City of Glass graphic novel download

I don't know if you guys are familiar with the works of Paul Auster. One of his works, City of Glass, is ostensibly a noir crime book that spins off into postmodern territory by challenging notions of authorship, reconstruction, and above all, language.

This work was remixed into a graphic novel some years later. You can read it here:

City of Glass

I'm posting this in light of the Hayles examination of A Hum ment and House of Leaves. Like A Hum ment, City of Glass is a reformation of an earlier work, although the "plot" of the work is unchanged. Rather, in the graphic novel version, the issues the text raises are reflected in the visual medium. Also, like House of Leaves, the book involves textual reconstruction, authorship, and an ambiguous narrative point of view.

Anyway, it is a short read, so you might download it and give it a read. It is interesting to think if work such as this is new media, in that its form is ancient (possibly pre-textual, as McCloud's Understanding Comics implies), but its content is quite contemporary. Is it new media because it is a remix? Because it is visual more visual than textual? Because it is metafictive? Is it new media at all?

Revenge of the Right Brain

I thought this article may be of some interest to the class:

Revenge of the Right Brain

It's about the slippery relationship between analytics and "creativity." Although this article has a pseudo-biological basis, it really isn't necessary to specify the origin of the behavior binary the article posits to explore the zones of conflict between these concepts.

I think this taps into Florida's notion of the creative class as well as what we do in the 106 classroom. Can you teach creativity? Should you? Is the superiority of creativity based on cultural value, on biological survival (the creative can survive where the algorithmic cannot)? Are these concepts compartmentalized or regions on a contiguous spectrum?

Either way, I want a report of no less than four pages from each of you on my desk after Spring Break. You have to use at least three sources, of which only one may be electronic. Remember to underline your thesis and alphabetize your Works Cited page.

And another thing....

After looking at Wendy's link to Philip's work in color and after looking through New Philosophy (and recalling Burnett and some of the other texts we've read) I have a "complaint" of sorts that I have been marinating for some time.

Why do these printed texts have such poorly reproduced images? Most of them are in Black&White (and the quality I'd expect from a 1st year photo student--don't get me started on Burnett's images) when the originals appear in color.

The books are costly enough to warrant color images, not to mention the cost to reproduce color images has decreased dramatically---uh, since, like, the invention of digital reproduction? I'm inclined to ignore the authority of the written text because of the distractingly horrible visual texts. Are these authors' texts not synonymous with the visual? Are they missing the audience? (or am I alone in this?)

If we can discuss the (possible) change in message depending on a text's location in print versus electronic forums then we need to consider what changes in the message when moving images are made still, when large images are made small, when color images are turned into gray scale, etc.

This is't new. My college art critiques always required us to make deliberate choices about where our art was to appear, what changes in the impact if it is viewed from above, the side, below, what does the size say/do to the viewer, what does the. Does the work support the choice to be a color or b&w work....Sounds a lot, too, like considering the context, eh?

Now here's the threatened Art Snob making gross generalizations AND meaning NO OFFENSE to anyone here...seriously...I'm refering to the faceless masses in Hyperspace...I wonder if many New Media authors "out there" (like many self-taught Web Designers--ha ha) think their images are good simply because those images are their own. This musing of mine raises the questions of a right and a wrong way to make an image, the possiblity of good images vs bad, what make good design, who says so........I smell a manifesto.

The Truth is Out There?

I just got this "New Media" bit from a friend in Brazil. It sets up some interesting questions about the "plane" that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. A conspiracy theorist's afternoon snack.

I've been thinking about the ease at which New Media (and all technological image making etc) can be manipulated to appear as truth or as truth making. (not that images haven't been easy to manipulate all along...) This piece speaks to many things:

1. The current paranoia of our "times"
2. The question of what's real (as having been documented by surveillance cameras, eyewitnesses, etc.)
3. The creation of "truth" by combining "real" images with "real" quotes from "real" eyewitnesses
4. The creation of authority (it's on the Web, the graphics look "legit")
5. The combination of imagery and sound (cool dance beats, recognizable tunes, a sense of fear in the minor key + tempo).....

I've also noticed that my friends who live outside the U.S. exchange this kind of "news" frequently. What does this imply/suggest/indicate about the exchange of media + information in a global context, about the "control" of our own government/culture/society over mass media distribution


Pentagon Film
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#main