Ok let's discuss concrete art works, activities etc - let's leave for a moment the theorethical philipoli stuff In this discussion we have until now Ruth's work http://gtp.ruthcatlow.net/ on time: human time, life time, computertime, scientific time, stone time and Rob's examples in his article http://furtherfield.org/features/articles/accelerationist-art - what are these doing, what duscussion, thoughts they further ...
I just watched Ruth's work again, I like the reflexion it brings, how it articulates all these times. I have a question: - What do the people who go to the installation get from this, is there a live video projection?, Can they understand how time is at stake in this work? (In the catalogue text I read Edward mentioned a projection, but so far I didn't see any photos of it)* I admit I had difficulties understanding the complexity of the piece in the beginning but now, at the end I can enjoy it's beauty. So probably what I want to know Ruth, is where was your focus on the final video object or on what happened in the installation ... What did I get out of the examples Rob gave in his article? They are almost all art, just art, as far as I can see. Objects, you can show and sell. They function mostly in the Artworld. Holly Herndon and probably also Morehshin Allahyari & Daniel Rourke seem to be a bit different in the sense that they also engage with other domains and feel "whole". They reach out. As feel "whole" for me someone like Hito Steyerl whose work I like a lot. http://www.e-flux.com/journal/a-sea-of-data-apophenia-and-pattern-mis-recognition/ the dissappearance of an horizon - acceleration as stasis https://vimeo.com/81109235#t=99s Does this have anything to do with accelerationism? I don't know and would that be important to know? Please diversify examples ... Thanks for these discussions!!!!!! Annie *I found a photo of a screen showing what? https://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako/24284339460/in/pool-wana2021/ a still, a looping video? On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Gretta Louw <gretta.elise.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > This makes so much sense to me, thank you Ruth. I see so much of this in > Europe, North America and the western, urban mainstream; an utter inability > (and, probably, unwillingness) to look outside our own narrowly defined > cultural lens when purportedly studying/attempting to understand > technology, media, digitalisation, and their impacts. It hampers real > discussion and cross-fertilization of ideas. Preaching to the (mostly > white, educated, urban, western, northern) choir - as most tech/ digital/ > futurist and possibly accelerationist (I hope I'm wrong about the last one, > still too early to tell) festivals/meetings/discussion do - is a futile > endeavor and exhausting to watch. Diversification is essential, but the way > the discourse has developed around diversity actually is counterproductive > to achieving greater diversity. Just as an example, there are studies that > have shown that reminding applicants of their 'diverse' (one must ask, > according to whom, diverse from what??) background in a job ad by > specifically stating that one is an equal opportunities employer etc, will > in fact reduce the number of applicants from diverse backgrounds. > > I am rambling, but this issue is always tacked on to the sidelines of > debates around the pressing issues of our time; an afterthought or a nod to > political correctness. It needs to be at the core: we should not discuss > these issues unless we have sufficiently broad input, otherwise we are just > talking ourselves into insignificance. NB: I am talking generally and from > some disappointing experiences at European 'digital futures'-type round > tables and panels, not about netbehaviourists. I do think that we all need > to take a much more radical approach to inclusivity though. Let's not > participate in mutual back-slapping or hand-wringing with ppl only from our > own sub-cultures... > > All the best to everyone, and thank you for sharing your thoughts. xx > > > On 23 Apr 2016, at 21:54, ruth catlow <ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org> > wrote: > > > > Here Baruch Gottlieb reviews “Inventing the Future”by Srnicek & > Williams (co-authors of the Accelerationst Manifesto) > > > https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/inventing-future-beholden-present-review/2016/04/08 > > > > He says > > > > "visions or projects for teleportation, nano-surgery and socialist Mars > colonies, are not going to convince capitalists to stop attacking socially > produced value every way they can. We need more fundamental knowledge about > how the present is reproduced in this first place, the legacy of > colonialism, imperialism, patriarchy and slavery in the very devices we use > to understand such things, and we need social and cultural technologies to > integrate that consciousness into new behaviours, new sociabilities, new > modes of exchange." > > > > > >> On 23/04/16 13:15, ruth catlow wrote: > >> So is this the accelerationist aesthetics question? > >> > >> Q. How can we as artists and people use the logics & tools of > automation and markets as part of making better art and better life for us > all? > >> > >> : ) > > Tom said > >> > >>>>> when it appeared that the prognostications of the first wave of > >> accelerationists had partly came true: namely, that the accelerations > >> inherent in capitalism, specifically the tendency to mobilize more > >> surplus labour and resources at greater rates of efficiency and > >> abstraction, would exacerbate the system's inherent contradictions to a > >> catastrophic point. Only partly came true though: the system did not > >> collapse but massively reorganized itself (all those would-be John Galts > >> suddenly all too happy to accept government bail-outs, massive > >> expropriation of assets from the poor). This required a recalibration of > >> the theses of that first wave of accelerationists, a recalibration that > >> perhaps either is reflected in art, or in which<<< > >> > >> The unfettered development of automation and market-forces is currently > seen as the preserve of people on the political right (who seek to preserve > the status quo or enhance their wealth and power). But who may at some > points ask for time-out (and bail-outs) in order to re-set their position > of advantage. > >> > >> Rob said > >> > >> If I was trolling I'd argue that if you're on the left you're either a > >> conscious or an unconscious accelerationist. But it's possible to do > >> things in an un-Accelerationist way - it's not an inescapable or > >> inevitable cultural condition. > >> > >> Yes, this is why I declared myself an Accelerationist- it was not a > proud declamation (a la 'I'm a feminist and I'm proud') more an admission > (a la, the declaration at meetings of people participating in the 12 step > programme). > >> > >> What I think is worth reflecting on (even if only idly) in this > >> discussion is whether there is anything in one's own life or work that > >> this strategy would be productive for. What could each of us better > >> understand and reason about (in some sense) so as to be able to better > >> change it? > >> > >> Both these points indicate something that Left Accelerationism has been > >> criticised for from various angles - it is a *selective* acceleration. > >> > >> > >> Left Accelerationists are critiqued as these social-power-tools (of > automation and market-forces) are seen as inherently dehumanising and > destructive of solidarity and freedom? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 23/04/16 02:49, Rob Myers wrote: > >>>> On 22/04/16 03:27 AM, ruth catlow wrote: > >>>> 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 think this (and Simon & Pall's conversation) raises two important > >>> points about "Accelerationism". > >>> > >>> The first is that contemporary society appears to have speeded up > >>> anyway. We can debate whether progress or the economy has stalled, but > >>> our experience of life seems to involve the compression of time by > >>> technology and by socioeconomic demands. > >>> > >>> The obvious critic of this kind of speed and acceleration, as Paul > >>> mentioned, is Virilio. Who I think relates speed to power in a way that > >>> makes sense of our experience of it as disenfranchising. > >>> > >>> Wanting to slow down from *this* kind of acceleration isn't a bad thing > >>> and is in fact the end point of MAP/Fixing The Future -style > >>> Accelerationism: let's get the machines to do the busy-work so we can > do > >>> something actually useful with our time instead. > >>> > >>> The second is that Accelerationism isn't a historical epoch like > >>> postmodernism or globalisation. It's a *strategy*. > >>> > >>> If I was trolling I'd argue that if you're on the left you're either a > >>> conscious or an unconscious accelerationist. But it's possible to do > >>> things in an un-Accelerationist way - it's not an inescapable or > >>> inevitable cultural condition. > >>> > >>> What I think is worth reflecting on (even if only idly) in this > >>> discussion is whether there is anything in one's own life or work that > >>> this strategy would be productive for. What could each of us better > >>> understand and reason about (in some sense) so as to be able to better > >>> change it? > >>> > >>> Both these points indicate something that Left Accelerationism has been > >>> criticised for from various angles - it is a *selective* acceleration. > >>> > >>>> 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. > >>> It's increasing our ability to perceive and reason about our situation, > >>> so quite possibly. > >>> > >>>> 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. > >>> Bladerunner's lived-in street-culture future is paradigmatically cyber, > >>> but I do know what you mean. The work is qualitative (or has a strong > >>> qualitative element), and this is in contrast to the strong > quantitative > >>> bias of shiny information graphics and *some* proposals for > >>> Accelerationist aesthetics. > >>> > >>> - Rob. > >>> >
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
