While a discussion of academic blogs relates to my venture here more directly, there is nothing wrong with exploring the conventions used within other blog types. So, without further ado:
The Categorized Blogs
Political/News - Scholars and Rogues
Entertainment/Art - Click Opera
Lifestyle - The Sartorialist
Science/Technology - Bad Astronomy
Evaluation
One similarity between all these blogs is the use of dark text over white backdrop. This seems to be ever the more common in sites I visit. Reminiscent of Old Media texts, we are trained to read the dark signifier of meaning over the bright content venue. All but The Sartorialist make use of a header navigation bar, simplifying the meandering through the pages upon pages of original content. On to the specific conventions...
From the top down, S&R shares several traits with Old Media news texts. The writing style is journalistic, sticking to the facts and there is a limited use of images. The writing is informative, well-structured, clearly thought out and direct. There is limited link usage. What separated this blog from common News sources is the inclusion of viral videos, and a strange photography of nature section (see Rust). As a whole, the site is cluttered, with dense margins surrounding a compacted body section. Additionally, advertising, polls and internal linking detract from the content.
Click Opera is on the other end of the spectrum, with a minimalist approach. I found the right margin alignment to be refreshing and drew focus to the content itself. Per the notion of art, the site makes great use of images, even using images in argument (see "the anxious interval" time line). The textual content is far less defined, though, ranging from the personal sentiments to global persuasions. Such is art. So too is the credibility in the eye of the beholder. Who is to say who is an artist or what is art. Arguably, the blog itself is a piece of art, with the wood plank background and unique layout.
As mentioned above, The Sartorialist stands alone as the sole site considered which does not feature dark text of a light background. In fact, the blog has little text at all. It is simply composed of beautifully captured images of fashionably dressed individuals in front of blurry, uncommon, if not exceptional backgrounds. The use of image as argument is as unforgiving as the simple layout. In the highbrow vein of fashion, this blog makes the statements that these people are fashionable simply because they are. There is no description of clothing worn, common to such displays (see GQ slideshows), nor the people featured. All that is mentioned is the location of the shot by city and country. This site is truly bare, yet distinctively unreserved.
Lastly, I encounter Bad Astronomy, which acquires its credbility through operation under the Discover: Science, Technology and The Future banner. This blog is features conventions typical to general blogs. Personal tone, balance of text, image and video and a loose adherence to the suggested subject matter. The layout is not unusual, in that the left-most, largest column makes up the body fo the text with the narrower right column reserved for blog description, book plugging, internal linking and archives. Even though the subject can be dry at times, the cheeky tone keeps posts interesting and light.
A Final Note
I am finding that comments can make or break the success of a blog. So is true of these well read sites. Each contains comments unique to the subject matter. Namely, Click Opera comments contain thoughtful, sarcastic responses which sometimes make use of images as argument (first occurrence noted). S&R comments are few and brief, but often link to additional resources/information. The Sartorialist comment list is composed of frivolous admiration for the outfits, or a presumption about the mood of the model. And Bad Astronomy's comments range from the personal, to the scientific to the utterly unrelated.
What is to be learned from all of this? Essentially, if the tone, text structure and site layout all play into the subject matter, they benefit the desired credibility and worth oft he site. If there is unwarranted clutter or unexplainable stylistic decisions being made, readership may take the penance.
1.22.2009
You're academic too?
According to dictionary.com, I am an academic. Indeed, I am a "student or teacher at a college or university." However, this loose use of the word diminishes the elitist image I once held it to. I say elitist in the best way, of course. I want my teachers to be the most learned in their field. That way I know I am receiving the greatest education possible, making the process of earning a degree all the more worth while.
Yep. You guessed it. That's Josep Colomer on the left and a quick look to the upper right corner of his blog lets you know that:
"I am a Professor in Political Science, elected member of the Academia Europaea and life-member of the American Political Science Association. I use this blog to interact with colleagues, former students and other people interested in the science of politics and political economy. All are welcome to use this resource."
This definition revision is saddening, though. I know (read live with) many students who study nothing more than our premium cable package. Yes, Dexter is a phenomenal meditation on the psyche of a homicidal detective and artful display of suspense, but where is the intellectual pretension in Spike TV's Ultimate Fighting Championship?
I believe academia should be held to a higher standard. Not only does consideration for such a title require advanced knowledge in the field of study, but continued pursuit of new information. Academics should have a constant desire to expand their understanding of a subject they find fascinating. And through teaching, this energy, this joy of learning will be passed on to eager and interested students.
So, with an incredibly high brow, I will look down upon other blogs and judge. What I am really doing is using specific criteria to gauge their supposedly academic presentation of thought to better tailor my efforts here. And the criteria are... [drum roll please]...
The Visual: Or Do I Know your Purpose at First Glance
Credibility and Voice AKA By whose authority?
Depth of Ideas and "Whatchu talkin bout, blogger?"
and finally... Who is your Readership and what do they do?
Credibility and Voice AKA By whose authority?
Depth of Ideas and "Whatchu talkin bout, blogger?"
and finally... Who is your Readership and what do they do?
This guy was in luck. I know Bordwell, as I have read his articles on film theory time and again. If you don't know who he is, though, a quick glance to the upper right corner of his home page lays out the credentials: Jacques Ledoux Professor of Film Studies, Department of Communication Arts, University of Wisconsin-Madison. He provides a personal email, as well as a link to curriculum vitae, listing more instances of publication than I can count. And with this credibility comes intense understanding and scrutiny of a plethora of cinema-related subjects. History. Theory. Form. Movements. Aesthetics. And it is all displayed in black text over a clean, white background. Links are used sparingly, mostly on the left and right wings for site navigation to different pages, highlighted articles, and his work in print. As in his "old media" writings, the use of images is directly related to textual subject, usually complimenting a scene description or exemplifying an aesthetic quality (mise-en-scene, etc.).
All academic-esque visual layout and clear sense of authority on the fairly specified subject aside, Bordwell's posts are incredibly long, often without a single comment. So, the last question remains: who is he writing for? Are his students his audience or other professors in the field?
Yep. You guessed it. That's Josep Colomer on the left and a quick look to the upper right corner of his blog lets you know that:"I am a Professor in Political Science, elected member of the Academia Europaea and life-member of the American Political Science Association. I use this blog to interact with colleagues, former students and other people interested in the science of politics and political economy. All are welcome to use this resource."
As Professor Colomer states, his blog sticks to the subject of political science, in a fairly dry, yet knowledgeable way. What worked for Bordwell's visual (black text over white) makes Colomer's blog appear uninteresting. One feature of note is the use of keywords (similarly noted in bold and blue), which allows for fruitful page scanning. Unfortunately, the keywords are easily confused with links, thereby serving as a means of distraction.
Speaking of links... not much in that category. For a political blog with such poignant stances of hot issues, there are few sources. It is as if these ideas are generated just behind the eyes of that fellow pictured above. Any academic would know that no thought stands without the influence of historical and social experiences. Surely, Professor Colomer could have lead his readers to sources for more information.
Again, I say readers rather presumptively. The greatest number of comments was for a Christmas card, mostly taking the form of "Merry Christmas to you too. Best wishes, Some other Political Science Professor." Is it the black and white text that pushes readers away? Or do political scientists not comment on each other's blogs, but retort on their own blog instead?
Out of the Crooked Timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.
So is titled the blog which I cannot copy the banner image from. Hmmm, maybe this one has a bit more knowledge of the inter-workings of the web. It should, with upwards of seventeen contributors, but in this wider array of voices lies the task of establishing credibility.
First, the visual: do I know your purpose at first glance. No, but it looks good. Again, the black text on white background, but Crooked Timber (CT) utilizes a black border and red links, making for a strong color pallet. So what is being discussed here? Well, everything.
Not everything, exactly, but a multitude of timely subjects (from economics to social issues) through a 'hip' academic eye. With a quick click on the contributor's names, a reader is taken to their personal blog. From there credentials can be hunted down. The short of the long is that these people all work at Universities and are well-informed enough to be spouting off their own opinions.
Lacking in Colomer's blog, CT links to additional information and references source material when need be. Another differentiating factor is readership, which appears to be high for CT. With dozens of meaningful comments for each post, this site exemplifies a point made by Andrew Sullivan: Readers are truly editors and contributors themselves, shedding light on new viewpoints and correcting mistakes.
As far as these three academic blogs, the choice is clear; CT takes the crown. Its aesthetically appealing, limiting the length of posts. I trust the voice of collective academics more than the limited opinion of a single professor. What they say has merit and people are listening and feeding back.
While these sites exemplify (to differing degrees) the sphere in which I want Blog-a-Blog to operate, there is no doubt that originality will prove most important to retaining readership. So, what should I take away from these academic evaluations and what is best kept separate?
Speaking of links... not much in that category. For a political blog with such poignant stances of hot issues, there are few sources. It is as if these ideas are generated just behind the eyes of that fellow pictured above. Any academic would know that no thought stands without the influence of historical and social experiences. Surely, Professor Colomer could have lead his readers to sources for more information.
Again, I say readers rather presumptively. The greatest number of comments was for a Christmas card, mostly taking the form of "Merry Christmas to you too. Best wishes, Some other Political Science Professor." Is it the black and white text that pushes readers away? Or do political scientists not comment on each other's blogs, but retort on their own blog instead?
Out of the Crooked Timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.
So is titled the blog which I cannot copy the banner image from. Hmmm, maybe this one has a bit more knowledge of the inter-workings of the web. It should, with upwards of seventeen contributors, but in this wider array of voices lies the task of establishing credibility.
First, the visual: do I know your purpose at first glance. No, but it looks good. Again, the black text on white background, but Crooked Timber (CT) utilizes a black border and red links, making for a strong color pallet. So what is being discussed here? Well, everything.
Not everything, exactly, but a multitude of timely subjects (from economics to social issues) through a 'hip' academic eye. With a quick click on the contributor's names, a reader is taken to their personal blog. From there credentials can be hunted down. The short of the long is that these people all work at Universities and are well-informed enough to be spouting off their own opinions.
Lacking in Colomer's blog, CT links to additional information and references source material when need be. Another differentiating factor is readership, which appears to be high for CT. With dozens of meaningful comments for each post, this site exemplifies a point made by Andrew Sullivan: Readers are truly editors and contributors themselves, shedding light on new viewpoints and correcting mistakes.
As far as these three academic blogs, the choice is clear; CT takes the crown. Its aesthetically appealing, limiting the length of posts. I trust the voice of collective academics more than the limited opinion of a single professor. What they say has merit and people are listening and feeding back.
While these sites exemplify (to differing degrees) the sphere in which I want Blog-a-Blog to operate, there is no doubt that originality will prove most important to retaining readership. So, what should I take away from these academic evaluations and what is best kept separate?
While Crooked Timber is king, my sole authorship of this blog is a fundamental separation from what makes them successful. That said, they do not display any images and reading the site for an extended period of time makes the eyes tired.
I found little of Colomer's blog appealing, but his strict adherence to the suggested subject matter would definitely define his audience for appropriate communication.
Lastly, from Bordwell's blog I take away the clean visual composition of the web page, as well as the clearly defined subject matter (that is strictly adhered to) and careful interplay of images and text only when applicable. On the flip side, I believe that more concise posts will yield better readership. So from now on... one post, one point. [Scanning this post up and down] Well maybe not.
I found little of Colomer's blog appealing, but his strict adherence to the suggested subject matter would definitely define his audience for appropriate communication.
Lastly, from Bordwell's blog I take away the clean visual composition of the web page, as well as the clearly defined subject matter (that is strictly adhered to) and careful interplay of images and text only when applicable. On the flip side, I believe that more concise posts will yield better readership. So from now on... one post, one point. [Scanning this post up and down] Well maybe not.
1.20.2009
The Pilot
An aviator, navigating the sky. A continual flame, ready for greater purpose. Episode one, establishing characters, story, structure, style and tone.
Clearly, this 'pilot' post shares qualities with each of these definitions. As I navigate the internet, hungry for New Media, I intend for this blog to serve a greater purpose than its mere existence.
Quoting The Economist, "A new blog is created every second of every day." And that was back in 2006, so you can only imagine the rampant creation of new, personal, online journals today. Quoting my high school chemistry teacher, "In the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter." Not to devalue academic appraisal, but in the great scheme of this blog, I want my time spent in thought, and the commitment to a creative endeavor to mean something.
And so, in my inaugural post, I present a glimpse of the big picture:
I will save the explanation for a later date, when the idea for a blog-driven site that covers local music, entertainment, politics and news is fully flushed out. For now, suffice it to say I borrowed the idea from The Gothamist Group, an incredibly helpful network of websites, perfect for the 20-something hipster, 30-something foodie, and 40-something community activist, alike.
To recoup:
- Navigate through New Media, using the SWC 200 syllabus as a rubric.
- Be more than an academic blog for academic's sake.
- Establish character, story, structure, style and tone.
Character is easy. Me, interacting with the New Media texts provided throughout the course and those tracked down for second helpings. However, considering the ideas of veteran blogger Andrew Sullivan, in Why I Blog, the biggest character of all is audience. He states that the readers keep a blog author, or blothor (no? blogger? ok.), in check better than any editor could.
"To the charges of inaccuracy and unprofessionalism, bloggers could point to the fierce, immediate scrutiny of their readers… They will send links, stories, and facts, challenging the blogger’s view of the world, sometimes outright refuting it, but more frequently adding context and nuance and complexity to an idea. The role of a blogger is not to defend against this but to embrace it. He is similar in this way to the host of a dinner party. He can provoke discussion or take a position, even passionately, but he also must create an atmosphere in which others want to participate."
Within the realm of academic blogging, though, shouldn't ideas be flushed out to the fullest before commentors feast on the scraps? Would a theorist leave any thought unfinished? I doubt it.
That said, the immediacy of the blog, inherent in the digitally published form, and having come to be expected by the audience, does not lend towards complete arguments. The position of the author is given weight, and the counter-position is often left to the reader. Good blogging, according to Sullivan, can be attributed to “not just saying what you think when you think it… but also airing the alternative arguments.”
In airing founded personal opinion, a conversational tone lends best to the New Media vehicle. David Winer, a blogging pioneer, described blog writing as raw, with unpolished authenticity (The Economist's It's the Links, Stupid). So, where does the authority of an academic blog come from in a medium where anyone can say anything? Must a writer display an advanced vocabulary or does the referencing of authorized texts pass along the license to be taken seriously? Maybe readership is a way to quantify authority, but how would a new blog (such as this) come into good repute?
Sullivan claims that if an author has the self confidence to simply put their words out there, without overly considering the audience, the roughness will provide a "real" sense.
So this is what I have done. And here we go...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)