Mash-Ups: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
==A non-technological P2P-interpretation of Mash-Ups== | ==A non-technological P2P-interpretation of Mash-Ups== | ||
By Michel Bauwens | By Michel Bauwens: | ||
"Postmodernism was all about deconstructing oppressive mental structures that we inherited from modernity. Amongst other things the Cartesian subject/object split and the alienating effects of Kantian’s impossibility of knowing true reality; it was a necessary destructive passage, a cleaning out process, but it didn’t, as its names | "Postmodernism was all about deconstructing oppressive mental structures that we inherited from modernity. Amongst other things the Cartesian subject/object split and the alienating effects of Kantian’s impossibility of knowing true reality; it was a necessary destructive passage, a cleaning out process, but it didn’t, as its names “post"- indicate, construct anything. So in my view, '''if modernity was about constructing the individual (along subject/object divisions), and postmodernity about deconstructing this, then this new era, which I’ld like to call the era of participation, is about constructing relationality or participation. We are not going back to the premodern wholistic era and feelings, but just as modernity was about rigorously individualising everything, eventually reaching the current dead-end of hyper-individualism, we are now just as rigorously ‘relationising’ everything'''. | ||
If in premodernity we thought, we are parts of a whole that is one and above us, and in modernity we thought we are separate and unified individuals, a world onto ourselves, and in postmodernity saw ourselves fragmenting, and pretty much lamented this. '''But in this mash-up era, we now know that all this fragments can be reconstructed with the zillions of fragment of the others, into zillions of commonalities, into temporary wholes that are so many new creative projects, but all united in a ever-moving Commons that is open to all of us..''' | If in premodernity we thought, we are parts of a whole that is one and above us, and in modernity we thought we are separate and unified individuals, a world onto ourselves, and in postmodernity saw ourselves fragmenting, and pretty much lamented this. '''But in this mash-up era, we now know that all this fragments can be reconstructed with the zillions of fragment of the others, into zillions of commonalities, into temporary wholes that are so many new creative projects, but all united in a ever-moving Commons that is open to all of us..''' | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
[[Category:Relational]] | [[Category:Relational]] | ||
[[Category:Standards]] | |||
Revision as of 08:28, 8 September 2007
Mash-Ups
Definition
"A Web mash up is a new application that is created by pulling together two or more complementary Web-based applications and/or data sources ... The term mash up came from the field of music. A musical mash up is a remix of two or more songs into a new piece of music. " (Patricia Seybold at http://outsideinnovation.blogs.com/pseybold/2006/03/why_mash_ups_ma.html)
Context
Mash-Ups and Remix Culture:
"Creative people these days essentially fall into two groups. On the one hand are the people who create things from nothing, like the singer-songwriter who picks up his guitar and plays a tune. And on the other are the people who use pre-existing materials and rework them into something new, like the DJ who samples part of a record to form the core of a new song. In musical terms, this second approach is traditionally known as remixing. More recently, a new style of remixing has emerged, where instead of repurposing just part of a tune for use in a greater composition, two or more complete tunes are melded together. This new discipline is known as the art of the mash-up. In Web 2.0, the principles of both remixing and mash-ups are applied to content and applications on the web." (http://www.psfk.com/2006/05/understanding_u.html)
Mash-Ups and Software culture:
"Indeed, blocks of interchangeable software components are proliferating on the Web and developers are joining them together to create a potentially infinite array of useful new programs. This new software represents a marked departure from the inflexible, at times unwieldy, programs of the past, which were designed to run on individual computers.
As a result, computer industry innovation is rapidly becoming decentralized. In the place of large, intricate and self-contained programs like Microsoft Word, written and maintained by armies of programmers, smaller companies, with just a handful of developers, are now producing pioneering software and Web-based services. These new services can be delivered directly to PC's or even to cellphones." (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/technology/techspecial4/05lego.html?)
Mash-Ups for User Meshworks:
"mashups demonstrate how quickly a “mesh” can form when the process of wiring together components is made easy for the “scripting-level” developers. These higher-level developers and integrators are critical to the development ecosystem: they exist in far greater numbers than formally trained programming professionals, and more often than not they possess key domain expertise – rapidly bridging technological capabilities into real world, valuable solutions.
Clearly as the flexibility and potential of “mashing up” and recombining application components gets closer to someone who understands the user’s needs, the value to that user increases." (http://rayozzie.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!FB3017FBB9B2E142!285.entry)
Examples
A directory of Mash-ups in the form of a matrix, at http://www.programmableweb.com/matrix
Discussion
A non-technological P2P-interpretation of Mash-Ups
By Michel Bauwens:
"Postmodernism was all about deconstructing oppressive mental structures that we inherited from modernity. Amongst other things the Cartesian subject/object split and the alienating effects of Kantian’s impossibility of knowing true reality; it was a necessary destructive passage, a cleaning out process, but it didn’t, as its names “post"- indicate, construct anything. So in my view, if modernity was about constructing the individual (along subject/object divisions), and postmodernity about deconstructing this, then this new era, which I’ld like to call the era of participation, is about constructing relationality or participation. We are not going back to the premodern wholistic era and feelings, but just as modernity was about rigorously individualising everything, eventually reaching the current dead-end of hyper-individualism, we are now just as rigorously ‘relationising’ everything.
If in premodernity we thought, we are parts of a whole that is one and above us, and in modernity we thought we are separate and unified individuals, a world onto ourselves, and in postmodernity saw ourselves fragmenting, and pretty much lamented this. But in this mash-up era, we now know that all this fragments can be reconstructed with the zillions of fragment of the others, into zillions of commonalities, into temporary wholes that are so many new creative projects, but all united in a ever-moving Commons that is open to all of us..
So the fragmentation of postmodernity is a given for us now, but we are no longer lamenting, we are discovering the technologies (infrastructural, collaborative-software-ish, political, but above all the mental and epistemological) that allow us to use this fragmentation to create the Great Cosmic Mash-Up. That is the historical task of the emerging Peer to Peer Era." (http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=102)