went to michael curtin’s seminar organised by iCi this morning.

one of my supervisors, michael keane, often mentioned about curtin’s works especially his idea of “media capital,” but i never really got around to finding more about them, so i printed out a few chapters and articles last night, and started reading them. so far, i’ve been really enjoying reading his works, especially on the ideas about media capital and neo-networks. he claims that media capital is a relational concept within the realm of globalisation (here he defines globalisation as a “process that operates at a number of levels: local, national, regional, and worldwide, as opposed to a process that emphasises the latter”) - in his own words, a media capital is an intersection, or a site of mediation, of complex patterns of economic, social, and cultural flows. so curtin’s definition of “media capital” is twofold: a capital as a centre of activity, and as a concentration of resources, reputation, and talent. hollywood and hong kong are two obvious examples. and he suggests and attempts to identify changes in the cultural industries in the era of neo-network, or the era beyond the limited/controlled channels of distribution.

i asked him about his views on the roles that digital communication and user-led media innovation play in this new era of cultural shifts, coming from the perspective of the korean wave. he was quite enthusiatic about the korean wave, and talked briefly about what an interesting case this phenomenon is especially in relation to the cultural/technological policy. the massive broadband rollout in korea was one of the few positive things that the Kim Dae Jung government did. without the technological infrastructure, i don’t believe that the korean wave would’ve been possible.

after the talk, i went and spoke to him in person. when i mentioned how thought-provoking and interesting the session had been, he responded with such modesty, apologising how he had to jump to and from subjects, and then go back to the original subject etc. i honestly didn’t mind it at all. in fact, i’d be very suspicious of anyone who tries to advocate the linearity of knowledge, creativity, epistemology, or actually, anything in that matter. oh, in fact, it was probably a perfect way of explaining his main ideas evolving around “relational” processes :)

thanks again, professor curtin.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 5th, 2006 at 10:33 pm and is filed under talks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.