Hi Marc (and all), Some thoughts (and meta-proto-criticisms):
To begin with the agenda of opposing/resisting neolibral capitalism is already to commit to a path that is specifically determined and necessarily exclusive of other possibly more efficacious approaches. The following quotations are all taken from this article I wrote (about surf club practices, of all things): http://lab404.com/articles/commodify_your_consumption.pdf Starting at (pdf) page 16, I begin a critique of "resistance" and I put forth an argument for an ethics of what might be considered emergent play. +++++++++++++++++ Regarding moving beyond "resistance": "Saying that politics is an act of 'resistance' was never true, except for the most literal interpretation of conservatism. We must search-and-replace all occurrences of 'resistance' with impulsion' or perhaps 'thrust.' Thus the concept of resistance in politics should be superseded by the concept of hypertrophy." - Alex Galloway and Eugene Thacker "Life-resistance is nothing more than the act of living." - Alex Galloway and Eugene Thacker "Power is nothing other than what it does." - Jeffrey Nealon (on Foucault) "There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons." - Gilles Deleuze Regarding a Bergsonist/Deleuzean "virtual": "History is the virtual... made actual... The virtual is not just the potential latent in matter, it is the potential of potential." - McKenzie Wark "The nonbeing of the present moment is by far the hardest thing to imagine... What is it... that hasn't happened, and how could it ever be achieved?" - McKenzie Wark ++++++++++++++++ Modernism made a number of claims that it turns out weren't true. Like Mark Rothko, modernism was accomplishing something pretty cool, it just wasn't accomplishing what it claimed it was accomplishing. Furthermore, the fact that modernism was mistaken about the nature of what it was accomplishing was the very impetus that allowed it to be able to accomplish what it was actually accomplishing. Thus Bruno Latour can accurately assert, "We have never been modern." If modernism says, "Here's your flying car," then post-modernism complains, "Dude, where's my flying car?" But to oppose something (anti-art), or to purposefully attempt to move beyond something (post-modernism) is just a way of getting all entangled with that something (like Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby). If post-modernism is all weepy, disappointed, angsty, despondent (and pragmatically impotent) because the claims of modernism turned out to be a sham, an a-modernist like Latour might respond, "Why did you believe those claims in the first place? What did you expect? Let's look at what actually did get accomplished and figure out where to go from here." Capitalism is indeed a thorny, wily, persistent force/system/virus. My guess is that it won't be "overcome" by a manifesto of resistant practices, for the same reason that anti-spectacularism is always eventually re-commodified as the new and expanding edge of the overall spectacle. Capitalism may have to be modulated from within by a kind of (earnest/rigorous) "play" that looks like something other than overt resistance. Is there a place for this kind of off-topic, useless, manifesto-indifferent, "wildcard" play in the manyfesto? Best, Curt >Hi Ann, > >Thank you for highlighting 'Moral Responsibility for Computing >Artifacts: The Rules'. Very interesting reading and helpful material. > >I think it gets much more complex (whether for the arts, open source >etc) when art touches on the fundamentals of infrastructure. Personally, >art which in its make-up or motive explores the realms of infrastructure >engaged in the materiality of 'life' and social shifts, in the networked >or physical sense, tends to become active agents of change. Some of it >can turn into meme by fate and, of course not always social change, yet >it's still fascinating. > >Having said this, it is also important to mention that even though many >in the furtherfield ranks are influenced by political contexts, the >proposed 'manyfesto' would have live somewhere els, and furtherfield >would continue be loose, less defined. Even though it engages with three >overall themes connecting to art practice through, technology and social >change. > >I have seen so called 'radical' organisations loose (sacrifice) their >spirit, essence and imaginative freedoms when moving too far into areas >of either marxist based, singular protocols, or moving the other way to >a more capitalist, over efficient position - then isolating the very >individuals and groups that helped in building these comunities in the >first place. So, furtherfield will not change dramatically, it will >change slowly and organically according to its community at that time. > >The other thing, which is probably not said enough is that, art is >messy, gunky, annoying and fluid. It is whatever we want it to be, and >thankfully out of this chaos some very stimulating and amazing work is >made - this excites me :-) > >Which is another reason why I am proposing that if such a movement >occurs it has a different space, where its own life can breath on its >own terms, forking new territories and resources which are more defined >because of its shared, collective visions through active and independent >contexts. > >wishing you well. > >marc > > > > I am struck by the description of the loose movement you propose, >Mark, and > > point at a new project that now has some of the great and good worldwide > > signed up to it, though for a different area. They are working on 'The > > Rules', to create some ethical guidelines in the field of technology > > development. I link it here because notions such as the 'ad hoc >committee' > > and their version control system might or might not inspire further >thought > > on the structure for the writing of the many-festo. > > > > https://edocs.uis.edu/kmill2/www/TheRules/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of marc garrett > > Sent: 16 October 2010 13:00 > > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] From today... > > > > Hi all, > > > > I have been reading, catching up on the discussions about >'authenticity of > > art in a neoliberalist world'. > > > > One thing that kept coming back to me when reading all of the great > > concepts, cross-thinking and shared explorations around the subject, was > > - how the hell does this all translate into an everyday practice? > > > > It seems to me that as an overall, blanket of rules or ethical > > implementation on arts culture as whole it really would not work; because > > people need their own space to experiment and discover their own creative > > noise or voices. To suggest everyone becomes the same or reads from >the same > > song sheet, would be a mono-cultural and self-defeating experience; very > > likely stunting individual agency on art-making and its local, contextual > > terms. > > > > So, there needs to be a contemporary body of people or movement >engaged in > > dealing with these actual questions, specifically. > > > > A group who is willing to organize a shared (agreed) 'manyfesto' for a > > collective practice; for producing alternative art contexts challenging > > through its practice the destructive nature of neoliberalism and its >ideals, > > and influences on our cultures world wide. So far, there have been small > > groups and individuals who have done this, but as an art movement > > specifically re-evaluating and challenging art culture and the >neoliberalist > > agenda as its main focus; through ethical reasonings in order to redefine > > the mannerisms of art behaviour, with guidelines for others to discuss, > > debate, use themselves, as a shared create commons, is another thing. > > > > The reason I propose 'manyfesto', instead of manifesto is because, we >need > > to be 'consciously' aware in our shared decisions in challenging some >of the > > older more singular modernist (even post-modernist) languages bit by >bit. If > > we take the 'i' out of manifesto, it feels actually less 'masculine' > > originally (from Italian, from manifestare to manifest). "...maybe we >should > > jointly define the goals ... write some sort of many-festo as marc >garrett > > would call it" collaboratively user designed, Armin Medosch. > > http://www.thenextlayer.org/node/18#comment-7 > > > > Obviously goals would be agreed by consensus, but a manyfesto would be > > worked out in order to bring into fruition a focus and direction (even > > rules, yes rules) making it easier for individuals and groups to define > > their own situations, circumstances and differences, actively >incorporating > > process as 'critiques' as 'real' palette, material or 'thoughtful manure' > > and nourishment in making such works. Such works need not be >technologically > > informed or based, but more exist in recognition or through >acknowledgement > > of the guidelines proposed, shared via the movements own deliberation. > > > > The movement would of course need its own doubters, critical thinkers, > > theorists to act as the consciousness of the collective/movement, but >at the > > same time there needs to be a consensus and agreement that the work > > introduced into the world is from an activist position, and getting >it out > > there is important and urgent, for all concerned. > > > > Even though I am equally enthralled in theorizing about various >ideas, much > > of this excellent, independent, intelligent and inventive/imaginative > > discourse can work towards informing a pro-active art practice. > > > > Wishing all well. > > > > marc > > > > > > > > > Think we're pretty much in agreement here! > > > > > > Thanks for the discussion, Alan > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, Curt Cloninger wrote: > > > > > >>> The best art teaching I've seen (and hopefully articipated in) >was Lutz > >>>> Presser's in Tasmania, and David Askevold's at Nova Scotia; in both > > cases, >>> they/we assumed the students were already artists/agents, and > > treated them >>> as such. So making art became a cooperative effort - > > sharing techniques >>> when needed, but not imposing anything. And >believe > > it or not, everyone >>> rose to the occasion. It's as if nothing was >taught > > at all but everything >>> was learned. It was astonishing. > > >> This sits well with me as a pedagogical practice. It makes me think >> > > of Ranciere's "Ignorant Schoolmaster." If I am the teacher/explicator >> > > with the correct answer, then in order to liberate my students with >> my > > wisdom and knowledge, I first have to convince them that they >> >aren't yet > > liberated. This is a form of oppression masquarading as >> >emancipation. As > > the situationists say, "Don't liberate me. I'll take >> care of that." > > >> > > >> I, as the teacher, don't arbitrate/decide "what matters." But the >> > > student still must decide this for herself. That is her own pragmatic >> > > question as a practicing artist. Because she has been thrown into the >> > > world with a body that can act on things and with a limited amount of >> > > time to live. She is the steward of this body and time. So the art >> >work > > she makes must at least matter to her; otherwise she would spend >> her > > time, money, and bodily energy on some other activity she deemed >> more > > worthy. > > >> > > >> What kind of pedagogy best comes alongside my student and helps her >> > > discover what matters to her? That becomes my own "pragmatic" > > >> question as a practicing teacher. > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> NetBehaviour mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > == > > > email archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ > webpage > > http://www.alansondheim.org > music archive: > > http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/ > > > == > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > >_______________________________________________ >NetBehaviour mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
