Here’s a great critical discussion of my recent paper by Clive Barnett, from his blog. Some of which I agree with (particularly his comments that the ‘auratic cultural object’ was as much a product of the theoretical and methodological work done by the ‘new cultural geography’ as it was ever something in the world, and hence my emphasis on the change enabled by digital technologies should be more nuanced) and other bits I don’t (mostly his final comments on subjectivity and power). Thanks to Clive for paying such careful attention to my piece.
I’ve been pondering a new paper in Progress in Human Geography by my former OU colleague, Gillian Rose, which addresses the conceptual and methodological challenges presented to cultural geography by the emergence of digital modes of cultural practice. The paper is entitled ‘Rethinking the geographies of cultural “objects” through digital technologies: interface, network and friction’. Here is the abstract:
“This paper addresses how geographers conceptualize cultural artifacts. Many geographical studies of cultural objects continue to depend heavily on an approach developed as part of the ‘new cultural geography’ in the 1980s. That approach examined the cultural politics of representations of place, space and landscape by undertaking close readings of specific cultural objects. Over three decades on, the cultural field (certainly in the Global North) has changed fundamentally, as digital technologies for the creation and dissemination of meaning have become extraordinarily pervasive and diverse. Yet geographical studies of cultural objects have thus far neglected to…
View original post 4,388 more words