Hi Patrick, a few things to an excellent article! We all want to be truly hybrid here, that's a given, and it depends on situations - incarceration for example doesn't lead to that. Hybridity depends on one's neighborhood; I don't feel safe going out where we are, almost all the time; it's a luxury to have a back yard, a lawn, a park nearby, and so forth for many. Zoom fulfills with simplicity the old idea from way back in the 50s of the videophone; for me it's also enabled me to have discussions that never would have been possible any other way. With Second Life, you emphasize the monetary / capitalist aspects of the place, but for me and a great number of people I know, it's also a sandbox for recording, experimentation, discussion, etc. I'm much more upset about the way that the MacGrid cut out almost without notice after a conference etc. announcing its opening - and that platform, which would have been and was useful to many of us - just more or less suddenly disappeared. (I was able to retrieve *.oar for the most part, but that's a different story. SL seems to be more active again now.
As you know, the crest of the wave here is not passing, but is here with a vengeance, and the situation has gotten violent just about everywhere. And that makes SL, Zoom, Discord, all of this, much more vital than every; the amazing success of the ELO conference, over a week, is proof that these things can work - to the extent that I hope in the future ELO and other organizations _always_ have Zoom or some such running and integral, to precisely fight again the neoliberalism that underlies academic financing and everything else - so that we might have more of a level playing field. And god knows we're all asking for compassion, Facebook is good for that in spite of the vicious scaffolding - Best, Alan On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:16 AM Patrick Lichty <li...@voyd.com> wrote: > Thanks, Annie - i think the text is rough, and you know how I love, > actually, to be connected online. It's compassion and intentionality in > ourselves and our culture that I'm asking for. > > On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:03:30 +0200, Annie Abrahams via NetBehaviour < > netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: > > thanks Patrick > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 2:44 PM Patrick Lichty <li...@voyd.com> wrote: > >> >> Agony and the Ecstasy: Net-hanging in the age of Covid >> >> >> >> The era of Covid lockdown is Zoom-time. Although at the time of this >> writing, the crest of the wave is starting to pass, its impact is evident. >> In over three months of lockdown, stay at home, 24/7 Zoom culture has come >> to dominate global telepresent communications, standing in for ever-present >> cyber vernissages, online conferences, talks and visits. The need to work, >> communicate, and even socially function has necessitated the rise of >> platforms like Zoom and Adobe Connect, and what I have come to understand >> as platform politics and their neoliberal connotations. Although places >> like The Well and John Perry Barlow’s Declaration of Cyberspace >> Independence call and were founded under the notion of cyberfreedom and >> fluid congregation outside of the agendas of capital, the Covid pandemic >> has created a scenario where the private sector has found tenterhooks into >> the foundations of institutional communications. This is not to say that >> Social Media does not do this, but one of the differences I want to allude >> to is the institution-in-itself (facebook) as opposed to platform as >> channel of communication for institutions. Unlike a public utility, Zoom, >> as well as others like Adobe Connect, and Facebook Rooms, and so on are >> portals in which institutions found a necessity for network that was not >> facilitated by a commons, but by corporations, and by agendas of maximizing >> connections and communications. These two effects(institutional adoption of >> private protocols [Galloway] and the necessity of a will-to-connect) are >> the poles in which capital has pushed further into the control regimes of >> markets, networks, and political engineering as to where private interests >> further govern sociocultural concerns. It even got the UAE to release its >> national ban on VoIP communications. That isn;t so much about any >> particular country, but the effect that Zoom has had on global >> communication under the Covid crisis. >> >> >> >> This isn’t the first time the idea of having online platforms be the lens >> for focusing social interaction. Second Life, with its inherently >> capitalist foundations, tried to tout itself as the 3D World Wide Web, >> almost like an analogy to the 3D Internet analogue in the Robert Longo >> movie, Johnny Mnemonic. With the neoliberal dream of the Linden Dollar >> superceding John Perry Barlow’s Declaration of Cyberspace Independence, >> FOMO-driven corporations from Domino’s Pizza to Playboy flooded into the >> platform. christian von borries, documentary, The Dubai in Me, imperfectly >> compares financial speculative evangelicalism between Second Life and the >> “Dubai Miracle”, much of which operated on the notion of rotating real >> estate speculation. For some time, this was reflected in Second Life, when >> the mythology of Chinese real estate trader Anshe Chung announced that she >> had made her first million dollars on virtual real estates. However the >> differences between a foundation based on a technology (HTTP) and that >> based on a single-provider platform (Second Life) in that a provider often >> takes a majority of the profit, and that the upsurge of traffic caused >> multiple technical issues, caused most of those glittering dreams to >> collapse within 2-3 years. Another difference is that while the interaction >> with the World Wide Web is relatively simple Second Life required a >> relatively powerful machine and at least a couple days learning SL’s rather >> cumbersome interface. In interaction and commerce design, the rule is that >> the least friction yields the greatest returns. >> >> >> >> But then, the socio(economic) frictionlessness is one of the biggest >> problems with platforms like Zoom, or Adobe Connect, or whatever flavor you >> mention. In the artworld, I always saw the necessary friction that artists >> thought had to happen was exclusivity or access, to an event or an object. >> But then, I had not inhabited Istanbul or Dubai, which are big enough >> cities with capital to support a contemporary cultural community, (and even >> Chelsea is similar), but with accessibility comes the expectation to >> access. Once you are there and become part of the community, there are >> expectations to be met, places to be seen. And this is a crucial point – >> the demand to be seen. Further linkage to privilege in the case of Zoom is >> multilayered, from communities that wish to engage, and from the company, >> wishing to focus social capital through its portal. >> >> >> >> What is important about this will-to-access is not that it is resultant >> from the community, it is resultant from the platform. The first layer of a >> demand-to-access is expectations to attend, but the other is that of the >> platform, and in the end, the platform is a cybernetic system that os a >> control apparatus. Although Adobe Connect has also been adopted widely, >> the frictionlessness of the Zoom platform has allowed it to be quickly >> adopted by the institutional community, and without having a professional >> account, interactions are limited to 40 minutes. This has a number of >> effects from further socioeconomic limits to access to further >> neoliberalization of communications. The emergence of a solution in a >> panic event-space mitigates an acritical adoption in light of necessity. >> This means that Zoom, although possessing the least friction, is corporate, >> requires payment for the best experience, and still mitigates certain >> resources for optimum connection. And the notion of panic adoption has >> resulted in the institutionalization of Zoom as one de facto standard >> without full security or best practices development. There is a need, >> there has to be a solution, and the market supplies one, and it has to be >> adopted as soon as possible. >> >> >> >> The other problem with post-COVID networked society is that the notion of >> access falls under the optical control regime of neoliberal capitalism. >> What this means is that, as Sara Cook noted in the discussions surrounding >> the Sleep Mode exhibition at Somerset House, that internal documents by >> companies like Facebook consider sleep a challenge to their business model >> of attention optics. The show described sleep itself as a tactic against >> neoliberal infocapitalism’s need to consume and convert every possible >> resource into use-value. In another text, Event Horizons, I describe that >> even if sleep were to be conquered, there would be the Malthusian limit of >> the sidereal day itself. How do you multiply the cognitive load of the >> attention span of one human being once the physical limits of the system >> are met. Perhaps there are exotic solutions like parallel cognitive loading >> across multiple machines, or even more abstract metaphors likening the >> deterioration of attention to the evaporation of a black hole due to >> Hawking Radiation, but the reality is far more simple. A human being is >> simply not going to stay awake 24 hours a day to comment on your cat video, >> and taken to extremes, we simply cannot fulfill zoom’s Second Life’s, or >> whoever’s desire for us to be together constantly, forever public, forever >> panoptic. It is an ontological equivalent to the 2008 financial collapse – >> expectations for access, like capital productivity, continue to balloon >> until all methods to appease the machines collapse, mitigating solutionism. >> >> >> >> It’s just not going to happen. >> >> >> >> Things have changed. With the Coronavirus not going anywhere soon, and >> the automation of the labor-site, even if that labor is visibility, >> collapses into the home, institutions see no need to be entirely physical >> anymore, and like the “gig” economy, investiture in the physical space is >> no longer entirely necessary. Therefore look for a more “hybrid” >> ontology. Relating to New Media Art of the 1990’s, There are some >> parallels, when the network was the necessary channel for connection, then >> due to the small size of the community, now due to the necessity to >> distance. But the frictions of infrastructural support are less with the >> privately funded model of Zoom. In the neoliberal environment, when >> governments pull away from funding of infrastructures, favoring market >> politics, the ability to link capital to the network facilitates the >> platform. Period. Even incrementally, with minimal cost, this is a wringing >> out of the socioeconomic frame of need to solution, and Zoom life is the >> solution. >> >> It’s a cost-benefit solution. Online portals like Zoom create less >> frictioned telepresence give access to more programmes, create more >> opportunity to interact by the screen. But on the other hand, there is the >> pressure to take ten classes a month, be at twenty vernissages, call ten >> friends, up your productivity tenfold – from your home. It’s a win-win. >> Actually, it’s more like The Matrix, where we are tied into our scopophilic >> pods, viewing and being viewed. Zoom as new Panopticon, regulate by the >> frictions of the platform, epidemiology, and socioeconomic politics. As I >> see the age of 60 on the horizon, I realize that the cost-benefit of being >> increasingly online has not always realized itself, and when I move back to >> America in 2021, I want to be truly “hybrid”, that is, more engaged with >> the real, like time with my family cooking, seeing nature, and being >> physically present with friends. This is also ironic in that VR artists >> are becoming more obsessed with realism through programs like Substance and >> ultra high rez scans. >> >> >> >> But from this writer’s perspective, this is the frission that venturing >> closer to the event horizon of total access leads; the lure of >> connectedness while being paralyzed at the computer screen. This is the >> paradox, and a site of resistance, as it is neoliberal forces that >> encourage this effect, and as Sarah Cook suggested, perhaps sleep, managing >> willful disconnection and social intentionality are the things that will >> shape the post-Covid culture. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org >> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- *=====================================================* *directory http://www.alansondheim.org <http://www.alansondheim.org> tel 718-813-3285**email sondheim ut panix.com <http://panix.com>, sondheim ut gmail.com <http://gmail.com>* *=====================================================*
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
