I think there is value in looking at the space between 'scientific'
taxonomies and 'folk' taxonomies. Folk taxomomies are created for use on
the ground, e.g. local names for plants and animals. Scientific
taxonomies are created by the scientists and academics who come along
after the event.
In the 'media network computer art' space, a folk taxonomy is
constantly created, updated and made obsolete within the networks. This
is a live and user based taxonomy, responsive to everyday needs but not
structured for completeness.
Then writers and academics will come along to create an scientific
taxonomy - which they can only do by studying the granular nature of the
works. This new taxonomy may or may not make use of existing
terminology, but if it does use it, it runs into severe problems with
existing users who become aware of the new taxonomy.
However, it may in the tensions between the folk and the scientific
taxonomy that we find fertile ground for study.
Cheers,
Ivan (who made the entry for Folk Taxonomy in Wikipedia)
Francis Hwang wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Murphy wrote:
>
>> In honor of the recent suicide of Hunter S. Thompson* I'd like to coin
>> the term "gonzo taxonomy". It's closely related to the current trend
>> for "tagging" as a way of indexing art works on sites like Flickr. The
>> art administrator side of me hates this trend, the artist side of me
>> loves it. Messy, sure, but it may be one possible path to follow.
>
>
> Not bad, but first you'll have to tell people not to use "folksonomy"
> -- that neologism seems to have a lot of traction these days.
>
> f.
|