It’s a time warp really. All this moral panic in the conference about not being in charge of our tools or our data. If we are so concerned that we rely on Apple, Google, Adobe, etc then don’t work in that space, learn to code, support (with time and $) alternatives. I’m not sure writers get this concerned about who makes their ink, pens, nibs or paper, or painters their paint, canvas, brushes and oils. And if they do (and I know some do), then they do something about it. But there is a difference between whinging and acting and a lot of what passes for scholarship is just a fancy sounding whinging.
We could substitute ‘software’ and ‘digital’ at this conference with ‘TV’ and ‘video cameras’ and it could be an early 80s media conference. We need access to the technologies, and some spectrum for broadcast, it is too expensive, too big media, too hard to get to use. We did get access, there were public access channels created, but I’m not sure the argument and concerns have changed all that much. That is fine, except no one seems to realise its the same conversation, it’s all this breathless how it is new and different, without anyone, yet, making a case for how or why.
This morning I wanted to tweet two new jobs in media (one orientated toward our undergrad program, the other a coursework masters – it might sound counter intuitive but the undergrd one has the more interesting teaching possibilities – at RMIT and it’s been so long since I’ve used Twitter I can’t remember what Twitter client I use.