Manovich, Lev. “Database as a Symbolic Form.” Convergence 5.2 (1999) 80-99. Summary:Manovich’s “Database as Symbolic Form” introduces the database system as an alternative to the narrative for (multimodal) information. He wants to show how databases do not tell stories as narratives (or cinematic narratives) do but that the collections can be created with a variety of hierarchical or organizational structures. Additionally, similar to narratives, Manovich explains that “we would want to develops [sic] poetics, aesthetics, and ethics of this database” form (1). One key difference is that databases can continually have information added, which make them collections that change over time and are not rigid in form. He also considers how databases functions through data structures and algorithms, and why this is important when information is generated the user.Response:If we had read this at the beginning of the semester, I think this would have been a strange concept that I wouldn’t have been as open to. I see my life as a narrative structure, so when we considered this essay and databases as a way of structuring and creating meaning, it seemed out of place. The more I reflect about his concept though, the more I can see how this might work outside of the digital contexts he gives. With understanding life itself as a database, it seems to encapsulate the fact that our memories are faulty and do not remember all of the events into a single narrative thread but instead different moments highlight or considered next to one another creates a different meaning (or even a narrative). The two concepts of narrative and database also seem to be able to work together in tandem, rather than an either or choice.Connections/Questions:When reading, I’d written Sirc’s Box Logic in the margins and was glad that Chase briefly mentioned it in class because it connects Manovich’s ideas to forms outside of the digital and technology, which we seemed to focus on more in class. This reading reminded me of the discussion we had of Adorno and Horkheimer about where we find T/truth, if it exists inside or outside of the person. Adorno and Horkheimer raised how science seemed to make T/truth look like it existed externally and therefore appear more objectively true. In a similar way, is what Manovich addresses here able to escape the human element as the one who programs the algorithms of the database? The database appears more objective than the narrative but is directly influenced by the creator and users of it as well. When Joddy asked us about language being social regarding this piece, it would seem that it would need to be somewhat socially constructed because others searching and using database would be influencing it. |
Quotations:“If new elements are being added over time, the result is a collection, not a story. Indeed, how can one keep a coherent narrative or any other development trajectory through the material if it keeps changing?” (2).“As a cultural form, database represents the world as a list of items and it refuses to order this list. In contrast, a narrative creates a cause-and-effect trajectory of seemingly unordered items (events). Therefore, database and narrative are natural enemies. Competing for the same territory of human culture, each claims an exclusive right to make meaning out of the world. In contrast to most games, most narratives do not require algorithm-like behavior from their readers. However, narratives and games are similar in that the user, while proceeding through them, must uncover its underlying logic—its algorithm” (5). “Montage is the default visual language of composite organization of an image. However, just as database supports both the database form and its opposite — narrative, a composite organization of an image on the material level supports two opposing visual languages” (7). “Literary and cinematic narratives work in the same way. Particular words, sentences, shots, scenes which make up a narrative have a material existence; other elements which form an imaginary world of an author or a particular literary or cinematic style and which could have appeared instead exist only virtually. Put differently, the database of choices from which narrative is constructed (the paradigm) is implicit; while the actual narrative (the syntagm) is explicit. New media reverses this relationship. Database (the paradigm) is given material existence, while narrative (the syntagm) is de-materialised. Paradigm is privileged, syntagm is downplayed. Paradigm is real, syntagm is virtual” (8). |
