Indeed!
And we haven't really talked about dynamic book/writing projects but some
others would include:
Remix the Book: www.remixthebook.com
Art History Flash Book: http://arthistoryflashbook.blogspot.co.uk/
Scalar: http://scalar.usc.edu/
Gamer Theory: http://futureofthebook.org/gamertheory2.0/
Vectors: http://vectors.usc.edu/issues/index.php?issue=6
Learning from YouTube: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/learning-youtube-0
Booksprints: http://www.booksprints.net/
inmediares: http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/imr/
Liquid books: http://openhumanitiespress.org/liquid-books.html
Open Humanities Press: http://openhumanitiespress.org/index.html
AndŠ.
On 17/10/2013 21:36, "helen varley jamieson" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>this reminded me of turbulence's networked book on networked art
>(http://networkedbook.org/) - has this already been mentioned? (i'm not
>able to keep up with all the postings - TL;DR ;))
>
>h : )
>
>On 17/10/13 12:27 AM, Charlotte Frost wrote:
>> From: James Elkins
>> Date: Thursday, 17 October 2013 00:54
>> To: Charlotte Frost <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: October's theme: Art History Online, an introduction
>>
>> Charlotte,
>>
>> My pleasure.
>>
>> Hi everyone. I'm glad to report on my efforts to write art history
>>online. I
>> started this in an informal way a couple of years ago -- I used to post
>> questions to Facebook, collect the answers, and thank people in the
>>text. I
>> did that with this book:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Art-Critiques-Guide-Second-Edition/dp/098602161X
>>
>> It's full of footnotes thanking people on Facebook. (A third edition is
>>in
>> preparation, so if anyone has stories or ideas about critiques that
>>aren't
>> in the book, please send them to me!)
>>
>> But I really started writing art history online earlier in 2013. I have
>>two
>> book projects that are currently being written live. I'll summarize
>>them and
>> then say something about how it's going.
>>
>> 1. "North Atlantic Art History and Worldwide Art" is being written on
>>Google
>> Drive. Most Drive pages are embedded, live, in my website
>>
>>
>>http://www.jameselkins.com/index.php/experimental-writing/251-north-atlan
>>tic
>> -art-history
>>
>> and I continuously post new additions to Facebook. Here for example is a
>> post on the worldwide spread of art criticism, one of the topics in the
>> book:
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/james.elkins1/posts/10201173872961275
>>
>> 2. "Writing with Images" is a book on experimental writing in art
>>history,
>> theory, and criticism, and more generally all writing that uses images,
>> including fiction. It is being written on two blogs, and they are both
>> linked to my own website:
>>
>>
>>http://www.jameselkins.com/index.php/experimental-writing/256-writing-wit
>>h-i
>> mages
>>
>> Here is one of the two:
>>
>> http://305737.blogspot.com/
>>
>> And here is a typical Facebook post that started a big discussion. The
>>topic
>> was why Derrida, Foucault, and others don't count as art history:
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/james.elkins1/posts/10201243699906905
>>
>> I have plans to write one other book live, in addition to the "Art
>> Critiques" book. Everything I write is posted to Facebook, Twitter,
>> LinkedIn, and most are also posted on my Academia.edu site:
>>
>> http://saic.academia.edu/JElkins
>>
>> The idea of writing online, for me, is to acknowledge the fact that
>>these
>> subjects are open-ended, and that there is no single authority. I also
>>like
>> the idea of exposing unfinished things to immediate critique: it avoids
>>the
>> appearance of the polished text -- sometimes I don't even wait for
>>"rough
>> drafts," but write live online, so people might see the text at any
>>stage.
>>
>> Most of the discussions and suggestions happen on Facebook. I find
>>LinkedIn
>> completely moribund and uninteresting. I also use Scribd and
>>Researchgate,
>> and I find no real community on either site. Academia is a very active
>>site
>> for me (lots of visitors and downloads) but no community. Twitter just
>> hasn't developed much use for me simply because comments are so short.
>>There
>> is such a thing as a complex idea!
>>
>> Facebook works fine. There is a fair amount of TL;DR ("too long; didn't
>> read") -- that is, people make comments based on the lines introducing
>>the
>> post, without having read the text. But even that can be useful. If I
>> summarize a chapter in a sentence or two in order to post it on
>>Facebook,
>> then I am in effect sending the same message a reader gets when she
>>thumbs
>> through a book before she buys it. The title and abstract do count, so
>>even
>> off-topic comments based on the title and abstract can be useful.
>>
>> When I get specific comments, criticism, suggestions, etc., I
>>incorporate
>> them immediately into the text and thank the people who posted. So my
>>books
>> will have lots of passages like this:
>>
>> "Reading an early version of this chapter, Colleen Anderson remarked
>>that
>> this subject connects to Cixous's works on.." etc.
>>
>> All those references will make for an unusual reading experience, but I
>> think it will feel, and be, more participatory.
>>
>> I don't think this crowd sourcing would make sense for all of art
>>history,
>> theory, or criticism. These subjects I'm working on have two
>>characteristics
>> that make them especially well suited. (1) These books are about very
>> undecided, contentious subjects, where even fundamental terms are
>>undecided;
>> and (2) they are about general topics, not specialized ones.
>>
>> Regarding the supposed wildness of the internet: I had a "fan" page,
>>with
>> 16,000 "fans," but most were inactive. I shut it down, and my current
>>page
>> is a personal page, limited to 5,000. Of those, about 300 are active,
>>and
>> only about 20 or 30 are spammers (I shut them down whenever I see them).
>> Less than 10, I think, are crazy in an unproductive sense: that is,
>>there
>> are many people whose opinions are wild in relation to academia, or in
>> relation to the art market, or in relation to modernism or
>>postmodernism --
>> but less than 10 or so who are non-social, solipsistic, fanatical,
>> fundamentalist, or otherwise unproductive.
>>
>> On the other hand there may be 100 or more who are art historians, and
>> "lurk" on the site. I hear about them in different places, and in
>>different
>> ways; some are friends. But they have strong disciplinary allegiances,
>>and
>> they don't like to post, or be "seen," on unserious sites like Facebook.
>> Those users, I have to say, do bother me, because they are timid.
>>
>> Hope this helps; feel free as always to write me, here or elsewhere; and
>> please do have a look at the many posts and see if there's anything
>>you'd
>> like to add. So far, everything I'm doing online is intended for
>>eventual
>> print publication: the reason is simply that it yields a different
>> distribution, different readers. It isn't better or worse, or the past
>>or
>> the future: it's just another medium.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>helen varley jamieson
>[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>http://www.creative-catalyst.com
>http://www.wehaveasituation.net
>http://www.upstage.org.nz
|