On 15 March 2015 at 18:21, Randall Packer <[email protected]> wrote:
> @Michael >>>>> "It also characterises much of my experience of lists from > about 2000 onwards… And to my dismay it doesn't seem to be happening > here to anything like the extent I'd thought it might. And I wonder why.” > > So my conclusion here is that perhaps we need to propose new and evolving > DIWO strategies if we really want to “do it with others” via email lists in > the age of overload. > > I'd say hustling for paid work may be the issue here more than information overload, as that overload was already happening at the time of the last DIWO on this list and that didn't seem to affect participation (though I must admit to having passively spectated through that one but I was fairly new on the list and still trying to get a feel for the conversation). That said, I'd still argue for no rules. Rules may be necessary in large funded projects, as funding drives the need for results in our productivity-obssessed age, but rules tend to bring hierarchical structure with them. That goes against the best aspects of participatory work: inclusiveness, the freedom to play when and if you want to, and the openness and unpredictability of it all. Necessarily that means projects may fail to deliver results, spin out of control or take unexpected turns, but surely that's part of the fun of it? Also I think more than ever it's important to have spaces where we feel free to remix, appropriate and play with other people's work. When artists are being prosecuted left, right and center for things like doing a painting based on someone else's photograph, just keeping that space open is a political statement. And Netbehaviour has been doing a great job of that :-) -- http://isabelbrison.com http://tellthemachines.com
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
