Comments on: Author-functions and work-functions

By: The generative web event « Snarkmarket

The generative web event « Snarkmarket — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:29:28 +0000

[…] kinds of cultural objects historically have gotten people to pay attention? Well, I wrote about this last month: The way our culture works, depending on what field you’re operating in, certain kinds […]

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:24:51 +0000

As long as we’re invoking French theorists, I’ll drag in Bruno Latour’s notion of “cycles of credibility.” The basic premise is: for many scientists (or scholars generally), the goal of one day’s work is to be able to work better another day. All the trappings—grants, recognition, citations, professorships—have value unto themselves, but they are most valuable because they grant access to the material, connections, data, and labor necessary to do even better work in the future.

Latour obfuscates the concept in this diagram:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XTcjm0flPdYC&lpg=PA198&ots=VnhibaAma7&dq=latour%20cycles%20credibility&pg=PA201#v=onepage&q&f=false
(I love Latour’s diagrams—mostly as absurdist art.)

Tim may have been alluding to the cycle of credibility with this throw-off: “These people tend not to be interested (at least very much) in recognition anyways, as long as they’re able to do their work and be appreciated by people who know what they’re talking about. ”

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:17:31 +0000

Saheli: I adore the sympathy and pathos in this line— “it’s also sad that some others are dying even though they were the cherished dreams of so many.”

Just sayin.

By: Libraries in the thick of it…. | all these birds with teeth: this is not about science.

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:00:53 +0000

[…] of this nonsense got its’ legs when I read a Snarkmarket post by Tim Carmody about Author and Work Functions. Here’s two quotes that get to […]

By: Tim Carmody

Tim Carmody — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:24:33 +0000

I think that's absolutely right: as Shirky points out, the people you most need to talk to aren't always the people who've just written a book. There's a kind of informal, indirect authority, the kind that used to be more like the relationship between journalists or detectives and their sources, that's easier to come by now. It's generally easier (I think) to build networks of people interested in the same general (or specific) subject, and to find the guy/girl who's a peculiar, quiet expert in their field. Sometimes these people stay trade secrets, sometimes they get missed altogether. These people tend not to be interested (at least very much) in recognition anyways, as long as they're able to do their work and be appreciated by people who know what they're talking about. And especially when you want to move outside that circle, where people are more likely to say "okay -- who are you again?" -- that reminds hard without more traditional laurels. There's nothing utopian about it.

By: Saheli

Saheli — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:57:32 +0000

Great post Tim, you hit so many nails on their heads. In computer programming there are programs; in computer science there are algorithms and optimizations of algorithms. On one hand, I take this assumption for granted---it is the assumption of both pop and high culture, of news-hook based journalism, of academia, of white collar resumes and crafty portfolios, of protest and outrage politics, even of blogospheric celebrity. You are right, all kinds of new modes of authority are opening up, and that's great; it's also sad that some others are dying even though they were the cherished dreams of so many. But I don't know if they are necessarily opening up to the things I'd *want them* to open up, of the ones I'd want to open up can open up. Some major piece of my life experience makes me want to rebel against the very nature of this assumption, regardless of the its changing manifestation: I know so many invisible people whose quiet habits, disorganized acts of kindness, and many consistent but unsharable modes of excellence generate my respect and impel me to cherish their conversation; their invisibility in these channels of conversation is disheartening, like a nutritional deficiency, yet there is so often no good way to safely transfer them over into the buzzing channels. There are so many Boo Radleys in the world; you cannot pull them out into the light because that would be destructive and cruel. I suppose that's the special power of art, and the explanation of why writers and artists often feel like thieves: certain kinds of literature and journalism and music and art are the only ways these invisible people can get indirectly representative without busting their privacy and fragile lives. It's like the book that's published at the end of The Lives of Others---the playwright gets all the authority points but as the spymaster quiety says, "it's for me". This might even be a specific explanation for why Harper Lee has so persistently not taken advantage of the considerable authority her work has given her. Only she knows if there was, actually, a real Boo Radley out there, so only she can feel bad at being the proxy recipient of his accolades.

By: Food auteurism « Snarkmarket

Food auteurism « Snarkmarket — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:48:47 +0000

[…] an idea related to “even your coffee has an author-function”: food auteurism, a phrase which seems very natural and yet before today didn’t have any hits […]

By: Bethany

Bethany — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:40:05 +0000

I’m totally on board with what you’re saying here; I’m living it. I got a (more lucrative than grad school) book deal which was primarily based on me curating reader-submitted photos and adding captions. If it weren’t for blogging in a very new media type manner, there would be no object.