become, like academic publications, media of discussion.
Well, I lost my train of thought. More later...
Update 5/14:
Goals 2: I might have been too hasty in this part. If we're doing social research as it is described by C. C. Ragin, then emotional appeal is not a concern, or at least shouldn't be more than a secondary goal. He does say that social researchers "use traditional text media almost exclusively." I understand that we're not being typical social researchers, but I'm not sure to what extent (beyond medium of presentation) what we're doing differs. Are we being innovative with respect to just form, or form and content, or formal content, or contentious form?
Monday, May 5, 2008
Convoluted Living
Boredom, Eternal Return
How does one recognize boredom? There are at least two types of boredom: reflexive, and reflective. Reflexive boredom is unconscious--it is a restlessness that seeks occupation. In other words, it is a mind that seeks confinement in some external routine--an escape from itself. Reflective boredom requires an opportunity and a capacity to recognize that one is bored, to consider the reasons for this boredom. It is equivocal; in this state, one is never completely sure that one is actually bored (having nothing to do is no longer so easy: just recognizing boredom is an action that might reverse it). Through this ambiguity it severs its connections with external expectation (of an antidote), and the boredom becomes a mirror. Suddenly the environment that one inhabits stops being an other in a dialogue, and instead becomes a projection in a monologue: One turns one's house into one's own.
Squatting arises from this kind of boredom--the boredom that instigates a return to oneself, both of oneself, and of one's environment. In incorporating the environment, the squatter takes responsibility for it. And as one body, the squatter-and-his/her-environment no longer relies on a feeding tube, but generates his/her/its own food. Reflective boredom is a revolving doorway to self-reliance and self-sufficiency.
---
"The readable transforms itself into the memorable [...] the viewer reads the landscape of his childhood in the evening news [...] A different world (the reader's) slips into the author's place." De Certeau, Michel. 'The Practice of Everyday Life.' The Consumption Reader. 259-65.
"Rather than relying on use-by dates to tell them what food is edible and safe, freegans use their innate senses of touch, taste and smell. This attitude marks a conscious shift away from corporate control enabling the diver to reclaim a connection to their senses and to the natural world." Edwards, Ferne and Mercer, David (2007) 'Gleaning from Gluttony: an Australian youth subculture confronts the ethics of waste', Australian Geographer, 38:3, 279 - 96.
Squatting and dumpster diving (related through both ethics and culture) are turning inward, transitively and intransitively. In consuming non-consumable food (food that lacks a sponsor), one 'returns to one's senses.' Likewise, inhabiting an uninhabited, (conventionally) uninhabitable building is 'reinterpreting' it as habitable. All of this involves rereading an article as something more familiar (personal), more present, and more functional.
How does one recognize boredom? There are at least two types of boredom: reflexive, and reflective. Reflexive boredom is unconscious--it is a restlessness that seeks occupation. In other words, it is a mind that seeks confinement in some external routine--an escape from itself. Reflective boredom requires an opportunity and a capacity to recognize that one is bored, to consider the reasons for this boredom. It is equivocal; in this state, one is never completely sure that one is actually bored (having nothing to do is no longer so easy: just recognizing boredom is an action that might reverse it). Through this ambiguity it severs its connections with external expectation (of an antidote), and the boredom becomes a mirror. Suddenly the environment that one inhabits stops being an other in a dialogue, and instead becomes a projection in a monologue: One turns one's house into one's own.
Squatting arises from this kind of boredom--the boredom that instigates a return to oneself, both of oneself, and of one's environment. In incorporating the environment, the squatter takes responsibility for it. And as one body, the squatter-and-his/her-environment no longer relies on a feeding tube, but generates his/her/its own food. Reflective boredom is a revolving doorway to self-reliance and self-sufficiency.
---
"The readable transforms itself into the memorable [...] the viewer reads the landscape of his childhood in the evening news [...] A different world (the reader's) slips into the author's place." De Certeau, Michel. 'The Practice of Everyday Life.' The Consumption Reader. 259-65.
"Rather than relying on use-by dates to tell them what food is edible and safe, freegans use their innate senses of touch, taste and smell. This attitude marks a conscious shift away from corporate control enabling the diver to reclaim a connection to their senses and to the natural world." Edwards, Ferne and Mercer, David (2007) 'Gleaning from Gluttony: an Australian youth subculture confronts the ethics of waste', Australian Geographer, 38:3, 279 - 96.
Squatting and dumpster diving (related through both ethics and culture) are turning inward, transitively and intransitively. In consuming non-consumable food (food that lacks a sponsor), one 'returns to one's senses.' Likewise, inhabiting an uninhabited, (conventionally) uninhabitable building is 'reinterpreting' it as habitable. All of this involves rereading an article as something more familiar (personal), more present, and more functional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)