Comments on: Audiences, Artic Men, AnthroNow and other AAAs

Comments on: Audiences, Artic Men, AnthroNow and other AAAs http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:06:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ken Wissoker http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-536279 Ken Wissoker Sun, 30 Nov 2008 05:19:10 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-536279 Chris, glad you mentioned those ads. I was looking at all the Rolex ads this afternoon and thinking that they cost more than those ones from other university presses in public culture! I agree someone would need to be more ambitious and entrepreneurial. That would mean changing some understandings. When we published Transition, it got the most publicity of any of our journals and lost the most money (at least at the end of the time we published it). If we had been out trying to get the commercial ads that would have addressed the audience (and been willing to spin the circulation numbers) maybe it would have worked differently. That would mean some changes in what people saw as an academic journal -- and the willingness to make sure that just because say, ATT took out an ad that the journal wouldn't change what it would say about web neutrality... I still think it would be a more compelling idea with a frame other than that of the discipline. I don't read much contemporary fiction, but I was caught up by the originality and design of McSweeney's to try out a few issues. Something that represented a set of issues of anthropology and related spaces more obliquely might have more potential, I'd bet. If Mike and Joe's series was a magazine, Experimental Futures, you could see a different non-academic audience thinking it might be intended for them.... Chris, glad you mentioned those ads. I was looking at all the Rolex ads this afternoon and thinking that they cost more than those ones from other university presses in public culture! I agree someone would need to be more ambitious and entrepreneurial. That would mean changing some understandings. When we published Transition, it got the most publicity of any of our journals and lost the most money (at least at the end of the time we published it). If we had been out trying to get the commercial ads that would have addressed the audience (and been willing to spin the circulation numbers) maybe it would have worked differently. That would mean some changes in what people saw as an academic journal — and the willingness to make sure that just because say, ATT took out an ad that the journal wouldn’t change what it would say about web neutrality…

I still think it would be a more compelling idea with a frame other than that of the discipline. I don’t read much contemporary fiction, but I was caught up by the originality and design of McSweeney’s to try out a few issues. Something that represented a set of issues of anthropology and related spaces more obliquely might have more potential, I’d bet. If Mike and Joe’s series was a magazine, Experimental Futures, you could see a different non-academic audience thinking it might be intended for them….

Report this comment

]]> By: Jason Baird Jackson http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-536256 Jason Baird Jackson Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:42:42 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-536256 Chris expresses his (our) hope well. My doubtfulness is not the same as being certain. There is too little evidence to go on as yet. It may take time for the right people to find and to join the conversation. (In the U.S., it is a holiday weekend and many sensible people are throwing balls in backyards and recovering from pumpkin pie overdoses.) I can say that as an editor, I have simple google keyword searches set up for "Museum Anthropology" and "Museum Anthropology Review" thus when someone online starts talking about one or the other, I know about it. Where I can, I try to follow up on any shout-outs, comments or criticisms. If I were editing Anthropology Now I would be listening keenly for post-AAA chatter online and I would be seeking to engage early adopters and opinion leaders. For a powerful non-publishing example, notice how carefully the Network of Concerned Anthropologists leadership does its work online. I presume that they are using basic internet tools to advance their cause and, especially, to keep up with the conversations in which they feel a need to engage. Chris expresses his (our) hope well. My doubtfulness is not the same as being certain. There is too little evidence to go on as yet. It may take time for the right people to find and to join the conversation. (In the U.S., it is a holiday weekend and many sensible people are throwing balls in backyards and recovering from pumpkin pie overdoses.)

I can say that as an editor, I have simple google keyword searches set up for “Museum Anthropology” and “Museum Anthropology Review” thus when someone online starts talking about one or the other, I know about it. Where I can, I try to follow up on any shout-outs, comments or criticisms. If I were editing Anthropology Now I would be listening keenly for post-AAA chatter online and I would be seeking to engage early adopters and opinion leaders. For a powerful non-publishing example, notice how carefully the Network of Concerned Anthropologists leadership does its work online. I presume that they are using basic internet tools to advance their cause and, especially, to keep up with the conversations in which they feel a need to engage.

Report this comment

]]> By: ckelty http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-536246 ckelty Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:58:23 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-536246 So, one thing no one has mentioned here, and which is also not clear from AnthroNow's press release, is advertising. If magazines are taking off (assuming they are), I doubt it is due only (or at all) to individual sales. Flip through Monocle sometime and look who advertises there. My copy starts with Prada, Panerai, Emirates airlines, Rolex, and (duh duh duh, evil music) Thomson Reuters. Now, I obviously don't think that AnthroNow should go this route... but the question of getting revenue from advertising as well as sales of copies seems to be on the table if what we are talking about is a magazine, not a journal. I think part of what I can't articulate here is the difference between the presumed legtimacy that comes with work published in a journal (and the hierarchy of legitimacy and prestige therein) and the more fluid, hard to capture, legitimacy that comes with being something that powerful Rolex-owning, prada-wearing, Emirates-flying people read and talk about. Or more likely American Apparel-wearing, VirginAmerica-Flying, fair-trade-drinking people read. In any case, there is a difference between the high-mindedness of being an academic journal editor, and the more craven, realpolitik of being the editor of a magazine with the goal of making anthropology hip. Maybe Jason is right and there is no such discussion happening amongst the AnthroNow editors... but I kind of think there might be. And I think it mightn't be craven enough to accomplish such a thing. So, one thing no one has mentioned here, and which is also not clear from AnthroNow’s press release, is advertising. If magazines are taking off (assuming they are), I doubt it is due only (or at all) to individual sales. Flip through Monocle sometime and look who advertises there. My copy starts with Prada, Panerai, Emirates airlines, Rolex, and (duh duh duh, evil music) Thomson Reuters. Now, I obviously don’t think that AnthroNow should go this route… but the question of getting revenue from advertising as well as sales of copies seems to be on the table if what we are talking about is a magazine, not a journal.

I think part of what I can’t articulate here is the difference between the presumed legtimacy that comes with work published in a journal (and the hierarchy of legitimacy and prestige therein) and the more fluid, hard to capture, legitimacy that comes with being something that powerful Rolex-owning, prada-wearing, Emirates-flying people read and talk about. Or more likely American Apparel-wearing, VirginAmerica-Flying, fair-trade-drinking people read. In any case, there is a difference between the high-mindedness of being an academic journal editor, and the more craven, realpolitik of being the editor of a magazine with the goal of making anthropology hip. Maybe Jason is right and there is no such discussion happening amongst the AnthroNow editors… but I kind of think there might be. And I think it mightn’t be craven enough to accomplish such a thing.

Report this comment

]]> By: Ken Wissoker http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-535983 Ken Wissoker Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:02:45 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-535983 Jason, thanks for the nice words about the list. I don't think we were approached, though I wouldn't necessarily know. It could be the journal was invented in conversation with the folks at Paradigm. An interesting question is how important the disciplinary label is. In a certain way, public culture is that intellectually leading-edge anthro magazine that is widely read, but it doesn't identify with the discipline (or worry about AAA, or whether the editors come from different disciplines). It does focus on some set of theory questions more than others, so there is definitely room for lots of mags, but it seems closer to what AN is looking for than Monocle, which I read and love (in an ambivalent way) but which was started by the original Wallpaper editor. Part of the question would be who does one want to reach with an journal/mag? Artists? Architects? Smart hipsters outside the academy? People in other disciplines who could be interested in theoretical questions in anthropology if they were in the discussion? The last is obviously the easiest to reach in practical circulation terms. Do people have to be interested in "anthropology" or just the questions we are interested in? Jason, thanks for the nice words about the list. I don’t think we were approached, though I wouldn’t necessarily know. It could be the journal was invented in conversation with the folks at Paradigm. An interesting question is how important the disciplinary label is. In a certain way, public culture is that intellectually leading-edge anthro magazine that is widely read, but it doesn’t identify with the discipline (or worry about AAA, or whether the editors come from different disciplines). It does focus on some set of theory questions more than others, so there is definitely room for lots of mags, but it seems closer to what AN is looking for than Monocle, which I read and love (in an ambivalent way) but which was started by the original Wallpaper editor. Part of the question would be who does one want to reach with an journal/mag? Artists? Architects? Smart hipsters outside the academy? People in other disciplines who could be interested in theoretical questions in anthropology if they were in the discussion? The last is obviously the easiest to reach in practical circulation terms. Do people have to be interested in “anthropology” or just the questions we are interested in?

Report this comment

]]> By: Michael E. Smith http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-535981 Michael E. Smith Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:35:49 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-535981 Would non-anthropologist readers of a popular magazine want hipness, or would they want information? My guess is that they would want anthropological information that is, or seems, authoritative and accurate, perhaps presented in a hip format. But what kind of information would they get? When I hear people complain that anthropology does not get the press that it deserves, I recall the following brief item from the Anthropology Newsletter in the 1990s: ************************************************* Projecting Points As Others See Us By Boyce Rensberger (Washington Post) One of the questions frequently put to me by anthropologists is why the press doesn't capitalize more on anthropological insights and expertise about various stories in the news. In my experience, anthropology is still so riven with rival "schools of thought" that it is almost always possible to find well-credentialed anthropologists to dispute anything said by any other well-credentialed anthropologist. This gives the impression that anthropology hasn't got its act together or isn't a mature science. Consequently, science writers tend to think that readers (and viewers) will not be well-served simply by putting up contrary points of view that explain nothing. There is controversy on the frontiers in the "hard" sciences but not on a steadily growing body of accepted textbook knowledge-hard facts. In physics no one doubts that F=ma. In chemistry, redox reactions always happen the same way, and nobody claims they don't. In biology, RNA always transcribes DNA the same way. It doesn't seem that anthropology can point to a large body of knowledge that explains a lot about human beings and is solidly accepted by all anthropologists. I offer this commentary from a point of view of great sympathy with anthropology. I spent a year in Africa with paleoanthropologists and know most of the key figures in that field (used to cover it a fair bit). Aside from description, I've concluded that there is very little that this branch of science can explain persuasively. --Anthropology Newsletter, October 1996, p.12 ********************************************* Would non-anthropologist readers of a popular magazine want hipness, or would they want information? My guess is that they would want anthropological information that is, or seems, authoritative and accurate, perhaps presented in a hip format. But what kind of information would they get? When I hear people complain that anthropology does not get the press that it deserves, I recall the following brief item from the Anthropology Newsletter in the 1990s:

*************************************************

Projecting Points
As Others See Us
By Boyce Rensberger (Washington Post)

One of the questions frequently put to me by anthropologists is why the press doesn’t capitalize more on anthropological insights and expertise about various stories in the news. In my experience, anthropology is still so riven with rival “schools of thought” that it is almost always possible to find well-credentialed anthropologists to dispute anything said by any other well-credentialed anthropologist. This gives the impression that anthropology hasn’t got its act together or isn’t a mature science. Consequently, science writers tend to think that readers (and viewers) will not be well-served simply by putting up contrary points of view that explain nothing.
There is controversy on the frontiers in the “hard” sciences but not on a steadily growing body of accepted textbook knowledge-hard facts. In physics no one doubts that F=ma. In chemistry, redox reactions always happen the same way, and nobody claims they don’t. In biology, RNA always transcribes DNA the same way.
It doesn’t seem that anthropology can point to a large body of knowledge that explains a lot about human beings and is solidly accepted by all anthropologists.
I offer this commentary from a point of view of great sympathy with anthropology. I spent a year in Africa with paleoanthropologists and know most of the key figures in that field (used to cover it a fair bit). Aside from description, I’ve concluded that there is very little that this branch of science can explain persuasively.
–Anthropology Newsletter, October 1996, p.12

*********************************************

Report this comment

]]> By: Jason Baird Jackson http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-535980 Jason Baird Jackson Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:28:52 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-535980 It is gratifying that someone with as much inside knowledge of academic publishing as Ken Wissoker found merit in my notes and queries. Maybe the organizers of Anthropology Now approached Duke and thus a public conversation is not in order, but I'd be interested in how Ken and his colleagues would have reacted to a pitch to them to publish a sophisticated anthropology (cultural anthropology?) magazine. Both fans and critics of hipness in anthropology (and I am a fan) would probably agree that Duke University Press is the gold standard for this variable. Ken echoes my sense that a newsstand magazine is probably too late in coming, but what could be done short of making just one more (enclosed) journal? (I admire Duke's book and journal program very highly and I am glad that Ken participates in the publishing conversations here.) What does the community think of the name Anthropology Now? It emphasizes the discipline, in contrast to Contexts (cited as the model to emulate) and Society (not previously mentioned) where the title does not immediately exclude/include particular disciplinary positions. To what extent is this a good thing and/or a bad thing? If policy makers, for instance, were seen as a potential audience, what will this title mean? (BTW, UNESCO already publishes a magazine called _Cultures_ so that potentially divisive choice was unavailable.) It is gratifying that someone with as much inside knowledge of academic publishing as Ken Wissoker found merit in my notes and queries. Maybe the organizers of Anthropology Now approached Duke and thus a public conversation is not in order, but I’d be interested in how Ken and his colleagues would have reacted to a pitch to them to publish a sophisticated anthropology (cultural anthropology?) magazine. Both fans and critics of hipness in anthropology (and I am a fan) would probably agree that Duke University Press is the gold standard for this variable. Ken echoes my sense that a newsstand magazine is probably too late in coming, but what could be done short of making just one more (enclosed) journal? (I admire Duke’s book and journal program very highly and I am glad that Ken participates in the publishing conversations here.)

What does the community think of the name Anthropology Now? It emphasizes the discipline, in contrast to Contexts (cited as the model to emulate) and Society (not previously mentioned) where the title does not immediately exclude/include particular disciplinary positions. To what extent is this a good thing and/or a bad thing? If policy makers, for instance, were seen as a potential audience, what will this title mean? (BTW, UNESCO already publishes a magazine called _Cultures_ so that potentially divisive choice was unavailable.)

Report this comment

]]> By: ryan a http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-535885 ryan a Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:13:41 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-535885 "But my question is whether the cultural anthropologists who run AnthroNow (or Savage Minds, for that matter) consider archaeology as part of anthropology." Hopefully they do. It's a good question these days--with so many departments splitting up and all--although I have to admit that sometimes I don't understand the whole debacle. Sure, I have heard the arguments for the split, but as someone who places a lot of value in both cultural anth and archaeology, I would prefer that they remain under the anthropological umbrella. To me they can be very mutually informative. I don't see the problem between the two; they seem pretty compatible to me. Sometimes the reason for splitting sounds a lot more political and personal than anything else--at least from where I see it as a grad student. “But my question is whether the cultural anthropologists who run AnthroNow (or Savage Minds, for that matter) consider archaeology as part of anthropology.”

Hopefully they do. It’s a good question these days–with so many departments splitting up and all–although I have to admit that sometimes I don’t understand the whole debacle. Sure, I have heard the arguments for the split, but as someone who places a lot of value in both cultural anth and archaeology, I would prefer that they remain under the anthropological umbrella. To me they can be very mutually informative. I don’t see the problem between the two; they seem pretty compatible to me.

Sometimes the reason for splitting sounds a lot more political and personal than anything else–at least from where I see it as a grad student.

Report this comment

]]> By: Ken Wissoker http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-535880 Ken Wissoker Sat, 29 Nov 2008 05:06:06 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-535880 A lot of Jason's questions are right on point. The reason that Taylor and Francis or Sage or Wiley-Blackwell keep founding new journals as if they cared about emerging sub-fields, is that they care about the revenues. Journals don't make money from individual subscriptions, they make money from libraries, and precisely because of that institution/individual cost difference cited. Duke University Press books are supported by our journals -- we have lots of innovative books that win prizes in their field, or are cited all over the place, that don't hold up their share of the sky. The 37 journals we publish earn enough to cover the 115 books, so the press as a whole can break even. So, Paradigm is presumably looking to get something started that will fit and sustain their list (and to make connections with good people in the field). The idea that a new journal could get out to Borders or hipster locales in the way that Giant Robot or Wax Poetics do seems far-fetched and like a different fantasy, better placed in the 80s or 90s when there were more bookstores. Someone with a lot of money to spend could found a smart but avant looking journal (like "Cabinet") that could get around while money wasn't an issue, but depending on retail distribution now would be the worst possible business plan for a journal. You give half the price to stores and distributors. Will Borders even stay in business??? On the other hand, it's an interesting cultural situation that journals have an institutional price and an individual one and books don't. On simultaneous cloth and paper editions the cloth ones were the unofficial institutional version until most libraries decided they would buy the cheaper paperback instead. If there was the same type of organization price split for books as journals there might never have been a so-called-crisis in book publishing (or at least it would have looked very different from what happened). A lot of Jason’s questions are right on point. The reason that Taylor and Francis or Sage or Wiley-Blackwell keep founding new journals as if they cared about emerging sub-fields, is that they care about the revenues. Journals don’t make money from individual subscriptions, they make money from libraries, and precisely because of that institution/individual cost difference cited. Duke University Press books are supported by our journals — we have lots of innovative books that win prizes in their field, or are cited all over the place, that don’t hold up their share of the sky. The 37 journals we publish earn enough to cover the 115 books, so the press as a whole can break even. So, Paradigm is presumably looking to get something started that will fit and sustain their list (and to make connections with good people in the field).

The idea that a new journal could get out to Borders or hipster locales in the way that Giant Robot or Wax Poetics do seems far-fetched and like a different fantasy, better placed in the 80s or 90s when there were more bookstores. Someone with a lot of money to spend could found a smart but avant looking journal (like “Cabinet”) that could get around while money wasn’t an issue, but depending on retail distribution now would be the worst possible business plan for a journal. You give half the price to stores and distributors. Will Borders even stay in business???

On the other hand, it’s an interesting cultural situation that journals have an institutional price and an individual one and books don’t. On simultaneous cloth and paper editions the cloth ones were the unofficial institutional version until most libraries decided they would buy the cheaper paperback instead. If there was the same type of organization price split for books as journals there might never have been a so-called-crisis in book publishing (or at least it would have looked very different from what happened).

Report this comment

]]> By: Michael E. Smith http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-535876 Michael E. Smith Sat, 29 Nov 2008 04:54:34 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-535876 Will there by any archaeology (or physical anthro) in AnthroNow? The goals statement is pretty broad about "anthropological theory and research," but then it goes on to say that archaeology does fine in public media so the magazine will focus on cultural anthropology. Well, most archaeology in public media is either sensationalist junk, complete garbage, or research blown out of perspective by university publicity offices. But yes, there is some decent archaeology for the public out there. But my question is whether the cultural anthropologists who run AnthroNow (or Savage Minds, for that matter) consider archaeology as part of anthropology. If the answer is yes, does that derive from the realities of US academia (where 4-field departments are the norm), or from an intellectual rationale? I'm an archaeologist, and I am ambivalent about the question (i.e., is archaeology part of anthropology) and can argue both sides. But I did see that American Ethnography Quasimonthly did include an issue on the Codex Nuttall--not exactly archaeology, but pretty close for us Mesoamericanists. Will there by any archaeology (or physical anthro) in AnthroNow? The goals statement is pretty broad about “anthropological theory and research,” but then it goes on to say that archaeology does fine in public media so the magazine will focus on cultural anthropology. Well, most archaeology in public media is either sensationalist junk, complete garbage, or research blown out of perspective by university publicity offices. But yes, there is some decent archaeology for the public out there.

But my question is whether the cultural anthropologists who run AnthroNow (or Savage Minds, for that matter) consider archaeology as part of anthropology. If the answer is yes, does that derive from the realities of US academia (where 4-field departments are the norm), or from an intellectual rationale?

I’m an archaeologist, and I am ambivalent about the question (i.e., is archaeology part of anthropology) and can argue both sides. But I did see that American Ethnography Quasimonthly did include an issue on the Codex Nuttall–not exactly archaeology, but pretty close for us Mesoamericanists.

Report this comment

]]> By: Kerim http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-535737 Kerim Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:36:11 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-535737 I spoke with the publishers of AnthroNow and they said they would be moving the site to new servers and making articles available as HTML as well as PDF. I spoke with the publishers of AnthroNow and they said they would be moving the site to new servers and making articles available as HTML as well as PDF.

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-535129 John McCreery Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:13:13 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-535129 Martin, my pleasure. Just went back and looked at some of the previous issues, fascinating stuff. The "hip" hook of the opening paragraph and the pivot to classical texts works for me, really well. It's a fabulous way to mine the history of anthropology for topics of perennial interest. As for the book links thing: Since you are using a tabloid newspaper style format, why not include a small but highly visible box on every front page. Make it a regular item. You might call it "Dig Deeper" or "Explore Further." The content would be the links to the books mentioned in the issue: free sources where these are available, links to Amazon (or Powells. com, that might be more in tune with the effort) for those which are not free. Just brainstorming. But congratulations. A truly original and interesting take on the anthropological Webzine. Martin, my pleasure. Just went back and looked at some of the previous issues, fascinating stuff. The “hip” hook of the opening paragraph and the pivot to classical texts works for me, really well. It’s a fabulous way to mine the history of anthropology for topics of perennial interest.

As for the book links thing: Since you are using a tabloid newspaper style format, why not include a small but highly visible box on every front page. Make it a regular item. You might call it “Dig Deeper” or “Explore Further.” The content would be the links to the books mentioned in the issue: free sources where these are available, links to Amazon (or Powells. com, that might be more in tune with the effort) for those which are not free.

Just brainstorming. But congratulations. A truly original and interesting take on the anthropological Webzine.

Report this comment

]]> By: Martin Hoyem http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-535069 Martin Hoyem Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:21:25 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-535069 Thanks for your thoughts, John! Why not add links to sites where readers can buy the books? There are actually links to amazon.com, where that applies, but I guess the links might be a little well hidden, since I do not get a lot of action there. Thanks for your thoughts, John!

Why not add links to sites where readers can buy the books?

There are actually links to amazon.com, where that applies, but I guess the links might be a little well hidden, since I do not get a lot of action there.

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-535059 John McCreery Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:05:30 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-535059 bq. American Ethnography Quasimonthly Graphic: The illustration is eye-catching. It embodies the theme of male gaze and naked female bodies in a way that is literally in your face. It feels, however, more Boing-Boing than academic and may play too effectively with anthropological associations with National Geographic and naked boobs. This could be off-putting for some readers. I wonder if one of the photos in the photo series might not be more effective. Text: Good stuff. The topics are interesting, the first-person I-was-there-I-did-this perspective nicely balanced with academic distance. I especially like the Web device of providing excerpts. Why not add links to sites where readers can buy the books? bq. American Ethnography Quasimonthly

Graphic: The illustration is eye-catching. It embodies the theme of male gaze and naked female bodies in a way that is literally in your face. It feels, however, more Boing-Boing than academic and may play too effectively with anthropological associations with National Geographic and naked boobs. This could be off-putting for some readers. I wonder if one of the photos in the photo series might not be more effective.

Text: Good stuff. The topics are interesting, the first-person I-was-there-I-did-this perspective nicely balanced with academic distance. I especially like the Web device of providing excerpts. Why not add links to sites where readers can buy the books?

Report this comment

]]> By: Martin Hoyem http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-534924 Martin Hoyem Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:23:36 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-534924 Here’s a shameless self-promotion, but no let’s instead, in light of the current discussion, call it a request for feedback. American Ethnography Quasimonthly is ’s an open access (yoo-hoo…but seriously, anything else would be ridiculously ballsy, wouldn't it?) online magazine, and sooo hip, too: http://www.americanethnography.com Here’s a shameless self-promotion, but no let’s instead, in light of the current discussion, call it a request for feedback. American Ethnography Quasimonthly is ’s an open access (yoo-hoo…but seriously, anything else would be ridiculously ballsy, wouldn’t it?) online magazine, and sooo hip, too: http://www.americanethnography.com

Report this comment

]]> By: ryan a http://savageminds.org/2008/11/25/audiences-artic-men-anthronow-and-other-aaas/comment-page-1/#comment-534888 ryan a Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:15:31 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1402#comment-534888 "I’m not sure AnthroNow is either a journal of research, or needs to be open access. I think its about making anthropology hip." I agree, especially if the stated goal is to get anthropology out there in public discourse. It has to mix anthropological content with good graphic design/web design. "All that being said. If they need someone to help them fix the broken website and give them ideas about how to make the online version a) cool b) open access and c) different than the print magazine… well, I think there are some people out there who might want to help. starting here, in this thread." Agreed. There are plenty of people to turn to, and plenty of examples to get some inspiration from. And I agree that this is a good place to start, since so many people who come to this site are really interested in this whole subject. Contexts, the sociologists' project, actually has a pretty nice look to it overall. I think that AnthroNow and other related projects can definitely get some ideas from other publications--such as Adbusters, Colors, Aperture, The Sun (of course, I am a little more biased toward the graphic arts mags as someone who started out in photography, but I think this would be a good time to bring the visual anth folks on board). Who knows? There are so many places to look. I think it's important to look at why National Geographic, Time, Newsweek, and other pop magazines sell--what is appealing, etc. In order to present a competing viewpoint to a lot of popular media, anthros need to know how and why it's appealing to large audiences (opinion). Then the whole trick is presenting it well without diluting the message. But I think it can be done. “I’m not sure AnthroNow is either a journal of research, or needs to be open access. I think its about making anthropology hip.”

I agree, especially if the stated goal is to get anthropology out there in public discourse. It has to mix anthropological content with good graphic design/web design.

“All that being said. If they need someone to help them fix the broken website and give them ideas about how to make the online version a) cool b) open access and c) different than the print magazine… well, I think there are some people out there who might want to help. starting here, in this thread.”

Agreed. There are plenty of people to turn to, and plenty of examples to get some inspiration from. And I agree that this is a good place to start, since so many people who come to this site are really interested in this whole subject.

Contexts, the sociologists’ project, actually has a pretty nice look to it overall. I think that AnthroNow and other related projects can definitely get some ideas from other publications–such as Adbusters, Colors, Aperture, The Sun (of course, I am a little more biased toward the graphic arts mags as someone who started out in photography, but I think this would be a good time to bring the visual anth folks on board). Who knows? There are so many places to look.

I think it’s important to look at why National Geographic, Time, Newsweek, and other pop magazines sell–what is appealing, etc. In order to present a competing viewpoint to a lot of popular media, anthros need to know how and why it’s appealing to large audiences (opinion). Then the whole trick is presenting it well without diluting the message. But I think it can be done.

Report this comment

]]>