Pomo Periscope XVI: An Unusually Honest Journal
29 November 2007 at 8:26 am Nicolai Foss 4 comments
| Nicolai Foss |
It might be that the most popular category of posts on O&M has the same name as this journal — but, seriously, would you read a journal that is this explicit about its aims, content, readership, etc.? Then again, if you do you might be exposed to nifty little nuggets like this delicately titled piece. Or, you might be able to join a conference where
Researchers, activists and media-artists meet on the Trans-Siberian train from Moscow to Beijing September 11th-20th 2005.
The conference “Capturing the Moving Minds” gathers a pack of people … artists, economists, researchers, philosophers, activists … who are interested in the new logic of the economy, the new form of war against terrorism and in the new cooperative modes of creation and resistance, together in a space moving in time. Spatially moving bodies and bodies moving in time (through the different time zones) creates an event, a meeting that not really ‘is’ but ‘is going on’.
The nonsense continues in the same vein; read the rest yourself. One thing is certain: This will not be the last time that the Periscope zooms in on Ephemera!
Entry filed under: - Foss -, Ephemera, Pomo Periscope.
Organizations and Markets 
1.
jeremy hunsinger | 29 November 2007 at 9:12 am
nonsense? as compared to the nonsense of people trying to box up entrepreneurship in an explicable little box? If you are going to provide a critique, at least provide some substance. ephemera publishes sometimes an unusual article or three, but it is a solid journal that publishes many solid theoretical articles that if considered could enlighten and strengthen much of the more standard – blah blah blah- research in organizations and markets.
2.
Nicolai Foss | 29 November 2007 at 10:15 am
Jeremy, You gotta be kidding here. Who is citing work published in the rightly titled Ephemera? Who is using it? What impact does it have anywhere except in the self-centred little circles that are obsessed with what is truly blah-blah-blah (Guattari, Deleuze etc etc)?
3.
Nicolai Foss | 29 November 2007 at 10:30 am
Just checked cites on google scholar for the first issue of E., published 6 years ago. Usually the articles in the founding issue of a journal attract quite some attention. And Jeremy tells us that this is “solid” research that “enlighten” and “strengthen” us all.
Oh well, the Gibson Burrell article attracts 10 cites, mainly in very minor journals, the O’Shea article attractds 8 cites, including 2 self-cites, and the Parker and Thanem articles each attract 0 cites. Not very impressive, given how solid etc. all this purportedly is.
4.
twofish | 4 December 2007 at 11:40 pm
There are actually some very good articles in that journal. Also I wouldn’t use citations to judge quality, since that gets circular. People read the authors, journals, and articles that people read.
What I consider a good article is something that teaches me something that I didn’t know before. You can take a post-modernist anarchist leftist loon, put then on a train in Siberia, and I’d be interested in reading what they came up with since I’ve never been on a train in Siberia, and I think I know enough about their politics to filter that out.
I find articles by post-modernists ironic and funny in the same way that I find comedians ironic and funny and comedians sometimes have some deep insight into the way the world works.
The big problem I have with post-modernists is this maddening refusal to write well. On occasion post-modernists make some really interesting points, but the refusal to write clearly means that no one outside the circle realizes when that happens.