Logo and Side Nav

News

Velit dreamcatcher cardigan anim, kitsch Godard occupy art party PBR. Ex cornhole mustache cliche. Anim proident accusamus tofu. Helvetica cillum labore quis magna, try-hard chia literally street art kale chips aliquip American Apparel.

Search

Browse News Archive

:

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Continuum will publish my book Software Takes Command in July 2013


Continuum will publish my book Software Takes Command in July 2013. The complete text will be available under Creative Commons License, in addition to softcover and e-book formats.

Continuum was awarded Academic Publisher of the Year award in 2011. My book will be part of the International Texts in Critical Media Aesthetics series edited by Francisco J. Ricardo.

The deal was done on the Facebook. In August I posted that I am looking for a publisher for my final completely revised book manuscript first draft was done in 2008). Francisco was one the people who responded, and soon I had the contract.



Software Takes Command - Table of Contents (9.28.2012):
Manovich.Softbook.TOC.Sept_2012

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Search 357,000 TV broadcasts on Internet Archive

Internet_Archive_TV_interface
Internet Archive TV dataset - search interface.


Search 357,000 TV broadcasts on Internet Archive - and use their built-in visualizations to understand results:

http://archive.org/details/tv

Internet Archive's new sleek interface allows you to search its massive collection of TV broadcasts across 21 stations, from CNN to TeleFutura. For each search topic, the interface shows the graph of frequency over time; for each video, you can also see a bar graph of frequency of extracted topics. For example:

http://archive.org/details/CNNW_20111222_060000_Anderson_Cooper_360#start/85.5/end/115.5

I have argued that web interfaces to large cultural data sets need to incorporate visualizations - so you can get an overview of contents before deciding what to focus on. Internet Archive new interface is certainly a move in the right direction which will hopefully stimulates others to follow.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Does “media” still exist?



The completely revised and updated version of my manuscript Software Takes Command will appear in print 2013. Below are the two opening pages from this new version.


Manetas.girls in nike 2005
Miltos Manetas. Girls in Nike. 2005.


I have called my earlier book-length account of the new cultural forms enabled by computerization The Language of New Media. It was completed in 1999. By that time, the process of adoption of software-based tools in all areas of professional media production was almost completed, and “new media art” was in its heroic and vibrant stage offering many possibilities not yet touched by commercial software and consumer electronics.

Ten years later, most media became “new media.” The developments of the 1990s have been disseminated to the hundreds of millions of people who are writing blogs, uploading photos and videos to media sharing sites, and use free media authoring and editing software tools which ten years earlier would cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Thanks to the practices pioneered by Google, the world is now used to run on web applications and services that have never been officially completed but remain forever remain in Beta stage. Since these applications and services run on the remote servers, they can be updated anytime without consumers having to do anything – and in fact, Google is updating is search algorithm code as often as few times a day; similarly, Facebook is also updating its code daily. Welcome to the world of permanent change—the world that is now defined not by heavy industrial machines that change infrequently, but by software that is always in flux.

Why should humanists, social scientists, media scholars and cultural critics care about software? Because outside of certain cultural areas such as crafts and fine art, software has replaced diverse array of physical, mechanical, and electronic technologies used before 21st century to create, store, distribute and access cultural artifacts.

When you play a video game, explore an interactive installation in a museum, design a building, create special effects for a feature film, design a web site, use a mobile phone to read a movie review or to view the actual movie, and carry out thousands of other cultural activities, in practical terms, you are doing the same thing—using software. Software has become our interface to the world, to others, to our memory and our imagination—a universal language through which the world speaks, and a universal engine on which the world runs. What electricity and combustion engine were to the early 20th century, software is to the early 21st century.

This book is concerned with “media software” - programs such as Word, PowerPoint, Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, Final Cut, Firefox, Blogger, Wordpress, Google Earth, Maya and 3Ds Max. These programs enable creation, publishing, sharing, and remixing of images, moving image sequences, 3D designs, texts, maps, interactive elements, as well as various combinations of these elements such as web sites, interactive applications, motion graphics, virtual globes, and so on. Media software also includes web browsers such as Firefox and Chrome, email and chat programs, news readers, and other types of software applications whose primary focus is accessing media content (although they sometimes also include some authoring and editing features.)

These software tools for creating, interacting with, and sharing media represent a particular subset of application software (including web applications) in general. Given this, we may expect that all these tools inherit certain “traits” common to all contemporary software. Does this mean that regardless of whether you are working on designing a space, creating special effects for a feature film, designing a web site, or making information graphics, your design process may follow the similar logic? Are there some structural features which motion graphics, graphic designs, web sites, product designs, buildings, and video games share since they are all designed with software? More generally, how interfaces and the tools of media authoring software are shaping the contemporary aesthetics and visual languages of different media forms?

Behind these questions investigated in this book lie another theoretical question. This question drives the book narrative and motivates my choice of topics. What happens to the idea of a “medium” after previously media-specific tools have been simulated and extended in software? Is it still meaningful to talk about different mediums at all? Or do we now find ourselves in a new brave world of one single monomedium, or a metamedium (to borrow the term of the book’s key protagonist Alan Kay)?

In short: What is “media” after software?

Does “media” still exist?


This book is a theoretical account of media software and its effects on the practice and the very concept of media. Over the last two decades, software has replaced most other media technologies that emerged in the 19th and 20th century. Today it is ubiquitous and taken for granted—and yet, surprisingly, few people know about its history and the theoretical ideas behind its development. You are likely to know the names of Renaissance artists who popularized the use of linear perspective in western art (Brunelleschi, Alberti) or early 20th centuries inventors of modern film language (D.W. Griffith, Eisenstein, etc.)—but I bet you don’t know where Photoshop comes from, or Word, or any other media tool you are using everyday. More importantly, you probably don’t know why these tools were invented in the first place.

What is the intellectual history of media software? What was the thinking and motivations of the key people and research groups they were directing—J.C. Licklider, Ivan Sutherland, Ted Nelson, Douglas Engelbart, Alan Kay, Nicholas Negroponte—who between 1960 and late 1970s created most concepts and practical techniques that underlie today's media applications? As I discovered—and I hope you will share my original surprise in reading my analysis of the original texts by these people—they were as much media theoreticians as computer engineers. I will discuss their media theories and test them in view of the digital media developments in the subsequent decades. As we will see, the theoretical ideas of these people and their collaborators turn to work very well today, helping us to better understand contemporary software we use to create, read, view, remix, and share.

Welcome, then, to the “secret history” of our software culture—secret not because it was deliberately hidden but because until recently, exited by all the rapid transformations cultural computerization was bringing about, we did not bother to examine its origins. This book will try to convince you that such an examination is very much worth your time.

Its title is homage to a seminal 20th century book Mechanization Takes Command: a Contribution to Anonymous History (1947) by architectural historian and critic Sigfried Giedion. In this work Giedion traces the development of mechanization in industrial society across a number of domains, including systems of hygiene and waste management, fashion, agricultural production, and food system, with separate sections of the book devoted to bread, meat and refrigeration. Much more modest in scope, my book presents episodes from the history of “softwarization” (my neologism) of culture between 1960 and 2010, with a particular attention to media software—from the original ideas which led to its development to its current ubiquity.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

How many people in the world use Photoshop?

Facebook_social_graph
Facebook social graph.


How many people in the world use Photoshop? What about Illustrator, Final Cut, Maya, or any other popular media authoring application? How would we make even most approximate estimate? While Adobe, Autodesk, and Apple know how many copies of their software products they sell every quarter, this information is never released. But even if it was, the proportion of people who buy their software vs. all other users is so small that the sales numbers would not help us much.

We know so little about contemporary culture. Its flows, evolutionary mechanisms, patterns of dissemination, reuse, copying, and material bases (such as the number of copies of top software applications which enable it) are not visible to us. It is as though we have our eyes stuck very close to a map - we see few points, but unable to zoom out and see the larger picture.

One area where numbers and maps do exist is the usage of social networks. We know how many blogs are active, how many people use Twitter, how many photos are uploaded to Facebook every month (this number is already over 10 billion); YouTube gives us graphs showing the number of views for every video over time; Google Insights for Search allows us to study the popularity of any search term across time (since 2004) and territories. This is something, but its still limited. It is as though we zoomed out but are only able to see the overall contours on the map defining the areas - but not the details inside. And when some details are made available, they follow the rule of majority - we are told which topics, search terms, videos which are "most popular." These are the tips of the tips of the iceberg, and they are not very interesting. (For example, entering "top searches in the U.S. over 30 days" into Google Insights for Search returns these top items: 1) shoes, 2) samsung, 2) amazon, 4) boots.)

Back to Photoshop. Since late 1990s, I mostly work in cafes - which in Southern California means Starbucks. I am always curious what other people are doing on their computers and tablets around me, and I noticed the following pattern. If I am in a Starbucks and there are at least 10 other people with computers, one of them is using Photoshop. This is an informal observation, and it may only hold for the particular part of San Diego where I leave. But even if the real number is more like 1:20, this is already quite amazing.

What about the places where you live? Did you notice any similar pattern? if we can compare observation, it will give us at least some indication of how many people around the world are engaged in "art" and "design." Would not you want to know this?

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

I paint data


Whenever I lecture about our cultural analytics work (computational analysis and visualization of large cultural data), somebody in audience always ask: is this art? Many people who were fed the strict diet of bar chart and pie charts do not know what to think about our visualizations which show large image collections sorted by various visual attributes. Like the individual images they include, these visualizations are colorful, sensual, and aesthetic (i.e. they appeal to senses as opposed to only cognition.) So are they indeed art?

Early in my life i was trained in realist painting and drawing. I had an art teacher in Moscow since I was 12, then went to Moscow Architecture Institute and continued painting for a while after I moved to NYC in 1981. Is it possible that my recent work with visualization of large image collection is a return to painting? Yes - but not just any kind of painting.

Realist art does not capture the world mechanically. Instead, it focuses our attention on patterns in visible world. It highlights some patterns and disregards others. The relations and structures which are highlighted may be color combinations, relations between figures, face expressions, gestures, and so on. These patterns often support the "meaning" of a painting, but not always. (Especially when "modern art" starts to develop in the middle of 1850s, the visual patterns become gradually "liberated" from supporting semantics and meanings.)

Similarly, data visualization reveals some patterns in the data. To do this, data is translated into visual representations, organized in particular ways, and coded using color, shading, size or other graphic attributes.

Both realist art and data visualization are constrained by the data. That is, they don't simply sample some bits of data and arrange in arbitrary combinations. Realist art preserves important aspects of visible reality such as relative sizes of objects and convergence of lines under one point linear perspective, the effects of different types of light sources (e.g., sun casts shadows), etc. Similarly, data visualization preserves (and makes visible) relations in the data set - in contrast to "data art" which may use the same data sets and same representational techniques (e.g., computer graphics) to generate abstract compositions which do not preserve any of the relations in the data.

I can now come back to the question: are our visualizations art? if they are, they belong to the tradition of realist art.

In other words: I "paint" data. But my brushstrokes, colors, and composition are constrained by what is this data. The pleasure which I derive is is following these constraints.

Art always thrived on constraints. Visualization is no difference. Thus, while some of us choose to become data "abstractionists", other prefer to become data "realists." And this is where I am.

Lev Manovich.
2/22/2012.


Monday, August 20, 2012

NYC OccupyData Hackathon uses software tools developed in our lab


This May Suzanne Tamang used our software tooks in NYC OccupyData Hackathon to visualize Occupy inspired street art. The next Hackathon will take place in September.

Check our Suzanne's work:

is the occupy movement getting more colorful?




Saturday, July 28, 2012

Book: Remix Theory The Aesthetics of Sampling

  

This book is scheduled to be released in the next few weeks.
Remix Theory: The Aesthetics of Sampling is an analysis of Remix in art, music, and new media. Eduardo Navas argues that Remix, as a form of discourse, affects culture in ways that go beyond the basic recombination of material. His investigation locates the roots of Remix in early forms of mechanical reproduction, in seven stages, beginning in the nineteenth century with the development of the photo camera and the phonograph, leading to contemporary remix culture. This book places particular emphasis on the rise of Remix in music during the 1970s and ‘80s in relation to art and media at the beginning of the twenty-first Century. Navas argues that Remix is a type of binder, a cultural glue—a virus—that informs and supports contemporary culture.
Publisher: Springer Wein New York Press. Official link:
http://www.springer.com/architecture+%26+design/architecture/book/978-3-7091-1262-5
Table of Contents and Introduction are available on the official link.
To get a sense of the content of the book, read an earlier text, also published by Springer, which is now part of chapter three of the book: Regressive and Reflexive Mashups in Samping Culture. Official link to article:http://www.springerlink.com/content/r7r28443320k6012/
Specific case studies for this book are made possible thanks to a post-doctoral fellowship in the Department of Information Science and Media Studies at the University of Bergen, in collaboration with the Software Studies Lab at the University of California, San Diego.
Remix Theory: The Aesthetics of Sampling can now be pre-ordered.  You can place your order on Amazon, Barnes and Nobles, Powell’sl Books, or another major online bookseller in your region, anywhere in the world.  The book is scheduled to be available in Europe in July, 2012 and in the U.S. in September/October of 2012.
The book will also be available electronically through university libraries that have subscriptions with Springer’s online service, Springerlink.  Educators who find the book as a whole, or in part, of use for classes are encouraged to consider the latter option to make the material available to students at an affordable price.
Anyone should be able to preview book chapters on Springerlink once the book is released everywhere.

For all questions, please feel free to contact me at eduardo_at_navasse_dot_net.

Below are selected excerpts from the book:
From Chapter One, Remix[ing] Sampling, page 11:
Before Remix is defined specifically in the late 1960s and ‘70s, it is necessary to trace its cultural development, which will clarify how Remix is informed by modernism and postmodernism at the beginning of the twenty-first century. For this reason, my aim in this chapter is to contextualize Remix’s theoretical framework. This will be done in two parts. The first consists of the three stages of mechanical reproduction, which set the ground for sampling to rise as a meta-activity in the second half of the twentieth century. The three stages are presented with the aim to understand how people engage with mechanical reproduction as media becomes more accessible for manipulation. […]The three stages are then linked to four stages of Remix, which overlap the second and third stage of mechanical reproduction.
From Chapter two, Remix[ing] Music, page 61:
To remix is to compose, and dub was the first stage where this possibility was seen not as an act that promoted genius, but as an act that questioned authorship, creativity, originality, and the economics that supported the discourse behind these terms as stable cultural forms. […] Repetition becomes the privileged mode of production, in which preexisting material is recycled towards new forms of representation. The potential behind this paradigm shift would not become evident until the second stage of Remix in New York City, where the principles explored in dub were further explored in what today is known as turntablism: the looping of small sections of records to create new beats—instrumental loops, on top of which MCs and rappers would freestyle, improvising rhymes. […]
From Chapter Three, Remix[ing] Theory, page 125:
Once the concept of sampling, as understood in music during the ‘70s and ‘80s, was introduced as an activity directly linked to remixing different elements beyond music (and eventually evolved into an influential discourse), appropriation and recycling as concepts changed at the beginning of the twenty-first century; they cannot be considered on the same terms prior to the development of machines specifically design for remixing. This would be equivalent to trying to understand the world in terms of representation prior to the photo camera. Once a specific technology is introduced it eventually develops a discourse that helps to shape cultural anxieties. Remix has done and is currently doing this to concepts of appropriation. Remix has changed how we look at the production of material in terms of combinations. This is what enables Remix to become an aesthetic, a discourse that, like a virus, can move through any cultural area and be progressive and regressive depending on the intentions of the people implementing its principles.