@Tjerk Timan: IMHO quality in art is neither entirely objective (measurable) nor entirely subjective (personal taste). Thus, I cannot see how ‘objective computing’ could help us here.

I was particularly shocked by the statement ‘Culture has become digital’. It is not just plain nonsense, it also invites another round of useless discussion about the definition of culture.

“The questions Manovich posed to his data were mundane and limited to formal features. Even then the methodology and results were unconvincing. As a member of the audience astutely pointed out during the Q&A, Manovich’s cultural analytics does not reckon at all with content. Perhaps that, more than anything, is its most egregious shortcoming.”

The point here is (to my humble opinion), that the analysis Manovinch makes, is NOT about content! The question he posed was just an example (ok, not the best one) of a method to research a cultural artifact via objective computing rather than ‘just’ a subjective opinion of ‘just’ one art critic. And here lies the key of his argument, I think; while we used get away with looking at an artist and forming our own opinion, there are new types of cultural artifacts (often natively digital) that do not let themselves be researched and evaluated that easy, due to their quantity and networkedness. Its just too much, too fast. These new cultural artifacts call for new methods of evaluation. Not saying that you should analyse ALL culture in this way, the new type of (digital) artifact often finds its quality in quantity; in that sense, the numbers and graphs Manovich presented ARE the new content (however vague that may sound).

By the way, I did too not understand what was ‘dangerous’ about his arguments. To whom? Art critics? For some reason, the comment about content by the audience struck me as being very nostalgic, old and ‘against computing’. While this (the position of art critics) is entirely not at stake here.

Either way put, quantitative research about cultural (digital) artifacts can provide a whole set of insights that one individual, how brilliant he/she might be, cannot. ((call for debate))

I have the feeling the importance of blogging about it is situated somewhere else. That Manovich has chosen these works of art as examples has, I believe, nothing to do with his end goal but seems to be functional in stirring up some commotion by denying (human) hermeneutic content analysis. I have yet to find out what was meant with “dangerous”, and this post does not bring me closer to an answer. It does however sound similar as other critiques against anyone who dares to analyze art in this manner, as a code, a pattern. It seems it is a given that no new insight can come from looking at data in a different way. I believe that projects such as Gapminder have shown that by a simple shift of focus and some basic visualization techniques, one can get a completely different view of data that has been around for ages, but has been misinterpreted for decades. Maybe its a natural reaction of a species in danger of being extinct… or maybe I should not be tempted into this just because I feel annoyed when I’m indirectly addressed as ass-lickin’, no-time-for-critique having, courage-less student.

I would like to end my stating that I too am not too charmed by his presenting style, but a style it is, as this is the way he always presents (at least that is my experience and from those around me), and thus I did not expect something else. It was however to bad that he skipped over the parts addressing those main critiques from the audience (and in this post).

But yes, it seemed reminiscent and as mistaken as when Chris Anderson declared the “end of the scientific method” due to new pattern recognition algorithms.

Also…it was fairly shocking that he was deleting/editing his white-background, black text powerpoint during the presentation. But not as shocking as some of the articles he has published that are rife with typos.