I am interested in Kelty's discussion of recursive publics especially late in the book in the discussion of Creative Common &c. What I find particularly useful his understanding of infrastructure and the necessary shifts required therein to make emergent forms go. To define infrastructure, Kelty refers to the "no longer...settled practices of authorship, collaboration, and publication" (277). He argues that this entire network of processes are what have to change to produce a new public. This is to say that the simple change in means of production--book to internet or otherwise--will not single-handedly create a change in these essential social constructs.
What I find so interesting about this is precisely why I feel so un-compelled by electronic literature (and I would say similarly other forms of avant-gaurde art). Electronic literature specifically attempts to predict and/or produce the form of its consumption. It posits this form as somewhat new, though it seems to come directly from the idea of an active or engaged readership that was already largely courted by print fiction. There is not yet, however, an infrastructural set of practices that support the individuals engagement (and as such they are more prone to fall flat). Now, I certainly don't mean to bad mouth the avant-gaurde in any way. Certainly predictive/productive art is part of the process that develops what will become infrastructure. But I mean here is that I find this way of thinking about the consumption of art (or any other cultural object) quite useful for thinking about these relationships.
In some respect, this allows me to see House of Leaves as an even more interesting text, that functions as an emergent form invoking a sedimented and recognizable discourse community at one end and an openness to some new public of reader's at the other. The combined effect produces something like a scaffolding for managing the shift that will become infrastructure.
Work Cited
Kelty, Christopher. Two Bits. Durham: Duke UP, 2008.
...and House of Leaves I guess. Mark Z. Danielewski.
No comments:
Post a Comment