Ξ December 20th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ CCS |
We have a growing body of technoculture critics and codework artists joining the Critical Code Studies collaborative Blog. Check out the full list below and consider joining our efforts or let us know about someone who might be interested in this work.
CCS Bloggers (see their bios here)
* Christian U Andersen
* Sandy Baldwin
* Gregory Bringman
* Patrick Burgaud
* Wendy Hui Kyong Chun
* Christy Dena
* Jeremy Douglass
* Aden Evens
* Daniel Howe
* Mark Marino
* Mez
* Wayne Miller
* David Parry
* Rita Raley
* Amit Ray
* Braxton Soderman
* Paul Swartz
Ξ December 20th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ test |
Announcing the launch of a new collaborative blog titled Critical Code Studies . The blog is dedicated to exploring interpretations of computer code within cultural contexts. Rather than focusing primarily on making code function or even the pursuit of “beautiful” code, critical code studies brings in critical theory to examine the ways in which the lines of code reflect, shape, and reproduce our culture including aspects of class, gender, race, sexuality. These criticisms include both the context for the code’s creation and the ways in which it circulates in culture. Rather than one specific lens, CCS names a growing collection of methodologies for making/finding meaning in code.
Critical Code Studies builds on recent efforts toward software and hardware studies to perform semiotic readings of computer source code. This blog builds off several presentations at the most recent Modern Language Association and Society for Literature, Science, and the Arts conferences. The theme of the SLSA ‘07 “Code” reflects a growing movement toward reading various kinds of codes, including computer source code. As cybercritics become more literate in coding languages and practices, increasingly their analysis of technoculture is including excerpts of the code itself. The texts under consideration may be executable programs, pseudocode, scripts, markup, or even code-like, as all of these inform the way code means.
Blog co-authors include technoculture critics as well as codework artists. A complete list of blog authors is available below and on the site.
The blog offers several resources, including:
Growing Bibliography of Critical Code Studies works
(also indexed under Citeulike)
Links to repositories of code to analyze.
Del.icio.us Feed of bookmarks (tagged critical_code_studies)
http://del.icio.us/tag/critical_code_studies
LibraryThing collection of book titles.
http://www.librarything.com/catalog/critcode
List of related researchers
A review of some influential Critical Code Studies can be found in the electronic book review. http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/electropoetics/codology
To join the community of bloggers, please contact Mark Marino. [mark+c+marino [at] gmail [dotted] com.
[Updated: 12/8/07]
There’s an exciting conversation over at Writer Response Theory about Critical Code Studies. Jeremy Douglass, who recently took on the position of the Software Studies postdoc at UCSD, proposed a Venn diagram to illustrate the relationship between Critical Code Studies and Software Studies. Jeremy seems to be beginning his post doc by trying to firm up some definitions.
For Douglass, Software Studies and Critical Code Studies share some but not all interests.
On the other hand, Noah Wardrip-Fruin, a driving force behind the Software Studies program at UCSD, argues that Critical Code Studies is a central component of Software Studies. Software Studies, by this view, is the uber-field and Critical Code Studies is a set of analytical practices within it.
If we return to Douglass’ original formulation, we find the source of the disagreement (or why Jeremy’s postulation doesn’t fit within Noah’s): Douglass is trying to define the approaches according to the aspect of digital culture that they emphasize:
Software Studies emphasizes computation.
Critical Code Studies emphasizes uncompiled source code.
There might be uncompiled source code that does not get computed (for example, compiled) and there might be processes that occur in computation that were not driven by uncompiled source code. Would it be too simple to say that one analysis emphasizes the executable and the execution while the other emphasizes the language of those executables?
Noah asks what uncompiled source code is not software? Noah doesn’t object here, but rather asks for an example of source code that is not a part of software. From that, I derive the following implication.
Software Studies examines software and related material
Critical Code Studies examines code and related material.
According to this logic, the code is just one of the many aspects of software, so CCS, and more broadly Code Studies, would be a subset of Software Studies.
Subsequently, their debate ensues along the lines of objects of study (what counts as software or code) and approaches (what counts as software studies or critical code studies).
(more…)
Extreme Tracking