Hey Simon To allow multiple people to take on your own identity is an interesting and risky idea. It should not be discouraged especially in our current political climate. But my last post asked that it be done in a considered way.
I share your cynicism which is why I sent a gentle email of caution; but I really don't think it is up to us to be so directive in our responses to why it is a bad idea. You make a good point about cost of downloads (which is why it's so sad that syndicate burnt out) but let everyone work it out for themselves. Netbehaviour beware and focus on YouTube etc. Or even better ResPublica.... Best Helen On 11/7/10 23:56, "Simon Biggs" <s.bi...@eca.ac.uk> wrote: > Spammer art was a pain when we all had dial up and slow connections. It cost > money as we paid for the minute (or MB). These days, for most of us, spam, > art or not, is more an annoyance than an injury. However, there are many > parts of the world who are still on capped, slow and pay per unit > connections. In that context it is potentially arrogant, even injurious, to > deluge people with data who weren't expecting it. > > Best > > Simon > > > Simon Biggs > s.bi...@eca.ac.uk si...@littlepig.org.uk > Skype: simonbiggsuk > http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ > > Research Professor edinburgh college of art > http://www.eca.ac.uk/ > Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ > Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice > http://www.elmcip.net/ > Centre for Film, Performance and Media Arts > http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/film-performance-media-arts > > >> From: Helen Sloan <he...@scansite.org> >> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> >> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:19:40 +0100 >> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> >> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Invitation to join me >> >> Dear Karens, >> >> I remember Integer, NN etc well and spent hours deleting their prolific >> contributions to listings some of which I looked at and others went >> unread. It¹s true that there was a mass exodus from Syndicate during that >> time which was a pity as it did good things and it never really recovered. >> Finally, I understood what was going on but felt a little sad as well. I¹m >> not up for a culture that¹s worth preserving eating itself. >> >> I¹m all for this activity in a way but why ( as happened in Syndicate¹s >> case) do it to ourselves? There must be much more of a statement to be made >> to do it in other contexts. In this respect, I really liked what Heath >> Bunting and Rachel Baker et al did with supermarkets at about the same time >> as these others. >> >> We¹re entering hard times and in my opinion we should be careful about the >> way we do these kinds of interventions now. >> >> But hey, you can tell me that I don¹t understand and I can take it. Just a >> thought. I look forward to hearing more from Karens but hope you don¹t >> implode. >> >> Best >> Helen >> Helen Sloan >> SCAN >> >> >> On 11/7/10 21:40, "Michael Szpakowski" <szp...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> I absolutely agree that this is more interesting than the Mandiberg, and for >>> much the same reasons. Certainly there's a wild unpredictability to the >>> ceding >>> of something so personal as an e mail address which in terms of *real* >>> consequences might play out much more creatively than the actually rather >>> measured, prescriptive & essentially conservative feel of the MM piece. >>> (There always seemed to be a continual *desperation* with him to be on top >>> of >>> the next new thing, even when the result in art terms was not all that >>> interesting. >>> However he was a good egg in that he voluntarily gave his time to running an >>> excellent calls and opps list for several years & for that I am grateful...) >>> cheers >>> michael >>> >>> --- On Sun, 7/11/10, Ruth Catlow <ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Ruth Catlow <ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Invitation to join me >>>> To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity" >>>> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> >>>> Date: Sunday, July 11, 2010, 5:46 PM >>>> >>>> Great stuff so far Karen(s) and Marc and Michael and Alan, >>>> >>>> It seems to me Karen that you are likely to be closer to nn than to "the >>>> essential guide to mandiberg"... >>>> more anarcho-cyborg than the bureaucractic-art-twonk that is the >>>> over-surveyed subject of mandiberg's alter-ego; ) >>>> >>>> I think that's something to do with that fact that you are inviting people >>>> to >>>> join you by opening up your email. >>>> It is not "about" being multiple. >>>> It "is" being multiple. >>>> >>>> You have already told us a bit about your celebrity art parents. >>>> >>>> Do you feel that you are following in their footsteps? >>>> >>>> Why have you issued this invitation to join you now? And why by email when >>>> everyone is so busy socialising in sites like Facebook and Twitter? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Ruth >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: karen blissett <karen.bliss...@googlemail.com >>>> <mailto:karen%20blissett%20%3ckaren.bliss...@googlemail.com%3e> > >>>> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >>>> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org >>>> > <mailto:NetBehaviour%20for%20networked%20distributed%20creativity%20%3cnetbe>>> > > h >>>> avi...@netbehaviour.org%3e> > >>>> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >>>> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org >>>> > <mailto:NetBehaviour%20for%20networked%20distributed%20creativity%20%3cnetbe>>> > > h >>>> avi...@netbehaviour.org%3e> > >>>> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Invitation to join me >>>> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:37:15 +0100 >>>> >>>> So...yes please Ruth >>>> >>>> perhaps the interview has already started. >>>> >>>> :) >>>> Karen >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Ruth Catlow >>>> <ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Karen, >>>>> >>>>> What an intriguing idea brimming with subversive potential; ) >>>>> I would like to join you. >>>>> >>>>> But before I "speak and act as you" I would like to "speak to you" to find >>>>> out more about you and why you have decided to to do this. >>>>> >>>>> How would you feel about a short interview here in the Netbehaviour list? >>>>> >>>>> very best things >>>>> Ruth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: karen blissett <karen.bliss...@googlemail.com >>>>> <mailto:karen%20blissett%20%3ckaren.bliss...@googlemail.com%3e> > >>>>> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >>>>> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org >>>>> > <mailto:NetBehaviour%20for%20networked%20distributed%20creativity%20%3cnetb>>>> > > e >>>>> havi...@netbehaviour.org%3e> > >>>>> To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org >>>>> Subject: [NetBehaviour] Invitation to join me >>>>> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:43:24 +0100 >>>>> >>>>> Dear Friends. >>>>> >>>>> Please join me. >>>>> >>>>> Literally. >>>>> >>>>> I want to become more open and free, with a more distributed identity. >>>>> >>>>> So if you would like to take a break from yourself and speak and act as me >>>>> instead, please drop me a personal email. >>>>> >>>>> If I trust you I will send you my password and you can start expressing >>>>> me. >>>>> >>>>> Can't wait! >>>>> >>>>> Karen Blissett >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number > SC009201 > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
