One of the benefits of insignificance is that people rarely have reason to take shots at your open can. So when some fairly sharp criticisms were directed my way over my recent NMC Mashup Symposium mashup I really didn't know how best to respond... I knew that something that weird would not appeal to everyone, and I had difficulty imagining a response that didn't just seem defensive.
Then again, I've followed the work of both Jeffrey Keefer and Lisa Lane for some time open can, and when people I like and respect take the time to offer detailed and thoughtful critiques, it almost seems arrogant to ignore them open can. I also don't doubt that other people have had similar responses to my stuff. So while I do not have the time to respond in appropriate depth to the many shortcomings these posts identify, I did want to at least acknowledge open can.
First off, mea culpas on a couple of crimes:
* Jeffrey is correct to point out that my abstract didn't describe the session that I delivered all that accurately. I can only plead for mercy, as that abstract had to be submitted when I really didn't know what I was going to do open can. I originally submitted a proposal that was a far more traditional examination of data mashups, but was asked by the NMC to consider something more culturally-oriented... So that abstract was something of a placeholder, and I do regret it if people felt misled.
* Lisa is absolutely right to smack me for not offering a more detailed list of sources anywhere. My only defense is that I did namecheck these people in the audio itself, which I conceptualized as a stand-alone piece. That, and I got lazy. I have updated my post and added the names of the spoken word samples open can.
Now if I may, I'd like to push back on a few other points. I don't expect to convince Jeffrey, Lisa, or anyone else to change how they feel about the session, but I'd at least like to make my own motivations clear.
In his post (and previously on Twitter) Jeffrey complains that the session did not provide concrete steps on how to apply lessons learned in his own practice. First off, as I assembled the clips and materials that were most compelling to me, the narrative that emerged was one of mashup artists and sympathetic theorists describing their own histories open can, philosophies and goals in their own form of expression. I hope I created a reasonable representation of a culture which has been influential on how we think about discourse in the digital age open can. If I failed at that, then I failed...
But I would hope there is room for discussion in our field that doesn't have to boil down to universally applicable step-by-step instructions. Chris Lott, in a post that responded so well to Jeffrey that I felt like I was off the hook, makes this point very well: "there is a whole world of richness of expression and thought that ties into the open can I live in and approach the world… and most of that world is in the dark, unseen and hard to quantify."
