Talk:Exe0.1 Brian House
Hi Brian,
Thanks for your article. I have been interested in media archaeology and seemingly, your thinking of media archaeology is beyond hardware analysis, attempting to open up a wider discussion to include software dynamics and network flows. I would like to understand more about your point of view on this. I am also thinking if sound or noise is the only way to examine media objects.
In relation to data center, I think may be Ned Rossiter gives a border sense of infrastructure and logistic that relate to your interest? see here: http://nedrossiter.org/?p=387
You mention immaterial experience of data, would you consider what might be the materiality of data? Throughout your article, you have been discussed materiality is different ways. Which aspect of materiality are you focusing?
--Winnie S (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to say your approach towards CPU analysis is very impressive. You also mentioned heavily on time - time of transistors and processing time, clock time, or in general the coordination of time. I wonder what might be the implications of this? As you have explicitly mentioned: "we just have to consider the temporality of the transistor.", perhaps need more emphasis on the relationship between temporality and your overall argument of your article. I also feel seems there are different ideas flowing in between text and within such a short text, it is therefore sometimes I feel lost focus.
--Winnie S (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Brian,
Interesting proposition to think of sound as material/sound as software and its possible value to media archaeology. There is a potential in the way you carry out your argument by focusing on the three very different examples but a little more direction and focus would help the reader to understand your intention which is at a danger to be lost by moving quickly between the three.
The very last sentence gives an idea of what you are trying to do and so it would be good to have it earlier in the text. It would help grasp your speculation where the sound is actually seen as a way to figure data and its materialities. This to me seemed the most interesting point but I was left feeling confused if this was your point as there are so many other things you are doing as well. It seems your examples can help with grasping your speculation but a bit more direction from the beginning would help the reader.
I hope this is constructive. I find your argument very interesting and so would like to understand it better.
all best, magda--Magda (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Brian,
Thank you for this! You are opening up a new world to me and your text was very entertaining however also challenging for me to read. So thank you for that.
Your three examples are all very intriguing. 2000 words text is unfairly short, and I would have loved for a longer discussion of how you relate them to each other, because it seems crucial, and very original. Your description of and take on CPU is incredibly interesting - almost poetic - in a very technical way, and I hope that you will tell me more about it, when we meet.
Symbolic representation and semiotics - especially what it can't do - is also of my interests. Your take on sound and its materiality together with its political and ethical reactionary potential is very relevant. You are probably already familiar, but maybe you will find the notion "asignifying semiotics" of Felix Guatarri interesting (leave out the neoliberal and capitalistic critic)?
Looking forward to discussing further - and sorry for the belated comment!
/Lea
__________________________
Hi Brian,
I really enjoyed this! You might like this article from Nicole Starosielski on media heat: http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/download/3298/1268
-Molly