Search results for "critical code studies working group"
| Results 881 - 890 of 1114
|
Page 89 of 112
|
|
Sorted by: Relevance | Sort by: Date
|
Results per-page: 10 | 20 | 50 | All
|
[…]of our recording devices, from stone and wax tablets to papyrus rolls, the medieval codex, and finally the printed book have “imposed” specific systems for the sequencing and “chunkitizing” (my word) of information. He presents a history of operations that become increasingly complex, making them easier to use (where use = reading+access). Self-contained volumes, encyclopedias, libraries, punctuation, even page numbers are revealed to be not only facilitators for managing text, but technological components as well as philosophical constructs. Writing’s most sophisticated incarnation, the printed book, is the ultimate in standardization, linearity, and univocality. But the book is maxxed out, Bolter […]
[…]to a delightfully appalling world of wanton sluts, gender ambiguity, and nuclear-age propoganda studies, including her excellent Atomic Cafe and WWWench sites. Always, though, Loader maintains an intellectual rigor both in her own writing as well as in her selection of hotlinx to other writing. As you might know, Loader’s provocative, disturbing film The Atomic Cafe (1982), which she made with Kevin and Pierce Rafferty, is an unnarrated docudrama about our “love affair with the atom” as Loader puts it. But it is also “a movie about propoganda, culled from material produced by the U.S. government.” In fact, Loader and […]
[…]theories can slip into totalitarian imperatives, or falsely generalize by excluding oppressed groups, or abstract away from the very practices that make meaningful experience possible. Bioregionalism and deep ecology champion the importance of local context in matters both political and epistemological. But what if the Logical Positivists weren’t that bad? What if they were onto something–something worth keeping hold of? And what are the dangers of the contextual and the local? The Logical Positivists have received a very bad reputation among some environmentalists and other progressives as defenders of the decontextualized scientific knowledge that sanctions and makes possible the domination […]
[…]contrast to the strident, earnest feminist, the “postfeminist” is fun, indifferent to or even critical of “politics,” cheerfully apathetic, sexy, and independent. She has no need for liberation or solidarity with other women, and she’s far too busy having orgasms to worry about such issues as comparable worth, daycare, or abortion. In contrast, feminists are viewed in much the same way one might view one’s parents: as arbitrary despots clamoring about insignificant, petty concerns, as un-evolved. Uncool. Hopelessly “pre” and clueless about “post.” For the bad girl, the problem with feminism is that it has an agenda: the “postfeminist” woman […]
[…]feckless sense someone who has any sort of role in the various debates over theory and cultural studies. I’d like to take up Bérubé’s comments on “selling out.” When I was younger, in “the days that used to be,” as Neil Young put it on Ragged Glory, “selling out” really meant something, but it really meant something in only a very general sense. Selling out was not something one could be accused of as the result of a rigorous scrutinizing of one’s “Position.” At the time, 1968, say, you were either for corporate/militarist culture (them) or you were for communal/pacifist […]
[…]imagistic, any sense that dog and father are the same and the father’s condemnation a sort of coded self-accusation of abuse: dog and father appear as separate and distinguishable characters in the “Shushing the Father” section. Another possibility is that Marcus is intentionally resisting resolving the book with a “boy and his dog” plot-line, but the effect for this reader, which cannot be intended if the lyrical sections are to be in any way meaningful, is to flatten the book’s central consciousness, make it less full and comprehensive. What is suggested in one sense by Lance Olsen’s term, “a postmodern […]
[…]a problem as the teaching or reading of poetry and fiction. There is such a thing as an uncritical relation to critical discourse. We must learn these pedagogical praxes together or we won’t learn them, but there’s no justification for making either the gateway to the other. It may be the case that Amato/Fleisher would agree with this sentiment. It is hardly original. As so often, I am far from sure against whom, if anyone, I’m arguing. If engaging with theoretical texts of a particular stripe has the desired effect – i.e., results in a more politically engaged and productively […]
[…]the unconscious, materiality, “pictures,” or simply ourselves. In general, our established critical vocabulary is itself too implicated in their repression to help identify them. But what seems clear is that acknowledging their presence will demand new practices of reading and writing, practices that are still poorly understood and that presuppose a fundamental reorientation of attention, feeling, commitment, and perception. For as Requiem and “Melanctha” both show, our problem is not that we need someone to tell us what we’re doing to ourselves. On the contrary, our problem is that we can’t need someone to tell us this, necessitating ever greater […]
[…]media, it’s still clear that almost all the knowledge we can gain from traditional literary studies is based on literary objects that are static, intransient, determinate, impersonal, random access, solely interpretative and without links. The same goes for literary values as well. I’m not downplaying the importance of this knowledge or the flexibility of the traditional print format; I’m just saying we can now see and describe its limits more clearly (to our own benefit). From the broader perspective it will be extremely interesting to see what will happen in and to attempts to combine the realm of non-exhaustive interpretation […]
[…]and linked to further references on the Web — if you’re comfortable leaving the room. Old working video games by Atari are there, as are working versions of Adventure, Eliza, and Spacewar! (the first modern video game). Be prepared to spend several hours playing the old Atari 2600 games, alone. Lev Manovich, in a companion introduction, proposes that the developers of human-computer interaction are the “major modern artists.” Manovich writes: “…in my view this book is not just an anthology of new media but also the first example of a radically new history of modern culture — a view from […]