On 3 Feb 2009, at 13:31, richard willis wrote:
i think simon just ably demonstrated why putting things in 'a more
everyday, comprehensive lanuguage, was/is problematic: you need
four times the amount of words to say the same thing. why write 'i
put my pen on the table' when you could write 'i put my plastic-and-
ink-writing-tool' on the 'wooden-platform-held-up-on-four-wooden-
legs'?
the chemical fluctuations in the matter which has come to be known as
"my brain," provides me with pleasurable impulses whilst regarding
correlations of coloured light which form the shapes resembling the
combinations of the latin alphabet seen above
cos the former is simpler than the latter. accessibility is good up
to a point: but introduce lifts into multi-storey buildings for the
aid of the disabled and you also create the knock-on effect of
making the able-bodied less fit and lazier by giving them an effort-
free mechanism of going upstairs. much better for the body - and
mind - to take the stairs as before.
yeah, the language isn't easy to grasp, but the effort of doing so
is probably more rewarding than the effort of simplifying at-first-
inaccessible academic prose.
2009/2/3 bob catchpole <[email protected]>
Simon,
Thanks for the translation, it's fortunate you're on the list!
Don't you think the text, drafted in a language largely
understandable by academics, is guilty of the very thing it claims
to be researching? That is, how and why people are excluded from
contested spaces?
If the text spoke in a more everyday, comprehensible language do
you think it might invite wider engagement?
Language is power. Often to exclude or oppress, no?
Bob
From: Simon Biggs <[email protected]>
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February, 2009 11:52:17
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Does it mean something?
It is clear to me and I have no problems with the language.
The section that states "the potential of translocally networked
spatial practices" could have been more simply written, however it
is clear in what it says – that the research is engaging the
potential of networked practices by practitioners who are
interested in spaces that transcend the local (the way it was
originally written was better). The next section, which states
"urban network processes, spaces of geocultural crises, and forms
of cultural participation and self-determination" is equally clear.
Urban network processes are events that occur in urban environments
within the network infrastructures of which such environments are
composed (communications and transport are examples). Geocultural
crises are crises that are caused by geocultural issues. This is
shorthand for the post-colonial politics around access to land
based resources by different cultural groups (Gaza is an example
here, as is Darfur). I do not see what the problem is with the sub-
phrase "cultural participation and self-determination". It seems
clear as it seeks to conflate the individuation of self (the
forging of self) with participation in social activities (that is,
the self depends on others to come into being). Sites of
"alternative urban engagement" simply refers to places where non-
normalised social activities can be pursued and social groupings
can form that facilitate those who do not conform to dominant
social norms (eg: raves, biker cafes, hardcore clubs, etc). The
last three words are, I agree, a little confusing. What is the
object of the phrase "emerging architectural cultures". Does this
refer to cultures composed of architects or to cultures that are
shaped by architecture? I would assume the latter, but the grammar
employed here is, I agree, not very clear.
Overall the text is clear and in its linguistic form usefully
suggests what its cultural origins are (left intellectual
academic). The text as a whole clearly states that its concern is
with who gains access to and rights of definition of social and
economic infrastructure in culturally contested urban spaces and
what the implications are for the communities and individuals
involved.
Where is there a problem with that?
Regards
Simon
On 3/2/09 10:23, "bob catchpole" <[email protected]> wrote:
Mez,
Does it mean something?
Bob
From: mez breeze <[email protected]>
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 2 February, 2009 23:26:34
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Does it mean something?
hi bob [+ assorted netbehaviouralists]..
bob, i'm curious as 2 by u're assuming that the text ur quoting is
muddy in terms of comprehension/meaning? do u think the terminology is
inappropriate or unclear?
chunks,
mez
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:33 AM, bob catchpole
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Yann,
>
> The other day someone posted on this list about a project that was a
> "research platform... on the potential of translocally networked
spatial
> practices." The project, it was claimed, investigates "urban network
> processes, spaces of geocultural crises, and forms of cultural
participation
> and self-determination" in which "sites of alternative urban
engagement are
> collected on a database" as research into "emerging architectural
cultures."
Simon Biggs
Research Professor
edinburgh college of art
[email protected]
www.eca.ac.uk
www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
[email protected]
www.littlepig.org.uk
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland,
number SC009201
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
--
richtextformat Ltd. | company number: 06699372
http://richtextformat.co.uk | [email protected] | 078 0706
2090
--
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
