Regarding what an accelerationist aesthetics might resemble (or the set of things which m ight be grouped via family resemblance as an "accelerationist aesthetics"), there's the June 2013 EFlux which was devoted to exactly this question. In it, Patricia MacCormack (In "Cosmogenic Acceleration: Futurity and Ethics") asks: "[…] what is the qualitative difference between a nihilistic reading of acceleration as saturation without refined intensity [as in its 90s, Nick Land versions], and an accelerationist aesthetic that does not equate speed with the too-fast replacements of capitalism, instead seeking intensity in all movement, and thus all movement as acceleration (even multidirectional)?" I think this last point is particularly interesting insofar as it insists, as I think Rob Myers pointed out vis-à-vis Futurism, that speed is not an absolute quality, but is a relational concept. In this sense, no continents without islands. I also wonder about how accelerationism's aesthetics relates to the larger question of political aesthetics. What I mean by this is: accelerationism, in its latest version, started off primarily as a way of naming a political tendency: how to best bring about a post-capitalist global situation using the tools which are available. Thus, not exactly an oppositional stance – we must smash capitalism – but rather a repurposing/hacking of the platforms that capitalist interests have made available and using them as weapons against that which impedes a transition to post-capitalism. Is aesthetics one such tool? I might point out that the 90s cyber version of accelerationism certainly had aesthetic investments (Neuromancer, Blade Runner, Terminator, etc.). So the question that accelerationism poses might be something like: what sort of coordination can/should exist between a post-capitalist political program and art?
Sent from my iPad > On Apr 21, 2016, at 3:11 PM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote: > > I think Haraway is a good historical example. Their Cyborg Manifesto was > written against sclerotic essentialist-/eco- feminism and amidst the decline > of left politics in the US during the Reagan era. They take the Cold War > figure of the cyborg and re-purpose it to critique all of this. There are > strong parallels to Srnicek & Williams' current argument that "folk politics" > is insufficient to bring about political change. > > I don't think that Accelerationist aesthetics are even slightly resolved yet, > and that's a good thing. In "Accelerationist Art" I mention some examples and > possibilities, particularly art that tries to exit the confines of > Contemporary Art's simulacrum of freedom. Maybe we can come up with something > here. :-) In general, Accelerationist aesthetics would presumably be about > increasing the capabilities of our reason in/via art, which I think would > require increasing the capabilities of our perception. One view of this would > be something like Cultural Analytics, the ability to deal in millions of > images or other cultural/perceptible phenomena at a time. But then there's > the singular power of myth and icons/iconography to guide and organise our > thought and perception. Which brings us back to the quarantine zone in which > we can look at Hyperstition... > > I think that a) and c) are good positions to combine. If they lead to b), > that's great. If not, hopefully understanding why not will lead to positive > action in other ways. > >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, at 06:25 AM, dave miller wrote: >> I don't understand what accelerationism is yet, as I need to read a lot more >> - and a few times - and let it sink in. I find it hard to understand, to be >> honest. >> >> I'm interested though in the connection with Donna Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto >> >> And I'd like to know more about the accelerationist aesthetic, what it is, >> and why. >> >> I'd like to know the general view from people on this list - as we are all >> new media/ net art/ media techy types , who have been experimenting with >> art, networked technology and politics for ages, is this something we should >> a) take very seriously >> b) embrace >> c) be sceptical of? >> d) be scared of? >> e) wish that we'd thought of > > _______________________________________________ > 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
