Public Scholarship & the Academic Lexicon

First, I would like to verbalize my absolute excitement about my enrollment in Professor David Domke's class fall quarter - I was unsure what to make of him as, prior to reading this article, I had no previous connection to him; now, I am stoked beyond belief. Talk about a passionate professor!

Publication Methods:
-Digital Media (YouTube, this blog [or another dedicated to research])
-Print (Submitting an article to an academic journal, but more likely, to a 'lay publication' like Architectural Digest, or more importantly, writing a book designated for the general population; a publication of this nature will reach a much broader audience than a simple academic essay/article/book) This is public scholarship, it should be accessible to everyone from third graders (although I doubt they'd be interested) to doctoral students to your grandma.

In terms of my presentation, it is most important for me to be mindful of jargon; when you are so familiar with a subject and its associated terminology, you often forget what is jargon and what is not. It is important to keep the audience in mind (even at a scholastic conference).

Armed with this knowledge, I hope that when it comes time to present my findings from this project, I'll be able to assemble a presentation that is engaging, informative and humanistic. The Academic Paradox: you may have just had the most brilliant and mind-blowing idea in the history of mankind; but if you cannot effectively communicate your thoughts to others, it is as if the idea never existed.

FOaM

Fashion, Objectivity and Mythology.

Roland Barthes was born in Cherbough, Manche, Lower Normandy, France
He is a semiotician
He studies semiotics
Semiotics is the studies of signs and their interpretation
Signs are a combination of the signifier and the signified
He died in Paris in 1980
He was run over by a milk truck.


Language is the grander structure; a tool of human communication. Speech is individual; it is written, spoken, screamed, etc.

Signs, as I mentioned, are the relationship between the signifier (Sr) and the signified (Sd):
Sr / Sd

In my previous post, I described physical appearance (primarily, my clothing) from third person (limited) and first person perspectives; but in describing myself in the third person, I wondered: can anyone ever be objective? About anything? I look at myself in the mirror, and I describe my appearance based on how I would describe someone else, but I can only describe anyone, anything, anywhere, the world at large, in one way: as I see it. And I see it from my own unique perspective on the world, based on my worldview, my past and present experiences, thoughts, observations. Even in describing something as simple as an outfit, can anyone be objective? Get outside themselves and speak? I don't think so. Because if you are not speaking as yourself, not thinking as yourself, not describing acting feeling as yourself, who are you? Who are you impersonating if none of us can get escape ourselves? I experience through the lens of my worldview; so do you, so does your mother, your brother, your sister, your friend, your boss and your gardener. So if I am attempting to be objective and get away from myself, to view the world without bias or pretension, exactly whose worldview am I assuming?

In discussing research: how does ones provide objective (or authentic/impartial) data? If authenticity is allowing that which you are speaking about, to speak for itself as much as possible; it grants integrity. How does authenticity (objectivity) apply to the interpretation/inference of data? If viewing authenticity as an extension or component and integrity, which implies ethics, then it can be, at the very least, suggested. However, if you try and remove integrity, ethics and morality, you are left with two seemingly separate worlds; authentic and impartial data collection may imply but does not propose or create authentic or impartial results. This is the nature of interpretation.

"Who is that girl I see staring straight back at me?"

Entering a cafe, your eyes alight on a petite brunette standing a few feet back from the register. Her curling hair reaches just beyond her shoulders, glowing gently in the soft lighting, the color reminiscent of espresso, streaked perhaps, with caramel. Perhaps these analogies are only present because of circumstances, but whatever the case, these associations seem to fit. Tucked into her hair a pair of plastic, unbranded Jackie-O style sunglasses perch atop her head, catching the light as she turns her head. As she reaches up to tuck a stray curl behind her ear, you note small glowing pearl earrings studding her ears. She is wearing a sky blue polo shirt, collar laying flat against her shoulders, neither tight nor baggy. Like many, she is dressed for the newfound summer weather in a pale-wash jean skirt, coming to halfway between her hip and knee, definitely not qualified as long, but not fashionably short, either. You note her well-manicured nails adorned with a pale shimmering pink polish and, following the line of her pale untanned legs, you note matching polish on her toes and slightly worn brown leather sandals, not quite flipflops but not any other high-fashion style either. Overall, her appearance is on the preppy side, all of her clothes of a simple, classic style that borders on elegance - if such is possible with jeans and cotton. She could fit in almost anywhere: on campus, on the street, at the beach, in a cafe, driving with the top down.

I am a creature of comfort. While I give care to my appearance (I style my hair every day, I put on makeup, etc.) I don't get dressed every morning with the express purpose of looking good at all costs. I make sure that all of my clothes look good on me (if they don't look good I get rid of them), and I wear whatever is most comfortable knowing that I at least look decent. However, my hair, make-up and clothing are all carefully composed to look natural. My makeup is all natural tones, bronzes, browns, neutrals and transparent shades; denim is a staple of my wardrobe, and I hardly wear t-shirts, choosing instead polo shirts, though more often another type of semi-fashionable blouse or shirt. I take care, too, to always seem... put together. If my hair won't cooperate - not necessarily achieving perfection - I'll put it up. If my nail polish is starting to crack and peel, I'll either take it off or reapply instead of walking around with fragmented color, however unnoticeable or minor. My personal style, which frequently deviates from mainstream, leans towards casual, understated elegance. Pearls, jeans, polos - brands are not a necessity, but these timeless styles seem to find their way into my wardrobe.

(re)Search Me

"Social research is one among many ways of constructing representations of social life... and these representations tell us something about society." (Ragin, Constructing Social Research)

First, let's define:
concept: a general notion
intersubjective: existing between conscious minds; shared knowledge

With that in mind...

Concepts: Tools of Intersubjectivity
a la Mieke Bal

- facilitate discussion via comnon language
- abstract representation of object (reminiscent of a synecdoche)
- neither simple nor adequate, in and of themselves
- function to distort, unfix and/or inflect object
- not a metaphor, but rather a miniature theory

Using these definitions as an aid, my hope is that these tools will find their way into my arsenal, knowing that once I touchdown in Amsterdam, my entire project will shift into something wholly new. With this in mind, I have tried to keep my project and malleable as possible, in an attempt to avoid total devastation while walking the canals.


- an analysis of objects situations and other theories

I've been framed!

The Exterior as Interior: How are specific functions of a space defined in design? Specifically, how do you create the sense of being inside, when out?

The framework I'd like to use for my research is from one of the latest articles I've read, one that I have absolutely fallen in love with: Telling, Showing, Showing Off by Mieke Bal; she explicitly discusses space and how it is used, how to changed the connotation of a space by specific elements and/or the way in which a feature is presented and explained. I feel like this framework would fit best for my very physical and spatial project. While the Arcades project may appear to be the most appropriate, and this may turn out to be the case, Bal's writing had much more of an impact on me. On the flip side, I still harbor an absolute infatuation with de Certeau, and I would like to work in both the notion of the synecdoche and urban semiotics. Further, how these spaces actually exist and the relation to arcades. Too many frameworks, too little time.

Having chosen Bal's article and principles as my framework, the next step was methodology. Likely, I'll be using both 'close reading' of an environment (much like de Certeau) but also Zeisel's observation methods inasmuch as both acting as removed observer and participant observer as well, though likely steering clear of examining traces.

Questions From the Audience

I found both of Mieke Bal's articles Telling, Showing, Showing Off and "Tradition" from her book Traveling Concepts in the Humanities: A Rough Guide incredibly interesting. It is not often the museum is examined in and of itself, nor the catharsis that results from the embrace of tradition in cultures drowning in history.

Telling, Showing, Showing Off:

In this article, Bal discusses the 'metamuseum', this concept that not only are museums preserves for whatever topic upon which they focus, but also act to preserve the museum itself; museums also exist to preserve themselves. She goes on to discuss not only the construction of the museum, but the motivation for the creation of the museum: the difference between 19th century colonialism and the 20th century focus on education. In this she notes that Donna Haraway has already criticized the way in which museums have obtained their relics and notes that she, too, will be discussing Akeley Hall of the elusive Second Floor of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). The following struck me, for some reason: "There is a tension here, perhaps a paradox, inherent in the museum as a whole, between common and strange." (Bal, 562) Bal goes on to say, "[This discourse] claims the truth to which the viewer is asked to submit, endorsing the willing suspension of disbelief that rules the power of fiction.[. . .] this is the equivalent of the 'once upon a time' formula, the discourse of realism setting the terms of the contract between viewer or reader and museum or storyteller." (Bal, 563,564) I was further intrigued by the way in which she addressed how the museum deals with the "transition from this cultured "nature" to culture as nature - from mammals to peoples" (Bal, 564) She exemplifies this transition in the Queen Maya Exhibit and it is here I went from piqued to enthralled. She comments that the Queen Maya Giving Birth to the Buddha from her Side exhibit, a small black-box exhibit between the Indian rhinoceros and the water buffalo, has a "specific transitional function" (Bal, 566) What does that mean? How can a small statue of Queen Maya, placed between two quadrupeds, serve as the transition between animalia and human?

How does the Queen Maya relic serve as and/or exemplify this difficult transition? How does the accompanying text indicate this role? How does this minor exhibit fulfill its role as diplomat? Is this intended as a conscious or unconscious transition? Is it effective?

"Tradition" from Traveling Concepts in the Humanities: A Rough Guide:

In this chapter, Bal discusses how traditions have shaped society and further, where they have come from and, now that their (sometimes unpleasant) origins have been uncovered, what do we do? Do we allow the traditions to continue uninhibited? Do we try and change them? How do we respond to the newly formed darkness that surrounds some of our most cherished traditions?

Why allow the tradition to continue? After noting the pain and confusion it inflicts, why perpetuate these acts? To what end?

Technological Revolutions

The Information Revolution: The Origins of the Personal Computer and the Internet
The history of computers (and later, the internet) is unique; from the room sized over-grown calculators of the 1950s and the Cold War era, complete with punchcards; the feared tool of military-industrial complex in the 1960s; the development of the mouse, icons and drop-down menus by Xerox at Palo Alto in the early 1970s (and of course, a laser printer), this technology however, was not as profitable to Xerox as they had intended and they chose to sell it to a team of researchers in Silicon Valley. In 1977, these researchers (Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs) produced the Apple II computer, followed by the Macintosh which utilized these technologies that Xerox had discarded, also including a floppy disk drive and Apple's signature streamlined design. In 1983, IBM introduced the first Personal Computer with spreadsheet and word processing software, earning it the prestigious title of Machine of the Year from Time magazine. IBM used a new technology created by William Gates called MS-DOS, marking the trailhead of the careers of both Bill Gates and his Microsoft Corporation. It was at this point that the U.S Department of Defense funded the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) to create an intercommunication/interconnection system that could survive a nuclear holocaust called ARPANET. In 1971, ARPANET became so central to computer use, the core of interconnectivity even and was renamed the Internet. As they say, well, the rest is history.

From military technology designed to survive a nuclear war to user-based, user-defined webpages: the Internet has had a remarkable journey.

The Digital Revolution: Web 2.0
In his short webvideo, now all over YouTube, Mike Wesch, Professor of Digital Ethnography and Cultural Anthropology at Kansas State University concisely and effectively explains Web 2.0, that is, how text and hypertext have evolved; how the very construction of web pages has transitioned from HTML to XML, creating a user-defined, user-operated digital world that puts millions of bites of information at our fingertips. I was absolutely captivated by this short, and could not picture the presentation in any other way. Had this been presented in text (hard copy, digital, &c) it would not have been nearly so effective. Not only was video extremely interesting and much less difficult to traverse than black and white, but by using the media (the internet) he was describing as the method of presentation, it truly demonstrated and exemplified what Professor Wesch's point: The Machine Is Us/ing US

Michael Wesch's webvideo:


A response to Web 2.0



The Genetic Revolution: Round I (1870-1920)
Philip Thurtle, professor of Comparative History of Ideas (CHID) at the University of Washington, has introduced his latest book The Emergence of Genetic Rationality: Space, Time, and Information in American Biological Science, 1870-1920. While I have not had the opportunity to read this text, I cannot help but feel that it will be captivating (as much as Professor Thurtle's lectures) and offer a unique, insightful, thorough look into the history of genetics. While I have been in the audience for several of Thurtle's digital presentations and, while they were effective and educational and I was for the most part engaged, I cannot help but feel that Thurtle is perhaps more comfortable with text, and further, that the material he is presenting is in fact much more suited to text. I cannot give any specific reason why I feel this way, and I really have no evidence either.

Happy Birthday, Karl Marx

[...and a rollickin' 'Viva Cinco de Mayo!' to all the rest of you. There is this common misconception that Cinco de Mayo is Mexico's Independence Day (Grito de Dolores), it's not. (Grito de Dolores is actually 16 September, and the most important patriotic holiday in Mexico) Cinco de Mayo in fact celebrates the initial Mexican victory, led by General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín, over French forces in 1862 at the Battle of Puebla.]

In any case, the Frankfurt School: Marx and Freud contributed to this gestalt of the Frankfurt School, leading to a focus on both [alternatives to] capitalism and fantasy, as a means to understand culture. Why do I? Walter Benjamin studied here, and he is our lovely subject of discussion (read, lecture) today.

"There is something quintessentially modern," says JB, "about Paris." Introducing the concept of the Flaneur: acting as a man of the crowd - not readily extinguishable; acting in a public urban space to observe the world as culture. The Flaneur is not immersed in the environment which he is observing, he does not participate. The Flaneur does not have a destination; he is an idler. "He consumes the city, visually," noted JB, "You have no connection to society. Flaneurs don't have families. Where they get their clothes? Doesn't come up." "The crowd is his domain," says Baudelaire, "...his passion and his profession is to merge with the crowd." There is still detachment: he is 'of' the crowd, but not 'in' it.

How is a metropolis different from a large town? What is the 'urban experience'? Crowds, street life."You are experiencing things at every level of the body sensorium," (JB) Textual fragments, unexpected juxtapositions: the important commentary provided by Benjamin. "The [visual] fragmentation of the text," notes JB, "is a metaphorical rhyme... These textual fragments rhyme with the fragmentation of the [Parisian] arcades."

Convoluted 'Konvolutes'

Really confused by this assignment. Very much unpleased; bear with me.

[Individuals/Spaces]

As this most literally deals with space and the influence/affectation therein, this seemed like the most appropriate/logical/likely choice.

- 1a -
“All architecture is shelter, all great architecture is the design of space that contains, cuddles, exalts, or stimulates the persons in that space."
Philip Johnson, American Architect


- 1b -Johnson most eloquently describes how I feel about architecture as a whole. Architecture is possibly the most influential aspect of a space: it absolutely affects a space with its appearance, form, function and presence (or lack thereof). Architecture has, in its unmoving and silent way, an amazing amount of control over individuals in its presence.


- 2a -
“Architecture is a social act and the material theater of human activity.”
Dr. Spiro Konstantine Kostof, Turkish-American Architect


- 2b - Directly related to Johnson and my implicit definition of architecture, is Kostof, who takes an even more unique approach to the role and participation of architecture in culture. This concept of a social act is especially striking: while we are all acutely aware that architecture is an artificial concept/act/object, it is not often considered social or in any way personal (disregarding, of course, the happy and absolutely non-exemplary, in fact quite inconvenient, that is simply: homes) and for no particular reason. Architecture is by, for and about social creatures (ie us).


I am still working on exactly what it is I want to study; I'd like to focus on the design - material & visual, implied & explicit - and how this affects the function, use and individual behavior within the space, how these spaces relate to individuals and each other.