Theory

Accuracy

Why is such a premium put on accuracy? Who is to say that an "accurately" remembered event is more valuable than a more subjective account. After all, isn't the context of each source a part of that history? This is a slippery slope, but it makes me wonder. For weeks, I have spun myself in circles trying to figure out the answer when there may not be one. But, the driving force here is significant to my thesis-making. In terms of language, which is a driving factor for me, perhaps I would rather be captivated by a story and commit it and its context to memory than read an unbiased version which doesn't have as strong of an impact upon me. It is human to want to share information - to want to know what other people know and to feel connected. But there are two sides to this human truth - it is an impulse driven by emotion and longing. For the most part, we do not like to feel alone. So, to a certain degree we make that connection through the minutia of life on the internet. That is good and fine and I can't deny the pleasure of seeing the same fat baby picture that all my friends have seen. I do find myself entangled in those habits, though not as strongly as others. But, those are obviously superficial. I would prefer a meaningful engagement with one person than a trivial one with many people. I don't think this is a matter of taste. If I live my life believing something that is untrue, but I believe it, where is the fault in that? Again, who put such a premium on truth? What about the magic? If my grandmother tells me a story from her perspective, I record the events she tells, the idiosyncrasies of our conversation and the nuances of her language. The story is loaded because the language she uses is hers - she is not a reporter telling her unbiased account. But, most of what we record is made to be unbiased for fairness' sake. Certain subjective histories have been catastrophic - the misremembering of WWII by white supremacists and their lunatic teachings in schools. This is a problem. A big problem. So, we can't just throw unbiased reporting and factual records out the window. But, I believe in the beauty of language. The specificity of words and the ways in which we can bend and break their meanings. s. There are so many meanings to intuit in every story and I prefer those impregnated texts to the flat ones. What devices can we use to accurately record our inaccuracies?

History

At this point, people are recording information (data, history) at a staggering rate. Accuracy and preservation have seemingly become the common goal, allowing those with means to share the same set of knowledge and ideals. Sort of. Meanwhile, authorship is up for grabs distinguishable only by its prowess, affiliations, number of views etc. People want to see what is widely being seen and they want to feel as if they discovered it on their own (but that's another story). The point is that there is and always has been a general gentrification of information. The ideas that are widely accepted, printed, reprinted, remembered, re-remembered....are linked in this cycle. They are largely recorded with the same tools because the same tools are sold across the world. They are read by the same groups because readers flock together - persuaded by a cocktail of likes, links and popularity. My question is whether the gentrified modes of recording and publishing allow for rich or meaningful histories to be preserved. Though it sounds like my mind is made up, it's not. On one hand, footage (video, audio, textual) taken from multiple users and vantage points should allow the viewer to piece an event together. Watch a few youtube clips, read the appropriately tagged catalog, cross check your sources and you should be all set...? Maybe something is missing. In Native American traditions, for instance, legends have been embedded in craft and passed down mouth to ear. These are personal methods - the pieces and stories have been impregnated with nuance and the personal touch of their storyteller or maker. Therefore, when the stories are told, the listener records the environment in which it was told, who told it to them, why it was chosen for sharing and so on. When this information is committed to memory, it is accompanied by impactful subtext. It is more memorable. So, in years when the listener is pressed to recall the information, it is more readily accessible while the 17 YouTube clips may be buried.

Barthes

"Media culture can be said to be defined by its (aggressive) rejection of the nuance…Perhaps we're now in a position to understand this: Poetry = practice of subtlety in a barbaric world. Whence the need to fight for poetry today: Poetry should be one of our 'Human Rights'; it isn't 'decadent,' it's subversive: subversive and vital." – Barthes, Session of January 27, 1979, The Preparation of the Novel