Paperless? I think not.

The New York Times has published an article about the demise of paper. The article suggests that the change is not only imminent but it is already here. The usual approach of quoting experts is used in an attempt to show that paper is gone and that only wasteful employees are still printing.

The biggest expert is the family of an engineering director at google and the chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The latter however sort of diminishes the general upbeat article by admitting that scanned books are not as pleasant as the old fashioned alternative.

So yes we like paperless tickets and nobody understands why we need to kill forests to print telephone books (but not many seem to be complaining about the Ikea catalogue) but does this mean we are paperless? Looking around my desk I think not. Maybe I am not representative. Looking around the office I still don’t think so. Maybe we are not representative? Looking around the places I live and hang out – I still don’t think so…

Somehow the paperless office still has not made it. It never did. And I doubt that it ever will. Yes, lots of people are prepared to read books on their palms but not all (read excellent article on this here). Lets face it, paper is here to stay. It simply has the best traits…

The article is not all bad though and it does bring up the environmental issues involved with changing from paper to all the electronic gadgets.

Others who have commented on the article are Question Technology, Treehugger and LifeHacker

Web2.0 & Resistance

It is easy to recognize the potential social benefits of web2.0 networking sites. This may be why when they are flooded with pointless, time-consuming trivia the frustration of some is quick to rise to the surface.

This is why, despite (or maybe because of) widespread popularity people tend to question (I have written here) the value of Facebook and other sites, for example Hodgkinson of the Guardian, have argued eloquently against it on a wide range of arguments.

And yet occasionally it is interesting to see that the organizational potential of these site are put to a use beyond the goal of replacing quality with quantity, deep friendship with networks.

The idea of the protests against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as the FARC, was born less than a month ago on the social networking Web site Facebook, and more than 100,000 people in 165 cities around the world confirmed their participation. (CNN)

Their are many stories told of the utility of social networking sites and some of them are bound to be true. And yet it is difficult to keep from becoming cynical. An apocryphal tale I heard recently was about a conversation between two young adults overheard on a bus:

First young adult: I have joined Amnesty.

Second young adult: Thats great! Is that a cause or a group*

* If this makes no sense to you then you are probably not on Facebook

Beatles in Space

NASA will transmit The Beatles song Across the Universe through the Deep Space Network – a network of antennas – next week making it the first song ever to be beamed directly into space. It kind of makes you think. What will the aliens make of the lyrics

Images of broken light which
dance before me like a million eyes
They call me on and on across the universe
Thoughts meander like a
restless wind inside a letter box
they tumble blindly as
they make their way across the universe

I wonder if the collecting societies are already working out what NASA should be paying the Beatles in royalties?

The future of street art

A Banksy murial on Portobello road was sold on ebay for £208,100 (approx. $400,000) the price did not include removal costs. The wall belonged to Luti Fagbenle who felt that he could not “really justify owning a piece of art worth as much as it is.”

The Banksy mural on Portobello road

(Photo by Cactusbones) (CC by-nc-sa)

Street art has been growing for a long time and Banksy must be seen as one of the most widely known artists in the genre. But he is not alone. As Art Threat reports the world’s first Urban Art auction at Bonhams Fine Art Auctioneers will be held on February 5th.

What does this mean for the future of Street Art? Art Threat has written an interesting comment on street arts ephemeral nature as an important feature and Banksy has added a comment on the his webpage:

“Aren’t street art auctions a bit lame?
I don’t agree with auction houses selling street art – its undemocratic, it glorifies greed and I never see any of the money.”

So the artists don’t get paid and the artwork is ripped, literally sometimes, out of their context – how will this effect the art? Previously the most exploitative use of graffiti has been street art photo books. These products raise exciting questions about copyright and graffiti (blogged about this issue earlier here and here) but selling the works raises other exciting questions.

The person buying the work will most probably remove it to display it elsewhere. This de-contextualizes of the art but it also adds a disincentive to the artist. Now it is not enough to know that your work will be painted over but it may also be removed and sold to enrich someone else. Your work may become a commodity to be regularly bought and sold without the artists control or permission. Should the artists be concerned?

(Story on BBC & Observer)

Tagging the Past

A while back I read about the collaboration between the Library of Congress photo collection collaborating with Flickr and going online. This was interesting but it didn’t get me excited. But when I looked more closely at it I did become excited (insert sarcasm here).

Library of Congress “Italian Artillery in Tripoli

Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print

The Library of Congress has a Prints and Photographs Online Catalog comprised of over 1 million images (and growing) that have been available online for over 10 years. This is cool but not exciting. It’s not that the pictures are online but the point is to allow everyone to go look at the pictures and start adding tags and comments. This makes the Library of Congress’ collection on Flickr interesting because first becomes a site of huge potential interaction and if this works it will also create a huge searchable database.

This is, of course, very exciting 🙂

Famous Graves

Graves are fascinating for many reasons. For me they are attempts to reach a form of immortality. My own fascination with graves began with trips to the amazing Père-Lachaise cemetery in Paris and Highgate in London several years ago.

Last week while looking for a picture on Flickr I started a group for photographs of famous graves and the collection is growing fast. The graves go from formal to humorous, from plain to ornate.

51441562_2bf394eb47.jpg

Photo Jack Lemmon by Ron’s Log (CC BY-ND)

Check out Famous Graves on Flickr and let me know if you miss someone…

Online Friendship

Over at The Guardian Tom Hodgkinson has written about the people who bankrolled Facebook in an article called With friends like these… and it is not a pretty picture. Hodgkinson’s original beef seems to be that he actually does not like social network sites because they tend to isolate rather than connect people and that any form of social connections they create are inherently shallow. So far I am in agreement with him.

But the main beef of the argument is that the people financing Facebook are ultraconservative greedy capitalists who are unconcerned about the privacy of the users. Sure he is right and it is a shame. But how does this differ from almost every other corporation? I would have been more shocked if an online venture had been bankrolled by altruists.

I was skeptical to Facebook, indeed as I am to all social networking sites. But I decided not to knock it without trying. Early on I aired my skepticism by asking my friends the question: If I don’t get facebook – does this mean I am too old? Is this a mid(?) life crises? The answers were predictable which is unsurprising considering I was asking the question to other Facebookers.  I muddled along. Collecting friends adding applications but still unconvinced.

I joined causes and added applications. Recruited friends to causes and compared everything from movie taste to strange dating preferences. None of which revealed who I was. As with all online behavior it is a persona or a dimension – it is not me. Anyway, so now I have 136 friends. What does this mean? Am I popular yet? I still don’t get it. Isn’t a double espresso or a beer with a live friend infinitely better than all the online notes? Hodgkinson really puts his finger on the whole thing

And does Facebook really connect people? Doesn’t it rather disconnect us, since instead of doing something enjoyable such as talking and eating and dancing and drinking with my friends, I am merely sending them little ungrammatical notes and amusing photos in cyberspace, while chained to my desk?

Rather than silly comparisons and online games I want real connections. Of course I cannot easily drink beer with friends in other countries but Facebook is no solution to this problem. I don’t have the interest or the energy to try to reform Facebook through campaigns or to attempt to leave it by deleting each contact one by one. So I will let Facebook be and let the activities continue. The whole thing will eventually just go the way of the dinosaurs when users find something new to amuse themselves with. Until then the advertisers will believe that they know something about potential customers, the researchers will believe they know something about online communities, the investors will believe that they will be rich forever and the users will believe that friendships exist online.

Coping with the Crap and thinking the thoughts

After spending the best part of a morning doing admin, in particular going through my inbox only to discover what I have missed, I realize (not for the first time) that I need to be more systematic about my work. In particular I need to divide my day in a more efficient manner.

For me the three main productivity and time thieves are:

Interruptions and short meetings – this is because I try to work before and after but interruptions and short meetings make me lose my chain of thought and send me off on a different tangent. A well placed interruption can create a chain of events that cause a whole day to be lost.

Travel time – Since I spend several hours a week on trains (mainly) I need to reconsider the way in which travel can be seen. This time must be used more efficiently. Computer work is possible but not desirable. Reading may be the optimal use of train travel.

Administration – By this I mean the whole process of ensuring that my research and teaching works. It is everything from maintaining email correspondence to filling out the reports. The actual time spent with administration concerns and annoyances is almost as high as the time spent actually carrying out the administrative tasks.

The plan: A proposal of a new work order for myself.

First of all I need to create a meetings and administration day. On this day the main point of going to work will be not to write or to research. It will be to efficiently resolve my administration tasks. This will also free up my mind from thinking about administration.

Second of all I need to create the opposite of an administration day and this is my Creativity day. The whole point of this day will be to think. Not to write but to think. A whole day to work out solutions to problems, lay plans and develop ideas. This day should not be spent writing. Of course I will make notes but maybe I will do this longhand with a paper and pen. This day should be as unplugged as possible. Little or no computer use.

Third I will create two research and writing days. This will include writing out the ideas from the creativity day, carrying out research, writing articles, chapters and books. Writing research proposals belongs to the administration day and should not be done here. These days should be relatively unplugged – keeping Internet use to a minimum.

Fourth and last will be the teaching day. During this day I will lecture and guide, have student meetings and seminars. Since I have a low teaching burden at present this should be more than enough and the time not spent in teaching should be used in preparing for teaching and teaching administration.

Naturally an idea like this cannot work without making sure that there are exceptions. Every now and then I am sure that the plan will implode but the idea is to strive for improvement.

When will you blog? The exception to the rule

However while the focus of these days is as mentioned I do believe that there is a need to apply oneself to work on a regular basis. Therefore in each day I will include one hour of academic writing (except on the two research and writing days since this is already included). One hour of other writing (mostly emails & this blog).

This is the basic plan and I am sure that it will require some fine tuning but I hope to be quite strict about its application. It’s not a new idea that the freedom embedded in academia requires a great deal of self discipline but what is new for me is the attempt to implement a strict organized regime instead of trying to solve things on a priority basis.

Arrogant, Daring & Right

Found a new voice of wisdom (to call it vox populi would probably be wrong) today. Alf Rehn writes an excellent rant about the research article in the context of the UK RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) system:

Now, what I find absolutely horrendous and directly unethical is that all this denigrates the scholarly book, the research monograph. The way I was raised into academia, this was what you meant by research, and now a bunch of foreign bureaucrats with language problems are saying that this does not count? Well, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Writing a journal article, to me, is mainly an exercise in typing. There are rote formulas to get a journal article done (well known such, looking at the shite that gets published), and it frankly bores me a lot of the time. A book, however, is another matter. A book takes time to craft, and the sheer length thereof forces one to work in an altogether different manner. I was taught by my Doktorvater the following: If you haven’t written a serious monograph, you shouldn’t be made a PhD. If you haven’t written two, you’re not a serious scholar. “—And never let one who hasn’t written three serious books become a professor! It cheapens the title.” And damn good advice it was too.

It’s provocative, it’s daring, maybe it could be a bit reactionary, it’s definitely bold, ballsy and forward. It also happens to be correct. Go Alf!

(via Imaginary Magnitude)