In Imagologies, Mark Taylor and Esa Saarinen weave and warp through a series of new media (vintage 1994) fabrics. I call them fabrics because the book’s designer, Marjaana Virta, does: “Mediatext: A collection of fabrics…” (jacket). And if we can call Imagologies a “book”–rich ironies here for all their project does to frazzle the paradigms of print–the visual designs and variations are as striking as any of the stuff we might otherwise classify as content. Perhaps as much as any paper-bound book could hope to, Imagologies pushes and
sometimes exceeds the constraints of the bound page.

It’s
mentioned just once early on, but Taylor’s explanation of imagology as a
riff on mythology influenced my reading of the rest of the project. 
When we begin to think about mapping mythologies, then, how would it change if
we instead (or additionally) framed it as

mapping imagologies?  How do each of these logics implicate space or
spatial qualities?  How does each find a relationship to language? 
How do they manifest, move about, spread?

As a project, Imagologies tips a couple of ways. One thread involves Taylor and Saarinen’s collaboration over two years on a telecourse called “Imagologies,” a course on media philosophy linking Saarinen’s class in Finland with Taylor’s class in Massachusetts. Their course formalized in the fall of 1992–quite possibly one of the earliest telecourses, coming at a time when many higher ed. institutions, like the one I was at for my undergraduate studies, were scrambling to build TV-studio-classrooms. Another thread is what I would describe as meta-pedagogical. I’m referring here to the documented
interchanges only loosely related to the teaching of the course–emails back and forth about cultural and philosophical differences: traditional philosophy’s tolerance for new media, the legitimacy of “American philosophy,” and so on. And then there’s a mess of threadlings–scraps and pieces that fill up the pages with media philosophy maxims and quips. These one- and two-liners are strewn throughout the project, giving Imagologies the feel of a new media almanac, something to be read casually and
intermittently, referenced, and so on.

Rather than adopting the convention of continuous pagination, the book is chunked into twenty-five chapters,
and each of them uses a reset-to-one page count. The sections: Communicative Practices, Simcult, Styles,
Naivete, Media Philosophy, Ending the Academy, Pedagogies, Videovisions, Televangelism, Superficiality, Telewriting, Ad-diction, Interstanding, Netropolis, Electronomics, Telepolitics, Speed, Telerotics, Cyberwar, Virtuality, Body Snatching, Cyborgs, Shifting Subjects, Net Effect, Gaping.

While I have brief notes on each of them, I decided rather than sharing all
of it, I’d just focus on five or six of the chapters, comment on my interest in
them, firm them up with a shot of blogged-notes preservative.  These are
the sections I think I’m most likely to return to later on.

Naivete:  Naivete refers to the stance or attitude of the imagologist.. 
Such a disposition, according to Taylor and Saarinen, "requires a Kierkegaardian
leap of faith in the age of faithlessness" (Naivete 1).  Naivete means
accepting the complicated imagetext moires, the ripple of multiple and varied
surfaces. 

Media Philosophy: Basically, media philosophy disturbs traditional
philosophies that have sought "rational…objective thought" (5). Philosophical
language is no longer adequate for entertaining grandiose questions;
philosophical ventures must now involve the "energetics of image" (6).

Superficiality: Superficiality qualifies the aleatory as having a redefined
relationship to the "burden of meaning" (3) perpetuated by "expert cultures" in
the age of the mediatrix.  There’s more to it than this, of course, but the
idea is that the aleatory need not cause anxiety and inhibition.  Taylor
and Saarinen tell us that "naivete should not be confused with superficiality,"
and "the postmodern condition is inescapably superficial" (5).  This
chapter also includes a short take on reading that I definitely want to return
to (7).  Ex.: "Professional expert cultures legitimate their non-reading by
defining essential reading in a limited textmass in narrowly circumscribed
forums of publication" (7).

Telewriting: This works through some implications of the mediatrix for
writing.  "Hypertext" is recurrent in this chapter’s maxims, and I like the
many openings here to writing technologies and telewriting activity.  "Telewriting
is imagoscription," for example.  Telewriting gives us the prefix for
distance which is, in turn, explained (only in part) by a traversal, a digitized
tour, IO goes to Helsinki in .001 seconds.

Netropolis: Key terms from this chapter include circulation (2), spectacle
(gone wild) (2), and nomadism (4).  It’s a move toward a metaphor of the
city for the way space and time have been transformed in the structures of the
mediatrix.  Specifically, Taylor and Saarinen call this structuring "electrotecture"
(4).  Nice one.  And they liken electrotects to imagologists,
imagologists to media philosophers.

Even looser notes: A few terms: polylogue (Ending the Academy 1), conduction
(Gaping 8), new structures of awareness (Speed 3), staging (Cyberwar 3), lens
louse (Ad-Diction 8), telelogic (Interstanding 4), amplification (Communicative
Practices 8), mediatrix (Communicative Practices 5).

A few figures: Hegel, Debord, Baudrillard (Simcult 1), Warhol (Styles 7),
Kierkegaard (Naivete), Madonna (Media Philosophy 14), Petra Kelly (Media
Philosophy 9), Jameson (Televangelism (7), Benjamin (Telewriting 1), Paul
Virilio (Netropolis), Foucault (Virtuality 12).

A few quotations:
“In simcult, the responsible writer must be an imagologist. Since image has displaced print as the primary medium for discourse, the public use of reason can no longer be limited to print culture. To be effective, writing must become imagoscription that is available to everyone” (Communicative Practices 4).
“The only responsible intellectual is one who is wired” (Communicative Practices 13).
“The play of simulacrum creates a lite culture” (Simcult 6).
“Imagology insists that the word is never simply a word but is also an image” (Styles 3).
“The imagologist suffers from the mania for signifying” (Styles 9).
“The imagologist does not seek truth but entertains enigmas. Though in opposite ways, the academy and mass culture worship the altar of clarity and simplicity, which the imagologist shatters. Institutions of triviledge abhor enigmas that ought to be cultivated” (Ending the Academy 3).
“Did not teaching change with the invention of writin? Did not teaching change with the creation of print? Must not teaching change with the arrival of the mediatrix?” (Pedagogies 3).
“It remains unclear whether the contribution of a media philosopher is anything other than an outburst of laughter” (Ad-diction 8).
“Telelogic subverts the institutions of triviledge established by expert culture. Analysis divides to conquer. Its ‘victory’, however, is pyrrhic, for its touch turns everything into a corpse. Telelogic is an electric shock treatment whose jolt revives thought by creating live wires” (Interstanding 4).
"Scientific truth always comes too late" (Naivete 2).
"A laughable project: not to analyze but to explode language in an effort to
create tentative syntheses of that-which-cannot-be-synthesized" (Naivete 5).