The Memes of Production: A cultural studies weblog

I’ve just discovered a thread over at Sarsparilla on one of my favourite television shows: The Cook and the Chef. I came to the discussion a bit late, unfortunately, but I found it interesting because I’ve just finished writing an article that explores many of the problematics that the blog posting raises. The post focuses on the relationship between Simon and Maggie in terms of the amateur/professional dichotomy set up by the show itself…

Clay Shirkey’s talk, Gin, Television, and Social Surplus from the 2008 Web 2.0 conference is being linked to from basically everywhere right now — so I’d be remiss in not sharing it too.

This is something that people in the media world don’t understand. Media in the 20th century was run as a single race—consumption. How much can we produce? How much can you consume? Can we produce more and you’ll consume more? And the answer to that question has generally been yes. But media is actually a triathlon, it ‘s three different events. People like to consume, but they also like to produce, and they like to share.

I think he overstates his case: in drawing an equivalence between consuming television and the excesses of gin consumption at the start of the industrial age, he’s glossing over the ways that media consumption itself has always had creative and meaningful outcomes — but it’s a provocative piece all the same.

I was recently talking with Toby Miller, who is an Honorary Professor in the Centre in which I am based, and it came out that in California, and presumably in the US as a whole—the most hyper-capitalist nation on the planet—the issue of the privatisation of water is a taboo topic. As Toby said, “You can’t even think it.”

This seemed incredible until Toby explained that water in the US is seen in terms of a natural right, rather than a resource. When Americans are told that in Britain and other countries the water is owned by private companies, they shake their heads in bewilderment. As they should.

I wonder what it would take for water in Australia to be embedded within a discourse of rights, rather than a discourse of resources? Quite a bit, I assume, given the private investment in infrastructure, and the profitable market for trading in irrigation licences.

Still, it’s nice to dream.

Today’s issue of The Bulletin magazine will be the last. In spite of a circulation of 57,000, the magazine was not profitable enough for the private equity group that Jamie Packer sold it to in recent years.

According to ACP Magazines chief executive Scott Lorson :

“The Bulletin has been an institution in Australian publishing and has provided its loyal readers with the best quality, in-depth news and current affairs analysis in the country.”

The Bulletin was founded in 1880, and I can’t help feeling that if it was a house, picketers would already be gathering to stop the bulldozers from razing something that was too important a part of Australian history to be destroyed. As The Bulletin isn’t a house, there is no crowd, and possibly little regret.

Because the journal is in private hands, the question of cultural importance and history is not considered, and certainly it was a load of right-wing drivel for most of its life. But isn’t the organ that launched the careers of Banjo Paterson and Henry Lawson worth a little respect?

The so-called “teaching” panel at last week’s CSAA conference was high-jacked by discussions about the disciplinary position of cultural studies in Australia and New Zealand. It was a pity, because the relation of teaching to research in the academy is important, but obviously people wanted to talk about the related issue of disciplinary relevance.

The discussion started with Angi Buettner demonstrating that as a discipline, cultural studies does not exist in New Zealand: rather, all institutions offer media studies at the undergraduate level. This was followed up by Chris Healy talking about the positioning of cultural studies at Uni Melbourne. I want to engage with this discussion, and hope that others will share their perspectives, because I’m feeling very pessimistic about the future of CS, and I hope I’m wrong. So please leave a comment.

I see the apparent decline…

Could lead to more space for gaming criticism?

James Wagner Au neatly summarises the commercial trends and scandals currently rocking online gaming communities

Now that such a prominent figure as Gertsmann has been removed, and for what many believe are dubious reasons, this essential chain in the promotion cycle is broken. Why? Because from this point forward, gamers will doubt the word of any reviewer on a site heavy with publisher ads, and reviewers will begin self-censoring, fearful of being too forthright and potentially suffering Gerstmann’s fate. Publishers will no longer be able to rely on the implicit pressure of their advertising dollars for good reviews, so they’ll have to earn a profit the old-fashioned way: by making good games. But that’s an inherently risky enterprise, especially when your potential audience is so small.

Daring Fireball John Gruber on constructing well-mannered emails.

Writing an email is like writing an article. Only quote the relevant parts, interspersing your new remarks between the quoted passages. Don’t quote anything at all from the original message if you don’t have to.

edit: added the link. D’oh.

I was watching a New Order concert on TV last night, recorded in New York a few years ago. The thing that struck me—aside from how little stage-presence they seemed to have—was the way in which influential bands have to deal with their fame.

In the early part of Robert Plant’s solo career he resolutely refused to play Led Zeppelin songs (much to the chagrin of many of his fans), claiming that that part of his life was over and people should move on. Other bands tour endlessly, trying to recapture the magic of their one hit, and sinking further into self-parody.

Were it not…

I’ve been watching the reality-TV show on SBS called Eco House Challenge because it looked interesting from the previews, and I thought I might learn something about sustainability. Given that it airs on SBS and is made by Prospero Productions —a company responsible for a number of respected documentaries—I was quite optimistic about it. Oh dear, how wrong can you get!

It’s nothing more…

Shocked and sickened, but sadly not surrprised. As usual, Crikey has the starkest, most sobering commentary:

Virginia state gun laws. Frequently asked questions:

Is a permit required to purchase rifles, handguns and shotguns? No.

Is registration required for rifles, handguns and shotguns? No.

Is licensing required for the owners of rifles, handguns and shotguns? No.

Do you need a permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No.

Is a permit required to carry a handgun? A permit is required only if the weapon is concealed.

Is there a one-handgun-per-month limit on gun sales? Yes

Are there limitations on assault weapons and magazines? No

May police limit the carrying of concealed handguns? No

Must child-safe locking devices be sold with guns? No

Are background checks required at gun shows? No

Are minors restricted from possessing guns? In part

Is a licence/permit required to buy handguns? No

Are all guns registered with law enforcement? No

Is safety training required for handgun buyers? No

Is it illegal for holders of concealed-weapon permits to carry guns into schools? Yes