“Unclean Interface: Computation as a Cleanliness Problem” — Rachel Plotnick at Digital Aesthetics Workshop

Announcing the Digital Aesthetics Workshop’s first event of 2020: On February 11th, at 5 PM in the Stanford Humanities Center’s Watt Common Room, we’ll be hosting Rachel Plotnick, who will share some recent research on cleanliness and computation. 

Dr. Plotnick is an Assistant Professor in the Media School at the University of Indiana-Bloomington. Her (fantastic!) first book, Power Button: a History of Pleasure, Panic, and the Politics of Pushing, is just out from MIT Press.

Here is the abstract for her talk:

Unclean Interface: Computation as a Cleanliness Problem

Histories of computing tend to focus on particular elements of computation (such as invention of computers; early PC use; interface design, or viruses), but this study aims to approach computing from a novel, alternative angle – mess. From the earliest advent and use of computers, mess has been a particularly thorny problem that gets defined differently in different contexts, across technologies and spaces, and through a variety of computing practices. Computing is inherently messy: screens, mice, disks and keyboards pick up dirt, dust and crumbs; messy bodies touch and handle computers day in and day out; air is full of unclean particles; and problems of humidity, temperature, and static are routine. At the level of software, too, metaphors of cleanliness and dirtiness persist in terms of “clean” design, “dirty” content or data, desktop icon organization, and fears over contagion and contamination from viruses and spam. By beginning from the vantage point of mess, it becomes possible to crystallize a very different history of computing driven from efforts to contain, control and eliminate dirt, to valorize cleanliness, and to enforce particular protocols, habits, and behaviors. In the messy interface between bodies, environments, software, and hardware one can find persistent concerns about what it means to be “human” and what it means to be “technology.” At the same time, this approach weaves in discussions of care, maintenance, and repair into computing, recognizing that innovation is not the only – or always most salient – way to understand human-technology relations, and that in fact much of everyday interactions with computers take place in acts of protection and cleaning. Innovation may also occur as a result of particular messiness problems, rather than the other way around. Lest we think of mess as a computing problem of the past (given ethereal metaphors of “cloud” computing and increasingly encased computing devices), recent examples of messiness demonstrate the ongoing problem of cleanliness in computing. A few representative cases include: Apple’s continued problems with its butterfly keyboard; concerns over “dirty” databases and how to clean big data; and the booming market for cases, screen protectors, and cleaning devices for tablets, laptops and smartphones.

The Algorithmic Nickelodeon featured in Sight & Sound’s Best Video Essays of 2019

The Algorithmic Nickelodeon from Shane Denson on Vimeo.

 

Several weeks ago, Sight & Sound Magazine’s “Best Video Essays of 2019” came out, featuring 134 videos nominated by 39 contributors — including my “Algorithmic Nickelodeon” piece, picked by Jiří Anger from Charles University in Prague. He writes:

Despite its formal shortcomings, this must be one of the most thought-provoking videographic works I have seen. Denson’s theoretical manifesto imagines a form of audiovisual criticism that would not be merely expressive but transformative, reinventing our notion of subject-object relations. For this to happen, deformations of the image/object and displacements of the analyst/subject must take place simultaneously. Creative thinking joins forces with EEG headsets and editing programmes to create a media-theoretical ‘perpetuum mobile’, designed for constant questioning of what cinema means in the age of algorithms.

I am honored to have my work featured alongside many fascinating videos, many of which were made by friends and colleagues of mine (including especially noteworthy pieces by Chloé Galibert-Laîné, Kathleen Loock, Jason Mittell, Tracy Cox-Stanton, as well as Allison de Fren’s piece “Mad Science/Mad Love and the Female Body in Pieces,” which I commissioned for the Videographic Frankenstein exhibition at Stanford and published last year in Hyperrhiz).

By the way, I agree completely with Anger’s assessments of my video’s “formal shortcomings,” which stand out all the more against the background of all the excellent and polished work featured in the poll. In fact, my video was conceived and produced as a very rough proof-of-concept for a symposium organized by Kathleen Loock in Berlin last year (where I had hoped to do a live demo of the setup but was unable to due to technical limitations in the venue). A more polished video for the project is currently being planned, but in the meantime I’m quite happy with Anger’s assessment of it as “one of the most thought-provoking videographic works”!

CFP: Stanford-Leuphana Summer Academy on Humanities and Media 2020: “Technologies of Bureaucracy: Before and After the Digital Turn”

Stanford-Leuphana Summer Ac… by medieninitiative on Scribd

I am happy to announce the call for papers for the 2nd annual Stanford-Leuphana Summer Academy on Humanities and Media, which will take place June 22-26, 2020 in Berlin!

The topic this year is “Technologies of Bureaucracy: Before and After the Digital Turn!”

Our faculty and guest speakers this year are:

  • Timon Beyes (Sociology of Organisation and Culture, Leuphana)
  • Wendy Chun (New Media, Vancouver)
  • Shane Denson (Film and Media Studies, Stanford)
  • Monika Dommann (History, Zurich)
  • Marisa Galvez (French, Italian, and German Studies, Stanford)
  • Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht (Comparative Literature, Stanford)
  • Robin Holt (Organization Studies, Copenhagen)
  • Karla Oeler (Film and Media Studies, Stanford)
  • Claus Pias (History and Epistemology of Media, Leuphana)
  • Hito Steyerl (Experimental Film and Video, Berlin)
  • Peter Stohschneider (Medieval Studies, Munich) tbc
  • Fred Turner (Communication, Stanford)

As in the previous year, travel and accommodation costs will be covered for graduate students accepted to the Summer Academy, and there will be no additional fees for participation. So please consider applying and spread the word to qualified graduate students!

Amalgamate: An Exhibition of Video Works

I am happy to announce Amalgamate, an exhibition of videos made by students in my course on “The Video Essay” (Fall 2019). Works range from analytical to experimental, with activist impulses and cinephilic sensitivities sprinkled throughout. The show runs from January 10-31, 2020 in the Gunn Foyer, McMurtry Building, at Stanford.

Moving Notice

Welcome to the new home of medieninitiative, the blog of media theorist Shane Denson. Formerly hosted at medieninitiative.wordpress.com, the blog has been running since 2011. Moving to the new address blog.shanedenson.com (a subdomain of my website shanedenson.com) gives me more control over the blog–and above all means that you don’t have to look at any ads!

There will doubtless be a few hiccups as everything gets settled in, so please let me know if you spot any problems!

“Declining Russian Media Theory” — Ben Peters at Digital Aesthetic Workshop

DAW_Peters_Poster

Next week, on Thursday, November 21, the Digital Aesthetics Workshop will host Ben Peters for our third workshop of the 2019-2020 season, for a talk entitled “Declining Russian Media Theory.” We’ll meet in the Humanities Center Board Room at 5 PM.

More info:

A first step toward a larger project, Peters test runs ways to decline, in both senses, the problem of Russian media theory. It is a curious fact that nowhere does there exist today, despite the ample intellectual materials, anything that might be called “Russian media theory.” Other scholars have identified various schools of media thought as distinctively German, Canadian, American, French, and British and yet, while the lumber and ruins are ample, no single school of media thought stands today that is recognizably Russian or otherwise discernibly Slavic. Why not? Peters argues not that some kind of Russian media theory should exist (in fact, he offers several reasons why it should not). Rather it is simply to speculate beyond the curious observation that, given the sustained interest in the subject, no distinctively Russian theoretical approach to media has emerged to date. This brief, in turn modest and immodest, and necessarily speculative essay aims not to articulate such a theory, nor to lament its nonexistence, nor even to call for further commentary in that direction. Instead this talk aims to take a step backwards to reflect on the causes of that curious fact, to navigate some obstacles standing in the way of its articulation, to sound out and explore the declensions of such a media theoretic grammar, and to excavate the pre-dispositional grounds of possibility for a Russian—or perhaps Slavic—media theoretic tradition.

Benjamin Peters is a media scholar interested in plumbing uncharted media histories and theories, particularly in the Soviet century. He is also author of How Not to Network a Nation (MIT Press 2016), editor of Digital Keywords (Princeton UP 2016), the Hazel Rogers Associate Professor and Chair of Media Studies at the University of Tulsa, and an affiliated fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.

LIT+ Conference at Stanford

LIT+

I am very honored to be speaking alongside some very distinguished thinkers this December at the LIT+ Conference on the State of the Interdisciplines, sponsored by Stanford’s Program in Modern Thought and Literature (MTL), Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies (FemGen), the Stanford Law School, and the Stanford Humanities Center. Watch this space for more info soon!