Re: [-empyre-] Fwd: Minor Simulations, Major Disturbances
2010/4/14 Green Jo-Anne j...@turbulence.org I don’t mean to detract from the debate about the role that universities play in supporting research that subverts the status quo. I just think that this “event” should be considered within this larger context, additionally, one in which millions of people have lost their jobs and their homes and are looking for someone to punish. California is bankrupt. The UC system has seen its budget slashed; students have seen tuition increases and been forced to drop out; faculty and staff have been laid off. Today, Arizona passed THE most anti-immigrant legislation in the nation. TBT's funding source is being investigated within a climate of economic scarcity and an angry segment of the population resisting a government takeover of health care. [TBT, after all, has been around since 2007, so why is it suddenly the focus of so much attention?] I absolutely agree with Jo here, that we should see these events in the larger national context. If California is seen (as some people say) as the most radical place in the country, then it would make sense that its a major target of the right wing. If the UC system is possibly the largest experiment in a public university system in the country, possibly the world, then it makes sense for it to come under the sights of the right wing backlash. What better way to shake the radicals out of california than to defund the UC system, where so many radical queer thinkers and political actors make their living? It seems clear to me that this is very much in line with Agamben's notion of state of exception, using the rhetoric of economic crisis to push through any changes that are desired by those in power, including paying billions to their friends at the top of major financial companies, ending public education to continue rolling the neoliberal agenda along, defunding arts programs. Some have said that the recent financial crisis was the end of neoliberalism, but it seems more like a resurgence of it to me. -- micha cárdenas / azdel slade Lecturer, Visual Arts Department, University of California, San Diego Artist/Researcher, UCSD Medical Education Calit2 Researcher, http://bang.calit2.net blog: http://transreal.org ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Fwd: Minor Simulations, Major Disturbances
Many campus radicals in the 60's 70's came to the same conclusion. They realized that the only way to be a true revolutionary was to be a criminal or outlaw. You get people who become bank robbers or drug dealers to fund their revolution. The other call from the 60's 70's was to work within the system to change the system. There is a 3rd way especially in higher education and that is to start your own school. This means find a patron or a backer to fund a new type of tactical media school. This is what Joseph Beuys did in the 70's in Cologne. He opened up a free university. Obviously you can't start with a free university because you all have to make a living. But as a radical gesture especially within the new media computer science and communications world it could be one of the most radical movements of all. On Apr 15, 2010, at 1:14 PM, Beatriz da Costa wrote: We can't simultaneously ride a career as interventionist artists, claim a political edge and demand funding, space and support from an institution like Calit2. It simply won't work, at least not in the long run. Eventually, the support will either stop, or the political edge won't be quite as edgy anymore ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Fwd: Minor Simulations, Major Disturbances
Re: de Certeau - Ahhh. but there is that nasty issue of intellectual property which innumerable university administrators and academic senate committees have set their sights on for years now. On Apr 15, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Beatriz da Costa wrote: Dear Jo, Rita et al, Thank you all for your thoughtful postings, I am glad I finally joined -empyre- and am getting the opportunity to follow such a lively discussion. Amidst all the events down at UCSD and the responses and comments on this list, my initial thoughts seem to be most closely aligned with Jo's statement below and Rita's dire summation of the university as an institution of control that clearly has the ability to distinguish between scholarship about activism and activism itself (and yes, writing is of course a form of making, but one that fits in much more neatly with the rubrics of academia). Sadly, I am not surprised at all about UCSD's behavior towards Ricardo and EDT's work. California is broke, the UC system is in deep trouble (to say the least), and overall the senate faculty has been playing along with this situation just fine. Some letters, some really smart ones indeed :), some protests, some attempts at organizing, but most of us are still going in to teach our classes and attend meetings in the same way we always did. Some of us have used the funding crises and increased push towards privatization of the UC as an educational backdrop to sharpen the political literacy of our students, and in many ways the publicity around the bang.lab events appears to have a similar effect. However, what this situation really seems to indicate is a somewhat broken approach to the negotiation between Tactical Media and academia. We can't simultaneously ride a career as interventionist artists, claim a political edge and demand funding, space and support from an institution like Calit2. It simply won't work, at least not in the long run. Eventually, the support will either stop, or the political edge won't be quite as edgy anymore. Its a wonderful thing while it lasts, and kudos to everyone who tried. For a while, we really seemed to have quite a few Tactical Media enclaves splattered between different universities in various parts of the country. But there is a time stamp on these moments of convergence and activity, and we shouldn't really be surprised by that. Operating in plain daylight is one strategy, and apparently the one the bang.lab has chosen up to date. But it seems that Tactical Media has equipped us with a few other tools that might be worth revisiting in this context. de Certeau's describes his rendering of the french wig concept to us in the following way: La perruque is the worker's own work disguised as work for his employer. It differs from pilfering in that nothing of material value is stolen. It differs from absenteeism in that the worker is officially on the job. La perruque may be as simple a matter as a secretary's writing a love letter on company time or as complex as a cabinetmaker's borrowing a lathe to make a piece of furniture for his living room ... . If the window for passing politicized tactical media tool development as legitimate research activity is closing, maybe its time to change wigs? Or is it just a matter of never using our tools in any way that could be traced back to the university? I don't know. I tried the latter a few years ago, and it horribly failed. On a much more mundane note: could anyone provide an update about what is actually happening now at UCSD? I checked the bang.lab website, and the last posting appears to be from last week. What happened since? In solidarity, Beatriz da Costa excerpt Jo-Anne Green post: You can't accept grants, teach at a university, and desire tenure without these negotiations and compromises. The best one can do is enter these negotiations armed with knowledge, awareness, and a well thought out strategy for the best possible outcomes for your project. Beatriz da Costa www.beatrizdacosta.net ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Fwd: Minor Simulations, Major Disturbances
Dear Jo, Rita et al, Thank you all for your thoughtful postings, I am glad I finally joined -empyre- and am getting the opportunity to follow such a lively discussion. Amidst all the events down at UCSD and the responses and comments on this list, my initial thoughts seem to be most closely aligned with Jo's statement below and Rita's dire summation of the university as an institution of control that clearly has the ability to distinguish between scholarship about activism and activism itself (and yes, writing is of course a form of making, but one that fits in much more neatly with the rubrics of academia). Sadly, I am not surprised at all about UCSD's behavior towards Ricardo and EDT's work. California is broke, the UC system is in deep trouble (to say the least), and overall the senate faculty has been playing along with this situation just fine. Some letters, some really smart ones indeed :), some protests, some attempts at organizing, but most of us are still going in to teach our classes and attend meetings in the same way we always did. Some of us have used the funding crises and increased push towards privatization of the UC as an educational backdrop to sharpen the political literacy of our students, and in many ways the publicity around the bang.lab events appears to have a similar effect. However, what this situation really seems to indicate is a somewhat broken approach to the negotiation between Tactical Media and academia. We can't simultaneously ride a career as interventionist artists, claim a political edge and demand funding, space and support from an institution like Calit2. It simply won't work, at least not in the long run. Eventually, the support will either stop, or the political edge won't be quite as edgy anymore. Its a wonderful thing while it lasts, and kudos to everyone who tried. For a while, we really seemed to have quite a few Tactical Media enclaves splattered between different universities in various parts of the country. But there is a time stamp on these moments of convergence and activity, and we shouldn't really be surprised by that. Operating in plain daylight is one strategy, and apparently the one the bang.lab has chosen up to date. But it seems that Tactical Media has equipped us with a few other tools that might be worth revisiting in this context. de Certeau's describes his rendering of the french wig concept to us in the following way: La perruque is the worker's own work disguised as work for his employer. It differs from pilfering in that nothing of material value is stolen. It differs from absenteeism in that the worker is officially on the job. La perruque may be as simple a matter as a secretary's writing a love letter on company time or as complex as a cabinetmaker's borrowing a lathe to make a piece of furniture for his living room ... . If the window for passing politicized tactical media tool development as legitimate research activity is closing, maybe its time to change wigs? Or is it just a matter of never using our tools in any way that could be traced back to the university? I don't know. I tried the latter a few years ago, and it horribly failed. On a much more mundane note: could anyone provide an update about what is actually happening now at UCSD? I checked the bang.lab website, and the last posting appears to be from last week. What happened since? In solidarity, Beatriz da Costa excerpt Jo-Anne Green post: You can't accept grants, teach at a university, and desire tenure without these negotiations and compromises. The best one can do is enter these negotiations armed with knowledge, awareness, and a well thought out strategy for the best possible outcomes for your project. Beatriz da Costa www.beatrizdacosta.net ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Fwd: Minor Simulations, Major Disturbances
Dear All, On March 28, 2010, Frank Rich wrote an op-ed for the New York Times entitled The Rage is Not About Health Care. In it he said ...The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964... The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House -- topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman -- would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play... The attack on Ricardo Dominguez and the TBT is motivated by this same insecurity. Brett, I would hazard a guess and say that you’re probably not being targeted because your last name is not Dominguez and you’re not an out trans person. If you read the “Flames” page of the TBT http://bang.calit2.net/xborderblog/?page_id=193, it becomes clear that the rabid, homophobic response to TBT and to specific people involved transgresses the boundaries of the project, and reflects the general tenor of the Tea Party movement as it is stoked by the flaming rhetoric of Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, etc. It is the same disproportionate rage we saw in action during the Heath Care Reform process, in which racial and homophobic slurs were hurled at specific members of congress, and which continues to simmer and stew. I don’t mean to detract from the debate about the role that universities play in supporting research that subverts the status quo. I just think that this “event” should be considered within this larger context, additionally, one in which millions of people have lost their jobs and their homes and are looking for someone to punish. California is bankrupt. The UC system has seen its budget slashed; students have seen tuition increases and been forced to drop out; faculty and staff have been laid off. Today, Arizona passed THE most anti-immigrant legislation in the nation. TBT's funding source is being investigated within a climate of economic scarcity and an angry segment of the population resisting a government takeover of health care. [TBT, after all, has been around since 2007, so why is it suddenly the focus of so much attention?] A couple of people mentioned the Steve Kurtz/CAE case as a point of reference. I think that the Culture Wars of the early 1990s are a better comparison; they came to a head with the NEA Four, and resulted in the NEA's budget being slashed (it was almost scrapped altogether), and direct funding to individual artists being eliminated altogether. Jesse Helms lead the attack motivated, I think, by the same fears Frank Rich is talking about. The whole debate was framed around spending taxpayer dollars on gay, anti- religious art. As for the complex nest of university research and the corporations and government departments that fund it, there is no simple solution if you are operating within the system. As Steve Kurtz said at the 2009 conference Critical Strategies in Art and Media, we're all in an indefensible position no matter what, whether it's I doing nothing or I do something, and that something is corrupted. We're always in a negotiation with everything we do. You can't accept grants, teach at a university, and desire tenure without these negotiations and compromises. The best one can do is enter these negotiations armed with knowledge, awareness, and a well thought out strategy for the best possible outcomes for your project. Warm Regards, Jo On Apr 13, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Brett Stalbaum wrote: At this point, being very much thrown in the midst of events here at UCSD, I feel I have very little theoretical insight to offer at this time. I am a little too close to the fire. But what I can do is to attempt to activate past theory developed in the crucible of the Electronic Disturbance Theater years back. In particular, radical transparency. I am curious about how the technocratc/liberal- atavistic/ conservative academic regime that Arthur theorizes responds to radical transparency. The email below represents the third time that I have outed myself to the same Administrators who are going after Ricardo. (Not everyone in the to list below is necessarily involved in the investigation, but they are all in administrative positions of interest.) So far, those persecuting the complaints seem uninterested in charging me with any crimes or going after my tenure. I'm not sure whether this is the result of a strategy to shoot for the head (a bad tactic against the rhizome), or whether it is general bureaucratic stasis or a specific panic that is preventing them from deciding what to do about my case, not to mention the hundreds of others around here who are willing to (or who already have) formally admitted that they too were involved in the electronic speech acts of March 4th. I will
