Hi Tom,
I like where you take this question of accelerationist aesthetics.
>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?
I think/hope that there are a number of people preparing to join this
bit of this discussion soon.
For me, in politics as in art, a successful encounter is one that moves
diverse people to seek agency (on their own terms) within contemporary
culture; and that acts as a spur for joyful, mutualist acts.
Not that we all need to be in an unending frenzy of communication and
exchange. More that we have ever-more nuanced ways to sense the
significance of different kinds of participation: in a loop of unwitting
participation and active collaboration and organisation.
I am currently showing a live networked video piece, I created with
Gareth Foote, called /Time is Speeding Up/ at 20-21 Visual Arts Centre
up in Scunthorpe as part of the show We Are Not Alone. I have no idea
whether this is an Accelerationist artwork.
The image capture software is designed to reproduce the sensation that
we have of how time speeds up as we get older. A webcam takes a new
image every 3 or 4 minutes and adds it to a 3 minute looping video. The
video is becoming more dense over time- and so the images of individual
gallery visitors are gradually being crushed out of memory, like dead
leaves into oil.
See it live here ( we are now on day 44 approx 17fps)
http://gtp.ruthcatlow.net/
And after 8 days (at 3fps)
https://embed.ascribe.io/content/1PHX3XJid9Erh5rCTNgf6L2M15ePL39Ror
I agonized about the aesthetics of the work- at first- so un-"cool", so
un-cyber - because the humans are so alive AND they make the work.
But now I'm really happy with it and would like to assert a place for
this almost folksy aesthetic (rather than a rush to slick, black
fluidity) in post-capitalist art.
Cheers
Ruth
On 21/04/16 23:09, Tom Kohut wrote:
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
<mailto: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 <mailto:NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
--
Co-founder Co-director
Furtherfield
www.furtherfield.org
+44 (0) 77370 02879
Meeting calendar - http://bit.ly/1NgeLce
Bitcoin Address 197BBaXa6M9PtHhhNTQkuHh1pVJA8RrJ2i
Furtherfield is the UK's leading organisation for art shows, labs, &
debates
around critical questions in art and technology, since 1997
Furtherfield is a Not-for-Profit Company limited by Guarantee
registered in England and Wales under the Company No.7005205.
Registered business address: Ballard Newman, Apex House, Grand Arcade,
Tally Ho Corner, London N12 0EH.
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
