3.06.2004
Fragments of Network Criticism
Lovink raises very important areas of exploration in terms of net crit. My reactions to what I thought were the three most compelling issues:
--The Storage Question. This seems to be one of the gripping questions of what some have dubbed the postmodern age. As we have achieved through computer technology the ability to store more information than can be accessed in a lifetime, the concern for "information overload" becomes an important one. As Lovink indicates, what becomes information is that which can attract users. His framing of this is interesting. Those sites of information that cannot attract accesors become not only marginalized but non-existant. The implications of this are critical, and we will continue to experience the conversion of all things into entertainment.
--The Theory debate. On page 169, Lovink writes: "Can we already speak of a tendency towards a General Media Theory? Or have we passed the media age, without proper theory?" He addresses this by acknowledging the lack of critical understanding of the history of the Internet. Although his discussion does not raise the issue explicitly, I thought about the issue of who are and who will be the theorists of new media. I have read a lot of film theory and, although some theory is written by practicioners of the medium, i.e. directors, most important theory comes from observers and critics. Do the technological requirements of new media allow for the outsider/user approach to theory creation? What sort of obstacles face a critic who is not a programmer or a hacker? What are the ramifications of a theory only created by those who are within the system?
--The corporate stagnation discussion. Lovink suggests that corporations would never have created the Internet, due to its slow build up from small network to worldwide system. He goes on to argue that the way in which the corporate world demands rapid return on investment may "slow the digital revolution." Although it seems as though technology and corporations who deal with it are always attempting advancements, his point is an interesting one. But when we consider that colonization of the Internet is coming to an end and the backbone of the system is becoming entrenched by huge corporate conglomerates who favor stable economics over risky innovation, it is not difficult to see how his prediction might come true. How much "new" can we expect from corporations if they are already making a killing off of us?
P.S. I really like Sloganomics
--The Storage Question. This seems to be one of the gripping questions of what some have dubbed the postmodern age. As we have achieved through computer technology the ability to store more information than can be accessed in a lifetime, the concern for "information overload" becomes an important one. As Lovink indicates, what becomes information is that which can attract users. His framing of this is interesting. Those sites of information that cannot attract accesors become not only marginalized but non-existant. The implications of this are critical, and we will continue to experience the conversion of all things into entertainment.
--The Theory debate. On page 169, Lovink writes: "Can we already speak of a tendency towards a General Media Theory? Or have we passed the media age, without proper theory?" He addresses this by acknowledging the lack of critical understanding of the history of the Internet. Although his discussion does not raise the issue explicitly, I thought about the issue of who are and who will be the theorists of new media. I have read a lot of film theory and, although some theory is written by practicioners of the medium, i.e. directors, most important theory comes from observers and critics. Do the technological requirements of new media allow for the outsider/user approach to theory creation? What sort of obstacles face a critic who is not a programmer or a hacker? What are the ramifications of a theory only created by those who are within the system?
--The corporate stagnation discussion. Lovink suggests that corporations would never have created the Internet, due to its slow build up from small network to worldwide system. He goes on to argue that the way in which the corporate world demands rapid return on investment may "slow the digital revolution." Although it seems as though technology and corporations who deal with it are always attempting advancements, his point is an interesting one. But when we consider that colonization of the Internet is coming to an end and the backbone of the system is becoming entrenched by huge corporate conglomerates who favor stable economics over risky innovation, it is not difficult to see how his prediction might come true. How much "new" can we expect from corporations if they are already making a killing off of us?
P.S. I really like Sloganomics
