[rohrpost] Medientheorie - Das Wikiexperiment

[Tilman Baumgärtel]

Keine Ahnung, was uns die Autorin hier sagen will. Aber man sollte doch mal 
festhalten, dass die Art, wie Geert diese Konferenz andiskutiert hat, für 
diese Art von Veranstaltung ziemlich transparent ist.

Normalerweise werden solchen Geschichten hinter verschlossenen Türen 
ausbaldowert. Und wenn ich mir den Zwergenaufstand besehe, den das hier 
ausgelöst hat, dann versteh ich auch, wieso. Ich persönlich würde mich 
hüten, mir so eine Veranstaltung öffentlich zerreden zu lassen.

Ich glaube aber auch, dass das jetzt eigentlich schon die Tagung war...

Gruesse,
Tilman

At 08:18 24.11.2004, you wrote:
>Geert,
>ich finde dich wirklich süß... Irgendwie so
>melancholisch holländisch! Man sieht sozusagen die
>Dampfer vorbeifahren! Jetzt haben wir dir zwar deinen
>lettre-Artikel geschrieben, aber wenn dann jemand
>etwas kritisiert, dann heißt es: „Die bösen Jungs
>haben mir meine  Medientagung kaputt gemacht!“
>
>Wir wollen einmal festhalten: Konstruktiv waren bisher
>Verena, Claus, wenn er mal den Mund aufgemacht hat,
>Pit in mindestens zwei Beiträgen, Janus auf seine
>verquere Art (der auch im vielem Recht hatte), Till
>und Mercedes und ich habe auch versucht, so gut es
>geht, darüber nachzudenken, was in diesem Zusammenhang
>konstruktiv sein könnte und auch konkrete umsetzbare
>Vorschläge gemacht. Die Wissenschaftsbeschimpfung und
>Intellektuellenfeindlichkeit von Cramer und Co. halte
>ich dafür für destruktiv, zu ungenau und das Vorgehen
>inakzeptabel (dazu vielleicht im Einzelnen später
>einmal).
>
>Was ich nun von dir, Geert, erwarten würde, ist
>weniger, das trotzige Kind zu spielen, sondern mal
>irgendeine theoretische Äußerung zu machen. Sei es nun
>eine These oder die Skizzierung eines
>Forschungsvorhabens, womöglich irgendwas zur Debatte
>Systemtheorie - Medienapriori (Elena Esposito hat 2002
>ein Buch geschrieben „Soziales Vergessen“, das
>vielleicht damit irgendwie zu tun hat) oder Janus
>hatte nachgefragt, was für eine Position du im bzw.
>zum Positivismusstreit hast, irgendwas!
>
>Diese Ganze Deutsch-Debatte (übrigens bin ich nicht
>deutsch, verstehe deutsch aber auch nicht als
>Schimpfwort wie du) scheint mit so ein bisschen ein
>Versteck, in dem du dich verschanzt, um dich
>theoretisch nicht zu blamieren. Dass du nicht den
>theoretischen Überblick hast wie Pit oder Claus oder
>Till oder Miss.Gunst oder Mercedes oder Hartmut ist
>allen ja wohl indessen sowieso klar. Blöd wird es nur,
>wenn man seine Lücken nicht zugeben kann und sich
>ständig mit fremden Federn schmücken muss. Vielleicht
>liegt’s auch daran, dass du dich für Theorie im
>wissenschaftlichen Sinne eigentlich gar nicht
>interessierst.
>
>Sei doch einfach mal ehrlich und leg die Karten auf
>den Tisch! - und diese unoriginelle
>Berlin-Beschimpfung kannst du dir einfach sparen, das
>sind Pennälerwitze. Oder sind das Ablenkungsmanöver,
>weil du über Medientheorie im eigentlichen Sinne nicht
>so besonders viel zu sagen hast?
>
>So. Fangen wir doch noch einmal von vorne an. Ich lege
>noch einmal das Interview von dir mit Wolfgang Ernst
>bei (das ist eine Art Friedensangebot), das könnte ein
>Ausgangspunkt eines Diskurses werden. Und ich finde du
>stellst auch sehr kompetente Fragen ;-). Also bitte
>nicht mehr holländisch schmollen, sondern einfach mal
>versuchen, in deutscher Sprache zu denken!
>
>Sophia
>
>
>Hier das Interview Ernst/Lovink:
>
>
>Archive Rumblings
>Interview with Wolfgang Ernst
>By Geert Lovink
>http://laudanum.net/geert/files/1060043851/
>
>Geert Lovink, February 2003
>
>
>German media theorist Wolfgang Ernst (1959) is a
>member of the Berlin circle inspired by Friedrich
>Kittler and currently founding the Seminar for Media
>Studies at Humboldt University. He is contributing to
>the‘media archeology’ school in which new media are
>traced back to earlier concepts. Following this
>methodology one reads traces of digital technologies
>into history, not the other way round. The idea is
>that there is no teleology in which media unfold
>themselves in time. Against the usual chronological
>reading of media, from photo and radio to television
>and the Internet, Wolfgang Ernst utilizes the
>Foucaultian ‘archeological’ approach that aims to
>unveil active power relationships. But whereas
>Foucault looked into social formations, today’s media
>archeologists are primarily interested in the (hidden)
>programs of storage media. Following McLuhan Ernst
>poses that “cyberspace is not about content, but
>rather a transversive performance of communication.
>Without the permanent re-cycling of information, there
>is no need for emphatic memory.”
>
>In his 2002 book ‘Das Rumoren der Archive’ (Archive
>Rumblings) Wolfgang Ernst points out that archives are
>no longer forgotten, dusty places. The archive as a
>concept has gained universal attention and reached
>metaphorical glance. In this era of storagemania
>everything is on record. Repositories are no longer
>final destinations but turn into to frequently
>accessed, vital sites. For instance, East-German
>secret police archives, opened after 1989 and
>frequently visited, show how contested data
>collections can become. Wolfgang Ernst signals a shift
>from the political-military (secret) meaning of
>(national) archives towards a broader cultural
>understanding in which the archive stands for
>‘collective memory’. For Ernst archives are defined by
>their ‘holes’ and ‘silent’ documents. Ernst’s annals
>look like crashing operating systems that should not
>be taken by face value. In short: archives are
>cybernetic entities. These days everyone is painfully
>aware that archiving equals careful selection.
>Chronicles are anything but neutral collections.
>Instead they reflect the priorities and blind spots of
>the archivists and the Zeitgeist they operate in. By
>now that’s common sense. What can we expect from 21st
>century archive theory, beyond digitization and
>database architectures? Will the elites establish
>safeguarded ‘islands in the Net’ where essential
>knowledge is stored, leaving the wired billions
>floating in their own data trash? Has tactical silence
>and the aesthetics of forgetfulness got to be
>all-too-obvious responses to storagemania?
>
>GL: One would associate the theoretical interest in
>archives with Foucault, Derrida and other French
>authors. You make many references to them. Is that the
>destiny of our generation, to get stuck in the
>postmodern canon? Or is there another, more personal
>reason for your interest in archives and the ‘French’
>approach? Do you keep an archive yourself and which
>archive is your favorite one?
>
>WE: When Peter Gente and Heidi Paris from the
>Berlin-based Merwe publishing house asked me to write
>an essay on archives with special regards to French
>theories, I took that chance since it gave me a
>possibility to work through my own intellectual past.
>Having been extremely affected by French
>post-structuralist theories in the 80s and actually
>trying to de-construct the notion of text-based
>history myself, my research year at the German
>Historical Insitute in Rome then made me “convert” not
>to Catholicism, but to the acknowledgement of real
>archives. I then discovered that no place can be more
>deconstructive than archives themselves, with their
>relational, but not coherent topology of documents
>which wait to be reconfigurated, again and again. The
>archival subject thus is a way out of the one-way
>postmodern aesthetics of arbitrary “anything goes” -
>without having to return to authoritarean hermeneutics
>(a point made as well by the “new historicists” in
>literary studies, f. e. Stephen Greenblatt). The
>simple fact is that archives do not only exist in
>metaphorical ways as described by Foucault and
>Derrida, but as part of a very real, very material
>network of power over memory.
>
>Do I keep an archive myself? Have a look at my
>homepage (www.verzetteln.de/ernst) ...
>In fact, I keep nothing but an archive at home: no
>book-shelves, no library, but a modular system of
>textural, pictorial or even auditory information in
>movable boxes. That is, among others, fragments of
>books, distributed according to diverse
>subjects—liberated from the restrictive book-covers.
>
>GL: How would you describe the methodology of media
>archeologists? Is it useful to speak of a school in
>this context? Media archeologists can be found in
>places such as Cologne (KHM), Berlin (Humboldt
>University) and Paris. Then there is for instance Lev
>Manovich who ‘reads’ film history as an episode in the
>coming into being of new media story. How to look at
>the field and what interesting approaches have you
>come across lately?
>
>WE: I owe the term to Siegfried Zielinski, who—as the
>former director of the Academy of Media Arts in
>Cologne—once hired me for a research and teaching job
>called “Theory and Archaeology of Media in the Context
>of the Arts” (a world-wide premiere as an academic
>field?). Zielinski himself, of course, owes the term
>to Michel Foucaults “Archaeology of Knowledge”, but
>has given it a technological turn in cultural
>anlaysis, with his brilliant work on the video
>recorder (Berlin 1986). In his most recent work,
>literally called “Media Archaeology” (2002), Zielinski
>advocates an an-archical history of forgotten or
>neglected media approaches. Different from that
>liberitarean approach, my version of media archaeology
>tries to carry further Foucault´s approach (see my
>book “M.edium F.oucault”, 200). My media archaeology
>is an archaeology of the technological conditions of
>the sayable and thinkable in culture, an excavation of
>evidence of how techniques direct human or non-human
>utterances - without reducing techniques to mere
>apparatuses (encompassing, for example, the ancient
>rules of rhetorics as well).
>
>Media archaology is a critique of media history in the
>narrative mode. When Lev Manovich (whose writings I
>appreciate a lot) reads film history as an episode in
>the coming into being of the new media story, his
>approach already is trapped by the linear approach of
>media history. Having been trained as a historian, a
>classicist (and partly even as a “real” classical
>archaeologist in the disciplinary sense), I have
>always felt uneasy with the predominance of narrative
>as the uni-medium of processing our knowledge of the
>past. It takes a new infrastructure of communicating
>realities—the impact of digital media itself ­to put
>this critique of historical discourse into
>media-archaeological terms and practice. But I have to
>confess, even when I claim to perform
>media-archaeological analysis, I sometimes slip back
>into telling media stories. The cultural burden of
>giving sense to data through narrative structures is
>not easy to overcome.
>
>The archaeology of knowledge, as we have learned from
>Foucault, deals with discontinuities, gaps and
>absences, silence and ruptures, in opposition to
>historical discourse, which privileges the notion of
>continuity in order to re-affirm the possibility of
>subjectivity. „Archives are less concerned with memory
>than with the necessity to discard, erase, eliminate“
>(Sven Spieker). Whereas historiography is founded on
>teleology and narrative closure, the archive is
>discontinuous, ruptured. Like all kinds of data banks,
>it forms relationships not on the basis of causes and
>effects, but through networks; the archive - according
>to Jacques Lacan - leads to an encounter with the real
>of script-directed culture.
>
>Media archaeology describes the non-discursive
>practices specified in the elements of the
>techno-cultural archive. Media archaeology is
>confronted with Cartesian objects, which are
>mathematisable things, and let us not forget that Alan
>Turing conceived the computer in 1937 basically as a
>machine paper (the most classical archival carrier).
>Media archeaology is driven by a certain “Berlin
>school of media studies” obsession with approaching
>media in terms of their logical structure
>(informatics) on the one hand and their hardware
>(physics) on the other - thus different from British
>and U.S. cultural studies, which analyze the
>subjective and social effects of media.
>The real multi-media archive is the arché of its
>source codes; multi-media archaeology is storage and
>re-reading and re-writing of such programs. Media
>history is not the appropriate medium to confront such
>an archive. Consider, for example, two examples in
>current media research: Renaissance computers, edited
>by Neil Rhodes and Jonathan Sawday. Renaissance
>Computers expressly draws a parallel between the media
>revolution from manuscripts to printing in Europe
>enabled by Johann Gutenberg in 1455 and Martin
>Luther´s use of printed text for the distribution of
>protestant messages (theses) in 1517, and the actual
>digital technology era. The symbolic machines of the
>sixteenth-century „methodizer“ Peter Ramus are
>presented as a pendant to the computer of today. This
>claim still thinks media from the vantage point of
>alphabetical texts, but audio-visual data banks make
>all the difference. Against such analogies, media
>archaeology insists on differences. Computing is not
>about imagination and texts, but rather the alliance
>of engineering and mathematics. The coupling of
>machine and mathematics that enables computers occurs
>as a mathematization of machine, not as machinization
>of mathematics. While the book has, for half a
>millennium, been the dominant medium of storing and
>transmitting knowledge, the computer is able, for the
>first time, to process data as well. In 1999,
>Frankfurt Literaturhaus organized a conference on
>‘book machines.’ On this occasion, Friedrich Kittler
>argued that analogue broadcast media, which are
>linear-sequential and base their storage on the
>principle of the tape, will be swallowed by the
>Internet. Books however, according Kittler, share with
>the computer the deep quality of being discrete media.
>That is why „Internet archaeology“ is necessary (Denis
>Scheck). But who is responsible for this kind of
>documentation? Classical archives and libraries do
>this kind of documentation only exceptionally; the new
>kind of memory might not be caught by institutions,
>but rather rhizomes within the net itself.
>
>GL: Michel Foucault made a distinction between
>archeology and genealogy. Is that also useful within
>the media theory context? I have never heard about
>media genealogy. Do you have any idea what it could
>be? Would it be a useful term?
>
>WE: It indeed makes sense to differentiate media
>archaeology and genealogy of media. Referring back to
>Friedrich Nietzsche´s Genealogy of Moral, Michel
>Foucault used the term “genealogy” to describe a
>cultural counter-memory, unfolding a different index,
>a different rhythm of temporality - mediated timing,
>it would say (the time of “time-based media”). Instead
>of looking for origins, genealogy looks for events at
>unexpected places and in unexpected moments without
>supposing individual agencies, teleology or finality.
>But the exact relation between genealogy and
>archaeology in Foucault's work has been the source of
>much dispute or even confusion. With regard to media
>theory, let us put it this way: media archaeology is
>not a separate method of analysis from genealogy, but
>complementary with it. Genealogy examines process
>while archaeology examines the moment, however
>temporally extended that moment might be (reflecting
>“analogue” versus “digital” analysis). Genealogy
>offers us a processual perspective on the web of
>discourse, in contrast to an archaeological approach
>which provides us with a snapshot, a slice through the
>discursive nexus (as Phil Bevis, Michèle Cohen and
>Gavin Kendall once expressed).
>
>GL: There is the often heard criticism of media
>archeology, in its obsessive search for the Laws of
>Media, ends up as cynical, technical determinism that
>glorifies scientists and the military, while
>explicitly fading out economical, political and
>cultural aspects. How do respond to such remarks? Do
>you see a debate here?
>
>WE: You hit exactly at a recent, on-going dispute
>within the “Berlin School” of media studies itself.
>When we sat down to analyse the “branding” of our
>group, we realized that we are, from outward
>perspective, being reduced to hardware-maniac,
>assembler-devoted and anti-interface ascetics, fixed
>to a (military) history of media without regard to the
>present media culture (which is “software culture”, as
>described by Lev Manovich, and is moving from the
>computer to the Net, as expressed by Wolfgang Hagen).
>With my new chair in Media Theory at the Humboldt
>University, I want to care about a re-entry of
>economical, political and cultural aspects into this
>media-archaeological field—without giving up to
>Cultural Studies, though, which has neglected a
>precise analysis of technologies too much. In a couple
>of evenings, for example, some of our academics of
>media studies (like Stefan Heidenreich) went to an
>experimental media lab (Bootlab in Berlin), to discuss
>with non-university people who practice media theory
>(like Pit Schultz) topics like surfaces/interfaces,
>the aesthetics of programming, economics, ownership
>and copyright” and computer games. The next
>co-operative event might face media definitions and
>media terms itself.
>
>GL: The popular management discourse of ‘knowledge
>management’ has no explicit references to archives.
>Instead, according to certain business gurus,
>knowledge is stored in people, in organizations, ever
>transforming networks, in let’s say ‘living’ entities
>rather than dead documents. In this hegemonic ideology
>knowledge only exists if it is up-to-date and can
>operate strategically, not hidden somewhere in a
>database. Only then it can be segmented as
>‘intellectual property rights.’ How do you read this
>tendency?
>
>WE: Intellectual property rights were in fact
>developed within the context of archives— libraries,
>to be exact; the legal notion of copyright was an
>effect of the need to protect authors and publishers
>against plagiarism around 1800. As to knowledge
>management, a current trend is the so-called
>“warehouse” approach which takes for granted that
>implicit knowledge is always already there in humans
>and in systems - just wainting to be excavated,
>triggered, extracted by agencies. I have a lot of
>sympathy for the trans-archival notion of
>‘organizational’ instant memory. But leaving the
>neurological metaphors beside, this approach
>dissimulates the existence of material memory agencies
>- both hardware and institutions, which still govern
>the power of what can be stored legally and
>technically, and what will be forgotten. Let us,
>memory-politically, not underestimate the on-going
>impact of traditional paper archives or present
>audio-visual archives; the quest for access to such
>archives makes us feel immediately that they are still
>real. With digital archives, though, there is - in
>principle - no more delay between memory and the
>present, but the technical option of immediate
>feedback, turning every present data into archival
>entries and vice versa. The economy of timing becomes
>a short-circuit.
>
>GL: Over the past few years you have worked in a
>research project on the history of Russian computing.
>Could you tell us something about the ‘mystery’ of
>Soviet cybernetics? It is well known that the strength
>of the Eastern bloc computer industry, military
>secrecy, also lead to its demise. I suppose it is
>wrong to state that this is a history of ‘losers’—but
>to some extend it is. There is some irony involved.
>How did the project deal with this? Did you stumble
>into interesting differences, compared to the US-led
>computer development?
>
>WE: The genealogy of the computer and computing
>sciences as associated with names such as Charles
>Babbage, Alan Turing, Norbert Wiener, Heinz v.
>Foerster, Claude Shannon and John v. Neumann has been
>the object of an impressive number of publications in
>the German-speaking and Anglo-American areas, but this
>media-archaeology is reductive to the Western
>hemisphere. In general the historiography of computing
>is—even a decennium after the fall of the Iron
>Curtain—still blind in respect to Eastern Europe. The
>art of computing in the former Soviet Union,
>immediately after World War II, has developed some
>remarkable alternatives to Western machines which are
>attractive even today.
>
>The alternative computing culture in the former Soviet
>Union has been stimulated by a weird and ever changing
>re-configuration between inventive improvisations on
>the engineering side and ingenious mathematics on the
>other, f. e. Viktor Glushkov's idea of the
>"language-based" development of computers alongside
>with Sergey Lebedev's more "electronic" approach. The
>activity in these directions was shared between the
>Kiev Institute of Cybernetics and the Institute of
>Precise Mechanics and Computer Engineering in Moscow.
>As a scientist, Sergey Lebedev was a professional and
>(maybe even more importantly), a ‘born’ electronic
>engineer, while Viktor Glushkov was primarily a
>mathematician more interested in cybernetic problems.
>
>The paradox is, that exactly in a communist country,
>the material deficiencies in Hard- and Software
>because of the very absence of standardized mass
>production created highly original and most individual
>technical solutions. This flourishing pluralistic
>techno-culture though tragically came to an end when
>Moscow decided in 1972 to copy the IBM production line
>in order to get cheap software running. Promising
>efforts to combine Russian computing with German
>Siemens computing and the British ICL by a joint
>European venture collapsed since Walter Ulbricht as
>well had already decided for IBM standards in the GDR
>and convinced Breshnev in Moscow. With these decisions
>in the early 70s of the former century, not only the
>option for an independent European computer standard
>died, but I would call this as well the beginning of
>Decline and Fall of the Russian Empire in favor of
>what we today call the Microsoft global player.
>
>One of the heroes of computing in the former
>Soviet-Union, professor Zinovy Rabinovich, told us
>during the recent Transmediale media arts festival in
>Berlin about the construction of the first “European”
>electronic computer in Kiev more than half a century
>ago (1948-1950). This computer architecture was
>developed independent from the von-Neumann-model,
>putting emphasis on parallel rather than sequential
>computing. Engineers and mathematicians, in the former
>Soviet Union, came together in ways different from the
>Western context - exactly because the mass-economic
>uses of computing were limited almost to zero,
>concentrating less on the universal than an
>special-purpose computers. With his 84 years,
>Rabinovish fervently argued to re-think the options of
>a European computer to fill the gaps left by the
>American model. Thus Rabinovich proved to be an “old
>European” (Rumsfeld) in the best sense. As an
>alternative to software versus hardware, he proposed
>his engineering philosophy under the name of
>“middleware” (though this sounded familiar to Western
>ears - we know it as micro-programming).
>
>GL: The American cyber conservative George Gilder is a
>‘storewidth’ guru who has been promising for decades
>infinite computer storage, unlimited bandwidth and
>computational power. For economic reasons Moore’s law
>may be out-of-order for a while, due to the
>implications of the ‘techwreck’. Yet, by and large,
>capacity has indeed risen incredibly. It is a society
>that cannot implement its own technological progress.
>What does that tell you, as a theorist who deals with
>archives?
>
>WE: When the talk is about maximized computer memory
>capacities, this discourse still continues an old
>occidental obsession that culture depends on storage
>(historic architectures, libraries, museums). My media
>analysis tells me that the future cultural emphasis
>will be rather on permanent transfer, not storage
>(without undoing storage, though). There is already an
>implosion of storage mania into processual data flows,
>a different economy of the archive as dynamic agency
>“online”. The notion of immediate data feedback
>replaces the data separation that makes all the
>archival difference.
>
>GL: German history, throughout the twentieth century,
>always occurs to me as incredibly well documented,
>which forms the basis for books, TV documentaries,
>exhibitions and museums. Despite war and destruction
>there is so much left that is still waiting to be
>classified and analyzed. Orderly file keeping has
>resulted in an overwhelming practice of detailed
>historical research. The Nazi period and the holocaust
>are of course well known examples. Communist East
>Germany has produced food for historians for many
>decades to come. One could also say that this is a
>guilt-driven industry. Hendryk Broder once used the
>phrase: “There is no business like Shoah business.”
>How do you look at the present storage-driven memory
>cult? This whole industry is obvious based on
>archives, and continuously creates new archives.
>
>WE: My thesis is that the rhythm of historical memory
>is directed and triggered by the opening of formerly
>inaccessible archives and the waves of documents which
>then disseminate, feeding endless production of new
>texts and books. The Prussian system of State Archives
>(which became kind of a model for both the former
>Soviet Union and the US-American State Archives) has
>provided for a perfectly organized memory of official
>records in politics and culture. In the 20th century,
>a unique constellation hit the German archives: While
>normally state-related document stay classified for a
>long period of time, the collapse of the Nazi regime
>in 1945 led to the immediate opening of German State
>Archives (for the Nuremberg trials, f. e.) - a unique
>opportunity for historians and the public to know the
>archives almost in real-time, without the usual delay.
>At least two successive generations of Germans were
>then permanently confronted with this open archival
>evidence of war crimes, Nazi involvement of parents,
>etc. A similar event happened when the Berlin Wall
>came down in 1989: All of the sudden, the most secret
>archives of the former GDR State Security was open to
>the public, revealing the system of observation to the
>subjects immediately.
>
>With Holocaust Memory in Germany, the case is
>different. A lot of what happened during this genocide
>is not only documented in files but also firmly fixed
>in the memory of the victims - or remains undocumented
>at all (for the victims who died). At the present, we
>are observing the transition of living memory
>(survivors) to mediated memory, which is fixed by
>paper or audiovisual records only to transmit it to
>the future.
>
>One more word on the future archives in Germany.
>Post-war Germany (after 1945) had a dis-continuous
>relation to the past history of Germany; I myself,
>having grown in West Germany, remember that German
>history before 1945 was something alienated to me.
>Instead, the historical consciousness of the post-war
>generation in Germany that grew up with radio and
>television now coincides with its media archives -
>public broadcast archives that are not paper-based any
>more but exist in audio-visual form. The present and
>future problem is: How to get access to these new kind
>of archives in a non-proprietary mode? While the state
>always cared for public education manifested by the
>public libraries network and for memory agencies like
>the State Archives, the audio-visual memory of
>post-war Germany stays with companies that might sell
>these media-archives to private investors. Memory will
>be commodified; let us be political on this. There is
>a glance of hope, though: With the retro-conversion of
>analog magnetic tapes (radio, TV) to digital storage
>for preservation reasons, there will be different ways
>to hack into these digital memories since the digital
>archives, once online, are not separated from the
>“present” any more. In a way, of course, this means
>the disappearance of the emphatic notion of the
>“archive”; it dissolves into electronic circuits, data
>flow.
>
>--
>
>Wolfgang Ernst, Das Rumoren der Archive, Berlin: Merve
>Verlag, 2002.
>See also: Wolfgang Ernst, Archive Phantasms, nettime,
>December 21, 2000.
>http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0012/msg00115.html
>(English).
>Wolfgang Ernst, M.edium F.oucault. Weimarer
>Vorlesungen über Archive, Archäologie, Monumente und
>Medien, Weimar: Verlag & Datenbank für
>Geisteswissenschaften, 2000.
>Georg Trogemann / Alexander Nitussov / W. E. (eds.),
>Computing in Russia. The history of computer devices
>and information technology revealed, Braunschweig:
>Vieweg Verlag, 2001.
>Forthcoming: Wolfgang Ernst, Im Namen von Geschichte:
>Sammeln - Speichern - (Er)Zählen. Infrastrukturelle
>Konfigurationen des deutschen Gedächtnisses (1806 bis
>an die Grenzen zur mechanischen Datenverarbeitung) ,
>Munich: Fink, 2003
>
>
>
>  --- geert <geert at desk.nl> schrieb:
> >
> > > vielleicht waere eine internationale konferenz zu
> > den
> > > ereignissen um "submission" sinnvoller. meiner
> > meinung nach,
> > > ein durchaus schwacher propagandafilm im stile von
> > "der ewige jude" aber
> > > ist das ein grund jemand umzubringen? und was sagt
> > das zum
> > > zustand der offenen gesellschaft und seiner
> > provokativen
> > > kuenstler/theoretiker? dazu koennte man doch auch
> > in lettre mal diskutieren,
> > > aber das waere wahrscheinlich zu aufregend...
> >
> > das wird eh gemacht. es gibt ueberhaupt kein anderes
> > thema derzeit
> > worueber geredet und geschrieben wird. ich sehe
> > nicht was ich, was wir,
> > dazu direkt daran beitragen koennen. die uni
> > internetsoziologen haben
> > sich schon auf dem mohammed b//theo van gogh hype
> > gesturzt und
> > durchsuchen alle (geloeschten) weblogs und chatrooms
> > auf beweisstuecke.
> > leon de winter und viele viele andere beteilen sich
> > schon recht fleissig
> > in den deutschen feuilleton. was koennte die
> > kritische netzkultur da
> > noch hinzufuegen? eine bruecke bauen zum mittleren
> > osten, wie witte de
> > with in rotterdam (catherine david) z.b. macht, ja,
> > das waere schon
> > sinnvoll.
> >
> > das vermeiden des thema 'deutsch' finde ich selbst
> > aber super deutsch.
> > anderswo ist es immer besser und interessanter.
> >
> > klar laesst sich eine veranstaltung die noch nicht
> > stattgefunden hat
> > sehr gut dekonstruieren (siehe pit und janos). so
> > gut sogar das ich
> > manchmal kein bock mehr habe es ueberhaupt noch zu
> > machen weil das
> > treffen im gewissen hier, auf rohrpost, stattfindet
> > und das amsterdammer
> > treff selbst einfach nicht diese schaerfe und
> > dialogform haben kann
> > wegen sprachproblem usw.
> >
> > dazu hat tilman recht wenn er sagt das die
> > medientheorie versagt wenn es
> > um wichtige, zeitgemaesse fallstudien geht. klar
> > koennen wir soviele
> > konferenzen und tagungen machen wie wir wollen. fuer
> > 2005 sind schon 5
> > themen ausgewaehlt. ich moechte etwas machen was
> > sinn macht und etwas in
> > bewegung bringt.
> >
> > ob deutsche medientheorie exotisch ist kann ich
> > schwer beurteilen. denkt
> > man/frau bei jeden satz von nietzsche und benjamin
> > an lebkuchen und
> > neuschwanstein? ich nicht aber vielleicht gibt es
> > solche leute. derrida
> > und deleuze gleichsetzen mit eifelturm und pariser
> > cafekultur, ja, es
> > gibt so eine leseart gibt es, aber es nicht meiner.
> >
> > jemanden hat mir empfohlen, warum ganze nicht
> > einfach in berlin
> > abhalten? da gehoert die diskussion eh hin. wenn
> > provenziell, warum dann
> > auch nicht der hauptstadt der provinz?
> >
> > gruss, geert
> >
> > > --
> > rohrpost - deutschsprachige Liste zur Kultur
> > digitaler Medien und Netze
> > Archiv: http://www.nettime.org/rohrpost
> > http://post.openoffice.de/pipermail/rohrpost/
> > Ent/Subskribieren:
>http://post.openoffice.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rohrpost/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________
>Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 100MB Speicher kostenlos - Hier 
>anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
>
>--
>rohrpost - deutschsprachige Liste zur Kultur digitaler Medien und Netze
>Archiv: http://www.nettime.org/rohrpost 
>http://post.openoffice.de/pipermail/rohrpost/
>Ent/Subskribieren: 
>http://post.openoffice.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rohrpost/