Media Theory for the 21st Century

March 3, 2008

Back to Narrative/Database for just a second..

Filed under: Discussion — nickroth @ 7:30 pm
Tags: , , ,

This post is both late and not a genuine official post-post.  I was just thinking back to our discussion of narrative and database in the novel, and specifically in reference to the possibility of novels which privilege or favor database over narrative, and Nabokov’s Pale Fire came to mind.  It seems like one could take the poem as a database and the commentary maybe as a set of algorithms.  I don’t have any definite ah-ha! points to make about it, so I’m just wondering if anyone has any productive thoughts about it – after all, it’s insistently “A Novel” according to the cover of all the publications I’ve ever seen, but pretty much everyone who’s ever read it has encountered serious difficulty with mapping it’s narrative(s).

~Nick

February 19, 2008

Read / Write / Access / Error: Query on human/machine memory

Filed under: Discussion — P.J. @ 7:23 pm
Tags: , ,

The debate that arises as early as Plato’s argument between Theuth and Thamus – which Renee brought up in an earlier post – has long fascinated me for its definition of memory as that which must instantiate in a consciousness located within the human body. Because I tend toward a model of memory that includes the extended “unconscious” information humans store in other media for retrieval, it is difficult for me to parse that clear defining line between biological and technical information resources, a position not unlike Andy Clark’s in Natural Born Cyborgs. Alternately, the proliferation of our externalized information resources (read that “databases”) demands new interrogations, not just because of the implications for New Media work we’re discussing this week, but because of the profound political implications that inhere in a system that can’t seem to get away from the “communication-and-control” of cybernetics; here Zach’s discussion on the status of abjected information in shadow databases comes into play.

In short, I am interested in exploration of some very fundamental issues: What is memory? What is its relationship to database – mutually exclusive, related, equivalent? I wonder especially about recent cybernetic/computational models of memory that, while they obviate the mystique attending models from 200 years ago, threatens to substitute it with a cybernetic mystique that fits into its own neat black box.

Further, what is it to re-member, or to re-mind, as we engage in this exercise in re-cognition? What members have we dispersed that demand reattachment, and does the act of remembering – whether it involves human recollection, paratextual referencing, or machinic recall of distributed data points – sufficiently fulfill this seeming desire of the members to rejoin? Does the re-rendered/re-membered/re-called figure function as a reasonable facsimile, or do we always create monsters anew, akin to the roughly-stitched Patchwork Girl of Shelley Jackson?

Seaman’s model of recombinant poetics, which he details in Vesna (124), seems to offer a model that anticipates this more emergent conception. Surprisingly, it is far more aligned with my understanding of oral composition, informed by Albert Lord’s study of the bardic tradition in the early 20th-century Balkans in The Singer of Tales. The bards who, as Sharon Daniel notes, “[perform] for the community narratives belonging to the community” (144), learn their craft not from the rote memorization of scripts, but from years of intense devotion to understanding the story elements and the verbal formulae in a way that enables masters to tell stories with any number of elements changed or modified according to the circumstances of the performance and audience feedback. (This is nothing like the spurious “substitutions” Steve Dietz offers from Ong’s interpretation of Homer in Vesna 117). Yet Lord notes (I can find that quote for you!) that the bards eschew any model of memory as exact reproduction by insisting that each instance of a given story is a reproduction of the same story, and moreover, is a truthful account of the same story.

So, immersed in computational models galore, how do we reconcile this understanding of human memory to our definitions of textual authenticity and data integrity? What function does forgetting serve? And, momentarily setting aside Daniel’s optimism regarding the intervention of dialogism, what are the political and aesthetic stakes in a system that falls short of ubiquitous capture and categorization? Even with an idealized ubiquity of storage and retrieval, what firewalls can we establish that prevent the human being – noted in several essays as analagous to a database – from being reduced to a datum?

I haven’t even started on the database/narrative dynamics in the Bible and the huge apparatus of scholarship that attends it. 🙂 But that would be fun to discuss too.

February 18, 2008

Pattern Extrapolation

Filed under: Discussion — jjpulizzi @ 11:58 pm
Tags: , ,

Many of the readings we’ll be looking at tomorrow respond to Manovich’s association of database and narrative (whether affirmatively or negatively), though we may also wish to think about the role that databases, particularly the interfaces, play in aiding the human brain at pattern recognition.

Manovich’s pronouncement that “database and narrative are natural enemies” (44) suggests that two are vying for control over how human beings imagine relationships—whether spatially (database) or temporally (narrative). Professor Hayles instead suggests that despite their differences, database and narrative, like human and computer, exist symbiotically as necessary extensions of one another in a society flooded with information needing organization. We should also remember that brain’s ability to separate relevant and irrelevant information (pattern and noise) quickly is a necessary component of narrative and also an ability that is refined by narrative. If we have a “story” or context for a given situation, then we’ll be better able to mark pattern from noise.

This perspective also allows us to understand visual and auditory interpretations of databases as instances of the same tendency to search for patterns that appears in narrative. We can take as an example the failure of databases and their attendant algorithms to catalog common sense. Much common sense knowledge or know-how is extremely dependent on context (i.e. what came just before and what might come next), which leads to a bewildering proliferation of exceptions and special cases (if anyone is interested I can give references to works that make this argument). Even if these indefinitely proliferating exceptions and cases could be cataloged, the problem of how to efficiently search the records remains.

How then could the human brain possibly learn with ease what cannot be represented explicitly? Terrence W. Deacon in The Symbolic Species attributes the human ability to learn and use a complex natural language, whose grammar and syntactical variations could never be entirely cataloged or put in a database, to the brain’s facility at first discerning high-level patterns and then gradually refining that structure with relevant details, which prevents one from being overwhelmed by obscure exceptions or noise. The fuzzy picture must precede the sharp focus—so children with immature brains, which are easily distracted, learn languages with much greater facility than adults do. Refining the fuzzy picture also requires actually living in and experiencing the language and the society in which it is used.

Computers permit one to explore various data for patterns whether it be with a narrative method of by visualization. Again it is a case of the human and computer collaborating to draw upon the strengths of the other. Excellent pattern recognition and sorting on the one hand, and rapid calculation and manipulation on the other.

Blog at WordPress.com.