Βάλια Τσαίτα Τσιλιμένη, 2017
Showing posts with label crafts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crafts. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Monday, May 1, 2023
Monday, February 13, 2023
I’m a Luddite. You should be one too
I’m a Luddite. This is not a hesitant confession, but a proud proclamation. I’m also a social scientist who studies how new technologies affect politics, economics and society. For me, Luddism is not a naive feeling, but a considered position.
And once you know what Luddism actually stands for, I’m willing to bet you will be one too — or at least much more sympathetic to the Luddite cause than you think.
Today the term is mostly lobbed as an insult. Take this example from a recent report by global consulting firm Accenture on why the health-care industry should enthusiastically embrace artificial intelligence:
Excessive caution can be detrimental, creating a luddite culture of following the herd instead of forging forward.
To be a Luddite is seen as synonymous with being primitive — backwards in your outlook, ignorant of innovation’s wonders, and fearful of modern society. This all-or-nothing approach to debates about technology and society is based on severe misconceptions of the real history and politics of the original Luddites: English textile workers in the early 19th century who, under the cover of night, destroyed weaving machines in protest to changes in their working conditions.
Our circumstances today are more similar to theirs than it might seem, as new technologies are being used to transform our own working and social conditions — think increases in employee surveillance during lockdowns, or exploitation by gig labour platforms. It’s time we reconsider the lessons of Luddism.
Even among other social scientists who study these kinds of critical questions about technology, the label of “Luddite” is still largely an ironic one. It’s the kind of self-effacing thing you say when fumbling with screen-sharing on Zoom during a presentation: “Sorry, I’m such a Luddite!”
It wasn’t until I learned the true origins of Luddism that I began sincerely to regard myself as one of them.
The Luddites were a secret organisation of workers who smashed machines in the textile factories of England in the early 1800s, a period of increasing industrialisation, economic hardship due to expensive conflicts with France and the United States, and widespread unrest among the working class. They took their name from the apocryphal tale of Ned Ludd, a weaver’s apprentice who supposedly smashed two knitting machines in a fit of rage.
The contemporary usage of Luddite has the machine-smashing part correct — but that’s about all it gets right.
First, the Luddites were not indiscriminate. They were intentional and purposeful about which machines they smashed. They targeted those owned by manufacturers who were known to pay low wages, disregard workers’ safety, and/or speed up the pace of work. Even within a single factory — which would contain machines owned by different capitalists — some machines were destroyed and others pardoned depending on the business practices of their owners.
Second, the Luddites were not ignorant. Smashing machines was not a kneejerk reaction to new technology, but a tactical response by workers based on their understanding of how owners were using those machines to make labour conditions more exploitative. As historian David Noble puts it, they understood “technology in the present tense”, by analysing its immediate, material impacts and acting accordingly.
Luddism was a working-class movement opposed to the political consequences of industrial capitalism. The Luddites wanted technology to be deployed in ways that made work more humane and gave workers more autonomy. The bosses, on the other hand, wanted to drive down costs and increase productivity.
Third, the Luddites were not against innovation. Many of the technologies they destroyed weren’t even new inventions. As historian Adrian Randall points out, one machine they targeted, the gig mill, had been used for more than a century in textile manufacturing. Similarly, the power loom had been used for decades before the Luddite uprisings.
It wasn’t the invention of these machines that provoked the Luddites to action. They only banded together once factory owners began using these machines to displace and disempower workers.
The factory owners won in the end: they succeeded in convincing the state to make “frame breaking” a treasonous crime punishable by hanging. The army was sent in to break up and hunt down the Luddites.
The Luddite rebellion lasted from 1811 to 1816, and today (as Randall puts it), it has become “a cautionary moral tale”. The story is told to discourage workers from resisting the march of capitalist progress, lest they too end up like the Luddites.
Today, new technologies are being used to alter our lives, societies and working conditions no less profoundly than mechanical looms were used to transform those of the original Luddites. The excesses of big tech companies - Amazon’s inhumane exploitation of workers in warehouses driven by automation and machine vision, Uber’s gig-economy lobbying and disregard for labour law, Facebook’s unchecked extraction of unprecedented amounts of user data - are driving a public backlash that may contain the seeds of a neo-Luddite movement.
As Gavin Mueller writes in his new book on Luddism, our goal in taking up the Luddite banner should be “to study and learn from the history of past struggles, to recover the voices from past movements so that they might inform current ones”.
What would Luddism look like today? It won’t necessarily (or only) be a movement that takes up hammers against smart fridges, data servers and e-commerce warehouses. Instead, it would treat technology as a political and economic phenomenon that deserves to be critically scrutinised and democratically governed, rather than a grab bag of neat apps and gadgets.
In a recent article in Nature, my colleagues and I argued that data must be reclaimed from corporate gatekeepers and managed as a collective good by public institutions. This kind of argument is deeply informed by the Luddite ethos, calling for the hammer of antitrust to break up the tech oligopoly that currently controls how data is created, accessed, and used.
A neo-Luddite movement would understand no technology is sacred in itself, but is only worthwhile insofar as it benefits society. It would confront the harms done by digital capitalism and seek to address them by giving people more power over the technological systems that structure their lives.
This is what it means to be a Luddite today. Two centuries ago, Luddism was a rallying call used by the working class to build solidarity in the battle for their livelihoods and autonomy.
And so too should neo-Luddism be a banner that brings workers together in today’s fight for those same rights. Join me in reclaiming the name of Ludd!
Text by Jathan Sadowski
https://theconversation.com/im-a-luddite-you-should-be-one-too-163172
And once you know what Luddism actually stands for, I’m willing to bet you will be one too — or at least much more sympathetic to the Luddite cause than you think.
Today the term is mostly lobbed as an insult. Take this example from a recent report by global consulting firm Accenture on why the health-care industry should enthusiastically embrace artificial intelligence:
Excessive caution can be detrimental, creating a luddite culture of following the herd instead of forging forward.
To be a Luddite is seen as synonymous with being primitive — backwards in your outlook, ignorant of innovation’s wonders, and fearful of modern society. This all-or-nothing approach to debates about technology and society is based on severe misconceptions of the real history and politics of the original Luddites: English textile workers in the early 19th century who, under the cover of night, destroyed weaving machines in protest to changes in their working conditions.
Our circumstances today are more similar to theirs than it might seem, as new technologies are being used to transform our own working and social conditions — think increases in employee surveillance during lockdowns, or exploitation by gig labour platforms. It’s time we reconsider the lessons of Luddism.
Even among other social scientists who study these kinds of critical questions about technology, the label of “Luddite” is still largely an ironic one. It’s the kind of self-effacing thing you say when fumbling with screen-sharing on Zoom during a presentation: “Sorry, I’m such a Luddite!”
It wasn’t until I learned the true origins of Luddism that I began sincerely to regard myself as one of them.
The Luddites were a secret organisation of workers who smashed machines in the textile factories of England in the early 1800s, a period of increasing industrialisation, economic hardship due to expensive conflicts with France and the United States, and widespread unrest among the working class. They took their name from the apocryphal tale of Ned Ludd, a weaver’s apprentice who supposedly smashed two knitting machines in a fit of rage.
The contemporary usage of Luddite has the machine-smashing part correct — but that’s about all it gets right.
First, the Luddites were not indiscriminate. They were intentional and purposeful about which machines they smashed. They targeted those owned by manufacturers who were known to pay low wages, disregard workers’ safety, and/or speed up the pace of work. Even within a single factory — which would contain machines owned by different capitalists — some machines were destroyed and others pardoned depending on the business practices of their owners.
Second, the Luddites were not ignorant. Smashing machines was not a kneejerk reaction to new technology, but a tactical response by workers based on their understanding of how owners were using those machines to make labour conditions more exploitative. As historian David Noble puts it, they understood “technology in the present tense”, by analysing its immediate, material impacts and acting accordingly.
Luddism was a working-class movement opposed to the political consequences of industrial capitalism. The Luddites wanted technology to be deployed in ways that made work more humane and gave workers more autonomy. The bosses, on the other hand, wanted to drive down costs and increase productivity.
Third, the Luddites were not against innovation. Many of the technologies they destroyed weren’t even new inventions. As historian Adrian Randall points out, one machine they targeted, the gig mill, had been used for more than a century in textile manufacturing. Similarly, the power loom had been used for decades before the Luddite uprisings.
It wasn’t the invention of these machines that provoked the Luddites to action. They only banded together once factory owners began using these machines to displace and disempower workers.
The factory owners won in the end: they succeeded in convincing the state to make “frame breaking” a treasonous crime punishable by hanging. The army was sent in to break up and hunt down the Luddites.
The Luddite rebellion lasted from 1811 to 1816, and today (as Randall puts it), it has become “a cautionary moral tale”. The story is told to discourage workers from resisting the march of capitalist progress, lest they too end up like the Luddites.
Today, new technologies are being used to alter our lives, societies and working conditions no less profoundly than mechanical looms were used to transform those of the original Luddites. The excesses of big tech companies - Amazon’s inhumane exploitation of workers in warehouses driven by automation and machine vision, Uber’s gig-economy lobbying and disregard for labour law, Facebook’s unchecked extraction of unprecedented amounts of user data - are driving a public backlash that may contain the seeds of a neo-Luddite movement.
As Gavin Mueller writes in his new book on Luddism, our goal in taking up the Luddite banner should be “to study and learn from the history of past struggles, to recover the voices from past movements so that they might inform current ones”.
What would Luddism look like today? It won’t necessarily (or only) be a movement that takes up hammers against smart fridges, data servers and e-commerce warehouses. Instead, it would treat technology as a political and economic phenomenon that deserves to be critically scrutinised and democratically governed, rather than a grab bag of neat apps and gadgets.
In a recent article in Nature, my colleagues and I argued that data must be reclaimed from corporate gatekeepers and managed as a collective good by public institutions. This kind of argument is deeply informed by the Luddite ethos, calling for the hammer of antitrust to break up the tech oligopoly that currently controls how data is created, accessed, and used.
A neo-Luddite movement would understand no technology is sacred in itself, but is only worthwhile insofar as it benefits society. It would confront the harms done by digital capitalism and seek to address them by giving people more power over the technological systems that structure their lives.
This is what it means to be a Luddite today. Two centuries ago, Luddism was a rallying call used by the working class to build solidarity in the battle for their livelihoods and autonomy.
And so too should neo-Luddism be a banner that brings workers together in today’s fight for those same rights. Join me in reclaiming the name of Ludd!
Text by Jathan Sadowski
https://theconversation.com/im-a-luddite-you-should-be-one-too-163172
Sunday, December 5, 2021
Η εποχή των εικόνων : Ο κύριος Ροβινσώνας Κρούσος έμεινε σπίτι. Περιπέτειες σχεδιασμού σε συνθήκες κρίσης
«Ο κύριος Ροβινσώνας Κρούσος έμεινε σπίτι. Περιπέτειες σχεδιασμού σε συνθήκες κρίσης»
Eπεισόδιο 6
Ο Κωστής Βελώνης και η Πολύνα Κοσμαδάκη επιμελητές της έκθεσης «O κύριος Ροβινσώνας Κρούσος έμεινε σπίτι», συναντούν την Κατερίνα Ζαχαροπούλου για να μιλήσουν για τις περιπέτειες σχεδιασμού σε συνθήκες κρίσης, έτσι όπως τις είδαν σύγχρονοι Έλληνες εικαστικοί, αντιλαμβανόμενοι τον Ροβινσώνα Κρούσο ως «σχεδιαστή σε συνθήκες κρίσης».
Η έκθεση αναφέρεται στο παράδειγμα του ήρωα του Daniel Defoe, ο οποίος – ενώ βρέθηκε αρχικά σε αδιέξοδο – επιβεβαιώνει την αξία του όταν αναγκάζεται να δραστηριοποιηθεί και να καταπιαστεί με πρωτόγνωρα ζητήματα που απαιτούν την επινόηση και την εύρεση λύσεων.
Την περίοδο που ένα μεγάλο μέρος από τα μόνιμα εκθέματα του 19ου αιώνα, από τον 3ο όροφο του Μουσείου Μπενάκη Ελληνικού Πολιτισμού, είχαν μεταφερθεί στην Πειραιώς 138 για την επετειακή έκθεση «1821. Πριν και Μετά», τα νέα έργα που εκτέθηκαν στη θέση τους προτείνουν μια νέα χρήση των χώρων των μόνιμων συλλογών.
Για τα έργα τους που προέκυψαν από αυτό το σκεπτικό μιλούν και οι καλλιτέχνες Αναστασία Δούκα, Μάρω Μιχαλακάκου, Μαργαρίτα Μποφιλίου, Νάνα Σαχίνη, Στεφανία Στρούζα και Γιώργος Τσεριώνης.
Σενάριο-Παρουσίαση: Κατερίνα Ζαχαροπούλου , Σκηνοθεσία: Δημήτρης Παντελιάς Καλλιτεχνική επιμέλεια: Παναγιώτης Κουτσοθεόδωρος Διεύθυνση Φωτογραφίας: Κώστας Σταμούλης Μοντάζ-Μιξάζ: Μάκης Φάρος Οπερατέρ: Γρηγόρης Βουκάλης
Ηχολήπτης: Άρης Παυλίδης Ενδυματολόγος: Δέσποινα Χειμώνα Διεύθυνση Παραγωγής: Παναγιώτης Δαμιανός Mακιγιάζ: Χαρά Μαυροφρύδη Βοηθός σκηνοθέτη: Μάριος Αποστόλου Βοηθός παραγωγής: Aλεξάνδρα Κουρή
Φροντιστήριο: Λίνα Κοσσυφίδου Επεξεργασία εικόνας/χρώματος: 235/Σάκης Μπουζιάνης Μουσική τίτλων εκπομπής: George Gaudy/Πανίνος Δαμιανός Έρευνα εκπομπής: Κατερίνα Ζαχαροπούλου Παραγωγός: Ελένη Κοσσυφίδου
Διαθέσιμο στο ERTFLIX.
Friday, March 19, 2021
Sunday, March 14, 2021
Mr Robinson Crusoe Stayed Home. Adventures of Design in Times of Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNuAEUpcgXw
#robinsoncrusoe #mrcrusoestayedhome #adventuresofdesign #benakimuseum #literature #design##exhibition #crafts #literature #designtheory #bricolage#efficiency#economy #clumsiness #dexterity #postcolonialstudies
Saturday, February 13, 2021
Οι γκάφες του Ροβινσώνα Κρούσου και οι περιπέτειες σχεδιασμού στο σπίτι / Clumsy Robinson Crusoe and the Adventures in design at home
Οι γκάφες του Ροβινσώνα Κρούσου και οι περιπέτειες σχεδιασμού στο σπίτι
Clumsy Robinson Crusoe and the Adventures in design at home
Τέχνη στο συγκείμενο (Art in context )
Αμφισβητήσεις της δεξιότητας στη νεωτερικότητα
ΑΣΚΤ -Χειμερινό εξάμηνο/ Εαρινό εξάμηνο
Αμφιθέατρο νέας βιβλιοθήκης, Πειραιώς 256
Κωστής Βελώνης
Ειδική βιβλιογραφία, σημειώσεις
Bibliography, references, works cited, notes
Αγγέλου, Αλκης. “Το διαφυγόν μυθιστόρημα ( Η περίπτωση του Robinson Crusoe) στο Ελληνικό Λογοτεχνικό και Ιστορικό Αρχείο. Το Παιδικό Βιβλίο στην Ελλάδα τον 19ο αιώνα. Αθήνα: Καστανιώτης, 1997.
Baudrillard, Jean. “For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign,” (1981) reprinted in Jean Baudrillard, Selected Writings, Mark Poster (ed.), Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988.
Βελώνης, Κωστής. “Το εργαστήριο ως καλύβα”, στην Ελάχιστη Δομή, Σκηνές της καλύβας, επιμ. Αποστόλης Αρτινός, Αθήνα: εκδ. Κριτική, 2014.
Benjamin, Edwin B., Symbolic Elements in Robinson Crusoe, Philological Quarterly, XXX, 1951, 206-11.
Blumenberg, Hans. Shipwreck with Spectator: paradigm for a metaphor for existence. Trans. By Steven Rendall. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.
Boyd, Richard. “Metaphor and theory change: what is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor for?” in Metaphor andThought, Edited by Andrew Ortony. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Bracker, Nicole. Robinson Crusoe a venir: Gertrude Stein and Roland Barthes, Romanic Review, Vol. 91 n. 1-2, Jan-Mar., 2000, p.129-152.
Brown, Julia Prewitt. Robinson Crusoe's ‘Tent upon the Earth’, The Journal of Architecture, 13:4, 2008, 365-378.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13602360802327968
Defoe, Daniel, The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, Of York, Mariner: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein all the Men perished but himself. With An Account how he was at last as strangely deliver'd by Pyrates. London : William Taylor, 1719.
https://www.owleyes.org/text/robinson-crusoe
https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/first-edition-of-daniel-defoes-robinson-crusoe-1719
Defoe, Daniel. Ροβινσών Κρoύσος, μτφρ.Παπαδοπούλου, Πιερέττα, Αθήνα:Υψιλον, 1991.
del Valle Alcalá, Roberto. Unworking community: cultural imaginaries, common life, and the politics of division, Journal for Cultural Research, 24:2, 2020, 113-125.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14797585.2020.1776456
Gilbert, Jack. Monolithos, Port Townsend, WA: Graywolf Press,1984.
https://kostisvelonis.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-revolution.html
Greif, Martin J., The Conversion of Robinson Crusoe, Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 , Summer, 1966, Vol. 6, No. 3, Restoration and Eighteenth Century, Summer, 1966, pp. 551-574
https://www.jstor.org/stable/449560
Harrod, Tanya. ‘Visionary rather than practical’: craft, art and material efficiency. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society, Vol. 371, Issue 1986, 13 March 2013.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2011.0569
Harrod, Tanya. “Classic Take on the Industry of One,” Crafts, n. 246 , January/February, 2014.
https://www.readingdesign.org/robinson-crusoe
Hutnyk, John. Robinsonades: pertaining to allegories from the East India Company in Ceylon and other islands, from Marxism to Post-structuralism, and in which, dear reader, a 300-year-old adventure book may still have something to say, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 21:2, 2020, 279-286, https://doi.org/10.1080/14649373.2020.1766236
Hymer, Stephner. Ο Ροβινσώνας Κρούσος και το μυστικό της πρωταρχικής συσσώρευσης, Θεσεις , Τεύχος 131, περίοδος: Απρίλιος - Ιούνιος 2015
http://www.theseis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1309&Itemid=29
Ζερβού, Αλεξάνδρα. Ο μύθος του ερημίτη ή η περιπέτεια μιας μεταγραφής στα κείμενα των παιδικών μας χρόνων: Ο Ροβινσώνας, η Αλίκη και το Παραμύθι χωρίς Όνομα. Επιστήμη και Κοινωνία: Επιθεώρηση Πολιτικής και Ηθικής Θεωρίας. 2015
https://eclass.edc.uoc.gr/modules/document/?course=PTDE176
Festa Lynn. Crusoe's Island of Misfit Things, The Eighteenth Century, Volume 52, Numbers 3-4, Fall/Winter 2011, pp. 443-471
https://doi.org/10.1353/ecy.2011.0028
Fraiman, Susan. Shelter Writing: Desperate Housekeeping from "Crusoe" to "Queer Eye" New Literary History , Spring, 2006, Vol. 37, No. 2, Critical Inquiries (Spring, 2006), pp. 341-359
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20057948
Benjamin, Edwin B., Symbolic Elements in Robinson Crusoe , Philological Quarterly, xxx ( 1951) , 206-11.
Fallon, Ann Marie. Anti –Crusoes, Alternative Crusoes: Revisions of the island story in the Twentieth Century στο The Cambridge Companion to "Robinson Crusoe," ed. Richetti, John , Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Καλίτση, Φιλοθέη, Η συνάντηση του Ψυχάρη και του Κόντογλου με τον "Ροβινσώνα Κρούσο" του Defoe. ΙΑ' Επιστημονική Συνάντηση του Τομέα Μεσαιωνικών και Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών του Τμήματος Φιλολογίας του Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης, Θεσσαλονίκη, 2005
http://users.sch.gr/fk-thess/ARTICLES/FK_ROBINSON_CRUSOE.pdf
Καρπόζηλου, Mάρθα. ‘Ο Νέος Ροβινσών του Joachim Heinrich Campe’. Η Λέξη 119, σσ. 792 – 801. 1993.
Liu, Lydia H., Robinson Crusoe's Earthenware Pot, Critical Inquiry, Summer, 1999, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Summer, 1999), pp. 728-757.
http://www.jstor.com/stable/1344101
Marzec, Robert P. Enclosures, Colonization, and the Robinson Crusoe Syndrome: A Genealogy of Land in a Global Context, boundary 2, Volume 29, Number 2, Summer 2002, pp. 129-156
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/3393
Malraux, André. Les Noyers de l’Altenburg dans Œuvres complètes d’André Malraux, II, Paris : Gallimard, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 1996.
Mentz, Steve. “‘Making the Green One Red’: Dynamic Ecologies in Macbeth, Edward Barlow’s Journal, and Robinson Crusoe.” Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies, vol. 13, no. 3, 2013, pp. 66–83.
www.jstor.org/stable/jearlmodcultstud.13.3.66.
Miller, Daniel, Καταναλωση, στο Υλικός Πολιτισμός : Η ανθρωπολογία στη χώρα των πραγμάτων επιμ. Ελεάνα Γιαλούρη. μτφρ., Βρεττού Αγγελική, Αθήνα : Εκδόσεις Αλεξάνδρεια , 2012.
Ντενίση, Σοφία. ‘Η διεθνής και η ελληνική πορεία του Ροβινσώνα Κρούσου και των Ροβινσωνιάδων κατά τον 18ο και 19ο αιώνα: Μια πρώτη προσέγγιση’, στο Ελληνικό Λογοτεχνικό και Ιστορικό Αρχείο. Το Παιδικό Βιβλίο στην Ελλάδα τον 19ο αιώνα. Ντελόπουλος, Κυριάκος (επιμ.) Αθήνα: Καστανιώτης, 1997, 67 – 81.
Parry, Idris. Rilke and Things, The Journal of Modern Craft, 2014, 7:3.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2752/174967714X14111311182848
Rediker, Marcus. Hydrarchy and Terracentrism in Alex Farquarson, Martin Clark (επιμ) Aquatopia: The Imaginary of the Ocean Deep, Nottingham Contemporary, 2013., 105 -116.
Robins, Harry F., How Smart Was Robinson Crusoe?
PMLA, Sep., 1952, Vol. 67, No. 5 (Sep., 1952), 782-789
https://www.jstor.org/stable/460027
Rogers, Pat. Robinson Crusoe, London: George Allen and Unwin, 1979 .
Rogers, Pat. Robinson Crusoe : Good Housekeeping, Gentility, and Property, στο The Cambridge Companion to "Robinson Crusoe," ed. John Richetti, Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Αιμίλιος ή περί αγωγής, μτφρ. Πολυτιμη Γκέκα, Αθήνα : Εκδ. Πλέθρον, 2001.
Rossi, Catharine. The Crusoe Condition: Making within Limits and the Critical Possibilities of Fiction, The Journal of Modern Craft,10:1, 2017, 19-35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17496772.2017.1294365
Angus Ross (edit), Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe. London :Penguin, 1965
Sennett, Richard. The Craftsman. Yale University Press : New Haven, London, 2008.
Slavuski, Victoria. Musica para olvidar una isla (Buenos Aires: Planeta, 1993).
Schaeffer, Denise. The Utility of Ink: Rousseau and Robinson Crusoe, The Review of Politics, Vol. 64, No. 1 Winter, 2002.
Toffler, Alvin. The Third Wave, Bantam Books, 1981.
http://era.gov.kh/eraasset/uploads/2020/02/Toffler.Alvin_.The_.Third_.Wave_.pdf
Woolf, Virginia. Robinson Crusoe στο Defoe in Daniel, Robinson Crusoe (επιμ) Shinagel, Michael, NY , London : 2nd Norton Critical Edition, 1994.
Watt, Ian. “Robinson Crusoe, Individualism and the Novel,” in The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding London : Chatto & Windus, 1957.
http://www.ricorso.net/tx/Courses/LEM2014/Critics/Watt_Ian/Rise_Chap-3.pdf
Watt, Ian. Robinson Crusoe as a Myth, Essays in Criticism, Volume I, Issue 2, April 1951, Pages 95–119 reprinted by Defoe, Daniel, Robinson Crusoe edit. By Shinagel, Michael, NY London : 2nd Norton Critical Edition, 1994, p. 228-306
https://doi.org/10.1093/eic/I.2.95
Sheryl Chen, Eric Dittloff, Esther Ho, Leona Jiang, Tom Roberts, Rebecca Tien, Adam Tzinis, Prosumerism
http://mi1prosumerism.weebly.com/the-third-wave.html
Robinsonades (επιλογές)
Michel Tournier; Vendredi ou les Limbes du Pacifique, Paris : éditions Gallimard, 1967.
H. G. Wells, The Island of Dr Moreau, 1896.
Johann David Wyss, Der Schweizerische Robinson, 1812.
Jules Verne, L'Île mystérieuse, 1874.
James Graham Ballard , Concrete Island (1974), New York: Picador, 2001.
Joachim Heinrich Campe, Robinson der Jüngere, 1779/80.
Coetzee, J. M. Foe, London: Penguin, 1986.
Ελληνικές Ρωβινσονιάδες
Μιλτιάδης Βρατσάνος, “ Ο Αποστόλης ο Θαλασσινός ή Νέος Ροβινσων”, 1883
Ιουλία Δραγούμη , Στο νησί τους , 1923
Ελένη Ζούζουλα , Το ναυάγιο που φέρνει την ευτυχία, 1934
Ελένη Ζούζουλα, Οι Ρωβινσώνες και ο βασιλιάς τους, 1935
Γεώργιου Κονιδάρης “Ο Ελλην Ροβινσών”,1887
Π.Γ. Κουρτίδη, Γ. Κωνσταντινίδη ,“Ο Τηλέμαχος ή Νέος Ροβινσών εκθέτων τα πρώτα βήματα εις τον πολιτισμόν” , 1890
Φώτης Κόντογλου, Πέδρο Καζάς, 1920
Νικολαος Μεταξάς, Ο Ροβινσών και τα παθήματα αυτού, 1893
Iωάννης Παπαθανασίου, Ο Γουήλ ο Ροβινσών, 1884
Βλάσιος Σκορδέλης, Ελληνας Ροβινσώνας, 1880
Στρατή Μυριβήλης, Στάθης Σταθας, 1934
Δημήτρης Σωτάκης, Η ιστορία ενός σούπερ μάρκετ, Αθήνα: Κέδρος, 2015.
Γιάννη Ψυχάρη, Ζωή κι αγάπη στη μοναξιά, Ιστορικά ενός καινούργιου Ρομπινσώνα, 1904.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)