Pequeñas correcciones a 3
This commit is contained in:
parent
5810ab1439
commit
83a0e324d9
|
@ -2,34 +2,34 @@
|
|||
|
||||
> @published 2019/05/05, 12:00 {.published}
|
||||
|
||||
I love books. I love them so much that I even decide to make
|
||||
I love books. I love them so much that I even decided to make
|
||||
a living from them---probably a very bad career decision. But
|
||||
I can't idealize that love.
|
||||
|
||||
During school and university I was taught that I should love
|
||||
books. Actually, some teachers made me clear that it was the
|
||||
only way I could get my bachelor's degree. Because books are
|
||||
one of the main freedom devices in our shitty world, right? Not
|
||||
loving books is like the will to stay in a cave---hello, Plato.
|
||||
Not celebrating its greatness is just one step to support antidemocratic
|
||||
regimes. And while I was learning to love books, of course I
|
||||
also learn to respect its “creators,” until I desire to be one
|
||||
of them.
|
||||
the main freedom and knowledge device in our shitty world, right?
|
||||
Not loving books is like the will to stay in a cave---hello,
|
||||
Plato. Not celebrating its greatness is just one step to support
|
||||
antidemocratic regimes. And while I was learning to love books,
|
||||
of course I also learn to respect its “creators” and the industry
|
||||
than made it happened.
|
||||
|
||||
I don't think it is casual that the development of what we mean
|
||||
by book is independent from the developments of capitalism and
|
||||
what we understand by author. Maybe correlation; maybe intersection;
|
||||
but definetly not separates stories.
|
||||
but definitely not separates stories.
|
||||
|
||||
Let's start with a common place: the invention of printing. Yeah,
|
||||
it is an arbitraty and problematic start. We could say that books
|
||||
and authors goes far before that; therefore, they aren't a product
|
||||
of what it would became capitalism. But what we have in that
|
||||
particularly place in history is the standardization and massification
|
||||
of a practice. It didn't happen from day to night, but little
|
||||
by little all the methodological and technical diversity became
|
||||
it is an arbitrary and problematic start. We could say that books
|
||||
and authors goes far before that. But what we have in that particularly
|
||||
place in history is the standardization and massification of
|
||||
a practice. It didn't happen from day to night, but little by
|
||||
little all the methodological and technical diversity became
|
||||
more homogeneous. And with that, we were able to made books not
|
||||
as luxury commodities, but as objects of everyday use.
|
||||
as luxury or institutional commodities, but as objects of everyday
|
||||
use.
|
||||
|
||||
And not just books, but printed text in general. Before the invention
|
||||
of printing, we could barely see text in our surroundings. What
|
||||
|
@ -40,13 +40,13 @@ of text in our daily basis.
|
|||
Newspapers first and now social media relies on that normalization
|
||||
to generate the idea of an “universal” public debate---I don't
|
||||
know if it is actually “public” if almost all popular newspapers
|
||||
and social media platforms are own by corporations and its criterias;
|
||||
and social media platforms are own by corporations and its criteria;
|
||||
but let's pretend it is a minor issue. And public debate supposedly
|
||||
incentivates democracy.
|
||||
incentivizes democracy.
|
||||
|
||||
Before Enlightenment the owners of printed text realized its
|
||||
freedom potential. Most churchs and kingdoms tried to control
|
||||
it. The Protestant Church first and then the Enlightment and
|
||||
freedom potential. Most churches and kingdoms tried to control
|
||||
it. The Protestant Church first and then the Enlightenment and
|
||||
emerging capitalist enterprises hijacked the control of public
|
||||
debate; specifically who owns the means of printed text production,
|
||||
who decides the languages worthy to print and who sets its main
|
||||
|
@ -59,15 +59,15 @@ who tried to have that control and power. And most of them failed
|
|||
and keep failing.
|
||||
|
||||
So during 18th century books started to have another meaning.
|
||||
They ceased to be mainly devices of God's word to be _a_ device
|
||||
of freedom of speech. Thanks to the firsts emerging capitalists
|
||||
we got means for secular thinking. Acts of censorship became
|
||||
evident acts of political restriction instead of acts against
|
||||
sinners.
|
||||
They ceased to be mainly devices of God's or authority's word
|
||||
to be _a_ device of freedom of speech. Thanks to the firsts emerging
|
||||
capitalists we got means for secular thinking. Acts of censorship
|
||||
became evident acts of political restriction instead of acts
|
||||
against sinners.
|
||||
|
||||
The invention of printing created so big demand of printed text
|
||||
that it actually generated the publishing industry. Selfpublishing
|
||||
to satisfy internal institutional demand openned the place to
|
||||
that it actually generated the publishing industry. Self-publishing
|
||||
to satisfy internal institutional demand opened the place to
|
||||
an industry for new citizens readers. A luxury and religious
|
||||
object became a commodity in the “free” market.
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ in order to secure freedom? But it also developed other freedom
|
|||
that was fastened by religious or political authorities: the
|
||||
freedom to be identify as an author.
|
||||
|
||||
How we understand authorship in our days depends in the process
|
||||
How we understand authorship in our days depends in a process
|
||||
where the notion of author became more closed to the idea of
|
||||
“creator.” And it is actually a very interesting semantic transfer.
|
||||
_In one way_ the invention of printing mechanized and improved
|
||||
|
@ -89,27 +89,33 @@ of enterprise and speech---what was seen even as a demonic invention
|
|||
became one of the main technologies that still defines and reproduces
|
||||
the idea of humanity.
|
||||
|
||||
This openned the opportunity to independent authors. Printed
|
||||
text wasn't anymore a matter of God's word or authorities but
|
||||
a secular and more ephemeral Human's word. The massification
|
||||
of publishing also openned the gates for less relevant and easy-to-read
|
||||
printed texts; but for the incipient publishing industry it didn't
|
||||
matter: it was a way to catch more profits and consumers.
|
||||
This opened the opportunity to independent authors. Printed text
|
||||
wasn't anymore a matter of God's or authority's word but a secular
|
||||
and more ephemeral Human's word. The massification of publishing
|
||||
also opened the gates for less relevant and easy-to-read printed
|
||||
texts; but for the incipient publishing industry it didn't matter:
|
||||
it was a way to catch more profits and consumers.
|
||||
|
||||
Not only that, it reproduces the ideas that were around over
|
||||
and over again. Yes, it growth the diversity of ideas but it
|
||||
also repeated speeches that safeguard the state of things. How
|
||||
much books have been a device of freedom and how much they have
|
||||
been a device of ideological reproduction? That is a good question
|
||||
that we have to answer.
|
||||
|
||||
So authors without religious or political authority found a way
|
||||
to sneak their names in printed text. It wasn't yet a function
|
||||
of property---I don't like the word “function,” but I will use
|
||||
it anyways---but a function of attribution: they wanted to publicy
|
||||
it anyways---but a function of attribution: they wanted to publicly
|
||||
be know as the human who wrote those texts. No God, no authority,
|
||||
no institution, but a person of flesh and bone.
|
||||
|
||||
But that also meant regular powerless people. Without backup
|
||||
of God or King, who the fucks are you, little peasant? Publishers---aka
|
||||
printers in those years---took advantage. That is why I did a
|
||||
very problematic analogy, the fascitation to saw a work printed
|
||||
with your name is similar to see a Wikipedia article about you.
|
||||
You don't gain directly anything, only reputation. It relies
|
||||
on you to made it profitable.
|
||||
of God or King, who the fucks are you, little peasant? Publishers---a.k.a.
|
||||
printers in those years---took advantage. The fascination to
|
||||
saw a newspaper article about books you wrote is similar to see
|
||||
a Wikipedia article about you. You don't gain directly anything,
|
||||
only reputation. It relies on you to made it profitable.
|
||||
|
||||
During 18th century, authorship became a function of _individual_
|
||||
attribution, but not a function of property. So I think that
|
||||
|
@ -128,26 +134,26 @@ beyond our corporeal world. And you don't have to rationalize
|
|||
it: you can't prove it, you just feel it and know it.
|
||||
|
||||
So german writers used that as foundations for independent authorship.
|
||||
No God's word, no authorship, no institution, but a person inspired
|
||||
No God's or authority's word, no institution, but a person inspired
|
||||
by things beyond our world. The notion of “creation” has a very
|
||||
strong religious and methaphysical backgrounds that we can't
|
||||
just ignore them: act of creation means the capacity to bring
|
||||
to this world something that it didn't belong to it. The relationship
|
||||
strong religious and metaphysical backgrounds that we can't just
|
||||
ignore them: act of creation means the capacity to bring to this
|
||||
world something that it didn't belong to it. The relationship
|
||||
between authorship and text turned out so imminent that even
|
||||
nowadays we don't have any fucking idea why we accept as common
|
||||
sense that authors have a superior and inalianeble bond to its
|
||||
sense that authors have a superior and inalienable bond to its
|
||||
works.
|
||||
|
||||
But before the expansionism of German Romanticism notion of author,
|
||||
writers were seen more as producers that sold their work to the
|
||||
owners of means of production. So while the invention of printing
|
||||
facilitated a new kind of secular and indepent author, _in other
|
||||
hand_ it summoned Authorship Fog: “Whenever you cast another
|
||||
Book spell, if Spirits of Printing's Invention is in the command
|
||||
zone or on the battlefield, create a 1/1 white Author creature
|
||||
token with flying and indestructible.” As material as a printed
|
||||
card we made magic to grant authors a creative function: the
|
||||
ability to “produce from nothing.”
|
||||
facilitated a new kind of secular and independent author, _in
|
||||
other hand_ it summoned Authorship Fog: “Whenever you cast another
|
||||
Book spell, if Spirits of Printing is in the command zone or
|
||||
on the battlefield, create a 1/1 white Author creature token
|
||||
with flying and indestructible.” As material as a printed card
|
||||
we made magic to grant authors a creative function: the ability
|
||||
to “produce from nothing” and a bond that never dies or changes.
|
||||
|
||||
Authors as creators is a cool metaphor, who doesn't want to have
|
||||
some divine powers? In the abstract discussion about the relationship
|
||||
|
@ -156,10 +162,10 @@ fit. You don't have to rely in anything material to grasp all
|
|||
of them as an unique phenomena. But in the concrete facts of
|
||||
printed texts and the publishers abuse to authors you go beyond
|
||||
attribution. You are not just linking an object to a subject.
|
||||
Instead, you are grating property relationships between an object
|
||||
and a subject.
|
||||
Instead, you are grating property relationships between subject
|
||||
and an object.
|
||||
|
||||
And property means nothing if you can't exploit it. At the beging
|
||||
And property means nothing if you can't exploit it. At the beginning
|
||||
of publishing industry and during all 18th century, publishers
|
||||
took advantage of this new kind of “property.” The invention
|
||||
of the author as a property function was the rise of new legislation.
|
||||
|
@ -167,25 +173,26 @@ Germans and French jurists translated this speech to laws.
|
|||
|
||||
I won't talk about the history of moral rights. Instead I want
|
||||
to highlight how this gave a supposedly ethical, political and
|
||||
legal justification of the individualization of cultural commodities.
|
||||
legal justification of _the individualization_ of cultural commodities.
|
||||
Authorship began to be associated inalienably to individuals
|
||||
and _a_ book started to mean _a_ reader. But not only that, the
|
||||
possibilities of intelectual freedom were reduced to a particular
|
||||
possibilities of intellectual freedom were reduced to a particular
|
||||
device: printed text.
|
||||
|
||||
More freedom traslated to the need of more and more printed material.
|
||||
More freedom implied the requirement of bigger and bigger publishing
|
||||
industry. More freedom entailed the expansionism of cultural
|
||||
capitalism. Books switched to commodities and authors became
|
||||
its owners. Moral rights were never about the freedom of readers,
|
||||
but who was the owner of that commodities.
|
||||
More freedom translated to the need of more and more printed
|
||||
material. More freedom implied the requirement of bigger and
|
||||
bigger publishing industry. More freedom entailed the expansionism
|
||||
of cultural capitalism. Books switched to commodities and authors
|
||||
became its owners. Moral rights were never about the freedom
|
||||
of readers, but who was the owner of that commodities.
|
||||
|
||||
Books stopped to be sources of oral and local public debate and
|
||||
became private devices for an “universal” public debate. Authorship
|
||||
puts attribution in secondary place so indivudal ownership could
|
||||
become its synonymous. A book for several readers and an author
|
||||
as an id for an intellectual movement or institution became irrelevant
|
||||
against a book as property for a particular reader and author.
|
||||
became private devices for an “universal” public debate: the
|
||||
Enlightenment. Authorship put attribution in secondary place
|
||||
so individual ownership could become its synonymous. A book for
|
||||
several readers and an author as an id for an intellectual movement
|
||||
or institution became irrelevant against a book as property for
|
||||
a particular reader---as material---and author---as speech--.
|
||||
|
||||
And we are sitting here reading all this shit without taking
|
||||
to account that ones of the main wins of our neoliberal world
|
||||
|
@ -193,33 +200,37 @@ is that we have been talking about objects, individuals and production
|
|||
of wealth. Who the fucks are the subjects who made all this publishing
|
||||
shit possible? Where the fucks are the communities that in several
|
||||
ways make possible the rise of authors? For fuck sake, why aren't
|
||||
we talking about the maintenance of means of production?
|
||||
we talking about the hidden costs of the maintenance of means
|
||||
of production?
|
||||
|
||||
We aren't books and we aren't its authors. We aren't those individuals
|
||||
who everybody are gonna relate to the books we are working on
|
||||
and, of course, we lack of sense of community. We aren't the
|
||||
ones who enjoy all that wealth generated by books production
|
||||
but for sure we are the ones who made all that possible. We are
|
||||
neglecting ourselves: change my mind.
|
||||
but for sure we are the ones who made all that possible. _We
|
||||
are neglecting ourselves_.
|
||||
|
||||
So don't come with those tales about the greatness of books for
|
||||
our culture, the need of authorship to transfer wealth or to
|
||||
give attribution and how important for our lifes is the publishing
|
||||
give attribution and how important for our lives is the publishing
|
||||
production.
|
||||
|
||||
* Did you know that books have been mainly devices of ideological
|
||||
reproduction---most best-selling books aren't critical thinking
|
||||
books that free our minds, but school books with its hidden
|
||||
curriculum and selfhelp and erotic books that keep reproducing
|
||||
basic exploitable stereotypes?
|
||||
reproduction or at least mainly devices for cultural capitalism---most
|
||||
best-selling books aren't critical thinking books that free
|
||||
our minds, but text books with its hidden curriculum and
|
||||
self-help and erotic books that keep reproducing basic exploitable
|
||||
stereotypes?
|
||||
* Did you realize that authorship haven't been the best way
|
||||
to transfer wealth or give attribution---even now more than
|
||||
before authors have to paid in order to be published at the
|
||||
same time that in the practice they lose all rights?
|
||||
* Did you see how we keep to be worry about production no matter
|
||||
what---it doesn't matter that it would imply bigger chains
|
||||
of free labor or, as I prefer to say: chains of explotation
|
||||
and “intellectual” slavery?
|
||||
of free labor or, as I prefer to say: chains of exploitation
|
||||
and “intellectual” slavery, because in order to be an
|
||||
scholar you have to embrace publishing industry and maybe
|
||||
even cultural capitalism?
|
||||
|
||||
Please, don't come with those tales, we already reached more
|
||||
fertile fields that can generate way better stories.
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue