BLOG08 starts in less than an hour and the program is full of rock’n'roll bloggers who will talk about the various aspects of blogging from different angles. Blogs are alive and kicking, in contrast to the provocative Wired article that once again declared blogs dead. Speaker Scott Rafer referred to the article as the “perfect linkbait.”
Hugh MacLeod summed it all up at last night’s BLOG08 speakers dinner when he drew one of his famous cards at the dining table “blogs aren’t dead, people are.” When being asked if he referred to the Wired article he said he was not thinking of the article when drawing but explained that he often draws from his subconsciousness.
Organizers Ernst-Jan Pfauth (left) and Edial Dekker (middle) and speaker Scott Rafer (right)
Looking at Hugh MacLeod’s aka gapingvoid’s presentation (l) and preparing BLOG08 badges (r)
More photos can be found in the BLOG08 Flickr group, please add tag your photos blog08 and feel free to add them to the group.
Good luck with the conference :)! Keep us posted.
Sooo… umm.. anything more on that then just “I draw from my subconciousness”? Motivations? Apparently you think he “said it best”.. what was actually said? He wasn’t thinking of the article you mentioned, so what is YOUR motivation to bring it up and pre-connect the dots?
In Other Words: Did you actually mean to say anything other then something anecdotial (and rather, umm, detached at best) or can we file this one too under “link bait”?
If anything this post pretty much proves several of the points made in the wired article, as does this comment ;)
Are people dead? If he meant “individuals within the bloggersphere have been substituted with payd copywriters” then he also pretty much re-ierates what’s in the wired article. If he ment “what really matters to people has been phased out the bloggersphere” then he’s probably reading the wrong blogs. If he ment “Bloggin has shifted from personal, diary-accounts to actual content filled columns” he’s probably on to something.
Bottomline: please ellabortate on that “blogs aren’t dead, people are” soundbyte?
Unfortunately it is not my place to explain Hugh MacLeod’s oneliners.
This post is not an interview with Hugh MacLeod but a visual representation of the BLOG08 speakers dinner accompanied with a few quotes from the evening. It’s food for thought! And you’ve made a great start with the discussion.
I think the “if it’s not clear what it means it’s food for thought” argument is somewhat disingenuous. If i bark “moped cassiopea tartuffe” – even if it’s a direct expression of what’s in my subconscious – it doesn’t make trying to disentangle what I *mean* is a worthwhile process. Similarly if you say “humans are a kind of mammal” and I respond “aaah – or are mammals just a kind of human?” then my statement has no intrinsic meaning beyond my facile attempt to be clever by reversing a logical proposition which cannot meaningfully be reversed given the pre-existing meaning of its terms. Playing with words does not imply meaning.
That is just great! From a (reasonably) snotty comment on the vacuous nature of Huw’s subconscious to a monologue on semantics of other people’s random thoughts as they appear in words. I really do get the moped cassiopea tartuffe thought-line (or is that a circle? How many dimensions do your thoughts have, M. Panthermodern?), but I think that you have completely missed Tiramisu from the brain sectors. i like Huw’s blog, and it does somewhat stimulate me to either a) Sniggering like a boy, or b) just ignoring him completely.
Ann is right – let’s discuss and see where we go with this one. it makes a difference from gibbering on about bloody money.
umm… I wasn’t commenting on “vacuous nature of Huw’s subconscious” but more on how the lack of actual content in the original post pretty much proves some of the points made in the wired article. I found it quite ironic how this proved said point by trying to discredit it, essentially becomming link bait itself.
I DO agree with panthermodern on Annes reply being a tad disingenious. SHE at first connected the dots from Huw’s cartoon to the Wired article. Then the least she could do is to elaborate on why and how in stead of just posting it for the sake of posting. I put forth some options for her to react to, none of which got picked up in a way that show her (or anyone else’s) wilingess to discuss. Even you had nothing significant to add.
Posts for the sake of posting then? React for the sake of having replied? Again pretty much proves some of the points made in the wired article..
Please tell me where the wired article is wrong?