 |
 |
If the AHRC got it a bit wrong and the Moot was moot, it should be discussed. After-all, this is the public body prescribing the direction of research areas for Arts, and they are the main source of funding in the UK for this. m On 21 November 2012 19:39, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi crumb > Thanks for these thoughts Charlie, which I think sum up the recent event > quite well... I want to be sure that we can now turn the list to address > Marialaura's topic of discussion for the month, about, just as you say > here, the potential transformations that digital and web based practice has > had re curating and other truly critical approaches to the online spaces we > inhabit, and the images etc which circulate there. > Mea culpa for mentioning the moot here in the first place! > Sarah > > > Sent from my pocket. > > On 21 Nov 2012, at 19:32, "Gere, Charlie" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > Just to add a few more thoughts on the Moot, which I also attended. My > major problem with what is a well intended move on the part of the AHRC - > to fund work on digital transformations - was that, on the evidence of the > Moot at least, there is little real engagement with actual transformations > brought about by these new technologies. Part of the problem was the > relentless focus on kit, as if the issues of how digital technologies are > changing our lives could be reduced to what academics could do with snazzy > hardware and software. There was little sense that these technologies are > potentially transforming the arts and humanities out of all recognition or > that the real transformations are not taking place at the level of > equipment but rather at the structural level. > > > > Katrina on the other hand expressed it beautifully in her contribution > to the panel I chaired, when she described the changes in the very ontology > of the image brought about by digital social networks, as well as in our > reception of such images. I thought that her contribution and those of > other panelists on the panel took the debate to a different level, as did > some other contributors at other times in the day. But the general tone of > the event mostly militated against this kind of thinking. > > > > WIth all due respect to the organisers to some extent it felt like the > kind of event that happened in the early 1990s, when excitement over the > technological possibilities of the digital was the main focus. But rather > than carp perhaps this might offer us opportunities, virtually or > otherwise, to debate what a genuinely critical approach to digital > transformations might look like, and how the AHRC might fund that. > Otherwise my major fear is that the limited number of funding opportunities > offered will go to instrumental projects involving the application of data > mining, visualization etc... rather than the, in my view more needed, focus > on the transformative effects of these media on culture and society > > > > Charlie > > ________________________________________ > > From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org [ > [log in to unmask]] on behalf of Sarah Cook [ > [log in to unmask]] > > Sent: 21 November 2012 18:23 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Fwd: November Theme: Curating on and > through web-based platforms > > > > This message from Katrina was meant to go to the list... so I am > forwarding now... > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: "Sluis, Katrina Patricia" <[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>> > > Date: 21 November 2012 08:34:07 GMT > > To: Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>> > > Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] November Theme: Curating on and > through web-based platforms > > > > Hi all > > > > Just to add briefly to Sarah's comments, I think one of the issues with > the way the AHRC 'moot' was framed is that there was an absence of > self-reflexivity about how 'digital transformations' apply to > epistemologies, ontologies and practices within disciplines and not just > 'wider culture'. Although there was a great buzz about new 'methods' > (especially as it potentially gives humanities scholars the ability to do > quantitative research and embrace positivism) and disseminating 'research > in progress ' it felt at times that 'method' filled in for critical > thinking about the politics of software and related tools. > > > > Secondly, for those CRUMBsters in London, you may be interested in an > upcoming panel on 4th Dec at The Photographers' Gallery: "All your cat > memes are belong to us" where speakers will explore key questions around > the image economy of the web, from LOLcats to Flickr, 4Chan to twitter, as > well as issues arising from the curation of online photographic practices > within the gallery/museum. > > > > The panel includes Dr Lop Lop, who established the popular Flickr group > Somebody else's cat, Dr Alexandra Moschovi, Lecturer in photographic theory > and history, University of Sunderland, Dr Olga Goriunova, Assistant > Professor at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies, Warwick > University. > > http://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/all-your-cat-memes-belong-to-us > > > > Looking forward to the rest of the discussion. > > Katrina > > > > > > University of Sunderland - Shortlisted for the Times Higher University > of the Year 2012 > University of Sunderland - Shortlisted for the Times Higher University of > the Year 2012 > >