digitaldust

So I just downloaded iTunes 4.9 and it’s got podcast stuff specifically built into it. I don’t have to keep downloading In Our Time (or stealing it off Heather’s HDD), it’s there for me in iTunes. What’s more interesting is the podcasts on the music store. I’ve poked around and there are a lone few subscription based casts. Podcasting goes mainstream, we’re not talking crystal sets in your bedroom anymore. At times I’m quite surprised at how fast this delivery mechanism has caught on, but I suppose it is obvious why. The concept is simple and it works… now it’s about finessing the mechanism.

I liked Danah Boyd’s post on the trials and tribulations of being interdisciplinary.

“I think that it’s hard to be interdisciplinary. I think everyone *wants* to be interdisciplinary but that seems to mean draw haphazardly from different disciplines, throw into the blender, add a few spices and voila interdisciplinary gazpacho. I want a chemical reaction dammit.”

Danah was talking mostly about the problems of personal and group identity in these situations and also surmising that “interdisciplinary” would be the next big academic revolution.

A draft blog entry has sat on blogger for a month now with me trying to find time to say something of my own about it. I find it all the more interesting now having just gone to an “interdisciplinary” conference on communities and technology (with a heavy focus on knowledge management).

Revolutions in science (and the humanities) don’t always happen where you expect them and fields bounce off each other in unique ways. Quantum mechanics came from studying thermodynamics, Newton wrote more on alchemy than physics, most academic disciplines we know of today and believe to be entrenched didn’t exist in the 19th century, and many not even fifty years ago. Sociology and anthropology are 19th century creations (coming out of history, economics, natural history, etc) let alone such things as bio-chemistry, computer science or nanotechnology. Interdisciplinary action happens all the time. Problem is it then ossifies as a new discipline. People like the safety of definition, and spend time debating their own group identities as Danah also points out in her post.

Interestingly enough at this conference I went to there were quite a few talks and discussions about knowledge networks and creativity. Knowledge flows through networks, but unless there is a bridge to another human network it just doesn’t go there. However these bridge points are where creative and innovative things happen. Disciplines are just big knowledge networks, an anthropologist is more likely to talk to another anthropologist on the other side of the world than to the computer scientist in the next room.

There are plenty of reasons for this, domain language, different processes, different value frameworks, etc. To bridge these networks requires multi/interdisciplinary types. People who talk not only different jargon but can translate different ways of thinking.

Disciplines impose rigor and structure, cross group connections and bridges are creative and revolutionary.

I don’t mean the people themselves but the structure around them. I don’t intend to say that researchers doing pure discipline focused work are not creative or valuable, because they are. Neither am I saying that interdisciplinary types are wonderfully creative because of their position. The networks need both these types of people, and dare I say it probably more people doing good old solid disciplinary research, not just a bunch of dilettante freaks.

My end of year show is rushing up at me. The opening night is this Friday, where I get to woo and wow the art world cognoscenti.

I’ve just started a somewhat professional looking site for my work. A little hacked together at the moment… I’ll see if I can get it tidied up as time goes on and get more of my work up there. My eponymous portfolio is now at dandixon.co.uk

The show is open from the 18th June to the 25th June.

Saturday 18th 12-4pm
Monday 20th - Friday 24th 12-8pm
Saturday 25th 12-4pm

Saturday is more or less our opening. Anyone who can come along is more than welcome. Pimms and cucumber sandwiches for everyone.

Here’s a weird and recent meme explosion. The goddess Ana and the cult of anorexia. All the current activity seems to stem from just one or two Associated Press syndications. The same, ever so slightly, rewritten story turns up in a pile of news publications. It’s also been a popular link in the blogging community

With a bit of poking I’ve found some stuff going way back about girls (and it is all girls) personifying their eating disorders, and going online to provide wont power to each other.

It does seem that the bloggers, lefty-liberal technorati types, find this sort of thing somewhat cool and morbidly fascinating and that the opposite end of the spectrum also get a morbid kick out of it, as is shown by the number of major publications carrying it.

Is it just a storm in a tea cup? How much is it a real cult? How much can we really know with only a few out of context quotes from mental health workers and anorexics?

But I did find this great mag… Girls & Corpses… I’m subscribing immediately.