Hi All, Having just spent a day with Ruth (among others) and thoroughly enjoyed talking with her about the Karens, I've decided to rise to Marc's challenge of explaining on the list what the development means to me.
I often quietly follow links and engage with the postings made here, but most of the time I am either interested or not, delighted or not. Etc. When Karen made her statement about opening up her email address, my first reaction was distress. And, being an ironic sort of a being, my next reaction was sheer pleasure that something had shocked me so much. And then curiosity set in as to why. My thoughts ran 'But I won't know if it's her in that discussion thread'... 'oh my god, I won't know if it's her any time that she puts a comment on another posting'... oh lord, I won't know when the adventure is over - if ever - and I can go back to assuming she's a single being again'. Then my thoughts ran 'But why should I care that a person whom I've never had the pleasure of meeting is one person or a cavalcade?' ... 'What does this say about my interest in identity? (I've been writing papers about the effects of using digital technologies on identity lately. It's become a bit of a habit.) In consistency? In using the NetBehaviour list? Is there something about mappings and "truth" that I need to go away and think about?' Clearly there is. I now greet all postings by Karen as potentially explosive: postings to be opened with care. I now pore over them to see if I can detect the author. I now berate myself for ignoring wisdoms such as 'the author is dead', for ignoring these statements emotionally if not intellectually. And I have avidly followed the discussion of whether the list will implode and why it shouldn't. (I should have thought that the very existence of both the stance and the discussion around it is the self-evident answer.) It's like a soap opera. I haven't had so much fun with a list for ages. I wasn't around to see/feel the effect of the artists who mobbed former lists. My responses are all very naïve. I am grateful for the intervention and excited. But I think its time is almost up and, looking at the shift in topics as I run down the waiting email, I am already commenting on a phenomenon that is shifting shape, over, of its moment. Thank you Karen. I want to know who you trust so that I know how to trust. Ann -----Original Message----- From: netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org [mailto:netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org] On Behalf Of marc garrett Sent: 12 July 2010 12:23 To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Invitation to join me Hi mez & all, This is a very interesting dialogue. One thing that intrigues me is, whether Karen's contributions to this list (no matter how insightful) will be considered as spam anyway - useful, valid or authentic in the eyes of Netbehaviour list users themselves. Another interesting aspect is that it is bringing up a history of a past which was strongly based around net art at the time. There are a few on Netbehaviour who remember these times, such as myself. But it would be also good to hear from those who were not part of this history, not net art, Sydicate and the NN/Integer activities, their own ideas around the subject, as well what they feel is happening currently here on this list, and what it means to them. I remember arguing with the NN, Integer and other characters on Syndicate and other lists. But, in the end it felt as though whatever one said, it did not matter anyway. I'm not sure if this was a deliberate aim of the project. >the lifespan of such forums + how ppl perceive>deal with the waxing + waning of them is, overall, fascinating. I think there are many factors regarding the survival of a list or an art group, or project - and it can be things happening behind the scenes. Such as, whether the 'originators/dedicated' team moved onto other careers and experienced the call of personal situations changing their priorities, such as spending more time in bringing their families etc, which are natural changes in life. Everything has a duration and will not last forever. As long as there are artists who wish to be part of something that sees them as part of a community, and feel that such a thing is worth sharing time and ideas on, then we will actively continue to be a part of that ourselves. wishing you well. marc > hi again helen, all.d > > like any avenue designed 2 act as a public forum, there's many reasons y lists such as Syndicate evolve>progress>+ [ultimately] decline. in my opinion, Syndicate progressed thru all 3 stages + had its fair share of interesting content, engaging dialogue, empty arguments, considered replies, technical hitches, experimental form[attings], standard list displays, passionate users, power-egofied abusers, moderator/admin hassles, pr guff, power plays, extended debates, censorship wrangling etc. i [personally] found the list declined rapidly when encountering shifts towards media-replication that lead it to operate as a more closed arena [such as dealing with cross postings across various art lists at the time]: in particular i found 1 "owner" [essentially a moderator] espoused a lock-down approach [while trying to deal with wot they perceived as information overload] that essentially reduced the list 2 elitist, 1 sided monothreading. again, i'd like to stress here that this my only my personal recollection. the lifespan of such forums + how ppl perceive>deal with the waxing + waning of them is, overall, fascinating. > > chunks, > @netwurker [mez] > > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Helen Sloan <he...@scansite.org> wrote: > > Hi > > Netwurker - It would be great to find out more about your opinions. > > Alan your practice is not miserable > > And I remember runme.org a little. > > My posts were just a little caution on causing potential for a community to implode when there are enough sectors and people out there who would be glad if that happened. Look at something like Republika and Big Society in UK. It uses much of the language that has been used by net artists and theorists over the last two decades and yet most likely has a very particular and negative approach to self organised communities. In some ways it relates to Marcs previous post on Digital Surplus. Ive not got time to write about this now but was alluding to it last night rather badly... After my festival finishes Ill try to articulate better next week in a post if it is still relevant. > > All best > Helen > > > > On 12/7/10 00:51, "mez breeze" <netwur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > hi helen, > > i'm not dismissing your comments at all, i'm simply responding directly to simon. in terms of your opinion that my actions accelerated syndicate's decline, I respectfully disagree. if you have any qs or would like my direct opinion, pls don't hesitate to ask [here or back-channel]. > > chunks, > @netwurker > > In which case my own practices are probably miserable... > > > - Alan > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > > -- > Reality Engineer> > Synthetic Environment Strategist> > Game[r + ] Theorist. > ::http://unhub.com/netwurker :: > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5271 (20100712) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5275 (20100713) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
