Michael H Goldhaber on Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:30:41 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> The banality of blogging |
Felix, It is not inherent to the technology of the printed book that each book have only one author. (The Bible certainly doesn't. ) rather this technology turned out to allow for single-author texts, and that is what the reading public turned out to find most satisfactory (for books that are read through form cover to cover, as opposed to compendia of all sorts , such as dictionaries, almanacs, anthologies, etc.). This is because it is easier to align with one mind at a time than a multitude. Also, probably Gutenberg did not need to do market research to realize that the Bible would be much in demand. Pri0r to printing, others had produced translations of the Bible into "vulgar tongues," and these were much sought after. Even if Gutenberg was ignorant of that fact, he would have known that most who could read were clerics or nobles who might well welcome their own Bible. Hand-copied bibles were in demand at the time. other printers soon were cranking out editions, and still are, in enormous numbers. It is far too soon to say what will come of blogs, whose process of production and of reading is certainly novel and may lead to an enduring new form, or quite possibly many. It would be distressing if most blogs were not banal, however, just as most books and movies, etc., are. Banality is in the eye of the beholder, but if one considered all blogs worth reading one would go mad. It's possible, though, that blogs will be mostly replaced by video logs, which would have a character of their own. Best, Michael On Aug 15, 2007, at 6:26 AM, Felix Stalder wrote: > Benjamin Geer wrote: > >> But as far as I know, nobody has suggested that texts published using >> printing presses are inherently... anything. The first books printed were >> Bibles, not because printing presses inherently lend themselves to printing >> Bibles above all else, but because that was what a lot of people wanted to >> read. > > This is wrong. Twice. There are a lot of things that are inherent to texts <...> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@kein.org and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org