I need a bigger desk.
Don’t tell MrsT, for goodness’ sake, but this simply isn’t cutting it – unless it’s that it’s too cluttered, and what I need to do is to decamp somewhere like the Pervasive Media Studio for a day or so a week. Regardless, it’s like writing at the edge of a table.
There’s a kitchen table through there that’s going begging though. Although the wireless signal in there is awful.
Right – first few days worth of reading and assembling of the start of an argument. Or a discussion at the very least.
Journalist-Curators. Much like BoingBoing (this is the model the web seems largely comfortable with at present, although I don’t think it’s the whole answer, by any means), and a host of other sites – I’m more familiar with referring to them as ‘aggregators’, and while it’s interesting to see someone else remark on BoingBoing’s role as a centre for editing, it doesn’t get me very far.
Although (the word although is going to be the most used on this thing), I do think that there’s something interesting in the ‘linking is curating’ (on a very small scale, mind) argument.
From some sources:
“One thing that I think is really important to the curatorial model is that there’s an obligation – as far as it’s possible – to provide access to the curated item *right there* in the page – embedded or ‘inline’ as we used to say in the old days. This won’t always be possible (if you’re curating something physical or something protected by DRM) but should be compulsory if you’re curating video or music, for instance. Referencing or linking to a TV show just isn’t enough. You have to wrap your commentary around the item itself…” (Steve Bowbrick)
“I’ve spent a good deal of time searching for a word other than “Curation” in part because of the connection to museums (which I feared sounded elitist and historic). But the fact is that it is the right word, with the right results.
The biggest shift from mainstream media publishing to curation is that the expert curator has no obligation to rely on ‘expert’ or ‘professional’ sources. In fact, very much the opposite. Because speed and authenticity are increasingly essential – a good curator can publish, and then edit and update as the conversation or the story requires. What is missing – but arriving -are curation tools… that give publishers the ability to find, and sort, and publish.
But there are good pieces of this already in place.. and more on the way.” (Steve Rosenbaum)
I don’t buy the linking is curating as an absolute), or frankly, and ‘end of the argument’ statement, but there is something there – without a doubt, when I link to something, I’m calling attention to it – and in a google-sense of attention being linked to, how @aleksk put it – interestingness (for want of a better term that denotes value to a reader) that’s relevant. It’s an issue of scale though, surely? A link from one site (blog) to another (whatever it might be) does not make for a curatorial act, unless – and here’s the rub – someone actually sees it.
It’s back to Marx and interactive objects. They have to have a noticeable and measurable affect in the world before they can be classified as being curatorial in anything more than intention.
They have to comprise something.
Curation is to care. It’s also to organise, and to exhibit, usually to some degree of scale and audience. There’s expertise involved, and it accepts the existence of an implicit context (unfortunately, I can’t get away from the single curatorial act possessing all of those qualities, except for scale).
Need some reading – something on the role of the museum in the digital age. Also – have a search for the mission statement (if one exists) for the Agrippa site.
And Derrida. Have avoided Derrida for at least a week and a half. No longer..