C & F Éditions


  • Peut-être avez vous déjà lu le livre de Fred Turner "Aux sources de l’Utopie numérique" publié par C&F éditions. Je suis sûr que vous avez aimé, alors c’est avec plaisir que je vous annonce que C&F éditions a signé le contrat de traduction du dernier livre de Fred Turner : "The democratic surround" . Nous espérons le rendre disponible début 2016.

    Fred Turner est venu à Paris en décembre 2014 pour deux conférences et des rencontres avec la presse. De nombreux articles et interviews sont parus. Je vous en dresse la liste ci-après. Ces interview forment des rappels et des synthèses pour celles et ceux d’entre-vous qui ont déjà lu le livre... et des incitations pour les autres à ne pas passer à côté d’un travail qui suscite de plus en plus d’intérêt. Tout comme ils présentent les éléments qui ont fondé le nouveau livre "The democratic surround" ... pour vous faire patienter avant la parution.

    La vidéo complète de la conférence de l’EHESS que Fred Turner a consacré au passage de la contre-culture à la cyberculture est en train d’être traduite par Laurent Vannini... elle sera disponible bientôt. Ce sera l’occasion de vous en reparler.


    Hervé Le Crosnier

    Références :
    Présentation du livre "Aux sources de l’utopie numérique" :

    Des médias de masse à la révolution numérique

    La Vie des Idées , 13 mars 2015, Entretien avec Fred Turner par Olivier Alexandre (Entretien traduit par Laurent Vannini, traducteur du livre Aux sources de l’utopie numérique. Olivier Alexandre a été la cheville ouvrière de l’invitation de Fred Turner à Paris en décembre dernier)

    Fred Turner, l’utopie numérique : De l’antifascisme à la cyberculture en passant par la contre-culture

    Interview de Fred Turner par Ariel Kyrou
    (avec une vidéo sous-titrée + article d’Ariel Kyrou + version audio de l’interview complète + transcription pdf : du très bon travail éditorial).
    Fred Turner : « Pour lutter contre le nazisme, ils ont voulu produire un homme total, rationnel ».

    Libération , 27 février 2015, interview par Marie Lechner

    Le multimédia, un instrument politique « made in USA ».
    Médiapart , 05 janvier 2015. Interview par Joseph Confavreux (avec d’excellentes illustrations)

    L’antipolitique, péché originel de la Silicon Valley ,

    Le Monde , 19 février 2015. Interview de Fred Turner par Marc-Olivier Bherer

    Du Bauhaus à la Silicon Valley : une archéologie des médias

    France Culture , 27 décembre 2014. Excellente interview audio par Sylvain Bourmeau (traduite en simultané par Xavier Combes)

    La France, nouvel éden des déçus de la Silicon Valley

    Le Temps (Genève) . Article de réflexion très intéressant par Monique Dagnaud sur le discours de Fred Turner à Paris... et ses mythes.

    Fred Turner : Google, Uber et l’idéologie de la Silicon Valley en treize mots

    Rue89 , 21 décembre 2014. Interview par Xavier de La Porte


  • Rethinking Cold War America : An Interview with Fred Turner

    Une interview passionnante de Fred Turner (l’auteur de « Aux sources de l’’utopie numérique » http://cfeditions.com/Turner)

    Ce qui suit ne sont que quelques extraits... il faut lire tout le reste.

    Je me demande vraiment si je dois acheter les droits pour la traduction en français... le livre est bien plus « américain » que le précédent. Mais il n’en demeure pas moins une référence essentielle.

    Fred Turner sera à Paris mi-décembre. Des news bientôt.

    You can see this to some degree online. But you can see it much more clearly in the ways that so many material environments are becoming multi-media experience machines. Think of airplanes, with TVs on every seatback. Or think of sports bars, with all the games on at once. Or think of the apps on your cell phone. We’ve entered a world in which the interactivity and multi-modality that once promised to free us from fascism has in fact brought us into ever closer relationships with large institutional forces. Now, just to be clear: I’m not at all arguing that corporations or states are necessarily authoritarian. I am arguing that we need to see that the terms of our media freedom these days are a lot more constrained than we may think.

    I point this out to show that during the 1940s and 1950s, the American intellectual landscape had not yet been cordoned off into countries of ardent Cold Warriors confronted by equally ardent strivers after civil and human rights. Nor had the state as a whole become an exclusively oppressive force, internally or even internationally. I don’t mean to downplay the tensions of the time. I’m well schooled in McCarthy’s witch trials, the race riots of the 1940s, the very real gender re-segregation that took place after World War II, and the darkness of the Cold War closet. But I believe that if we can jettison the notion that only bohemian, expressive politics lead to social change of a personal kind, we can begin to see our own lives in a new light.

    In our moment, it isn’t our personal expression that’s under attack. On the contrary, we live in an era in which the mainstream mass media celebrate our array of sexual and racial identities. Think of the TV show Modern Family, for instance. Right now, it’s our institutions that are suffering. Have you looked up at a highway bridge lately? Have you popped into a public school and counted the number of kids in an average classroom? Have you looked at more than a decade of war and wondered how it is that the government has been able to keep troops in the field so long with nary a peep from the American public? And how has the left responded to these events? Well, we had Occupy – a movement organized around the collective expression of identity in public places and the building of mostly temporary networks. Meantime, the right has had the Tea Party – a movement anchored in already existing institutions, often churches, aimed at building new institutions, and already have an extraordinary effect on our government. Occupy has certainly framed the debate – it’s important to know who’s part of the 99% and who isn’t. But it’s the Tea Party that has actually changed – or really, paralyzed – government policy.

    I’m hoping that if we can look back into the 1940s and the 1950s, we can see a world in which it is possible to work for radical political transformation within and around the most powerful institutions of our day – including the media and the government.

    The adults of the 1950s had seen a generation of Germans fall into line behind Hitler and many thought they were seeing the same thing in Russia with Stalin. Social scientists often explained these trends by arguing that these nations had inculcated authoritarian personality styles in their children. Authoritarian children were rigid, obedient, unable to reason or create independently, and above all, intolerant of those who were different from themselves. Democratic children were meant to be flexible, independent, reasoning, creative and collaborative.

    In this context, the arts offered an ideal venue for producing the kinds of children who would grow up to be democratic citizens. The Museum of Modern Art in New York, for instance, not only created arts programs for local children, but took those programs to trade shows and fairs around Europe – particularly in formerly fascist Italy. They built these odd, aquarium-like rooms into which only children and a teacher or two could enter. Parents waited outside, watching their children make art together, through portholes. Foreign and American journalists who saw these environments thought they were marvelous examples of the ways that the next generation could escape the authoritarianism that haunted their parents’ childhood.

    The social movements of the 1960s and 1970s had an extraordinary impact on American life. But they could not have happened I think without earlier calls for sexual liberation from Margaret Mead, or for aesthetic democracy from John Cage and Herbert Bayer, or racial diversity from Ruth Benedict. These figures called for the very society that the counterculturalists of the 1960s tried to create: a creative, collaborative, individual-centered polity, designed to help every member achieve personal fulfillment. They also called for kinds of media that would help create that society. The New Communalists in particular knew these calls well and took them to the communes with them. So did the makers of Happenings and Be-Ins.

    Along the way though, they also lost track of the radical political vision that animated so many in their parents’ generation. For the members of the Committee for National Morale, the Bauhaus refugees, and even key figures in the Cold War USIA, the goal was not simply to increase individual self-fulfillment. It was to build an America and a world that celebrated its diversity – racial, sexual, religious, political. And it was to do it by bringing together the power of the state, the power of the university, and the power of the corporation.

    Within the New Communalist movement at least, the children of the 1960s turned away from embracing racial, sexual, and political difference. And they turned away from the state and to some extent, the university, as well. They turned toward personal style, a politics of expression, and to the world of business. There, I’m afraid, far too many pursued self-fulfillment as if self-fulfillment alone constituted social change. In that sense, the most expressively radical movements of the 1960s helped set the stage for the conservative neoliberal society we inhabit today.

  • http://worrydream.com/refs/Vannevar%20Bush%20Symposium%20-%20Closing%20Panel.html

    From the closing panel at the 1995 Brown/MIT Vannevar Bush Symposium, featuring Doug Engelbart, Alan Kay, Ted Nelson, and Tim Berners-Lee.

    Now, the abortion that happened after PARC was the misunderstanding of the user interface that we did for children, which was the overlapping window interface which we made as naive as absolutely we possibly could to the point of not having any workflow ideas in it, and that was taken over uncritically out into the outside world.

    So you are basically proposing some kind of information SWAT team that can move swiftly through an organization, or is going to be some sort of elite ’eizatsgroupe’ in the files. This is a very exciting and interesting concept, but how would that function organizationally?

    Alan Kay: Looking back, I think that one of the paradoxes is that we made a complete mistake when we were doing the interface at PARC because we assumed that the kids would need an easy interface because we were going to try and teach them to program and stuff like that, but in fact they are the ones who are willing to put hours into getting really expert at things - shooting baskets, learning to hit baseballs, learning to ride bikes, and now on video games. I have a four-year old nephew who is really incredible and he could use NLS fantastically if it were available. He would be flying through that stuff, because his whole thing is to become part of the system he’s interacting with. So if I had had that perspective I would have designed a completely different interface for the kids, one in which how you became expert was much more apparent than what I did. So I’m sorry for what I did.

    Doug Engelbart : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart
    Vannevar Bush : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush
    Ted Nelson : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nelson
    Alan Kay : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Kay
    Tim Berners-Lee : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

    #gui #interaction #IHM #ergonomie #programmation #apprentissage #web #xerox_parc

  • Le Bus - RoughType.com

    Sur son blog, Nicholas Carr compare le bus mythique et psychédélique des Merry Pranksters à ceux de Google, pour montrer, combien, malgré toutes leurs différences, les deux autobus sont les véhicules d’un même communautarisme, portant des élites avides de se distancier de la culture régnante, se définissant en tant que membres d’une société choisie, un modèle social pour l’avenir. Bezos et Musk rêvent de colonies spatiales. Thiel rêve de colonies d’incubation technologiques flottant sur l’océan. Srinivasan estime que la Silicon Valley est l’ultime issue pour créer un Etat hors de portée des autres Etats défaillants. Le bus, allégorie de la carriole de la Conquête de l’Ouest... n’a-t-il jamais rien promis d’autre que de renforcer les distinctions sociales ? Tags : (...)