thanks Ruth and Eryk The Kei Kreutler article managed to have me smile and "hope".
--------- Dear friends and colleagues, *please don't send me your signatures systematically* - sending bits costs energy and is POLLUTING On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:39 AM Ruth Catlow via NetBehaviour < netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: > Dear Eryk, > > Thanks so much for your long and super-helpful response. > > Some fragmented thoughts... > > I LOLled at my discovery of the hidden pages ; ) Sorry about that. It > seems that my time in the "crypto tent" (as you put it) has conditioned me > to sniff out questions of funding and governance in blockchain related art > projects. I certainly didn't read the project as ironic - just those pages > that I shouldn't have seen. It's frustrating how "project-based" funding > can constrain the potentiality of our work as artists and researchers > working in arts institutions and universities. I hope you find a way to dig > in further to the Potlatch connection. I only recently made this connection > myself, reading Graeber and Wengrow's wonderful *The Dawn of Everything.* > > I enjoyed and agreed with the resonances you find in cryptoland and have > also been reflecting on the limits of the Situationist project. Not just on > the political values of SI, but also on the limits of their tactical > application of rhetoric in novel contexts. It feels like on Twitter > everyone is a Situationist, resulting in an exhausting rinsing of meaning > from the web through constant decontextualisation. > > Kei Kreutler just put out this reflection on the year in which DAOs have > really started to find their form. I found it incredibly useful. > https://gnosisguild.mirror.xyz/l3pGN7TOUgPkzeurDlllIaAocaVqQuZkN98-BLAhKRc > She says "Cultural norms, even more so than technical capabilities, > influence our sphere of action. That is, while technical capabilities play > a role in determining the possible, cultural norms curtail it more than we > usually think." Which is why I am so excited by the luttecoin video - it > puts an image of new cultural norms on a wide horizon. I just find I want > to be able to see and feel more of the detail ;) > > Warmly > Ruth > > > > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 4:02 PM Eryk Salvaggio <eryk.salvag...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thank you for the critique Ruth! I agree with much, and what I write here >> is just my take. Şerife has also engaged this and may have more to say. >> >> But first, a major clarification: the “invest” page isn’t meant to be >> accessible, and I’m not sure how you found it — it was a placeholder for >> extending some ideas that we didn’t pursue, and I removed links / the idea >> precisely for the reasons you mentioned. >> >> We have ideas on the solidarity aim, but they are fuzzy. For one, there’s >> a tremendous overlap between the “crypto scene” of retail investors and the >> anti-capitalist, anti-work movement (at least in the US). That is, both >> have given up on traditional institutions and pathways to economic >> security. Dogecoin investors — and the language of “Fomo” — are actually >> quite sympathetic to me for this reason. They’re betting that this joke is >> just as good as any other. The issue is that it’s a bit nihilistic, stuck >> in the lane of throwing coins in fountains and making a wish. Right now, >> this project is meant to say “you can’t just make a wish” but we’re at an >> end there because of various boring things like deadlines and time >> constraints. I think if there are revisions / expansions of the work, >> you’ll we’re also pointed in your direction. >> >> As an explanation of why it is what it is now, it’s because of the nature >> of the research residency and the initial thesis: model situationist ideals >> of governance into a digital system. I found very little evidence that the >> situationists were actually very good at community organization, or if they >> were, they articulated very few principles around it. They were idea >> distributors, very much tapped into the idea of propaganda and counter >> propaganda, and hoped for these twists to take a life of their own. >> >> What you’re arguing for is something I’m thinking about too, but in terms >> of what I’ve found (and I’m not an expert) it’s a very necessary evolution >> on the situationist approach and doesn’t reflect actual situationist >> practice as written. Situationist practice as written had elements that >> were quite libertarian and problematic. I would like to see something >> beyond the Situationist model, or, more accurately, go back to that model’s >> foundations. >> >> In the white paper, we discuss how Situationists had essentially >> appropriated Potlatch from Indigenous Americans, and used it as the basis >> for much of their systems of governance. That was reported to them through >> the writings of Franz Boss, which were also somewhat distorted through an >> anti-capitalist lens (rather than “seeing what is.”) >> >> I’m particularly interested in starting from that as a source, rather >> than following the path set by SI’s adoption of it. But that is dense >> terrain requiring careful navigation, and it would be a disservice for two >> folks with an artist’s residency to try to tackle it in a few months. As a >> result, we stop at the hand off, so to speak. If we had another year, you >> might see this more developed, and it continues to develop (though perhaps >> not under this particular framework). >> >> The hope of the project in the scope we could tackle was to reveal the >> mistake of economic liberation as personal liberation, to show that the >> discontent with the system that drives speculative retail investment can be >> leveraged as a tool for something more radical, and make other >> possibilities more visible. >> >> (The residue of empty language you unfortunately encountered was part of >> that: present the slogan, then unpack it. The simple headlines you see on >> the debris pages doesn’t do the approach much justice, and it’s unfortunate >> that they are still discoverable). >> >> So yes, it’s a statement of purpose, rather than an action of purpose, >> that said, I don’t think the intention of the work is “ironic,” though you >> aren’t alone in telling me that it is. I actually think it’s quite sincere >> (perhaps the pages I’ve inadvertently left up are tainting the work, I’m >> not sure!). I also suspect that you and quite a few other folks are a few >> steps ahead of the pivot that this project is trying to make, which is a >> pivot of frame and intent in how we approach technology. I think that pivot >> is obvious to you and others in the furtherfield crypto tent, especially, >> but that the message bears some repeating and clarification. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22 Dec 2021, at 9:56 am, Ruth Catlow <ruthcat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> The Excavations project looks delicious! >> >> And the Luttecoin video is sooo good! Evocative, stirring and beautifully >> produced. >> >> The project does give me a powerful pang though as I would love to see a >> Situationist critique of the crypto scene that actually detourned the scene >> and I'm not sure this is there yet. >> >> Situationism rejected all art that separated itself from politics. I feel >> this is still somewhat distant from the political machinery of crypto. >> >> I wish it were more actionable. By which I mean I wish it was showing me >> how an engagement, hack or critique of the crypto-scene can build >> solidarity to bring on the actual "bricking". I want to be able to see the >> mechanism by which we will gather around the provocation and bring it >> about. Otherwise, it's somehow safe, in a separate domain. >> >> The moment when I felt this strongest was on the governance page >> https://www.luttecoin.com/governance which led me to the "invest" page >> both of which used the same hollowed-out language found in generic crypto >> and NGO messaging. "Freedom to Dream" and "Make a Difference". I was so >> curious to see how you were going to dig into the economic or governance >> propositions being developed across the political spectrum in the >> crypto-scene. But it doesn't really go beyond irony. >> >> Situationism was about praxis, about actually changing culture. >> I can't wait for this to happen with the Situationist Blockchain >> Foundation - is this what you hope for Eryk? Can you share any more about >> how it will be funded and governed? >> >> So, to shill my own coin (as they say;)... I'd love it if you and other >> NBers wanted to join us for this conference I'm co-curating with Penny >> Rafferty at HDK in Munich in January. It's called *Radical Friends- the >> DAO Summit for Decentralisation of Power and Resources in the Artworld* >> https://hausderkunst.de/en/events/radical-friends-dao-summit There IS a >> lot more interesting and critical work and play developing now and it would >> be great to build more connections and solidarity. >> >> Thanks for sharing Eryk! >> >> Warmly >> Ruth >> >> >> >> On Wed, 22 Dec 2021, 01:02 Mez Breeze via NetBehaviour, < >> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: >> >>> ...*head nods in approval*... >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 4:09 PM Eryk Salvaggio via NetBehaviour < >>> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>> Wanted to share a new piece of work created for an art & research >>>> residency, “Excavations: Governance Archeology for the Future of the >>>> Internet,” created by UCBoulder and King’s College, London: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://excavations.digital/ >>>> >>>> >>>> The goal was to research pre-digital forms of governance and imagine >>>> adapting them to contemporary online governance structures. >>>> >>>> >>>> Our proposal was to study the Situationist International and attempt to >>>> reconcile the anarchic stance with protocols and ideologies around >>>> cryptocurrencies. The result is The Situationist Blockchain, or LutteCoin: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://LutteCoin.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ++++ >>>> >>>> >>>> From the exhibition website: >>>> >>>> >>>> ++++ >>>> >>>> >>>> We propose a decentralized peer-to-peer Situationist blockchain. The >>>> Situationist International was a French anarchist movement inspired by >>>> surrealism, Dada, and libertarian Marxism. They proposed that we navigate >>>> the world through a "mystifying illusion" of spectacles present in >>>> advertising, films -- even vacations and leisure -- that consolidates >>>> control in the name of economic productivity. This is true on its face: we >>>> spend hours of "free" time on social networks, for example, turning that >>>> leisure into data which is collected and sold by those providing us with >>>> "leisure." This is, fundamentally, an employee relationship being given >>>> freely to corporations. UX interfaces and digital interactions extend the >>>> spectacle, rewarding users with illusions in exchange for distracting them >>>> from the ways they wish to actually live. >>>> >>>> >>>> Abandoning the spectacle of economic productivity, our “Proof of >>>> Non-Work Consensus Protocol” turns devices into an otherwise useless >>>> object, or “brick.” Users, liberated from the spectacle of electronic >>>> interfaces, pursue other dreams. Meanwhile, the devices mine and create >>>> cryptocurrencies only to be immediately burned. The devices are essentially >>>> frozen and interfaces made inaccessible. The CPU power processes at full >>>> capacity, and cannot be turned off. Eventually, they burn out, and with it, >>>> so does any currency it has produced. This perfects the process of >>>> automating human leisure, mining and destroying wealth in an endless parody >>>> of economics. >>>> >>>> >>>> ++++ >>>> >>>> >>>> There is also a write up of the research, included as a white paper for >>>> the “cryptocurrency” we’re pitching, which explores the relationship we’ve >>>> identified between financialization, the seductive allure of “liberatory” >>>> cryptocurrencies, and the spectacle of user interfaces under surveillance >>>> capitalism: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/615ba1842a6b1371238ebc60/t/6196a151193b52305fabe677/1637261649657/LutteCoin.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> I welcome any feedback from the NetBehavior community on this project! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>>> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org >>>> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> | mezbreezedesign.com >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org >>> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>> >> > > -- > Ruth Catlow > she/her > Co-founder & Artistic director of Furtherfield & DECAL Decentralised Arts > Lab > +44 (0) 77370 02879 > > *I will only agree to speak at events that are racially and gender > balanced. > > **sending thanks > <https://www.ovoenergy.com/ovo-newsroom/press-releases/2019/november/think-before-you-thank-if-every-brit-sent-one-less-thank-you-email-a-day-we-would-save-16433-tonnes-of-carbon-a-year-the-same-as-81152-flights-to-madrid.html> > in > advance > > *Furtherfield *disrupts and democratises art and technology through > exhibitions, > labs & debate, for deep exploration, open tools & free thinking. > furtherfield.org <http://www.furtherfield.org/> > > *DECAL* Decentralised Arts Lab is an arts, blockchain & web 3.0 > technologies research hub > > for fairer, more dynamic & connected cultural ecologies & economies now. > > https://decal.furtherfield.org/ <http://www.decal.is> > > Furtherfield is a Not-for-Profit Company Limited by Guarantee > > Registered in England and Wales under the Company No.7005205. > > Registered business address: Carbon Accountancy, 80-83 Long Lane, London, > EC1A 9ET. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
