These are my recent Pin​board​.in links:

• Pin­board: Book­mark Detail

  
  you-​​are-​​supposed-​​to-​​have-​​read-​​that-​​young-​​man

• Cyber­net­ick Inkwell · On a def­i­n­i­tion of “open humanities”

  “The dig­i­tal human­i­ties are a part of the open human­i­ties to the extent that those same val­ues are held, though of course the purely dig­i­tal ele­ments (the code, the markup, the hard­ware) are unique to the dig­i­tal human­i­ties and live largely out­side of OH. That being said, much of DH—the com­mit­ment to open source, the col­lab­o­ra­tive nature of the field, the interdisciplinarity—is open.”
  
  open­ness digital-​​humanities the-​​inevitability-​​of-​​enclosures cultural-​​dynamics theory-​​as-​​code

• Don’t Hold Your Breath | Paul Shep­heard | Archi­tect and writer | Words

  “…Nar­ra­tives are bet­ter than thumps, is the mes­sage; and in the field of human rela­tions this might well be so, but here’s the rub. Nature’s not a per­son. Nature’s not a mother. We are not fight­ing it but liv­ing it. The indus­trial land­scapes pur­sued with such ter­rific thor­ough­ness, the agri­cul­tural deserts as well as the sub­urbs, the mine­fields as well as the wind farms, the cities them­selves, are the out­comes not of rage but of sto­ries, nar­ra­tives in the dream of the human dom­i­na­tion of the world. That’s why I hug the boy’s head. It’s good that he sees him­self as a par­ti­cle of nature, a being rather than a human being, and his life as fun­da­men­tally con­sump­tive. He knows if he holds his breath he will die. He knows he must live in the present. So now I must try and teach him this: the bolt-​​ons and band-​​aids of the sus­tain­abil­ity move­ment that try to man­age our fear of the future are but another chap­ter in that book of dom­i­na­tion. It will not, in the face of the red giant, ulti­mately sus­tain. And nature as we know it now, in this snap­shot of human time, will not stay as it is, how­ever we try to pre­serve it.”
  
  paul-​​shepheard sus­tain­abil­ity crit­i­cism how-​​to-​​rite-​​gud

• Grounds For Dis­per­sal | Paul Shep­heard | Archi­tect and writer | Words

  “Anonymity does not mean with­out deep con­tact, it means that the con­tact has no pre­empt­ing cer­e­mony. Col­lab­o­ra­tion, like­wise, is the proof of itself. It exists nei­ther before or after the moment it takes place, except in how it inflects your char­ac­ter. Inclu­sive­ness and par­tial­ity are sym­bi­otic, too. If par­tial is a move taken to out­flank hege­mony, the inclu­sive works to recom­bine dif­fer­ences. The para­doxes implicit in such terms are part of what makes them inter­est­ing. I’m try­ing to elu­ci­date a think­ing that is not dialec­tic, no longer depen­dent on oppo­si­tions, not look­ing for the right way. As one of the direc­tors of The­mepark, a Lon­don based fashion-​​architecture-​​photography-​​landscape com­bine said to me: “we are inter­ested in show­ing con­tent in its pure form.” At first I thought it was a joke, more of that London-​​Thing irony, but then I thought, what else is the mate­r­ial world but con­tent in its pure form? Today’s pho­tog­ra­phers, who mis­trust the Mag­num generation’s point-​​and-​​shoot real­i­ties, who set up every shot elab­o­rately, who treat land­scape, por­trait, action and spec­ta­cle as the same thing, are not being min­i­mal­ist. They are posit­ing the veloc­ity of the image.”
  
  paul-​​shepheard crit­i­cism style how-​​to-​​rite-​​gud

• Mario Carpo: Post-​​Authorial Cre­ation | berfrois

  “This is where the design pro­fes­sions are increas­ingly feel­ing some dis­com­fort.  Design­ers like to design.  They like to be in charge of all aspects of what they cre­ate.  Many design­ers are noto­ri­ously con­trol freaks.  And rightly so: being in con­trol is their rai­son d’être.  Tra­di­tion­ally, design­ers “authored” objects and “autho­rized” their pro­duc­tion, repro­duc­tion, or mod­i­fi­ca­tion.  Their sig­na­ture had (it still has, by the way) bind­ing, legal value–implying autho­r­ial priv­i­leges pro­tected by law, and all the lia­bil­i­ties result­ing from that.  But once again, dig­i­tal tech­nolo­gies do not work that way.  When so many peo­ple can work together, who is in charge?  Who reaps the hon­ors?  Who pays the damages?”
  
  design con­trol planning-​​as-​​a-​​symptom mass-​​customization control-​​of-​​the-​​means-​​of-​​thought

• Repub­li­can con­ser­vatism (com­plete rewrite) — Crooked Timber

  “The polit­i­cal impli­ca­tion, which has drawn some flak in the com­ments, but which I think is cor­rect is that there is no point in polit­i­cal engage­ment with author­i­tar­ian con­ser­v­a­tives. In a polit­i­cal envi­ron­ment where they are con­cen­trated in one party,politics is going to be a mat­ter the only strat­egy open to lib­er­als is to out­num­ber and out­vote them by peel­ing off as many periph­eral groups (for exam­ple, those who devi­ate from the approved cul­tural iden­tity in some way) as pos­si­ble. Obvi­ously, that’s an unpalat­able con­clu­sion in all sorts of ways, but I think it’s a valid one.”
  
  con­ser­vatism Repub­li­cans pol­i­tics nature-​​and-​​nurture-​​sittin-​​in-​​a-​​tree

• Bot­tle the Infla­tion Mon­ster! — Crooked Timber

  ‘Fur­ther­more this seems to me to play once again into the view that ‘eco­nom­ics’ is tech­ni­cal and has right answers, while ‘pol­i­tics’ is emo­tive and con­tested, so stu­dents of the EU don’t have to talk about it.’
  
  eco­nom­ics infla­tion ped­a­gogy for-​​the-​​little-​​chilluns