And the writings of others that I’ve licensed for publication at the Photography Criticism CyberArchive. And the design work and maintenance that my webmaster, John Alley, put into the site. And the OCR/text-input work of those to whom I’ve outsourced that chore for vintage texts. And the editorial and html work I put into making it publishable on the web and findable at that site. And the time necessary for the correspondence with living authors or the estates of deceased ones involved in the licensing of copyrighted texts. And the acquisition costs involved in obtaining volumes of out-of-print, public-domain texts for adding to the archive.
True, he doesn’t say exactly that. As he puts it, so nicely, in “Pumping and Dumping (the Art Marketplace),” the May 31, 2009 post at his blog, this Public Address 4.0, “the future should be open and accessible [online] repositories.” Pretty to think so, I’m sure. He goes on to say, “Monetized knowledge is suspect, for me at least — I don’t buy it.”
I assume this means that in addition to demanding and expecting all online content for free Ward steals all the books and periodicals in his personal library (or else does all his reading at the public library). Books, magazines, newspapers . . . those are all “monetized” forms of knowledge, meaning that suspicious characters in charge of publishing houses have nefariously decided to charge money for their products. Shame, shame on those rotters.
Unquestionably, in proposing that “monetized knowledge” distributed via the web is all “suspect,” Ward impeaches all the pay-per-view/subscription-based content online at such sites as Wiley InterScience, JStor, and LexisNexis. A fascinating bit of posturing, but highly arguable, especially when the posture gets struck by someone who articulates no single viable idea about how any such online content-aggregation project could sustain itself financially.
I wouldn’t take this personally, except that Ward delivers it in the context of a personal attack on me. This blog post of his begins with a substantial quote from an essay of mine. No problem there, but the irony, lost on Ward, is that he took this quote from a pirated online publication of my text from serial infringer Doug Rickard at his blog AmericanSuburbX. (I terminated this unauthorized presentation of my copyrighted text at Rickard’s website as soon as I discovered it. Click here for my post on this experience.)
The Leader of the Luddites, engraving of 1812
Ward then has some complimentary things to say about my writings before lowering the boom: “I met Coleman at an SPE conference a few years ago . . . and I wondered how he could be so consistently luddite and backward about the future of photographic education. Mainly, judging from his web presence, I really don’t feel like he ‘gets’ the internets.” [Plural his.]
To begin with, in my own defense, I swear on my copy of Wikipedia that I have always believed there’s only one internet, and that I’ve never used the phrase “the internets.” Ward, however, uses the plural version not only in referring to his conversation with me but, praisefully, elsewhere in the same post: “Akma gets the internets.” Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about this usage: “‘Internets’ is a Bushism-turned-catchphrase used humorously to portray the speaker as ignorant about the Internet or about technology in general, or as having a provincial or folksy attitude toward technology. Former United States President George W. Bush first used the word publicly during the 2000 election campaign. The term gained cachet as an Internet humor meme following Bush’s use of the term in the second 2004 presidential election debate on October 8, 2004.” As neither of Ward’s usages of the plural comes in a humorful passage, it seems he’s convinced there’s more than one internet — perhaps operative in a parallel universe.
Ward doesn’t make clear what he considers “consistently luddite and backward about the future of photographic education” in my ideas. So I’ll leave that one alone. (I assume that E. P. Thompson’s radical rethinking of the Luddites in The Making of the English Working Class hasn’t crossed his radar screen.) Ward does specify, however, that “judging from [Coleman’s] web presence, I really don’t feel like he ‘gets’ the internets.” Setting aside the possibility that he knows of a second internet unfamiliar to me, which I would readily admit to not “getting,” let’s look at this internet presence of mine that condemns me in Ward’s eyes.
First, there’s my original website, The Nearby Café, online since fall 1995: a multi-subject electronic magazine with a dozen subject areas and hundreds of pages of visual, textual, and A-V content, contributed by several dozen writers and photographers and artists, me among them. Published and edited by myself, supervised by webmaster John Alley, redesigned pro bono a few years ago by my friends Marc and Nacia Miller of Crossbeam Studio in Toronto. The Nearby Café‘s flagship content area was my online newsletter on photography and related matters, “C: the Speed of Light,” initiated in spring of 1995; 38 issues of “C” are archived there, along with a bunch of my essays. That newsletter has now turned into this blog, Photocritic International, still embedded within the Café. The entire site is funded by myself — no advertising, no sponsor, always completely free access to all content.
Presumably Ward, a relative Johnny-come-lately to the web, didn’t know of this site, which for the past 14 years has done exactly what he asks of websites: steady delivery of non-“monetized” content.
Then there’s the most recent website I publish, The New Eyes Project: A Resource for K-12 Photo Education. The New Eyes Project exists to serve all those involved in K-12 photography education: teachers, students, program directors, sponsors, arts-education theorists, and anyone else interested in teaching photography to young people around the world. Inaugurated in spring 2006, created in collaboration with webmaster John Alley, who designed it (and who teaches high-school photography himself in Richmond, VA), The New Eyes Project also has no advertising and no sponsor. All its content (provided by myself and others) is free for access to anyone. As time allows, we add new content, and have plans to develop forums and picture galleries and other features as and when our energies and funds permit.
Presumably, once again, Ward didn’t know of this site, which for the past 3-1/2 years has done exactly what he asks of websites: steady delivery of non-“monetized” content, though admittedly nothing as robust as the Café. His ignorance notwithstanding, the Café and the New Eyes site constitute the best-known elements of my “web presence,” and I insist that any critique of my web presence take them into account or else be judged as either woefully uninformed or deliberately skewed.
With that as prelude, I’ll turn next to the encounter with Ward that apparently sparked his indignation over the third website I organize, publish, edit, and fund, the Photography Criticism CyberArchive.
Trying hard not to sound like an old guy, but Mr. Ward and his free-content ilk, irk. It is precisely “free” content which should be read even more carefully than a Rush Limbaugh speech, and with a dollop of suspicion too. Well, Ward probably got the free idea from some tenured knucklehead at MIT who screams free, free from the virtual ramparts while checking his iPhone to make sure his hefty endowed professorship’s salary is not going into the same account as the payments from speaking engagements. The internets have proven that there’s a lot of money to be made in free.
My reply to #1 re Mr. Ward was intentionally snarky. On #2, I will say it straight even if it is hard to pass on the straight line of a Ph.D candidate using “Luddite” incorrectly. Like Mr. Ward, I have been writing for the last ten years, sometimes for money and sometimes getting paid in kind. A few years ago I mentioned that I did some writing to a friend who is a successful writer and editor. He looked at me kindly and said, “It’s nice to have a hobby.” I think the same way about many photographers. To note the difference between professionals and even the best amateurs, before writing this note, I clicked on the contribute box (in the upper right of the screen) and am backing my ideas with payment for yet another of Allan’s professional contributions to contemporary photography.
I’m somewhat sorry that Mr. Coleman cannot understand my usage of the joke term “internets” in context (now months old). I am more than a little surprised that my brief comment about our conversation was twisted into an ad hominem, and met with such a spew of bile that it embarrasses me to even respond. I have no interest in these words by A. D. Coleman — I prefer to read his astute criticism of real issues in photography.
I wish someone else would post a comment on this series. Allan addresses substantive, important issues for photographers, artists, and teachers. This is my last comment on this topic, but after reading Mr. Ward’s comment, indulge me as I return to the pasture of snark. In fairness to Mr. Ward, I looked at his blog to check on Allan’s representation of Ward’s thinking. A.D. was and is too kind to Ward. Ward’s writing adequately exposes his intellectual confusion. As to his knowledge of history, let me paraphrase Chico Marx:
Who you gonna believe, me or Wikipedia?
Interesting but too-brief response to this post from Jörg Colberg at his blog, Conscientious Redux. Wish he’d gone into detail.