Post-Digital Journal – Aarhus University & transmediale research journal
Although in many ways the post-digital “sucks but is useful” as Florian Cramer notes, the journal takes it to be a serious concept that deserves our critical attention. A group of researchers connected to transmediale festival decided to (re)write their post-digital examinations using a set of constraints - this included the invention of a common definition of the post-digital, and a common vocabulary of words to use (see in the righten column) and those that were considered taboo.
In addition two scripts were developed (by the participants) to analyse the texts and images. Not only the article's picture was therefore automatically created, also the contributers were given points by using the canon/dictonary properly.
The design supports this competition by using large numbers, showing lists and refering to highscore aestehtics in a post-digital look (for example the Google glasses design lingo). The extraordinary diagrams exaggerate the self-reflective writing practice / use of the canon. More information about the journal and all articles can be read here: http://www.aprja.net
>>Post-digital, once understood as a critical reflection of “digital” aesthetic immaterialism, now describes the messy and paradoxical condition of art and media after digital technology revolutions. “Post-digital” neither recognizes the distinction between “old” and “new” media, nor ideological affirmation of the one or the other. It merges “old” and “new”, often applying network cultural experimentation to analog technologies which it re-investigates and re-uses. It tends to focus on the experiential rather than the conceptual. It looks for DIY agency outside totalitarian innovation ideology, and for networking off big data capitalism. At the same time, it already has become commercialized.<<
Post-Digital Dictionary of Allowed Words: