Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Urban Media Archaeology: Media Archaeology Presentation


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Urban Media Archaeology: Media Archaeology Presentation

  1. 1. Putting the Urban in Media Archaeology September 22, 2010
  2. 2. Today’s Readings: Siegfried Zielinski, “Introduction: The Idea of a Deep Time of the Media” and excerpts from “Fortuitous Finds Instead of Searching in Vain: Methodological Borrowings and Affinities for an Anarchaeology of Seeing and Hearing by Technical Means” In Deep Time of the Media: Toward an Archaeology of Hearing and Seeing by Technical Means (Cambridge, MIT Press, 2006): 1-11, 27-38. Jussi Parikka, Interview with Garnet Hertz, “Archaeologies of Media Art” CTheory (April 1, 2010). (13 pp.) Friedrich A. Kittler, “The City Is a Medium” New Literary History 27:4 (1996): 717-729. Vyjayanthi Rao, “Embracing Urbanism: The City as Archive” New Literary History 40:2 (Spring 2009): 371-383. Kazys Varnelis, “Centripetal City” Cabinet 17 (Spring 2004/2005): 27-33.
  3. 3. Hollis Brown, VHS, 2010
  4. 4. “ Th e old questions of the traditional analysis (What link should be made between disparate events? How can a causal succession be established between them? What continuity or overall significance do they possess? Is it possible to define a totality, or must one / be content with reconstituting connexions?) are now being replaced by questions of another type: which strata should be isolated from others? What types of series should be established? What criteria of periodization should be adopted for each of them? What system of relations (hierarchy, dominance, stratification, univocal determination, circular causality) may be established between them? What series of series may be established? And in what large-scale chronological table may distinct series of events be determined? ” -- Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge , pp. 3-4
  5. 5. “ Ar chaeology – and this is one of its principle themes – may thus constitute the tree of derivation of a discourse ” – “g o verning statements ” at root “ bu rgeoning of ‘discoveries,’” “c o nceptual transformations, ” “e m ergence of new notions” -- ibid., p. 147
  6. 6. Benjamin’s archaeological historiography: “ concerned with the salvation and preservation of the objects and traces of the past that modern society threatens to destroy” -- Graeme Gilloch, Myth and Metropolis , p. 13
  7. 7. “ The physiognomical gaze transforms the urban setting into a hieroglyph, a rebus, to be deciphered . The archaeology of the metropolis involves the discovery and interpretation of its hidden inscriptions and traces. The city is a secret text to be read.” -- ibid., 181
  8. 9. “ Th e mere rediscovery of the forgotten, the establishment of oddball paleontologies, of idiosyncratic genealogies, uncertain lineages, the excavation of antique technologies or images, the account of erratic technical developments, are, in themselves, insufficient to the building of a coherent discursive methodology ” -- Timothy Druckery, Intro to Zielinski, p. ix.
  9. 10. “ Re gistering false starts, seemingly ephemeral phenomena and anecdotes about media can sometimes be more revealing than tracing the fates of machines that were patented, industrially fabricated and widely distributed in the society – let alone the lives of their creators – if our focus is on the meanings that emerge through the social practices related to the use of technology” -- Erkki Huhtamo, “From Kaleidoscomaniac to Cybernerd: Notes Toward an Archaeology of the Media” Leonardo 30:3 (1997): 223.