[Geowanking] Idea for a Neogeographers meet Paleogeographers panel at Where 2.0
c.willmes at uni-koeln.de
Sun Nov 23 14:23:26 PST 2008
Eric Wolf schrieb:
> least for me). Because it "disregards" (I'm not sure if that word
> the real meaning that I want to transmit here) geography in some
> and because of this it is in some sense "misunderstandable" ... and it
> The best argument against the term Neogeography is that it, as you
> say, disregards the breadth and depth of Geography.
> maybe leads to make the assumption that this "movement" was originated
> from geography what is NOT the case from my point of view.
> I don't think anyone subscribes to the notion that the Neogeography
> "movement" originated from Geography. But what does it mean to say
> that anything "originated from Geography"? Do you mean to say that it
> wasn't sanctioned by the AAG? Or that it wasn't peer reviewed? While
> it might not directly evolve from a peer-reviewed navel gazing, it
> does derive from geography in that it deals with geographic concepts.
> It also happens to do so in a form not well explored by academics
> (note: I didn't say "not" explored as plenty of us have).
No, I want to mention that this (in some sense) "paradigma" is not
originated or designed by geographers and then applyed to geography.
If you set the prefix neo to something, you consider it as a new version
of the suffix, and I want to mention that this is not the case. To me it
would be more the case for cartography, if for any academic discipline.
I prefer the term "geoweb" instead of neogeography because it is not
messing with either geography or any other established term.
> There's nothing Neo- about names and confusion with Geography. How
> many times do people say you study Geology?
Way to often! :D
Geowanking mailing list
Geowanking at geowanking.org
More information about the Geowanking