Re: Has net-art lost political significance?
Hello Rachel, I love your questions. Personally, I just submitted my PhD thesis which had some similar research goals. While I love the construct of "the network" and "the exploit" -- I feel they are dated/need revision in today's landscape of platform politics. In addition I think the flat hierarchy of the network is a bit utopian and doesn't recognize the power of some individuals in the overall structure. Moreover, I feel the discourse around tactical works needs to be expanded to include works that engage technology (broadly) in a critical way as, for me, technology and the internet are (at this point) part of a single continuum. The idea that we can talk about work 'on the web' singularly and separate from work that is about the web, that is of the web, or that is simply *of *our current techno-social condition is stifling, I believe. I think you can apply whatever theoretical model you want; the discourse (as your research question recognizes) is ripe for new frameworks. Personally, I used my own kind of cyborg theory (a blend of Heidegger, McLuhan, Latour, Haraway, Bratton, and Terranova... among others) to discuss these types of works in terms of challenging our relationship to technology as both a global system we are embedded in and distributed across and as something which has embedded itself in us. Maybe that will help you with your approach. Certainly, there are artists making work that is interesting, important, and political in this landscape. Many are mentioned in other responses. Goodness, what the alt-right did was straight out of the handbook of Tactical Media, very effective, and not *not *art -- although it might terrify some of us. That has been discussed here, in fact -- and I was again discussing it last week at a conference. ~Minka On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:38 AM wrote: > So interesting. > I also find this so interesting because in the light of fakeness, Tactical > Media is harder, in the sense of the intervention/provocation to response > that was done with RTMark/YesMen back in the time I was active. I think > that the new Washington Post, after the Times and NY Post ones that were > done in the late 2000's, was powerful because I heard about it in the UAE. > > However, in the Eastern hemisphere, I have been working with AR as a > "local" discourse (meaning that anyone can get the app, but the message is > pretty limited to them), as well as working with artists in Kazakhstan > about messages AR as tactical media, such as overlaying messages over works > in the National Mueum (based on the Manifest.AR We AR MoMA intervention I > was part of around 2010) and the "Modernization of Consciousness" (Ruhani > Zhangru) posters in 2018. These are some interestign ways in which one can > laterally engage networks for critical discourse. > > In addition, I am working with David Guillo with his independent web > router galleries as a sort of TAZ in regions that employ firewalls and > net.filtering. This follows from my setting up occupy.here routers as wifi > "islands" for collaboration without using VPN, and therefore staying > technically within local regulations. > While not so much "Tactical" media, I consider that in the era of > increasing firewalling, and in the case of threatened net.separation in > Russia and Iran, I feel hang autonomous server art is a critical space for > exploration of these topics as well. > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:28:58 -0700, Molly Hankwitz wrote: > > Hi Rachel, > snip - > > I’m currently writing about various tactical and activist practices in the > wireless space, including artistic interventions, software-defined radio > communities who are reverse-engineering, hacking, sniffing and jamming > signals, communities and activists who are building communal Wi-Fi and > cellular networks and artists making work in or about the politics of the > wireless spectrum – who owns it, how it’s controlled and so on > > snip > > > > Great. So needed. I wrote a dissertation on WiFi practices - a bit earlier > history than what you are looking for. I write about “warchalking” and > other kinds of social media based information spaces, hacks. From that > experience I’d bet you will be best off in the arts. If there is writing > being done it would be from groups like the then - headman - Knowbotics > Research, etc. But the best project - utilizing mobile tools and being both > tactical and poetry and human rights - Transborder Tool b.a.n.g. Lab. > Ricardo Dominguez’s and Brett Stalbaum from virtual sit-in days behind it > as well as Micha Cardenas. We programmed this into our project - City > Centered: Locative Media and Wireless Festival - 2010. I think TBT is > having a re-release. (Smile) > > > > Molly > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 3:40 AM Rachel O' Dwyer > wrote: > >> What characterises media art interventions in the context of >> ‘surveillance capitalism’, platforms and the gig economy? Are these >> practices still meaningful or, as F.A.T. Lab claimed in
Re: Periodizing With Control
Garnet, I completely agree with your assessment: "...there are a lot of other people that deserve our attention that have been totally neglected. The well-known folks had enough coverage already..." But, when we continue to rehash the 'greats,' how do we draw attention to, identify, the 'new' or 'alternative' voices? Let's start a list. Who do you suggest? Personally, I'm a fan of Wendy Chun, Yuk Hui, Donna Haraway, and Tiziana Terranova. But maybe we should be more specific, which specific tools from which specific authors build on, but provide a path beyond the canon? ... seconding voyd, I do also quite like Zero Books... -Minka On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:21 AM Garnet Hertz wrote: > Emaline: based on your response, it looks like you have the same careerism > as Seb. No? > > 1. Why would anybody use the term "imbricated" in a tweet without being > insecure? > https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/complex-academic-writing/412255/ > 2. I don't hate Foucault and Deleuze (I did my PhD w Mark Poster, perhaps > one of the bigger fans of these guys) - but thinking that advanced thought > starts and stops with these people is totally lazy scholarship. > 3. Max Herman: "I sometimes think the flaws or errors in three main names > -- Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche". Sounds okay, but is about a hundred years > late. > 4. Seb may be trying to keep academia alive, but this sort of resembles a > zombie life form that isn't worth the life support. > > I think I'm primarily gagging at a fetishization of the same group of guys > that everybody worships: Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Deleuze, > Guattari, Jameson, etc. It's totally true that they really are fantastic: I > think I literally have every printed word of all of these people on my > bookshelf. I also still consider Baudrillard the best theoretical summary > of my life's work, for example -- his writing is amazingly inspiring and > bright. But by continuing to worship the same incantation of sacred names > we really run the risk of our outfit (critical studies, digital humanities, > or whatever) of becoming totally irrelevant and disconnected from the tools > and dialogue of today. In my opinion, if your scholarship is focused on Freud, > Marx, and Nietzsche then maybe you're in a stagnant nostalgic backwater of > thought. There are so many new tools, techniques and scholars that bring so > many fresh perspectives on different topics that we need to dig down and do > work on instead of just taking for granted the names that our grad advisors > assigned us. If nothing else, we really owe it to the non-European and > non-male scholars around us that have done fantastic, vigorous scholarship. > If we're writing theory or history it's up to us to dig deeper into the > archive of this stuff and put the effort to find people outside the canon > and write them into history. This is what great historians do, I think. > They worry less about careerism and focus on paying attention to what is > actually going on in the real world - and they formulate a fantastic way to > summarize the gestalt of it without leaning on a bunch of clichés. They cut > a fresh and insightful path. If nothing else, your long term careerism will > accelerate by stepping out of your theoretical safe zone. Fuck Freud, > Marx, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Guattari, and Jameson -- not that > they're wrong, but that there are a lot of other people that deserve our > attention that have been totally neglected. The well-known folks had enough > coverage already - they are useful in establishing a base zone for your > arguments, but I really think all of these individuals would agree with me > in moving forward. I think they'd say "Move on and clue in to what's > happening now" -- or maybe encouraging us to not totally fetishize May 1968. > > In summary, I'd like to try to encourage people to be more like an > inspirational groundbreaker than a careerist schmuck, I guess. Only a few > beyond the small circle of critical studies colleagues genuinely care about > the chain of thought between Freud-Marx-Nietzsche. Not that they're > useless, but that a lot has happened since they were writing. We're in a > significantly different world than when these folks were around. The work > isn't completely useless, just not the best set of tools for discussing the > problems of today. No? > > Garnet > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 1:34 PM Emaline Friedman < > emalinefried...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Garnet, >> >> I laughed at your response ! Not at all interested in tearing you apart, >> but wanting to explore this sense of "who cares?", toward which I'm also >> inclined. >> >> What really makes me think "who cares" is the obvious careerism baked >> into the argument. I think one could put Seb's basic idea in a tweet and >> credit Kojin Karatani: "all the modes of control are imbricated. everything >> is happening all at once". Hence we have digital feudalism, social coercion >> via
Re: The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel
issues which evolve from > pricing and historic exclusion in tech and the arts such as public > library systems, (SFPL has The Mix, teen space), our K-12 public schools > (Hoover MS built a Maker-space), storefronts (there are several walk-in and > work, including Double Union, also in SF, which is trans/LBGTQ space) and > maybe even websites such as Adafruit (though not sure of timeline) emerged > during the Maker heyday. > > > How these spaces will survive and change without umbrella Maker movement, > or leading publication, remains a question. > > Disney got involved with Maker Faire, and that should tell everyone a > lot. > > > One hopes the spirit of ‘making’ and ‘collaboration’ promoted to > non-technologists and to many outsiders of the arts/technology fields, will > have subtle and lasting repercussions in the next wave - and will continue > to permeate education and beyond. > > > How has “Maker” influenced European education? > > > > https://www.urbanlibraries.org/member-resources/makerspaces-in-libraries > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_makerspace > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/03/everyone-is-a-maker/473286/ > > > http://redtri.com/new-york/hands-on-nycs-best-makerspaces/ > > > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00048623.2016.1228163 > > > http://eprints.qut.edu.au/73071/1/73071.pdf > > > https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:22717/n2006043067.pdf > > > https://www.edutopia.org/blog/designing-a-school-makerspace-jennifer-cooper > > > > Molly > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:34 AM Minka Stoyanova > wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I've really been enjoying this discussion in the wake of Make's >> dissolution. As noted, the corporatization, whitewashing, and >> delocalization of potentially critical and creative diy approaches was >> certainly a problem with the "maker movement" as defined by Make. I also >> completely agree that the focus on 3D printing over CNC, laser cutting, or >> (even) traditional building is a problem. I'm excited about Garnet's >> proposals for a new direction/umbrella for critical approaches as well as >> Adrian's proposals, that recall arts and crafts ideas for 21st century >> problems. >> >> I wonder though, about the educational angle. My own local makerspace as >> well as local non-profits that aim to bring tech education to young people >> (often underserved) relied on the Make / "maker" phenomenon for tools, >> educational resources, and funding. Perhaps making an LED blink isn't >> really interesting for a critically-minded artist; as a critically-minded >> artist, I certainly feel that way. But, it's certainly a stepping stone for >> tech education. Make had a significant role in that sphere. >> >> However, I see an potentially interesting/exciting new direction that >> could come of the dissolution of Make's stronghold in the realm of >> education. Tech education could be more than "teaching electronics to kids" >> -- which is *very* important, in my opinion. It could (and I think, >> should) include teaching critical approaches to technology, teaching media >> literacy, critical thinking, and environmental thinking. I think the >> discussion here could point towards ways of bringing those perspectives >> into what was, under Make, a largely naive approach. >> >> Is there a space in what Adrian and Garnet's proposals for youth >> education? ...for educating the next generation? ...or, for aiding the >> educators of the next generation? >> >> Minka >> (trying to contribute and not just "lurk" so much) >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:56 AM James Wallbank wrote: >> >>> Responses both to Richard, Adrian and Garnet - great points! (Hope this >>> doesn't make things difficult!) >>> >>> I think that, taking a longer perspective, the key question we have to >>> ask is whether the "Maker Movement" contains (or even could contain) >>> potential genuinely to transform and empower localities. Relocalisation was >>> one of the big sales pitches for the internet (remember all that breathless >>> talk of working from home, and a new layer of prosperous digital artisans?) >>> yet what we see, twenty five years later, is hyper-centralisation. >>> >>> Just as an example, we used to use the apartment above "Makers" for >>> AirBNB. So British people, visiting us in Sheffield, could pay people in >>> San Fransico for the right to transact with us. Partly in response, we've >&g
Re: The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel
Hello all, I've really been enjoying this discussion in the wake of Make's dissolution. As noted, the corporatization, whitewashing, and delocalization of potentially critical and creative diy approaches was certainly a problem with the "maker movement" as defined by Make. I also completely agree that the focus on 3D printing over CNC, laser cutting, or (even) traditional building is a problem. I'm excited about Garnet's proposals for a new direction/umbrella for critical approaches as well as Adrian's proposals, that recall arts and crafts ideas for 21st century problems. I wonder though, about the educational angle. My own local makerspace as well as local non-profits that aim to bring tech education to young people (often underserved) relied on the Make / "maker" phenomenon for tools, educational resources, and funding. Perhaps making an LED blink isn't really interesting for a critically-minded artist; as a critically-minded artist, I certainly feel that way. But, it's certainly a stepping stone for tech education. Make had a significant role in that sphere. However, I see an potentially interesting/exciting new direction that could come of the dissolution of Make's stronghold in the realm of education. Tech education could be more than "teaching electronics to kids" -- which is *very* important, in my opinion. It could (and I think, should) include teaching critical approaches to technology, teaching media literacy, critical thinking, and environmental thinking. I think the discussion here could point towards ways of bringing those perspectives into what was, under Make, a largely naive approach. Is there a space in what Adrian and Garnet's proposals for youth education? ...for educating the next generation? ...or, for aiding the educators of the next generation? Minka (trying to contribute and not just "lurk" so much) On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:56 AM James Wallbank wrote: > Responses both to Richard, Adrian and Garnet - great points! (Hope this > doesn't make things difficult!) > > I think that, taking a longer perspective, the key question we have to ask > is whether the "Maker Movement" contains (or even could contain) potential > genuinely to transform and empower localities. Relocalisation was one of > the big sales pitches for the internet (remember all that breathless talk > of working from home, and a new layer of prosperous digital artisans?) yet > what we see, twenty five years later, is hyper-centralisation. > > Just as an example, we used to use the apartment above "Makers" for > AirBNB. So British people, visiting us in Sheffield, could pay people in > San Fransico for the right to transact with us. Partly in response, we've > taken the step of scrapping the apartment, breaking through the ceiling of > the shop, reinstituting the staircase, and opening up two more floors to > local commerce, culture and micro-industry! > > But can we make that decision make sense? Are we just utopian > silly-billies, prepared to waste our resources on subsidising local culture > - or can we make it pay at least as much as we made from our previous > activities? > > Only by fairly universal engagement can Making begin to address the sorts > of global issues that posters like Adrian and Garnet have identified > (resource usage, poor resource recovery, social inequalities, > alienation...). And to get fairly universal engagement, it HAS TO PAY. > > Richard, you say "my point of view the greatest value of the maker > movement has been an explosion of people making things that don't entirely > make sense and that are not intended as commercial ventures. That's not an > issue, that's the point." > > If we maintain that the quirky, fascinating, but ultimately unprofitable > experiments are the core value of the Maker Movement, then be prepared to > accept that it WILL wither and die - or rather, simply retreat into the > world of hobbyists orbiting academic institutions. Throughout history there > have been movements that have resulted in things that don't entirely make > sense - it hasn't needed the Maker Movement to make that happen. Are you in > danger of conflating the experimental excrescences of creative young people > with what we're now calling "making" (that intersection of the physical and > the digital that's made possible by affordable digital manufacturing > equipment and dirt-cheap, programmable microelectronics)? > > I believe that the Maker Movement points to value an order of magnitude of > greater - a contextual change, in which localities are transformed and > empowered as they take on the skills, the engagement and the tools to make > their own quirky, responsive and particular products and emergent cultures > suitable for their own needs. > > But just because something is fairly universal, that STILL doesn't mean > that it has potential to revitalise localities. This is where I have an > issue with 3D Print. Take, as an analogy, inkjet printing. Inkjet printing > is almost universal
