[Sigia-l] Content

[Christopher Fahey [askrom]]

> > Are many of us on this list really "Content Architects"? Is the
title
> > less sexy than "Information Architect"?


Ziya wrote: 
> On a hot and humid day, I can go on and on about the inherent 
> vacuousness of the word "content" but that would be wrong. :-)

Ziya is discontented :) ... I had written (and edited out) much the same
sentiments in my post, but I guess I deleted it to avoid being snide
twice in the same sentence. My jaw was on the floor for much of the late
90's as I found people referring to ideas, thoughts, stories, facts, and
opinions as "content", reducing "writers" to the equivalent of the
people who fill swimming pools with water. Now I have sold my soul to
the devil and I use the word all the time. 


Derek wrote: 
> [Ziya's commnets] probably has more to do with a desire 
> to issue judgment (ie. but that would be wrong.. etc), 
> and anxious yearnings for  tangible, declared
> things (ie. the skepticism of deconstruction), than a genuine
> understanding and comfort with 'content' as transformative 
> and autonomous experience :-) 

You are issuing judgement erroneously against one who would might
actually agree with you about the power of the word. Ziya is actually
lamenting the disempowering nature of the term "content", not insulting
the idea of ideas themselves. He's not saying content is vacuous, he is
saying the term "content" is vacuous when used to refer to something
other than sawdust or horsehair.

As a person unhindered by the pre-web baggage that old folks carry
around, you may not remember a time when "that which you came to read,
look at, and listen to" went by more glorious names besides the debased
new-economy codeword "content".

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com