Eduardo I agree with all three of your points.
However, we shouldn't always place too much import on what the words in names mean. New Media came into common use amongst artists in the 1990's. The main purpose for using the term was to discriminate between the creative practices that were emerging at that time, many internet based, and prior activity that had been, till then, termed media art. I'm of an age to have witnessed the morphing of these names as different generations seek to differentiate themselves from their predecessors. When I started out the term media art didn't exist and we spoke of video, computer art, electronic art, kinetic art and such forms. Media art, as a term, came along in the 1980's. If this process of naming does foster differentiation (which is debatable) then it is probably self-defeating. The point is, the names are not important and the issues these processes of differentiation relate to are usually arcane and of little import. On the other hand, the history of names associated with places can be very important, especially to those with an investment in the cultural dynamics involved. I imagine emotions can run high in St Petersburg/Leningrad, depending on which side of the debate you are on. In South America the same sensitivities clearly exist, as they do in Australia, where some indigenous peoples ask for a change in the name of the country (although most seem bemused, even after more than 200 years, by the need to have a name). Meanwhile, most of the Australian population has little investment in the history from where the name of the country emerged, having come to the country in various waves of migration after the First World War, the Second World War and the Vietnam War from countries not associated with 17th and 18th Century British, Dutch and French colonialism. They probably don't care much what it's name is. As for the issue of free software vs open source - I agree with you that open source is a better thought through and sustainable paradigm for software development. I stated that in an earlier email. best Simon On 15 Feb 2013, at 02:13, Eduardo Valle wrote: > Rethoric ... > > New Media is certainly not new for a long time ... > > I cannot change the name America so you with Australia. But there is a > distiction and this mean something that must be respected, South and Central > America are not only Latin and to forget that is to forget history, so if > British, Brazilian and others Institutions are still using that ... > > Free Software is certainly not free , and worst we know who advocates free, > so what i am saying is, Open Source in my opinion is a more appropriate term. > > > CC: [email protected] > From: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:09:11 +0000 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] New Digital Culture Unit @ Goldsmiths > > Eduardo, I think I understand your three questions. Correct me if I'm wrong. > > The first concerns how we define what is new and value it. The second is > about historical tropes regarding how the world is defined and named > (colonial power structures). The third is about the politics of access. > > These are all difficult questions and how you respond to them is a political > matter. For example, how do you value novelty? Is it valuable for its own > sake or only as an adjunct property of something else? Can novelty even > exist? That's an open question, but my own take on it is that the value of > novelty is over-rated and (especially) a Western trope. Some cultures value > tradition over change. As artists and technologists whose roles are about > creativity, as many of the people on this list probably consider themselves, > we should be suspect about the siren song of the new but equally critical of > the status quo. That does not mean there is a comfortable middle way. I doubt > that there is... > > As for names of places - the name America is problematic (whether South, > Central or Latin). I'm from Australia, where the indigenous peoples never > used Latin and therefore would never have come up with such a name for the > country. Indeed, these people would not even consider the country to be > something they could possess by naming it. They did (do) not comprehend place > as something they could possess but as something they are amongst. I can > imagine the indigenous peoples of what we call South America had similar > apprehensions of the places they inhabit. So, to call a place Latin America > or South America or whatever is always going to be problematic. It's also > possible the current indigenous peoples previously displaced other peoples > who had their own conventions about this (the original Australian's, for want > of a better name, were wiped out by subsequent waves of migration tens of > thousands of years before the first European stepped on to its shores). The > problematic here is potentially of many layers and unresolvable. Who has the > right to name something? Perhaps Shakespeare was right and a rose is a rose > is a rose - the name really doesn't matter? Saussure argued that the words > themselves are meaningless, as indeed the things they refer to are also > meaningless without words, and that it is only in the relation between all > the things and their words that meaning emerges (as a human construct - > nothing is a priori). I think his argument is more or less self evident. > > As for free - well, I think I responded to that before. Nothing is free. We > pay a price for every breath we take, every morsel we eat, every step we take > (sorry, sounds like a bad pop song). That might be a price paid in dollars or > pesos, or it might be paid in our own longevity as an organism. There's > always a process of exchange (the third law of thermodynamics appears to be > inescapable) and that is, in a very profound way, an economic reality. This > is why I said before there is no 'us' and 'them' - just an inescapable 'us'. > > best > > Simon > > > Sent from a mobile device, thus the brevity. > > Simon Biggs > [email protected] > [email protected] > http://www.littlepig.org.uk > > On 14 Feb 2013, at 18:02, Eduardo Valle <[email protected]> wrote: > > Simon, > What i am discussing are those points: > 1) How can a University use New , and Digital Culture as terms of a unit in > the 21st century second decade 2) How can a University use the term Latin > América for South And central América ? > 3) How can a University use a term like Free ??? Software ? > > Maybe they are Looking for some kind of students ... I hope they Had learn > something with MIT and Schwartz ... > > Open Source is Still a term to be discussed , but let us accept as it is > having in mind that technologies are NOT neutral át. All and that software is > just part of a system. > > Art, Technology and OPEN DATA. > > From: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:26:48 +0000 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] New Digital Culture Unit @ Goldsmiths > > Eduardo > > Open Source is based on a notion of give and take. It's a participatory > paradigm. Being able to programme is an important means by which one can > participate. However, as James points out, there are other ways. In this > respect Open Source is profoundly different to other more traditional IP > based models of production and consumption, where the roles of producers and > consumers are clearly delineated and ownership of IP fiercely defended. Open > Source is, in its best forms, co-creation of the most radical sort. Given > that culture is something we create (not something received - although some > would like us to believe this) it is possible to argue that Open Source is > itself a cultural paradigm based on shared creativity. > > As for this issue of culture - again, I think we mean different things by > this word. The origins of the word are in the domain of agriculture and > simply means to improve something through cultivating it. In the 18th and > 19th centuries it tended to refer to what we now conceive of as high culture. > Since at least the 1940's it has generally be taken to mean any shared set of > values, systems or methods associated with a particular group of people who > recognise themselves as a member of the group. So, we have sub-cultures. > Digital culture was, once upon a time, a sub-culture. Now it is a mainstream > culture. With a billion members Facebook alone hosts numerous subcultures > within the larger digital paradigm it swims in. > > A primary component of culture, perhaps the very stuff of highly socialised > homosapien culture, is language. Many theorists (Turing, MacLuhan, Winograd, > Dennett, Hayles, et al) have suggested that computation is a form of language > - not a medium for language but language itself. I find these arguments, to > differing degrees, quite compelling. Thus it is possible to regard the > relationship of the computer to the processes of culturalisation and > socialisation in a similar manner to the role of language. Language could be > considered as an open source form of culture (more so in some cultures and > language groups than in others - in English there is no governance of the > language so it is very open to change through use). Language is socially > generative (as a process of reflexive iteration). So is computing. In this > sense we can speak of a digital culture. > > Given all this the programme at Goldsmiths (which is not unique, there are > numerous such programmes running internationally) seems to be founded on > solid foundations and to be engaging something that is definitely a valid > subject and, given the experience of the last decade, particularly timely. I > don't see what your problem with it is - unless you wish to critique specific > aspects of the programme - such as its scope or focus. But that's of another > ilk. > > best > > Simon > > > On 14 Feb 2013, at 02:06, Eduardo Valle wrote: > > James, no it is not, by the fact that If you want to modify not just ask > questions on the GUI You must learn programming and even If want to do that > You must do in 2 or 3 languages that work on it. So it is Open but not for > all át. All. Systems, users and moderators ... > > > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:28:35 +0000 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] New Digital Culture Unit @ Goldsmiths > > > > On 14/02/13 Eduardo Valle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >Open for Who ? Only for the ones that wants to learn programming, and > > >that is ok but it is not for all át. All. > > > > what about people who work on the documentation? or those who work on > > translations? or those who work on design? or those who spend their > > time in the community helping new users (ie forums/mailing > > lists/irc/etc)? it is open to all of those people isn't it, or am i > > missing something? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > Simon Biggs > [email protected] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: > simonbiggsuk > > [email protected] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh > http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php > http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html > > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ > http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/ http://designinaction.com/ > MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices > http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php > > > _______________________________________________ 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 Simon Biggs [email protected] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk [email protected] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/ http://designinaction.com/ MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
