hiyas, * The http://turbulence.org/commissions/howtolook post seems like a time quirk link here..
* I think its interesting that actually doing stuff linked to net/digital/code/etc. seems to render the context/institutional critique approach a bit disposable, I think.. Precisely because the power arbitrary nature of institutionalism and the histories attached for their ritualistic effect, being able to pop up in a bus stop, or gather a bunch of people in a pub, or online via mumble or something - indeed a mailinglist ;) - offers ways to wonder in between ways of sharing. In a sense, by simply doing stuff with other clusters than, say biennales etc. there is an innate critique that need not be glued to a certain mode. In that sense, yes, am utterly with you Annie, netorg-orgynets-nettynutters - or whatever they might be called - lets go! However, yes, nothing wrong with engaging the institutionalised. (if wrong, am guilty.) I think Geart has done a fab tightrope walking here. Not many could.. Cheers! Have fun! hrnxxx On Wed, September 30, 2015 14:31, Annie Abrahams wrote: > I am one of those who isn't really waiting for curators to pick up > digital art. The so-called art world is institutional, capitalistic, > elitist - it thrives on money. In this article Geert says something very > interesting to me : " We need to design new âstagesâ where we can act > out our collective resistance. I am very interested in new forms of > organization (called orgnets) and how these cells can become âcrowd > crystalsâ for new discourses. Later on we can see how these things scale > up. Right now we need more experimentation, temporary autonomous zones > where discussion can thrive. I fear this will not happen inside the > monopoly social media (obviously) but maybe also not on the open internet > as we know it as these public spaces are terrorized by trolls and > controlled by bots. In this turbulent yet fragile global condition, what > the world needs is semi-closed networks." I don't even know what orgnets > are, nor crowd crystals, but it triggers my imagination and Netbehaviour > does seem to be an exemple of the semi-closed networks he mentions. > > Question: Is netbehaviour semi-closed? > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Paul Hertz <igno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Well, happy to post polemics, it's a kind of a hobby. :^}. >> >> >> I think there has been a tendency for mainstream curators to approach >> more recent digitally-mediated works as if they were in effect a sort of >> hybrid old media, while still neglecting both historical and current >> "pure" >> digital media. This has meant that certain kinds of digital hard copy >> (modded photographic prints, collage and drawings, and even 3D printing >> == >> "post-digital") can be welcomed while the internet as a platform is >> generally ignored. I don't have any more evidence for this than >> observation, and I have felt that the situation for digital art was >> improving over the last ten years. OTOH, I can readily understand the >> impatience. >> >> -- Paul >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:56 AM, dave miller <dave.miller...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>> I think Geert is probably correct though - seems to me the art >>> "establishment" aren't interested in internet/ digital art, though >>> maybe they have a different view of it from us on here. The art world >>> remains a mystery to me, so I may well be wrong. Thank god for >>> Furtherfield, and I >>> would love to know who are the curators 'not' scared of it. >>> >>> What's the âpost-digitalâ bandwagon? >>> >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> On 30 September 2015 at 13:48, Annie Abrahams <bram....@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> don't be small, don't think sectarism Geert is closer to "us" than >>>> most "others" get in contact with him, explain and connect, use his >>>> critical energy >>>> >>>> invite him to curate, to build, to discuss >>>> >>>> xxx Annie >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:40 PM, NIKOS V <nikos...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I see the relevance in this approach, allthough I have to say >>>>> its allready to late for that criticism no? >>>>> >>>>> Moreover, is he really interested in art? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If yes, as Marc says, where are the references and the names ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And why is Venice Biennial important?To whom???? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2015-09-30 15:36 GMT+03:00 marc.garrett >>>>> <marc.garr...@furtherfield.org> >>>>> : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Geert needs to be more specific and highlight the curators who >>>>>> are 'not' scared and who have been showing technical artwork >>>>>> such as Furtherifeld & others - his words are not grounded and >>>>>> are too absolute, they do not reflect reality... >>>>>> >>>>>> marc >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://conversations.e-flux.com/t/geert-lovink-on-social-media- >>>>>> and-the-arts/2581 >>>>>> >>>>>> "The absence at the 2015 Venice Bienale of digital arts and >>>>>> internet works says it all. Curators are afraid to admit they >>>>>> are clueless and continue their ignorant attitude towards art >>>>>> that deals with the digital in a direct matter (while checking >>>>>> their smart phone). Everyone jumps on the âpost-digitalâ >>>>>> bandwagon because thatâs cute and safe. [...] Curators and >>>>>> critics are more than happy to embrace the race, gender, even >>>>>> the anthroposcene (whatever that is), but are blind for the >>>>>> techno-politics of the equipment and media they are using >>>>>> themselves so intensely. The contradictions are becoming absurd. >>>>>> Video was the last technology they had >>>>>> to deal with, but then it stopped." â Geert Lovink >>>>>> >>>>>> // >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> enjoy, >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Paul >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> > _______________________________________________ > 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
