Re: [NetBehaviour] Lines of Communication
On Wed, 4 Mar, 2015 at 8:34 PM, BishopZ xchic...@gmail.com wrote: the Internet of Things will inevitably consolidate corporate power over our personal liberty Absolutely. Making, tracking, and acting on the data from Things is possible in direct proportion to (operating) capital. unless we implement strict regulations on what part of ourselves can and cannot be quantified I share some of Alan's concern about the likely efficacy of regulation *if* that means legislation, but I think that strictly regulating in the *behavioural* sense what can and cannot be (or is and is not) quantified is all the more vital because of that. I don't find fantasies of living off the passive income from our personal data convincing ( https://idcubed.org/bitcoin-burning-man-beyond/ ), not least because the earning power of personal data wuickly drops to zero - Both advertising and marketing data are affected by the unique quality of markets in information: the marginal cost of additional capacity (advertising) or incremental supply (user data) is zero. So wherever there is competition, market-clearing prices trend toward zero, with the real revenue opportunity going to aggregators and integrators. - http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/thoughtleadership/internetofthings/ So this means that we don't have to worry about not being our unique special authentic selves for the cameras (and sensors) that pay our wages, because they won't. Rather we can at least demonstrate the need for legislation (hackers can fix the technology of surveillance, and this can demonstrate both the need for and the possibility of fixing the politics of surveillance) by using strategies like facial weaponization and a new Situationism of living and acting randomly. A fish. Next Wednesday at 25:82 pm, alongside AYFDuyguyuky. - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
[NetBehaviour] Tapestries? - Patrick Lichty Interviewed by Tilman Baumg
patrick, tapestries wonderful metaphor for weaving the net On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:00 AM, netbehaviour-requ...@netbehaviour.org wrote: Send NetBehaviour mailing list submissions to netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Message: 1 Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:12:43 + From: furtherfield furtherfiel...@gmail.com To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: [NetBehaviour] Tapestries? - Patrick Lichty Interviewed by Tilman Baumg?rtel Message-ID: caovnvurpxza+c8ed6+z0sr8sgpjb6fthfk1lfoo48joz3mf...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Tapestries? - Patrick Lichty Interviewed by Tilman Baumg?rtel http://furtherfield.org/features/interviews/tapestries-patrick-lichty-interviewed-tilman-baumg%C3%A4rtel The American artist Patrick Lichty is best-known for his works with digital media: as part of the activist group RT Mark and as designer of digital animation movies for their follow-up The Yes Men, he has been recognized as a net artist with a political bend. He has been working with digital media since the 1980s, and has created works with video, for the Web and for Second Life. At the moment, Lichty has a solo show ?Artifacts? at DAM Galerie in Berlin ( http://bit.ly/1DTNvt9). However, the artist, who is teaching at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee and has recently published a book of theoretical essays on Networked Cultures (http://bit.ly/1aLdAB6), is not showing media works, but tapestries. Tapestries! What's going on? Tilman Baumg?rtel finds out. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20150304/fb874d2c/attachment-0001.html ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
On Thu, 5 Mar, 2015 at 5:26 AM, ruth catlow ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org wrote: On 04/03/15 16:19, Randall Packer wrote: It is my personal opinion that social media promises, at least in part a new look at the collective forms that emerged in the 1960s 1970s. I don’t want to go into a full-blown lecture here (my students get enough of that), but the link between the Happening and social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, the mailing lists, etc., suggest there is plenty of creative room for improvisation and audience engagement + interaction + remix in this form of participatory, collective narrative via the network. I have heard eminent artists and theorists make this argument before and it feels all wrong to me. Social medial platforms are designed by commercial companies to elicit very particular types of normalising exchange between masses of people. People normalise themselves in any given environment, I think. One interesting thing about social media is the way each successive successful platform is colonized by a new generation of young people (a high school generation is 2-4 years...). This both makes platforms' claims to success less impressive (much of it is merely generational), and the problem of making free alternatives more difficult (if they become successful they will soon become uncool). From the perspective of the platform providers, the purpose of the users actions and interactions is to squirt lucrative data. The functioning of Happenings and Intermedial exchange was to detourn, restructure, or re-make social relations- if only for a short duration. Temporary Autonomous Zones? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone They were a very popular idea in some 90s net thought iirc. I don't see any general connection with mass social media usage. There may be a negative connection. Both are social frames to elicit particular behaviours. There have been media art projects that critique and expose the logic of the platforms. Moddr_'s Web 2.0 Suicide Machine http://suicidemachine.org/, Commodify Us https://commodify.us/,. Marc interviewed them here http://www.furtherfield.org/features/reviews/commodify-us-our-data-our-terms There's also Naked on Pluto by Dave Griffiths, Aymeric Mansoux and Marloes de Valk: http://furtherfield.org/netbehaviour/naked-pluto-video And #Prisom by Andy Campbell and Mez Breeze: http://dreamingmethods.com/prisom/ This is why Furtherfield bangs on about the importance of Free and Open culture (in arts and software) http://p2pfoundation.net/World_of_Free_and_Open_Source_Art +1 :-) - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Lines of Communication
BishopZ the Internet of Things will inevitably consolidate corporate power over our personal liberty.” How so? Isn’t the Internet of Things just the idea of connecting any and all “things.” Or do you view it as part of some grand big data conspiracy to surveil our every move + our every object. Randall On 3/4/15, 11:34 PM, BishopZ xchic...@gmail.com wrote: the Internet of Things will inevitably consolidate corporate power over our personal liberty unless we implement strict regulations on what part of ourselves can and cannot be quantified On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: What are we, as NetArtizens doing/writing/ about it (when the land is scorched from war and climate change)? I think this is critical, fundamental. @Alan, what we are doing about it, here, is opening up lines of communication. In a world where negotiation and conflict resolution are upended by unreasonable geo-political differences and the refusal to speak openly, honestly, and directly: we as #netartizens can be a **model** (and yes, that¹s essentially the role of the artist to model) by engaging one another under the radar, speaking out, openly with our work our (net)work our voices, to help paint + perform + mediate new ideas, words and portraits of **our** vision of humanity. We have to speak in order to be heard. On 3/3/15, 1:15 PM, Alan Sondheim sondh...@panix.com wrote: What happens when these spaces disappear? They've always been entangled. Take Syria, today (literally researched released today) postulates that the war/s there are in part the result of climate change. Who will be physical when the land is scorched? And perhaps more to the point, what are we, as NetArtizens doing/writing/ about it? I think this is critical, fundamental. On the other point, I don't find the world divided in any sense into three spaces; there are any number of divisions that might or might not be made, and I think they obscure the entanglements and fuzzy boundaries we all live within (for example, ourselves and everything else, as microbial life). For me, that neatness has disappeared, just as real and virtual seem still to be inauthentic categories; when amoeba can learn, without the presence of a nervous system, what world are they living in? What world are we? I remember von Foerster defining life as fundamentally characterized by negation, for example, logic and categorization all the way down. - Alan On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Randall Packer wrote: Alan, networked space, or ?the third space? as I like to call it, is the world we are gravitating towards (no pun intended). I am always surprised the degree to which we forget or don?t pay attention to whether we are occupying the first space (physical world) or the third space. (by the way, the second space is the representational/symbolic world). We are losing the distinction between the real and the virtual, the two melding together in a kind of ?post reality.? I think for future generations the distinction will no longer matter. Consider that whichever space we are operating in, we will always occupy real, physical space, but our interactions will increasingly be situated on the network: just like right now, as we communicate through this list. So I would disagree that we can?t prepare, perhaps what it means to be a netartizen is to be self-critical and self-aware about the evolution from the first to the third space. The preparation is in realizing its inevitable and its real. The digital, I think, is unbearably fragile; not only is privacy lost, but we are not prepared, and can't prepare, for the attacks and corrosion to come; instead, we grant these worlds a solidity they don't have, never have had. On 3/3/15, 12:28 AM, Alan Sondheim sondh...@panix.com wrote: Hi, a few comments here. My own work is a continuous production which at one time I characterized as an ongoing meditation on cyberspace; at this point I see real and virtual inauthentic (in Adorno's sense), see the body as inherently entangled among symbolic systems which have always been with us, see culture (real and virtual) as characteristic of organisms in general, and see abjection/annihilation as increasing endemic in the world. It's this last I was trying to address; I wrote a text, sent it through od into hex, mangled the hex, etc.; the main point for me is the multiplication by zero, the annihilation of difference as the world is subsumed and flattened. This in fact has been the focus of my work for a while now, summed up by the phrase (which is also the title of a month's dialog on empyre, that was moderated by Johannes Birringer and myself) ISIS, Absolute Terror, Performance - ISIS replaceable by any thing, group, etc. insistent on the scorched earth of scorched earth, the elimination of culture, difference, the production of genocide and the simultaneous erasure of that production beneath the sign of what?
Re: [NetBehaviour] the ever-present-present
I agree in being curious about the nature of future historiography. I predict that the documented history will not look anything like anyone think it will. There was a point in an essay “The Historiography of New Media” where I was speculating scholarship that would modify itself as its online references did. This is a fairly neutral position; the speculation that future histories not being anything like we’d imagine. In response to Pall, there’s no way that we can speculate how future historians will value our work, but having spent time with historians for 20 years, I find that what gets covered is more linked to their interests and desires than what we feel is important, although that sounds pedantic. One antidote for that is to document the present-as-future-past in order to at least preserve an epistemic trace in conventional channels. The preservation of digital archives, I find is less dependent on scholars and institutions but IT departments and ISPs. From: netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org [mailto:netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org] On Behalf Of Pall Thayer Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:23 PM To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] the ever-present-present The notion that we might be erasing our historical past as we create it for the digital future sounds somewhat absurd and escapist to me. If we are not recognized for our efforts in the future, we should chalk it up to a failure of our present to find a means to preserve our work? We all think we're creating important and relevant work but if the future doesn't come up with a way to extract and preserve it, then it probably didn't mean that much to them. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Kath O'Donnell alia...@gmail.com wrote: yes, that's likely true. we hope the future might be interested but who knows what they'll be thinking of by then. On 4 March 2015 at 13:29, Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com wrote: It's interesting to consider what we, in our current ever-present-present, might think future generations will be interested in. We're probably wrong. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: Kath, you’re last remarks are particularly relevant in regards to the emerging digital natives and millennials. My teaching is centered around the study of the digital native as a kind of anthropological research. It seems there is a clear trend towards giving up on privacy, and a growing lack of concern for preservation, as you suggest. Of course when you are 20 you might not think it is important to save anything, but in fact, we have a social media industry focused on information as more and more transient. The social media of today is about the NOW, what is at the top of our feed, which comes to our screen in the Moment, and then fades in descending chronological order into a past we are no longer interested in. As Douglas Rushkoff has written in Present Shock, we live in an ever-present-present tense, our abbreviated attention span revolving around the here and now. I suppose it's really up to how much people care about these things, and whether they work towards saving some of it or preparing for the future. What in fact are we leaving behind for future generations on our hard drives and cloud repositories? And how will the technological culture of today be viewed when these values are no longer decipherable. Are we in fact erasing our historical past as we create it for the digital future? I think this is a real issue. though we try to save some things using archives, the changing formats and technology (and speed of change) is causing data to be lost or at the very least, harder/longer to recover/republish (especially if they need converting later on). it's covering both net art and personal items such as home photos which are generally no longer printed, and home videos. I also wonder what future archeologists will think of our surviving buried rubbish. so whilst I love the net, I think it's important to go back to hand made physical art and craft too. if there is some pulse in the future which wipes all the technology we'll be left with a gap from our digital/online years. let's hope the libraries survive. I've heard of projects such as printed copies of Wikipedia, but I wonder how many they print and how distributed these are. (plus how often as WP changes so quickly). in smaller communities such as music communities (for one example), there's less event flyers printed out - they are all online or (worse) only on Facebook as event listings, which means they are lost over very short times. I suppose it's really up to how much people care about these things, and whether they work towards saving some of it or preparing for the future. looking forward to this month. checking out the artworks now - they're looking great thanks On 3 March 2015 at 06:17, Randall
[NetBehaviour] Positive, Critique, Jam, Troll, anxd Sea Lioning
In regards to Mez Breeze' piece on the Internet Rage Machine, I am more inclined to posit that net.rage has at least two manifestations, as Mez writes, but is not quite as pervasive as is suggested. Certainly, in many areas of the Net, rage, trolling, and Sea-Lioning (lest I create a very strange neologism) is more prevalent. In my genre, trolling is well known in Second Life. Response to certain artists' projects featured in mass-market blogs have encountered scorn and net.trolling, and in some ways, current (and former) staples like Max Herman and Brad Brace seek/sought response, only to find that much of their semiotic power had long been exhausted. In contrast, Alan Sondheim's work is nearly daily, but one learns that it is not intended for irritation at all, but the product of a wildly creative mind who compulsively creates. I think Goffman's idea of the mask is very much a cause of this behavior, and a cognitive dissonance between the commenter and what may be at stake for the content creator, or there may be a desire to topple the important in a near-Futurist fashion, except without the ideology. But conversely, I also do not feel any negative dialectic should not be thrown away as trolling or Sea Lioning. While this is a very fine line, there seems to be a bit of a backlash to critical theory that is replaced with a positive discourse that almost seems like the old axiom, If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Not that it's that simple, but I find a positivity in new work that is either strategic or naïve in its acriticality which perhaps doesn't sell as well, either economically or discursively. I see a continuum of positions that are potentially constructive and disruptive, ones I call the positive, critical, jamming, and negation/troll. I take some issue with the culture eschewing of anything negative as either possessing the salesman's smile or trying to ignore the news out of fatigue. There is a thin line between critical discourse and Sea Lioning which seeks to dominate a dialogue through volume or steering the dialogue into solipsistic forms. Trolling vs. the Tactical can also be a tough call, but again, the former often lacks ideology, and is done for status or personal enjoyment. Ideology and position for me are also a hard call, especially in the age of ISIS, who I feel are the world's most masterful trolls who are using the Net to spread a viral ideology via the exertion of infopower via media. Stakes seem to be the issue, whose and which direction the action is seen from. For example, I'm sure groups like The Yes Men and Critical Art Ensemble are seen as threats and trolls by their targets, but freedom fighters to the left. By no means do I mean to compare the two cases, as the stakes are lives and the conventional vision of the nation-state in one case and money and corporate reputation on the other. Rarely does the future turn out the way we envisioned it, and I purposely problematize the we here. Mez illustrates this, and in my third day of living solely on the liquid food substitute Soylent, I am not sure whether some near-future visions are any more -topian. However, I did take note when at the EFF Austin party discussion panel at SXSW Interactive, I witnessed Bruce Sterling cry out, THIS ISN'T THE FUTURE I WROTE ABOUT! If the oft-dystopian fantastic speculators on the future are protesting the shape of the future emergent, then I consider Mez' words quite closely. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Lines of Communication
@Patrick What if capitalism has become so ubiquitous that the Foucauldian system of power is so pervasive that there is nowhere to go.² I can see that it is rather futile to be an optimist on this list. However, I hang on to the notion there is power in words, power in art, power in communication, it just doesn¹t have the same kind of immediate + dramatic effect as a nuclear bomb. However, if you take a broader perspective on time + history, I think you can see that art + the artist has in fact changed the course of cultural and political thought, time and time again, however glacial it may occur. On 3/5/15, 5:19 AM, Patrick Lichty p...@voyd.com wrote: We have to speak in order to be heard. Rhetorically speaking, being heard as voices of alterity predicates other places than we are now/alternate worlds. What if capitalism has become so ubiquitous that the Foucauldian system of power is so pervasive that there is nowhere to go. As Rita Raley wrote, the best Tactical Media can do is nip at the heels of the behemoth, and Hannah Hurr's letter to Mask Magazine offers a bleak Millennialist view, which I include so, as Randall mentioned, we are to learn from the younger generation. This was referred to me my Ken Wark. http://www.maskmagazine.com/the-demo-tape-issue/style/makes-no-difference I believe that one thing we are doing is attempting to locate that which is specific to our time, and this might be a signpost. ___ 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
Re: [NetBehaviour] some one said something
game -- Instructions: you press keys on your keyboard, which will be your actions. an action moves you forward in time (to the right). you can decide not to move forward in time, but remain where you are blinking your eyes from moment to moment or breathing in and out. you can go back in time by pressing backspace, deleting your actions. you can use the arrow keys as loopholes in spacetime, situating you in another time (past or future) or another place (between actions), this insertion potentially changing whole chains of actions in timelines. press enter to warp onto another timeline situation. you can build up a cluster of actions, which will give you special powers. clusters of clusters are even more powerful as they tend to mimic the player's overall intention or the other way around (a player is often more bound by these clusters than he intended, and again, this 'intention' might instead be regarded a cluster which has been internalized by the commitment to it. the bootstrap situation is that a player starts the game without both intention and action). Goal: the goal of the game is to continue to play. once the game is over the players have lost. your goal is therefore to do actions which elicit reactions from your opponent, which elicit new actions from yourself, c. games can last a minute or for centuries. the longest running game is several thousand years old. all players might be deceased in a running game. living players might argue whether a game has finished or not, something that often becomes the theme of the game - its clustered intention becoming a question of its state, which can prolong its life extensively; in this sense the game can be regarded as using players to prolong its life. a player can choose not to play the game, but even so, the game can choose to use the player to continue itself. in this way players might not be aware they're taking part in the game. very often, a player's attempt to finish a game will add to its continuity. On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:59 PM, James Morris ja...@jwm-art.net wrote: someone said something and someone else responded and another took note. a few others noticed the note and said something in addition. the whole incident was given the name 05637595419dace7bc6217963dcc98f02a4896eb71a0e01f422ab584a9f7bff9 - meaning to say something which someone else responds to and another takes note of which a few others notice and additionally respond to, to which the meaning of all is given the name 5eff37016f6892291e9807ef25b9ecdfdbb99b78f0a52d86211d17e7e6c0cf66 - ___ 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
[NetBehaviour] sneezr taint: patrick lichty
here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako/16520166227/ set, so far: https://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako/sets/72157651122579216 cheers michael ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
@Ruth @Rob, some additional ruminations on the connection between Net practice, the Happenings the 1960s in general: With the Internet social media, like the Happenings, there are opportunities for collective participation, distributed processes, real-time systems of performance, information sharing, and viewer interaction. Whereas process and documentation was essential to the shift away and dissolution of the object in Fluxus and later forms of performance conceptual art, etc., the modern day database, content management system, and social media offer new ways to fully integrate the artistic process into a dynamically-shared, distributed network. On Thu, 5 Mar, 2015 at 5:26 AM, ruth catlow ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org wrote: On 04/03/15 16:19, Randall Packer wrote: It is my personal opinion that social media promises, at least in part a new look at the collective forms that emerged in the 1960s 1970s. I don¹t want to go into a full-blown lecture here (my students get enough of that), but the link between the Happening and social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, the mailing lists, etc., suggest there is plenty of creative room for improvisation and audience engagement + interaction + remix in this form of participatory, collective narrative via the network. I have heard eminent artists and theorists make this argument before and it feels all wrong to me. Social medial platforms are designed by commercial companies to elicit very particular types of normalising exchange between masses of people. People normalise themselves in any given environment, I think. One interesting thing about social media is the way each successive successful platform is colonized by a new generation of young people (a high school generation is 2-4 years...). This both makes platforms' claims to success less impressive (much of it is merely generational), and the problem of making free alternatives more difficult (if they become successful they will soon become uncool). From the perspective of the platform providers, the purpose of the users actions and interactions is to squirt lucrative data. The functioning of Happenings and Intermedial exchange was to detourn, restructure, or re-make social relations- if only for a short duration. Temporary Autonomous Zones? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone They were a very popular idea in some 90s net thought iirc. I don't see any general connection with mass social media usage. There may be a negative connection. Both are social frames to elicit particular behaviours. There have been media art projects that critique and expose the logic of the platforms. Moddr_'s Web 2.0 Suicide Machine http://suicidemachine.org/, Commodify Us https://commodify.us/,. Marc interviewed them here http://www.furtherfield.org/features/reviews/commodify-us-our-data-our-terms There's also Naked on Pluto by Dave Griffiths, Aymeric Mansoux and Marloes de Valk: http://furtherfield.org/netbehaviour/naked-pluto-video And #Prisom by Andy Campbell and Mez Breeze: http://dreamingmethods.com/prisom/ This is why Furtherfield bangs on about the importance of Free and Open culture (in arts and software) http://p2pfoundation.net/World_of_Free_and_Open_Source_Art +1 :-) - Rob. ___ 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
Re: [NetBehaviour] Lines of Communication
Quantification has splashed up on us. Technology does more than adorn us, it has fused into our skin. Abjection, despair, collective trauma - in 2007 GNN declared the war is over. we lost. We all know that there never were any weapons of mass destruction - that systemic classism has flourished - that species are dieing at rates 1000s of times faster than ever before in the history of the planet earth. Yet we are no better off for knowing it - still powerless to avert our own crash. Every generation has observed the machinations of the leviathan - aghast at the bad decisions people make, the lies they believe, the atrocities committed in our name. But no generation has been able to see the fuzzy details of mass hysteria in politics and culture with such brilliant HD resolution. Every atrocity gets its own website. Every calorie gets its own tweet. Google knows what you have had to eat. Google knows when you are hungry. Google knows whether you have been bad or good. I do not think that Art's power is glacially slow, nor am I advocating dystopian views. I believe that Alan's entanglements must be understood for what they are - as territory to be mapped measured- perhaps understood. But if we can look directly at parts hardest for us to acknowledge - if we do not avert our eyes or dismiss them - if we stare long enough into the quantified encasement of our collective life, then we have a chance at seeing larger patterns as well as more detailed noise. The war is over. Technology will not save us. We have not given up. Bz On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: BishopZ the Internet of Things will inevitably consolidate corporate power over our personal liberty.” How so? Isn’t the Internet of Things just the idea of connecting any and all “things.” Or do you view it as part of some grand big data conspiracy to surveil our every move + our every object. Randall On 3/4/15, 11:34 PM, BishopZ xchic...@gmail.com wrote: the Internet of Things will inevitably consolidate corporate power over our personal liberty unless we implement strict regulations on what part of ourselves can and cannot be quantified On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: What are we, as NetArtizens doing/writing/ about it (when the land is scorched from war and climate change)? I think this is critical, fundamental. @Alan, what we are doing about it, here, is opening up lines of communication. In a world where negotiation and conflict resolution are upended by unreasonable geo-political differences and the refusal to speak openly, honestly, and directly: we as #netartizens can be a **model** (and yes, that¹s essentially the role of the artist to model) by engaging one another under the radar, speaking out, openly with our work our (net)work our voices, to help paint + perform + mediate new ideas, words and portraits of **our** vision of humanity. We have to speak in order to be heard. On 3/3/15, 1:15 PM, Alan Sondheim sondh...@panix.com wrote: What happens when these spaces disappear? They've always been entangled. Take Syria, today (literally researched released today) postulates that the war/s there are in part the result of climate change. Who will be physical when the land is scorched? And perhaps more to the point, what are we, as NetArtizens doing/writing/ about it? I think this is critical, fundamental. On the other point, I don't find the world divided in any sense into three spaces; there are any number of divisions that might or might not be made, and I think they obscure the entanglements and fuzzy boundaries we all live within (for example, ourselves and everything else, as microbial life). For me, that neatness has disappeared, just as real and virtual seem still to be inauthentic categories; when amoeba can learn, without the presence of a nervous system, what world are they living in? What world are we? I remember von Foerster defining life as fundamentally characterized by negation, for example, logic and categorization all the way down. - Alan On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Randall Packer wrote: Alan, networked space, or ?the third space? as I like to call it, is the world we are gravitating towards (no pun intended). I am always surprised the degree to which we forget or don?t pay attention to whether we are occupying the first space (physical world) or the third space. (by the way, the second space is the representational/symbolic world). We are losing the distinction between the real and the virtual, the two melding together in a kind of ?post reality.? I think for future generations the distinction will no longer matter. Consider that whichever space we are operating in, we will always occupy real, physical space, but our interactions will increasingly be situated on the network: just like right now, as we communicate through this list. So I would disagree that we can?t prepare, perhaps what it means to be a
Re: [NetBehaviour] Net Art Is Zen - Randall Packer
@Michael: your portrait will now hang in the official archives of the US Department of Art Technology. Thx!!! http://usdat.us/ Randall https://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako/16539604289/in/photostream/ oil on canvas //12X9 //painted from google search // posted to Flickr ___ 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
Re: [NetBehaviour] Tapestries? - Patrick Lichty Interviewed by Tilman Baumg
@Mab tapestries wonderful metaphor for weaving the net² Yes, I agree! An age-old pre-post-Internet tradition that begin with the Jacquard Loom. Randall From: Mab MacMoragh mabmacmor...@gmail.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 3:13 PM To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: [NetBehaviour] Tapestries? - Patrick Lichty Interviewed by Tilman Baumg patrick, tapestries wonderful metaphor for weaving the net On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:00 AM, netbehaviour-requ...@netbehaviour.org wrote: Send NetBehaviour mailing list submissions to netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Message: 1 Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:12:43 + From: furtherfield furtherfiel...@gmail.com To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: [NetBehaviour] Tapestries? - Patrick Lichty Interviewed by Tilman Baumg?rtel Message-ID: caovnvurpxza+c8ed6+z0sr8sgpjb6fthfk1lfoo48joz3mf...@mail.gmail.com mailto:caovnvurpxza%2bc8ed6%2bz0sr8sgpjb6fthfk1lfoo48joz3mf...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Tapestries? - Patrick Lichty Interviewed by Tilman Baumg?rtel http://furtherfield.org/features/interviews/tapestries-patrick-lichty-intervie wed-tilman-baumg%C3%A4rtel The American artist Patrick Lichty is best-known for his works with digital media: as part of the activist group RT Mark and as designer of digital animation movies for their follow-up The Yes Men, he has been recognized as a net artist with a political bend. He has been working with digital media since the 1980s, and has created works with video, for the Web and for Second Life. At the moment, Lichty has a solo show ?Artifacts? at DAM Galerie in Berlin ( http://bit.ly/1DTNvt9). However, the artist, who is teaching at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee and has recently published a book of theoretical essays on Networked Cultures (http://bit.ly/1aLdAB6), is not showing media works, but tapestries. Tapestries! What's going on? Tilman Baumg?rtel finds out. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20150304/fb874 d2c/attachment-0001.html ___ 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
Re: [NetBehaviour] The NetArtizens Project / invisible spaces, trailing off
@Johannes (I) find the idea of artizen nation objectionable.² And so I introduce the origin of the concept of ³nation² from Wikipedia: related to 'ethnic community' (with) a common history, elements of distinctive culture, a common territorial association, and sense of group solidarity.² Isn¹t that, essentially, what we have staked out here in the nowhereness of the netbehaviour-space? On 3/5/15, 1:24 PM, Johannes Birringer johannes.birrin...@brunel.ac.uk wrote: dear all Ruth's response to the discussion on citizenship on the net (following Rob, Edward and many others here in this lively debate) is intriguing, and I assumed you were seeing the notion of a place (not to speak now of a 'nation') or a here as deeply problematic, yes? I do, and I have no inclination to ponder a 'nation', here or anywhere, except to look critically at state formations today (or in the past), in fact find the idea of artizen nation objectionable. Again, I also do not think of this space of conversation and exchange as a place I could imagine as anything other than a listserv, and I don't see myself as an artisan or artizen (of the Net) and thus can't fully participate. Most all of my work is done on the ground, in the studio and in theatres. However, I like this list, and often try to read, and noted that there are recurring visitors, friendly commentators, archivists, announcers, and yes, sharers, artists who share their work with us, and writers who live in the space quite emphatically and poetically (like Alan Sondheim), keeping me always alive-ly aware of what we are losing and what we have already lost, irretrievably. [here i would re-site Alan's poem from the day after new year's day if that were permissible, lest it also becomes invisible but it did preoccupy me. thank you] Invisibility http://www.alansondheim.org/cairn016.jpg Invisibility is the problem of our time, but there are so many! Most of our collapsing phenomenologies center on attention economies, acceleration, dromodology; these are epistemological problems, what might be examined, what should be examined, and the process of examination itself. But invisibility is more perverse; it is an issue of ontology, of disappearance, from within and without, a problem which not only robs us of our situation, our habitus, but also invades the discourse of the body and the self. It can be a sudden transformation, occurring at the edge of the possible, the refugee, the unmanned migrant ship floundering and heading for unknown shores; it may also be a slow and almost imperceptible withdrawal from being, to the extent that being exists as instrumental. Age is one index of invisibility, and this I experience: whatever I do increasingly makes no difference whatsoever, as long as it is with the bounds of the law. Making a difference, making a distinction, is fundamentally a communal and social act; when it no longer matters, helplessness ensues - not the helplessness of a lack of knowledge or tools (but that too), but the helplessness of the collapse of speech acts or being. The aging body is a refugee body, and what might have passed for wisdom is no longer given an audience, but is transformed into some thing swept aside within another register altogether. All of this occurs within a rigidity of etiquette which is not acknowledged, but which creates an iron and exclusionary ontology. Too many people I know, for a variety of reasons (political, age, class, religion or lack of it) feel marooned, a marooning which answers to no shore, no boundary. The issue is one of consequences, which at one point in our social evolutions might have been the concern of cause and effect, but now operates within the regime of effacement (what I have to say is of no consequence, because I am not speaking - a Lyotardian differend which operates across innumerable strata within broken models of being and the world). Engagement is not a projection, not what 'makes us human'; it is, of course, a skein, and one now driven by fast- forward feedback, ranging from high-speed stock manipulation to high speed online text-and-image feeds that leave no time for reflection, but, more importantly, no need for reflection as well. The horizon of all of this is the fracturing of steering problems which dissolve in rhetoric and shifting positions; the problems, however, remain and increase in urgency. Behind them is an increasingly devastated planet with extinctions and population out of control, existing within the immediacy of the digital and its potential for internal transformation (a change of pixel for pixel, for example), for epistemological slide. ... For all of these reasons, these flows, invisibility tends towards pharmacology and depression, towards despair and violence, towards the inerrancy of fundamental religion and a rigidity of logics and taxonomies between believers and non- believers. It is easy to conclude from all of this that 'we are all invisible' or some such, but in fact,
[NetBehaviour] For Howard Guttenplan, rest in peace
For Howard Guttenplan, rest in peace http://www.alansondheim.org/forHG.jpg 2004 http://www.alansondheim.org/holler.mp4 2004 http://www.alansondheim.org/danceofdeath.mp4 2004 = mixed reals http://www.alansondheim.org/livehere4.png http://www.alansondheim.org/livehere.mp4 http://www.alansondheim.org/livehere1.png http://www.alansondheim.org/livehere2.png http://www.alansondheim.org/livehere3.png things fall apart ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
[NetBehaviour] size ten rant: dr hairy
https://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako/1672755/ set, so far https://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako/sets/72157651122579216 cheersmichael ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Positive, Critique, Jam, Troll, anxd Sea Lioning
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Patrick Lichty p...@voyd.com wrote: I see a continuum of positions that are potentially constructive and disruptive, ones I call the positive, critical, jamming, and negation/troll. The negative troll engages in deliberately illegal and/or damaging and disruptive behaviour http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Griefing with highly destructive effects, such as online vandalism (like those intentionally defacing RIP sites http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread850335/pg3) and continuous aggravation through comments designed as bait for responsive targets (cyberbullying http://bc.ctvnews.ca/alleged-amanda-todd-tormenter-tracked-down-1.997244). There are those that think the act of trolling may also operate at a far more innocuous level, originating from those with more positive intentions or altruistic motivations. This troll version is termed the constructive troll http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f7/operation-dustyce-696539/. The constructive troll advocates social change through exposing establishments, organisations and individuals they view as corrupt, deceptive, or criminal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdLDHx2OhXAfeature=related. Constructive trolling differs from negative trolling through its lack of malevolence (think: Devil’s advocates or whistleblowers) with a deliberately funny, or cheeky, emphasis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Td1tOAJxYfeature=related. Constructive trolls may seek to bring attention to issues like the suppression of freedom of information laws http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1432context=hss_pubs, covert censorship, or hypocrisies evidenced at a heavily-institutionalised level (think: Wikileaks or the Occupy movement)... - From Trolls, Anonymity Accountability in the Digital Age http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/10/27/the-problems-with-anonymous-trolls-and-accountability-in-the-digital-age/ (2012). -- | mezbreezedesign.com ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] The NetArtizens Project
On Thu, 5 Mar, 2015 at 7:42 AM, dave miller dave.miller...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Larimer, who is working on a tool called Bitshares to apply blockchain technology to banking, insurance and company shareholding, believes that this new breed of technologies will ultimately render government entirely obsolete. This assumes that government isn't already obsolete. I feel government is something imposed on me by people who want the world to be split up into nations, which is another artificial creation. The new breed of technologies might make it more obvious that government is entirely obsolete. The replacement for government that many crypto-* proponents have in mind is a voluntaryist / agoric / Libertarian / anarcho-capitalist paradise. It's trivially easy to critique, but it's an *economic* ideal order, and a vision of a better future on its own terms. Which is the kind of thing that used to be the domain of the political Left, and may explain some of the resentment that it engenders in that quarter. - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] The NetArtizens Project
I had a dream one time of teams of artists paratrooping into troubled areas - delivering theatrical re-interpretations of local mythology - explaining in local vernacular the torment that locals faced. From Ferguson to Belfast to Jerusalem they went - para-troop-theater they called it. Nullifying concerns with the bitter sweat catharsis of drama. Imprinting consent with beauty and quality. Bz On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: “I'm not sure I feel like a citizen of the net. …. it (citizen) [also}] means 'A person who is legally recognized as a member of a state, with associated rights and obligations’… and I'm not sure I feel any of those things about the Net. All true @Edward, all true… but, I leave with you with the following Tweet I sent out yesterday (with some embellishment) : #netartizens: the #Internet as our own self-proclaimed #nation not requiring hierarchical authority from above to be [granted the rights of] citizenship [of our own domain]. Once again, it gets back to the idea of the artist as modeler, breaking the status quo, the artist as illustrator of new ways of seeing the world. I'm not sure I feel like a citizen of the net. The word 'citizen' has the same root as 'city' and partly means 'living in a city or town'; it also means 'someone who lives in a state which is not a monarchy' - hence the French revolutionaries addressing each other as 'citizen' - but it also means 'A person who is legally recognized as a member of a state, with associated rights and obligations' (Wiktionary), and I'm not sure I feel any of those things about the Net. I do, on the other hand, feel a sense of community - a word which is connected both to 'communication' and 'common' - a sense of sharing and fellowship - but not with everyone else on the Net, or with all other parts of the Net, just with certain circles or associations in which I have become involved, like Furtherfield and NetBehaviour. I'd like to put forward the word 'NetArtisans' as an alternative to 'NetArtizens', because I don't feel like a citizen of the net, but I do feel like someone who takes material off the net and tries to hand-make new artefacts out of it (if you can call mucking around with bits of software hand-making). - Edward ___ 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 -- - Technology for Generation Z ** http://www.bishopZ.com ** - ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
[NetBehaviour] NetArtizens: Ruth Catlow
https://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako/16518435447/ oil on canvas //12X9 //painted from google search // posted to Flickr ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
[NetBehaviour] Net Art Is Zen - Randall Packer
https://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako/16539604289/in/photostream/ oil on canvas //12X9 //painted from google search // posted to Flickr ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Lines of Communication
I've only skimmed this article but it showed up on my tweet feed yesterday via R.U. Sirius https://twitter.com/StealThisSingul/status/572917180506902528 Maidan, Caliphate, and Code: Theorizing Power and Resistance in the 21st Century http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=741 also, I know they've been talking about IoT for a while as I recall lecturers talking about it (in general terms) in early 90s whilst studying networks IPv6 ( I work for Cisco who coined the phrase). I think it's like everything - there's always a way to protect yourself if you should want to so I don't see it as a threat, more an opportunity. On 5 March 2015 at 17:32, Alan Sondheim sondh...@panix.com wrote: Do you honestly believe, with all the hacking/corrosion/cyberwarfare going on, that regulations will make the slightest bit of difference? The consolidation is already occurring, as well as enclaving, ISISolation that moves the 'caliphate' into the cybersphere, as well as on the ground, all entangled. - Alan On Wed, 4 Mar 2015, BishopZ wrote: the Internet of Things will inevitably consolidate corporate power over our personal liberty unless we implement strict regulations on what part of ourselves can and cannot be quantified On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: What are we, as NetArtizens doing/writing/ about it (when the land is scorched from war and climate change)? I think this is critical, fundamental. @Alan, what we are doing about it, here, is opening up lines of communication. In a world where negotiation and conflict resolution are upended by unreasonable geo-political differences and the refusal to speak openly, honestly, and directly: we as #netartizens can be a **model** (and yes, that?s essentially the role of the artist to model) by engaging one another under the radar, speaking out, openly with our work our (net)work our voices, to help paint + perform + mediate new ideas, words and portraits of **our** vision of humanity. We have to speak in order to be heard. On 3/3/15, 1:15 PM, Alan Sondheim sondh...@panix.com wrote: What happens when these spaces disappear? They've always been entangled. Take Syria, today (literally researched released today) postulates that the war/s there are in part the result of climate change. Who will be physical when the land is scorched? And perhaps more to the point, what are we, as NetArtizens doing/writing/ about it? I think this is critical, fundamental. On the other point, I don't find the world divided in any sense into three spaces; there are any number of divisions that might or might not be made, and I think they obscure the entanglements and fuzzy boundaries we all live within (for example, ourselves and everything else, as microbial life). For me, that neatness has disappeared, just as real and virtual seem still to be inauthentic categories; when amoeba can learn, without the presence of a nervous system, what world are they living in? What world are we? I remember von Foerster defining life as fundamentally characterized by negation, for example, logic and categorization all the way down. - Alan On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Randall Packer wrote: Alan, networked space, or ?the third space? as I like to call it, is the world we are gravitating towards (no pun intended). I am always surprised the degree to which we forget or don?t pay attention to whether we are occupying the first space (physical world) or the third space. (by the way, the second space is the representational/symbolic world). We are losing the distinction between the real and the virtual, the two melding together in a kind of ?post reality.? I think for future generations the distinction will no longer matter. Consider that whichever space we are operating in, we will always occupy real, physical space, but our interactions will increasingly be situated on the network: just like right now, as we communicate through this list. So I would disagree that we can?t prepare, perhaps what it means to be a netartizen is to be self-critical and self-aware about the evolution from the first to the third space. The preparation is in realizing its inevitable and its real. The digital, I think, is unbearably fragile; not only is privacy lost, but we are not prepared, and can't prepare, for the attacks and corrosion to come; instead, we grant these worlds a solidity they don't have, never have had. On 3/3/15, 12:28 AM, Alan Sondheim sondh...@panix.com wrote: Hi, a few comments here. My own work is a continuous production which at one time I characterized as an ongoing meditation on cyberspace; at this point I see real and virtual inauthentic (in Adorno's sense), see the body as inherently entangled among symbolic systems which have always been with us, see culture (real and virtual) as characteristic of organisms in general, and see abjection/annihilation as increasing
Re: [NetBehaviour] NetBehaviour Digest, Vol 2294, Issue 1
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:00 AM, netbehaviour-requ...@netbehaviour.org wrote: Message: 14 Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 10:10:35 -0600 From: Patrick Lichty p...@voyd.com To: 'NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity' netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] The NetArtizens Project Message-ID: 010a01d05695$c0a9e560$41fdb020$@voyd.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The Net is an oral culture. IMHO, only in the vernacular. -- - *Anthony Stephenson* http://anthonystephenson.org/ ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] The NetArtizens Project
*Daniel Larimer, who is working on a tool called Bitshares to apply blockchain technology to banking, insurance and company shareholding, believes that this new breed of technologies will ultimately render government entirely obsolete. * This assumes that government isn't already obsolete. I feel government is something imposed on me by people who want the world to be split up into nations, which is another artificial creation. The new breed of technologies might make it more obvious that government is entirely obsolete. On 5 March 2015 at 01:44, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Wed, 4 Mar, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: “I'm not sure I feel like a citizen of the net. …. it (citizen) [also}] means 'A person who is legally recognized as a member http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/member of a state http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/state, with associated rights and obligations’… and I'm not sure I feel any of those things about the Net. All true @Edward, all true… but, I leave with you with the following Tweet I sent out yesterday (with some embellishment) : #*netartizens* https://twitter.com/hashtag/netartizens?src=hash: the # *Internet* https://twitter.com/hashtag/Internet?src=hash as our own self-proclaimed #*nation* https://twitter.com/hashtag/nation?src=hash not requiring hierarchical authority from above to be [granted the rights of] citizenship [of our own domain]. http://tracks.unhcr.org/2015/02/stateless-in-west-africa/ Ten million people around the world have no nationality. https://e-estonia.com/e-residents/about/ E-residency is a state-issued secure digital identity for non-residents that allows digital authentication and the digital signing of documents. https://github.com/MrChrisJ/World-Citizenship The goal of this project is to learn and layout a simple process for anyone in the world to create their own Private Passport Service that can be used to validate and prove the existence of other persons using nothing but available tools. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10881213/The-coming-digital-anarchy.html Daniel Larimer, who is working on a tool called Bitshares to apply blockchain technology to banking, insurance and company shareholding, believes that this new breed of technologies will ultimately render government entirely obsolete. http://www.wired.com/2014/01/its-time-to-take-mesh-networks-seriously-and-not-just-for-the-reasons-you-think/ I believe it’s time to reconsider their potential, and make mesh networking a reality. Not just because of its obvious benefits, but also because it provides an internet-native model for building community and governance. ___ 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
Re: [NetBehaviour] The NetArtizens Project
Great links, Rob. I find out more about the world we live in from netbehaviour than from anywhere else. On 5 March 2015 at 01:44, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Wed, 4 Mar, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: “I'm not sure I feel like a citizen of the net. …. it (citizen) [also}] means 'A person who is legally recognized as a member http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/member of a state http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/state, with associated rights and obligations’… and I'm not sure I feel any of those things about the Net. All true @Edward, all true… but, I leave with you with the following Tweet I sent out yesterday (with some embellishment) : #*netartizens* https://twitter.com/hashtag/netartizens?src=hash: the # *Internet* https://twitter.com/hashtag/Internet?src=hash as our own self-proclaimed #*nation* https://twitter.com/hashtag/nation?src=hash not requiring hierarchical authority from above to be [granted the rights of] citizenship [of our own domain]. http://tracks.unhcr.org/2015/02/stateless-in-west-africa/ Ten million people around the world have no nationality. https://e-estonia.com/e-residents/about/ E-residency is a state-issued secure digital identity for non-residents that allows digital authentication and the digital signing of documents. https://github.com/MrChrisJ/World-Citizenship The goal of this project is to learn and layout a simple process for anyone in the world to create their own Private Passport Service that can be used to validate and prove the existence of other persons using nothing but available tools. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10881213/The-coming-digital-anarchy.html Daniel Larimer, who is working on a tool called Bitshares to apply blockchain technology to banking, insurance and company shareholding, believes that this new breed of technologies will ultimately render government entirely obsolete. http://www.wired.com/2014/01/its-time-to-take-mesh-networks-seriously-and-not-just-for-the-reasons-you-think/ I believe it’s time to reconsider their potential, and make mesh networking a reality. Not just because of its obvious benefits, but also because it provides an internet-native model for building community and governance. ___ 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
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
yes, i agree randall :) On 5/03/15 1:20 33PM, Randall Packer wrote: i mean co-authoring in a way that they can insert their own creativity alter/influence the work.” @Helen: I am still interested in the idea that social media (and that includes this list) is in fact an intermedial exchange process of co-authorship, that we are in fact, together, authoring/constructing/generating a collective body of knowledge via this exchange. If you were to go back and read through the archives of NetBehaviour I am certain there is a “cultural record” (to use the words of Vannevar Bush) with a narrative flow that captures a “story” of the time and place and people involved. I consider social media (generally and perhaps idealistically speaking) to be expressive, performative (not proconsumative), and participatory in equal measure, narrative in a non-hierarchical structure, a theater of words and ideas. that's quite nice :) On 4/03/15 5:09 16PM, Patrick Lichty wrote: How about “Performience”? *From:*netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org [mailto:netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org] *On Behalf Of *helen varley jamieson *Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:45 AM *To:* netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Subject:* Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution prosumer is not a word for actor+audience, it's a word for producer+consumer, which is about product and consumption, rather than relationship experience. i have long hunted for a good word for this - for audiences that are participating in a really creative way in a work - i don't just mean the interactivity of pressing a button or something like that. i mean co-authoring in a way that they can insert their own creativity alter/influence the work. i have written about the intermedial audience, as a way to understand the role of the audience in cyberformance potentially other digital art contexts. The concept of intermediality offers a way to approach an audience that is as unfinished and (r)evolutionary as the work it is engaging with. It upgrades the passive spectator to an integral position within cyberformance, without relinquishing the fundamental gap between performer and spectator. At the same time, intermediality acknowledges the mental multitasking that cyberformance demands of its audience and the paradigm shift that is forced onto those more accustomed to the traditional codes of audience behaviour. (this was written 8 years ago perhaps needs updating now given then increased possibilities for audience participation/contribution.) i don't think the intermedial audience are players of equal measure, i'm not sure if this really exists (when an artist or group has conceived the work or created the context for it except maybe in gaming?). h : ) On 4/03/15 5:02 28AM, Karl Heinz Jeron wrote: Hello, there is a word for actor and audience in the social media realm: prosumer! And hey if at all this is postdramatic theatre. Followers equals audience? I don't think so. Cheers KH 2015-03-04 0:05 GMT+01:00 isabel brison ijayes...@gmail.com mailto:ijayes...@gmail.com: Hello, I can't really agree: When we sit in the theater, we are essentially a receiver of information that is passed from the stage to the audience. But in the world of social media, we are all actors on the stage: the fourth wall is erased, the proscenium dissolves, there are no lights to turn down, the suspension of disbelief is revised, as information (or lines) are passed not just from the one to many, but from everyone to everyone. Most of us are audience most of the time, as actors need audience to be actors. And what's the difference between a screen and a stage? except that on a screen it is not always considered bad manners to join in the act. And some of us deliberately choose to be audience, others act occasionally, some act as a hobby and others professionally ( though I'm not sure that acting is a good analogy at all for social interaction - there should be a word for actor and audience all in one, and possibly for combinations of different amounts of one and the other). how do we insert ourselves into this story, not as receivers, but as players of equal measure, Tweet! Retweet! Respond! - Seriously, that account only has 14 followers. How can it act at all in the absence of audience? Is it a bad actor? If we're all actors then how many of us are bad actors and should consider a change of carreer? Oh and a funny thing: I followed the link above and it gave me an error. It's really @The_People_Came https://twitter.com/The_People_Came. Was that on purpose I wonder? Cheers
Re: [NetBehaviour] NetBehaviour Digest, Vol 2294, Issue 1
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:00 AM, netbehaviour-requ...@netbehaviour.org wrote: I'd like to put forward the word 'NetArtisans' as an alternative to 'NetArtizens', because I don't feel like a citizen of the net, but I do feel like someone who takes material off the net and tries to hand-make new artefacts out of it (if you can call mucking around with bits of software hand-making). - Edward Yep. -- - *Anthony Stephenson* http://anthonystephenson.org/ ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] The NetArtizens Project / invisible spaces, trailing off
dear all Ruth's response to the discussion on citizenship on the net (following Rob, Edward and many others here in this lively debate) is intriguing, and I assumed you were seeing the notion of a place (not to speak now of a 'nation') or a here as deeply problematic, yes? I do, and I have no inclination to ponder a 'nation', here or anywhere, except to look critically at state formations today (or in the past), in fact find the idea of artizen nation objectionable. Again, I also do not think of this space of conversation and exchange as a place I could imagine as anything other than a listserv, and I don't see myself as an artisan or artizen (of the Net) and thus can't fully participate. Most all of my work is done on the ground, in the studio and in theatres. However, I like this list, and often try to read, and noted that there are recurring visitors, friendly commentators, archivists, announcers, and yes, sharers, artists who share their work with us, and writers who live in the space quite emphatically and poetically (like Alan Sondheim), keeping me always alive-ly aware of what we are losing and what we have already lost, irretrievably. [here i would re-site Alan's poem from the day after new year's day if that were permissible, lest it also becomes invisible but it did preoccupy me. thank you] Invisibility http://www.alansondheim.org/cairn016.jpg Invisibility is the problem of our time, but there are so many! Most of our collapsing phenomenologies center on attention economies, acceleration, dromodology; these are epistemological problems, what might be examined, what should be examined, and the process of examination itself. But invisibility is more perverse; it is an issue of ontology, of disappearance, from within and without, a problem which not only robs us of our situation, our habitus, but also invades the discourse of the body and the self. It can be a sudden transformation, occurring at the edge of the possible, the refugee, the unmanned migrant ship floundering and heading for unknown shores; it may also be a slow and almost imperceptible withdrawal from being, to the extent that being exists as instrumental. Age is one index of invisibility, and this I experience: whatever I do increasingly makes no difference whatsoever, as long as it is with the bounds of the law. Making a difference, making a distinction, is fundamentally a communal and social act; when it no longer matters, helplessness ensues - not the helplessness of a lack of knowledge or tools (but that too), but the helplessness of the collapse of speech acts or being. The aging body is a refugee body, and what might have passed for wisdom is no longer given an audience, but is transformed into some thing swept aside within another register altogether. All of this occurs within a rigidity of etiquette which is not acknowledged, but which creates an iron and exclusionary ontology. Too many people I know, for a variety of reasons (political, age, class, religion or lack of it) feel marooned, a marooning which answers to no shore, no boundary. The issue is one of consequences, which at one point in our social evolutions might have been the concern of cause and effect, but now operates within the regime of effacement (what I have to say is of no consequence, because I am not speaking - a Lyotardian differend which operates across innumerable strata within broken models of being and the world). Engagement is not a projection, not what 'makes us human'; it is, of course, a skein, and one now driven by fast- forward feedback, ranging from high-speed stock manipulation to high speed online text-and-image feeds that leave no time for reflection, but, more importantly, no need for reflection as well. The horizon of all of this is the fracturing of steering problems which dissolve in rhetoric and shifting positions; the problems, however, remain and increase in urgency. Behind them is an increasingly devastated planet with extinctions and population out of control, existing within the immediacy of the digital and its potential for internal transformation (a change of pixel for pixel, for example), for epistemological slide. ... For all of these reasons, these flows, invisibility tends towards pharmacology and depression, towards despair and violence, towards the inerrancy of fundamental religion and a rigidity of logics and taxonomies between believers and non- believers. It is easy to conclude from all of this that 'we are all invisible' or some such, but in fact, the presence of belief and violence point elsewhere, towards a sweeping-aside of the ephemeral and the harnessing of the digital for a strict rhetoric of communications. For those of us who can neither ascribe to this, nor participate (by virtue of the problematic 'essences' of age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, etc. etc. (all these categories left over from an age of classical modernism and post-colonialism)), nothing is left,
[NetBehaviour] some one said something
someone said something and someone else responded and another took note. a few others noticed the note and said something in addition. the whole incident was given the name 05637595419dace7bc6217963dcc98f02a4896eb71a0e01f422ab584a9f7bff9 - meaning to say something which someone else responds to and another takes note of which a few others notice and additionally respond to, to which the meaning of all is given the name 5eff37016f6892291e9807ef25b9ecdfdbb99b78f0a52d86211d17e7e6c0cf66 - ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] the ever-present-present
but i do believe it will matter to those in the future who need to know alternative histories, just as many of us have needed to hunt out our own alternative pasts.² @Helen: Precisely, which is why I think it is the responsible thing to do to consider our networked practice as relevant not just for the ever-present-present but as an ongoing practice that needs to be handed down and preserved for future generations. the future will indeed choose what is important to preserve, i prefer to put my energies into making work rather than trying to anticipate what might happen in the future. but that of course means that it's up to those who have the power in the future to make decisions about what's worth preserving, we know that this will probably exclude many marginalised groups. as most of us on this list are operating outside of mainstream arts structures academies, it's likely that most of us will be quietly forgotten. that doesn't matter to me personally, but i do believe it will matter to those in the future who need to know alternative histories, just as many of us have needed to hunt out our own alternative pasts. On 4/03/15 5:42 10AM, Pall Thayer wrote: I agree with Randall (agreeing with Rushkoff) that we live in an ever-ever-present tense and this also ties into Paul Virilio's perspective of real-time. But both of these phenomena are exactly what they describe, they are the now and cannot be projected onto the past nor the future in any meaningful way. The future will choose what it deems important. It doesn't really make any sense for us to be concerned with that at this point. If we decide to create our work in ways that will make it more accessible and/or easier to preserve for future generations, then we're limiting ourselves. If someone does choose that direction for those reasons, I would wager that they're going to be the ones that become as irrelevant as Bouguereau, etc. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com wrote: The notion that we might be erasing our historical past as we create it for the digital future sounds somewhat absurd and escapist to me. If we are not recognized for our efforts in the future, we should chalk it up to a failure of our present to find a means to preserve our work? We all think we're creating important and relevant work but if the future doesn't come up with a way to extract and preserve it, then it probably didn't mean that much to them. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Kath O'Donnell alia...@gmail.com wrote: yes, that's likely true. we hope the future might be interested but who knows what they'll be thinking of by then. On 4 March 2015 at 13:29, Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com wrote: It's interesting to consider what we, in our current ever-present-present, might think future generations will be interested in. We're probably wrong. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: Kath, you¹re last remarks are particularly relevant in regards to the emerging digital natives and millennials. My teaching is centered around the study of the digital native as a kind of anthropological research. It seems there is a clear trend towards giving up on privacy, and a growing lack of concern for preservation, as you suggest. Of course when you are 20 you might not think it is important to save anything, but in fact, we have a social media industry focused on information as more and more transient. The social media of today is about the NOW, what is at the top of our feed, which comes to our screen in the Moment, and then fades in descending chronological order into a past we are no longer interested in. As Douglas Rushkoff has written in Present Shock, we live in an ever-present-present tense, our abbreviated attention span revolving around the here and now. I suppose it's really up to how much people care about these things, and whether they work towards saving some of it or preparing for the future. What in fact are we leaving behind for future generations on our hard drives and cloud repositories? And how will the technological culture of today be viewed when these values are no longer decipherable. Are we in fact erasing our historical past as we create it for the digital future? I think this is a real issue. though we try to save some things using archives, the changing formats and technology (and speed of change) is causing data to be lost or at the very least, harder/longer to recover/republish (especially if they need converting later on). it's covering both net art and personal items such as home photos which are generally no longer printed, and home videos. I also wonder what future archeologists will think of our surviving buried rubbish. so whilst I love the net, I think it's important to go back to hand made
Re: [NetBehaviour] Lines of Communication
We have to speak in order to be heard. Rhetorically speaking, being heard as voices of alterity predicates other places than we are now/alternate worlds. What if capitalism has become so ubiquitous that the Foucauldian system of power is so pervasive that there is nowhere to go. As Rita Raley wrote, the best Tactical Media can do is nip at the heels of the behemoth, and Hannah Hurr's letter to Mask Magazine offers a bleak Millennialist view, which I include so, as Randall mentioned, we are to learn from the younger generation. This was referred to me my Ken Wark. http://www.maskmagazine.com/the-demo-tape-issue/style/makes-no-difference I believe that one thing we are doing is attempting to locate that which is specific to our time, and this might be a signpost. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Glitch Chance
Glitch as error and glitch as a chaotic system can be situated both within archaeologies regarding improvisation and chance and within more contemporary developments regarding complexity” @Paul, this is all incredibly interesting, but I think what you were alluding to in regards to chance the abstract expressionists is in fact taste and habit. Cage wanted to remove all aspects of purposeful intent, to remove the baggage of habit and legacies from musical composition. So he introduced the “errors and glitch,” so to speak of chance operations into the process of music composition: to remove aspects of himself, ego, and taste from the work. This I think is the opposite of the abstract expressionists who wanted to express themselves intensely through total intent, though Pollock did in fact incorporate randomness in action painting. In returning to glitch then, it seems to be (for many) a form of chance operation intended to remove oneself from choice by giving up control to the indeterminacy of the machine and the code. From: Paul Hertz igno...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 1:06 PM To: Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com Cc: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] The NetArtizens Project: starts right here, right now! Randall, Definitely—error and chance are central to avant-garde practices. One could also regard them as a media archaeology stratum with outcroppings as old as gambling, that show up in religion and ritual. Improvisation is also central to oral storytelling and orally-transmitted musical practices, where it assumes philosophical dimensions. Looking back over my notes from jazz workshops I find all kinds of references: improvisation as a sign of health, life as an improvisation, and improvisation opening up a space where we can cut human relations loose from the old and awful signifiers inherited from our culture. There were some interesting exchanges about chance operations between Cage and some of the Abstract Expressionists, that I'm too lazy/busy to track down just now. The AbEx folk were wrong in thinking humans beings were a good source of randomness, but the debate offers early insight into the differences between chaotic systems and aleatoric systems. Digital media have allowed us to distinguish different flavors of chance as never before, and to understand the complex relationship of deterministic systems to statistical randomness. The insight that deterministic systems can be unpredictable perhaps could not have been fully appreciated before computer simulations of weather or three-body gravitational orbits made this evident. Glitch as error and glitch as a chaotic system can be situated both within archaeologies regarding improvisation and chance and within more contemporary developments regarding complexity—which, though they emerge in mathematics as substantially new, surely point to ancient and intuitive realizations about order and chaos. -- Paul On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: Noise and error go deeper, particularly as practices/attitudes/aesthetics that arise from traditions of improvisation.” @Paul, in reading your historical approach to glitch, it seems to me that history provides us with so many examples of error-driven” art, that it makes me wonder if perhaps this dynamic is simply central to avant-garde “practice in general. Consider for example, the self-destructing sculpture, Homage to New York, by Jean Tinguely, or Robert Rauschenberg’s White Paintings, or John Cage’s 4’33”, the films of Stan Brakhage, the Happenings of Robert Whitman, the performances of Yves Klein, or even the guitar virtuosics of Jimi Hendrix or Peter Townsend, etc., etc, each of which revel in the accidental, the mistakes, the chance event, the unexpected artifacts, the random occurrences: are these not all examples of glitch? And if so, then what is glitch really in the broad historical sense? So yes, these practices/attitudes/aesthetics do in fact run deep and seem to relate to the artistic need to break free from the status quo, to smash the past, and to surprise and shock. From: Paul Hertz igno...@gmail.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 1:34 PM To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] The NetArtizens Project: starts right here, right now! Randall, The discussion about glitch as aesthetic and glitch as accident seems to have gone on from the very moment when a glitch could be created on purpose and even controlled. Antonio Roberts (hellocatfood) and Jeff Donaldson (notendo) created the Glitch Safari Flickr group (https://www.flickr.com/groups/glitchsafari/) as a humorous search for feral glitch, glitch in its pure state, and showed it at GLI.TC/H
Re: [NetBehaviour] the ever-present-present
if future generations don’t know the past, then they won’t know what to reject, they will be acting out of ignorance of what preceded them. Is that a bad thing? In the act of looking back and rejecting everything which has preceded us in the history of our discipline, Derrida would suggest a trace to that past would remain; the future artist would still be practicing within established structures and context. Perhaps acting out of ignorance risks not only re-inventing the wheel, but an opportunity to create something that is truly new. David Sent from my iPhone On 5 Mar 2015, at 12:07, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: What future artists need to know is that they can make their own contexts beyond the given structures, shoved down their metaphorical gullets ;p-)” @Marc, true but, if future generations don’t know the past, then they won’t know what to reject, they will be acting out of ignorance of what preceded them. Pierre Boulez once said that we need to absorb everything about the history of our discipline, and then, thrown it all away and reinvent it. Hi Helen, That's a very good point... but i do believe it will matter to those in the future who need to know alternative histories, just as many of us have needed to hunt out our own alternative pasts. What future artists need to know is that they can make their own contexts beyond the given structures, shoved down their metaphorical gullets ;p-) wishing you well. marc On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:28 PM, helen varley jamieson he...@creative-catalyst.com wrote: the future will indeed choose what is important to preserve, i prefer to put my energies into making work rather than trying to anticipate what might happen in the future. but that of course means that it's up to those who have the power in the future to make decisions about what's worth preserving, we know that this will probably exclude many marginalised groups. as most of us on this list are operating outside of mainstream arts structures academies, it's likely that most of us will be quietly forgotten. that doesn't matter to me personally, but i do believe it will matter to those in the future who need to know alternative histories, just as many of us have needed to hunt out our own alternative pasts. On 4/03/15 5:42 10AM, Pall Thayer wrote: I agree with Randall (agreeing with Rushkoff) that we live in an ever-ever-present tense and this also ties into Paul Virilio's perspective of real-time. But both of these phenomena are exactly what they describe, they are the now and cannot be projected onto the past nor the future in any meaningful way. The future will choose what it deems important. It doesn't really make any sense for us to be concerned with that at this point. If we decide to create our work in ways that will make it more accessible and/or easier to preserve for future generations, then we're limiting ourselves. If someone does choose that direction for those reasons, I would wager that they're going to be the ones that become as irrelevant as Bouguereau, etc. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com wrote: The notion that we might be erasing our historical past as we create it for the digital future sounds somewhat absurd and escapist to me. If we are not recognized for our efforts in the future, we should chalk it up to a failure of our present to find a means to preserve our work? We all think we're creating important and relevant work but if the future doesn't come up with a way to extract and preserve it, then it probably didn't mean that much to them. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Kath O'Donnell alia...@gmail.com wrote: yes, that's likely true. we hope the future might be interested but who knows what they'll be thinking of by then. On 4 March 2015 at 13:29, Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com wrote: It's interesting to consider what we, in our current ever-present-present, might think future generations will be interested in. We're probably wrong. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: Kath, you’re last remarks are particularly relevant in regards to the emerging digital natives and millennials. My teaching is centered around the study of the digital native as a kind of anthropological research. It seems there is a clear trend towards giving up on privacy, and a growing lack of concern for preservation, as you suggest. Of course when you are 20 you might not think it is important to save anything, but in fact, we have a social media industry focused on information as more and more transient. The social media of today is about the NOW, what is at the top of our feed, which comes to our screen in the Moment, and then fades in descending chronological order into a past we are no longer interested in. As Douglas Rushkoff has written in Present Shock, we
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
Social medial platforms are designed by commercial companies to elicit very particular types of normalising exchange between masses of people I don't see any general connection with mass social media usage.² @Ruth, I am complete sympathetic with the underlying premise of your position, however, isn¹t it the role of the artist to disrupt these platforms and make them our own? If it is impossible for artists to detourn, restructure, or remake social relations using anything designed by a commercial company, which is almost everything, then we are truly sunk. Like the Situationists, the detourn was intended to ³break² or ³resist² existing power structures and alter their political reality on our terms, not theirs. Can¹t we make significant work with a Mac or a PC or a iPhone or present our work in a commercial gallery or a theater owned by a corporation? It seems there is no end to the structures we are forced to work within that are commercial and corporate, it is the very world we operate in a capitalist society. That said, I think it then becomes the responsibility or the objective of the artist to pursue these disruptions within the existing framework, commercial or not, or as you point out, to ³critique and expose the logic of the platforms.² But if we don¹t challenge and confront these platforms, how else can we expose them? Regarding the linkage between the Happenings and social media, I am speaking very formally here in terms of specific paradigms, processes, and techniques that the two share in common. It is perhaps more a call-to-action then a reality. On 04/03/15 16:19, Randall Packer wrote: It is my personal opinion that social media promises, at least in part a new look at the collective forms that emerged in the 1960s 1970s. I don¹t want to go into a full-blown lecture here (my students get enough of that), but the link between the Happening and social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, the mailing lists, etc., suggest there is plenty of creative room for improvisation and audience engagement + interaction + remix in this form of participatory, collective narrative via the network. I have heard eminent artists and theorists make this argument before and it feels all wrong to me. Social medial platforms are designed by commercial companies to elicit very particular types of normalising exchange between masses of people. From the perspective of the platform providers, the purpose of the users actions and interactions is to squirt lucrative data. The functioning of Happenings and Intermedial exchange was to detourn, restructure, or re-make social relations- if only for a short duration. I don't see any general connection with mass social media usage. There have been media art projects that critique and expose the logic of the platforms. Moddr_'s Web 2.0 Suicide Machine http://suicidemachine.org/, Commodify Us https://commodify.us/,. Marc interviewed them here http://www.furtherfield.org/features/reviews/commodify-us-our-data-our-terms This is why Furtherfield bangs on about the importance of Free and Open culture (in arts and software) http://p2pfoundation.net/World_of_Free_and_Open_Source_Art On 05/03/15 12:20, Randall Packer wrote: i mean co-authoring in a way that they can insert their own creativity alter/influence the work.² @Helen: I am still interested in the idea that social media (and that includes this list) is in fact an intermedial exchange process of co-authorship, that we are in fact, together, authoring/constructing/generating a collective body of knowledge via this exchange. If you were to go back and read through the archives of NetBehaviour I am certain there is a ³cultural record² (to use the words of Vannevar Bush) with a narrative flow that captures a ³story² of the time and place and people involved. I consider social media (generally and perhaps idealistically speaking) to be expressive, performative (not proconsumative), and participatory in equal measure, narrative in a non-hierarchical structure, a theater of words and ideas. that's quite nice :) On 4/03/15 5:09 16PM, Patrick Lichty wrote: How about ³Performience²? From: netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org [mailto:netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org] On Behalf Of helen varley jamieson Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:45 AM To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution prosumer is not a word for actor+audience, it's a word for producer+consumer, which is about product and consumption, rather than relationship experience. i have long hunted for a good word for this - for audiences that are participating in a really creative way in a work - i don't just mean the interactivity of pressing a button or something like that. i mean co-authoring in a way that they can
Re: [NetBehaviour] the ever-present-present
What future artists need to know is that they can make their own contexts beyond the given structures, shoved down their metaphorical gullets ;p-)² @Marc, true but, if future generations don¹t know the past, then they won¹t know what to reject, they will be acting out of ignorance of what preceded them. Pierre Boulez once said that we need to absorb everything about the history of our discipline, and then, thrown it all away and reinvent it. Hi Helen, That's a very good point... but i do believe it will matter to those in the future who need to know alternative histories, just as many of us have needed to hunt out our own alternative pasts. What future artists need to know is that they can make their own contexts beyond the given structures, shoved down their metaphorical gullets ;p-) wishing you well. marc On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:28 PM, helen varley jamieson he...@creative-catalyst.com wrote: the future will indeed choose what is important to preserve, i prefer to put my energies into making work rather than trying to anticipate what might happen in the future. but that of course means that it's up to those who have the power in the future to make decisions about what's worth preserving, we know that this will probably exclude many marginalised groups. as most of us on this list are operating outside of mainstream arts structures academies, it's likely that most of us will be quietly forgotten. that doesn't matter to me personally, but i do believe it will matter to those in the future who need to know alternative histories, just as many of us have needed to hunt out our own alternative pasts. On 4/03/15 5:42 10AM, Pall Thayer wrote: I agree with Randall (agreeing with Rushkoff) that we live in an ever-ever-present tense and this also ties into Paul Virilio's perspective of real-time. But both of these phenomena are exactly what they describe, they are the now and cannot be projected onto the past nor the future in any meaningful way. The future will choose what it deems important. It doesn't really make any sense for us to be concerned with that at this point. If we decide to create our work in ways that will make it more accessible and/or easier to preserve for future generations, then we're limiting ourselves. If someone does choose that direction for those reasons, I would wager that they're going to be the ones that become as irrelevant as Bouguereau, etc. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com wrote: The notion that we might be erasing our historical past as we create it for the digital future sounds somewhat absurd and escapist to me. If we are not recognized for our efforts in the future, we should chalk it up to a failure of our present to find a means to preserve our work? We all think we're creating important and relevant work but if the future doesn't come up with a way to extract and preserve it, then it probably didn't mean that much to them. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Kath O'Donnell alia...@gmail.com wrote: yes, that's likely true. we hope the future might be interested but who knows what they'll be thinking of by then. On 4 March 2015 at 13:29, Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com wrote: It's interesting to consider what we, in our current ever-present-present, might think future generations will be interested in. We're probably wrong. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: Kath, you¹re last remarks are particularly relevant in regards to the emerging digital natives and millennials. My teaching is centered around the study of the digital native as a kind of anthropological research. It seems there is a clear trend towards giving up on privacy, and a growing lack of concern for preservation, as you suggest. Of course when you are 20 you might not think it is important to save anything, but in fact, we have a social media industry focused on information as more and more transient. The social media of today is about the NOW, what is at the top of our feed, which comes to our screen in the Moment, and then fades in descending chronological order into a past we are no longer interested in. As Douglas Rushkoff has written in Present Shock, we live in an ever-present-present tense, our abbreviated attention span revolving around the here and now. I suppose it's really up to how much people care about these things, and whether they work towards saving some of it or preparing for the future. What in fact are we leaving behind for future generations on our hard drives and cloud repositories? And how will the technological culture of today be viewed when these values are no longer decipherable. Are we in fact erasing our historical past as we create it for the digital future? I think this is a real issue. though we try to
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
i mean co-authoring in a way that they can insert their own creativity alter/influence the work.² @Helen: I am still interested in the idea that social media (and that includes this list) is in fact an intermedial exchange process of co-authorship, that we are in fact, together, authoring/constructing/generating a collective body of knowledge via this exchange. If you were to go back and read through the archives of NetBehaviour I am certain there is a ³cultural record² (to use the words of Vannevar Bush) with a narrative flow that captures a ³story² of the time and place and people involved. I consider social media (generally and perhaps idealistically speaking) to be expressive, performative (not proconsumative), and participatory in equal measure, narrative in a non-hierarchical structure, a theater of words and ideas. that's quite nice :) On 4/03/15 5:09 16PM, Patrick Lichty wrote: How about ³Performience²? From: netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org [mailto:netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org] On Behalf Of helen varley jamieson Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:45 AM To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution prosumer is not a word for actor+audience, it's a word for producer+consumer, which is about product and consumption, rather than relationship experience. i have long hunted for a good word for this - for audiences that are participating in a really creative way in a work - i don't just mean the interactivity of pressing a button or something like that. i mean co-authoring in a way that they can insert their own creativity alter/influence the work. i have written about the intermedial audience, as a way to understand the role of the audience in cyberformance potentially other digital art contexts. The concept of intermediality offers a way to approach an audience that is as unfinished and (r)evolutionary as the work it is engaging with. It upgrades the passive spectator to an integral position within cyberformance, without relinquishing the fundamental gap between performer and spectator. At the same time, intermediality acknowledges the mental multitasking that cyberformance demands of its audience and the paradigm shift that is forced onto those more accustomed to the traditional codes of audience behaviour. (this was written 8 years ago perhaps needs updating now given then increased possibilities for audience participation/contribution.) i don't think the intermedial audience are players of equal measure, i'm not sure if this really exists (when an artist or group has conceived the work or created the context for it except maybe in gaming?). h : ) On 4/03/15 5:02 28AM, Karl Heinz Jeron wrote: Hello, there is a word for actor and audience in the social media realm: prosumer! And hey if at all this is postdramatic theatre. Followers equals audience? I don't think so. Cheers KH 2015-03-04 0:05 GMT+01:00 isabel brison ijayes...@gmail.com: Hello, I can't really agree: When we sit in the theater, we are essentially a receiver of information that is passed from the stage to the audience. But in the world of social media, we are all actors on the stage: the fourth wall is erased, the proscenium dissolves, there are no lights to turn down, the suspension of disbelief is revised, as information (or lines) are passed not just from the one to many, but from everyone to everyone. Most of us are audience most of the time, as actors need audience to be actors. And what's the difference between a screen and a stage? except that on a screen it is not always considered bad manners to join in the act. And some of us deliberately choose to be audience, others act occasionally, some act as a hobby and others professionally ( though I'm not sure that acting is a good analogy at all for social interaction - there should be a word for actor and audience all in one, and possibly for combinations of different amounts of one and the other). how do we insert ourselves into this story, not as receivers, but as players of equal measure, Tweet! Retweet! Respond! - Seriously, that account only has 14 followers. How can it act at all in the absence of audience? Is it a bad actor? If we're all actors then how many of us are bad actors and should consider a change of carreer? Oh and a funny thing: I followed the link above and it gave me an error. It's really @The_People_Came https://twitter.com/The_People_Came . Was that on purpose I wonder? Cheers
[NetBehaviour] Dark Days with Ellie Harrison
Sorry for any cross posting... Dark Days with Ellie Harrison Caren Gilbert shares the experience of trying to find consensus on how we should approach life after the apocalype in the pop-up community of Ellie Harrison's Dark Days sleep-over at Glasgow's Gallery of Modern Art. Lately, I have noticed in myself a tendency to sign up for events which reveal little of what to expect beforehand. This leads to a heady mix of anticipation and mild terror. Dark Days, the brainchild of Ellie Harrison fitted that description, although I felt that at 16hrs long, it was a mere blip on my riskometer, compared to week-long excursions I’ve previously taken into the unknown. In short, I would be spending the night in Glasgow’s Gallery of Modern Art (GoMA), in a pop-up community of 99 strangers, contemplating how we might manage to live together (put up with each other) in a future where buildings might need to be used in ways which serve the needs of the population better…Count me in! http://bit.ly/1GYZrLb ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] The NetArtizens Project
Hi Edward The artisans evocation is not an accident: ) And I share your feeling of fellowship, commonness and community. There are all sorts of problems associated with taking the Net as a 'place'...however, billions of people now spend a lot of time 'here', inventing, socialising, working, playing, committing criminal acts and so it feels necessary to start thinking of the net as a place (and it is actually emplaced in the cables and computers that constitute it), and working out who and how the rights and obligations of its users and creators could be negotiated. Thanks Rob for the prompts and pointers at people and projects that are starting out in this direction. cheers, Ruth On 05/03/15 01:44, Rob Myers wrote: On Wed, 4 Mar, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Randall Packer rpac...@zakros.com wrote: “I'm not sure I feel like a citizen of the net. …. it (citizen) [also}] means 'A person who is legally recognized as a member http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/member of a state http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/state, with associated rights and obligations’… and I'm not sure I feel any of those things about the Net. All true @Edward, all true… but, I leave with you with the following Tweet I sent out yesterday (with some embellishment) : #*netartizens* https://twitter.com/hashtag/netartizens?src=hash: the #*Internet* https://twitter.com/hashtag/Internet?src=hash as our own self-proclaimed #*nation* https://twitter.com/hashtag/nation?src=hash not requiring hierarchical authority from above to be [granted the rights of] citizenship [of our own domain]. http://tracks.unhcr.org/2015/02/stateless-in-west-africa/ Ten million people around the world have no nationality. https://e-estonia.com/e-residents/about/ E-residency is a state-issued secure digital identity for non-residents that allows digital authentication and the digital signing of documents. https://github.com/MrChrisJ/World-Citizenship The goal of this project is to learn and layout a simple process for anyone in the world to create their own Private Passport Service that can be used to validate and prove the existence of other persons using nothing but available tools. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10881213/The-coming-digital-anarchy.html Daniel Larimer, who is working on a tool called Bitshares to apply blockchain technology to banking, insurance and company shareholding, believes that this new breed of technologies will ultimately render government entirely obsolete. http://www.wired.com/2014/01/its-time-to-take-mesh-networks-seriously-and-not-just-for-the-reasons-you-think/ I believe it’s time to reconsider their potential, and make mesh networking a reality. Not just because of its obvious benefits, but also because it provides an internet-native model for building community and governance. ___ 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
Re: [NetBehaviour] communication minefields
Dear #netartizens: Whatever the magnitude/form, online dialogues appear to be flooded with antagonistic commentary.² Mez Breeze I ask this question: Are the online forums doomed to positioning, attacking, posturing as Mez alludes, or do we have the desire or the inclination to create, build, and develop something new alive energizing monumental in the networked ³social sculpture of the list? Randall Mechanisms of Exclusion: ³We Are All Faceless Mobs Now, Dawg.² New article on Furtherfield by Mez Breeze. Mez Breeze examines the inner workings of our contemporary internet rage machine to identify its social and psychological causes. Today¹s online spaces are communication minefields. When interacting in multiplayer games or social media niches, networks come drenched in reactivity bile. And although we might seem to bile-dilute, instead we intellectually saw at each other through a polite veneer. Here, civil discourse is label-trotted. Discourse bile may also erupt in balls-to-the-wall screaming matches. Such bouts involve trollbaiting, d0xxing, and Internet Rage Machine power-ups. Whatever the magnitude/form, online dialogues appear to be flooded with antagonistic commentary. http://www.furtherfield.org/features/articles/mechanisms-of-exclusion ___ 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
