i find Alena's comments to get to many of the things i found lacking in
some of the earlier discussion, though probably more due to my opacity
rather than a reflection of the actual dialogue.
The paired notions of "disappearance" and "archive" are so spot on here
in relation to the development/deployment of metadata.
The use of metadata in creating searchable archives is all about
disappearance, i think. The goal is to close off the search, eliminate
extraneous data from the relevant, make it disappear. So that when
someone searches under "interactive" they find works "about"
"interactive" in a similar sense across databases. This would seem to
hold true whether the target is "moving" or long still - history is
always reproducing, no?
"What will become invisible?" seems as important to ask as "what should
be made visible?"
How does one differentiate between the "network" based art of Harrell
Fletcher from that of the Carbon Defense League or Bureau d'Etudes?
The distinction is surely not technological in nature.
i'm interested in this from the perspective of those invested in
strategies other than the creation of consumable models and catalogs.
As Alena also mentioned, the Bauhaus (and many other modernist
programs) had interests other than creating a taxonomy. There was more
at stake than the abstract lineage of the terms.
Likewise, there are motives for web standards (a utopian modernist
project if ever there was one) other than the creation of systematic
language. The language is being designed to serve a purpose. i don't
believe that the two things can be said to be collapsed in all honesty.
Hygienic archives can serve many purposes.
Perhaps i am retreating to Myron's "taxonomic relativism," but i think
i share in his concern more for context than abstraction.
best,
ryan
|