Re: [-empyre-] OSW: open source writing in the network
Dear Smita, Marc, Simon and everyone. Many thanks for inviting me to join this fascinating, rich and varied debate - I must confess so much so that frankly I'm not sure where to start. I am not an expert, or anything like it, on IP or collaborative authorship or open models but the context in which these issues have come up certainly raises questions close to my own research interests, which I guess is where I might be the best placed to offer a couple of initial thoughts that I don’t think have been directly addressed so far. One area which I have reflected on in some of my writing is the character of publicness in a digital and networked environment. It strikes me that the move into collaborative approaches that aim to overcome the notion of a single author (and all the baggage that entails) and ownership as a meaningful and useful legal concept (whatever the broader implication for subjectivity, economics, and society) raises real questions with regard to politics, as a process of making public. To publish, as a process of crossing a clear boundary between a private and public forum, that is to ‘make public’ assumes a distinct arena into which one can place private thoughts. This borderline has up until ubiquitous distributed computing rested with formal or quasi formal intermediary institutions that act as filters or gatekeepers - or in other words, publishers. Such a policing is indeed necessary to justify the very existence of pubic life as a distinct arena that ‘represents’ us, and in that sense is the essence of the democratic life of the bourgeois state. However, as the cost of publishing has been reduced to something close to zero for a good number of individuals and organizations, capital, and its concomitant bourgeois state, have significantly diminished in their ability to filter and legitimate the work of a professional class of public intellectuals and cultural critics. The presence of such gatekeepers is also needed to enable the creation of value sufficient that a class of public intellectuals can a) make a living and b) make themselves distinct from everybody else for whom public life only exists to the extent that they are consumers and/or processors of public knowledge or public reason. Yet now this process seems largely reversed, in that the filtering process takes place after ‘publication’.One clicks though to a recommended blog post as readily as story in The Guardian if it comes well recommended. One of the implications of the ‘massification’ of the Internet as discussed by Tiziana in an earlier post, is precisely the generalization of this post-public filtering. On the surface this suggests a form democratization, open publishing platforms, or even Twitter and such like, enabling anybody to chip in, in that sense I wonder to what extent this erosion - if developed far enough, can become a real radical and challenging political moment, simply in its undermining of a privileged realm of ‘representation’? However, I also wonder just as FLOSS in the realm of economics, as Dimit and others have argued in earlier posts, can readily be recuperated by capital, so - perhaps - new forms of what might be referred to a distributed publicness, can be readily recuperated by the ‘post-publication’ filtering mechanisms put in place to enable them to be manageable and shared, given the broader context of neo-liberal definitions of choice as little more than a market of ideas. In particular automated reputation systems that contribute towards power-law distributions in scale-free networks, clustering around ever more dominant hubs. In that regard for me the compelling question that this raises is whether the shift from an official policing of the boundary of publicness, towards an algorithmic cybernetic policing, indeed the disappearance of the notion of ‘public’ as meaningful term at all, requires a recalibration of thinking about publishing? Or its value as a term at all. This must also include ‘open’ publishing given that publishing itself is a concept that still contains a trace of the process of a filtered ‘making public’ and perhaps is becoming an oxymoron . Though at this point I’m a bit too tired to think this through properly. But I do also think this in itself requires a re-engagement with the key question of subjectivity, political subjectivity in particular, again an issue raised by Tiziana. What can it mean to express political agency, to ‘act’ or to make oneself present in the sense that Hannah Arendt uses it, in this context? One to sleep on I suspect. Apologies for a rather incoherent post but hopefully I can pick up some more of these points, and some more developed reflections on previous posts, in the next day or two. Cheers, Joss From: empyre-boun...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre-boun...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] on behalf of SK Edinburgh [skheriae...@gmail.com] Sent: 23 January 2012 09:39 To:
Re: [-empyre-] OSW: open source writing in the network
Joss, You raise some very good points, points which highlight the truly profound nature of digital communication technologies. Such a policing is indeed necessary to justify the very existence of pubic life as a distinct arena that ‘represents’ us, and in that sense is the essence of the democratic life of the bourgeois state. However, as the cost of publishing has been reduced to something close to zero for a good number of individuals and organizations, capital, and its concomitant bourgeois state, have significantly diminished in their ability to filter and legitimate the work of a professional class of public intellectuals and cultural critics. In my own study of electronic literature, I find that many of our attitudes towards the literary are shaped by accidents of history. Fortunately, we have found a good medium for storing and transmitting human expression in the book, itself, prefigured by an oral language which was similarly crystallized in the creation of alphabetic writing but over time, we have become habituated to seeing human thought represented and archived in this format, so many believe that this quality is intrinsic to the literary. Ignoring the possibility that these are specific incarnations of an impulse that precedes it and ignoring the possibility that this impulse will continue to be carried forward in continuity with the present. Now, without getting into semantic quibbling over whether or not we want to provide a strict prescription for literature, I think it is interesting that we depend upon the limiting effects of the material object to accomplish what it is that we desire from literature: Meaning over meaninglessness, virtuosity over thoughtless crap, quality that stands out against quantity. In other words, we still prefer to spend our time using it in ways that reflect our interests, thus some would rather read Literature instead of crap or, in the case you describe, reliable publications over unreliable ones. At the same time, we are keenly aware of marketing, pr, and consumerism in the 21st century so we know that many operators will exploit the logic of scarcity to present unreliable or crappy texts as though they are worth the paper they are printed on. It costs a lot to print a book. People have to buy a lot of copies to make the bestseller list. Glenn Beck's latest book must be AWESOME! In other words, we know by now that the material limitations of print publishing are no longer a reliable indicator of a book's aesthetic merit, moral quality, truth value, scientific significance, etc. Now, often times when I say that I think we need to have some sort of reliable means to sort useful information from crap, people suggest that there is some elitism there. And certainly, when print was the only game in town, such statements were directly tied to an implied economic threshold, which kept some out and some in. But when, as you note, many people can publish many things online with no filtering it is a mistake to assume that the process of conscious human discernment means we privilege the haves against the have-nots. It could be. In the case of commercial content and professionally marketed materials, it is. But this, too, is an accident of history, rather than something essential to the act of critical thinking. Critical thinking does require time to read, think, communicate. It does require the existence of a community capable of supporting and sustaining this activity. (As an aside, if wanting to create a community in which people can read, think, communicate, create is elitist, then what would an anti-elitist community look like?). To get back around to my comment I think that you hit the nail on the head when you point out the need for critical structures and practices that are capable of looking at the broad field of cultural information we swim in, and to filter those results in accordance with values negotiated by a community. Once you take heavy hand of material scarcity off the scales of publication, we have an opportunity to think about what ought to be published without worrying about the dynamics that made many of the hard decisions on our behalf. We now have to decide how to prioritize information, because the price of paper isn't doing it for us. And we need to think about how search engines, social media, and government institutions are actively trying to perform this role on our behalf. If you look out there, and empyre as a community, has been very good at trying to explore the potential of the new environment (and has given a lot of similar projects, artists, critics, and activists, the space to share other models for sharing work), there are groups of people working on exploring the new models. And, as these little perturbations in art and academic culture go, so there are wild vortexes of widespread social change that are being negotiated. We have to figure out how to articulate community in a
Re: [-empyre-] OSW: open source writing in the network
Hi Joss all, One particular term you mention 'gate-keeping', strikes me as a significant subject worth exploring further. Especially when there existsr various models, practical solutions explored by many, forming their own cultural and independent economies involving open publishing. I think if we pull in some examples of 'open' publishing, in respect of motives and drives for doing such things, we can at least begin to appreciate the need for a wider development of free and open publishing. Just sidestepping here, a recent free publication I have recently enjoyed reading is, The Student Handjob so radical... it’s fucking bodacious That's their strapline not mine, and it's free. Worth reading if like myself, you're interested in keeping up with the current dialogues of critical and activist education in the UK http://hutnyk.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/the-student-handjob/ Getting back to things. If we focus on the shifting values and dynamics of free and open publishing, their processes areas of distribution, and what this means culturally. One group I have been following who are deeply involved in this is OSP (Open Source Publishing). A graphic design collective that uses only Free, Libre and Open Source Software. They test the possibilities and realities of doing design, illustration, cartography and typography using a range of F/LOSS tools. Matt Fuller interviewed Femke Snelting a member from the group (http://www.spc.org/fuller/interviews/open-source-publishing-interview-with-femke-snelting/). Snelting says I think the blurring of boundaries happens through practice. Just like recipes are linked in many ways to food (tasting, trying, writing, cooking), design practice connects objects to conditions. I agree with Snelting's comment. For if we are to get some kind of grip on what publishing is, we need appreciate what the reasons behind publishing are in the first place. If we mainly consider publishing in terms of facilitation and function alone, we lose the stories that can inspire others to engage themselves in creating their own methods of publishing. And gate-keeping is a historical and contemporary situation which we can all relate to, perhaps universally. It is the situations themselves that people experience which define and instruct their motives for publishing. One of my own fascinations around this is how others find ways around systems to get their message out there and heard to a larger audience or potential collaborators. Sometimes to make this happen, it involves activities of illegality or instances of grass root manoeuvrings. This also means that boundaries will be blurred due to the nature of redefining one's or a groups place by finding an alternate space to have a publication made concrete, seen by others. Your comment What can it mean to express political agency, to ‘act’ or to make oneself present in the sense that Hannah Arendt uses it, in this context? Feels poignant, especially now. Hannah Arendt wrote an interesting book 'On Revolution', which it seems you've read. Where she proposes the French Revolution was not successful and the American Revolution was. Not only contentious because of her criticism on Marxist thought, but also seen as re-introducing the much earlier politics by the conservative Edmund Burke. This also links directly to another writer Mary Shelley author of 'Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus'. Where she lived through the wrath of Burke and the post French Revolution backlash. Shelley's rebellion against her own parent's ideas as well as other radicals, seems to take on echoes of Burke's own fears. Rousseau's dream of humanity- the noble savages, claiming power at grass roots and breaking away from the chains of a corrupted civilization, ended in himself anguishing about the death of many across Europe. The combination of Shelley's own personal doubts on Revolution and war, and considerations of Burke's very public discourse against her own father were key influences in the writing of Frankenstein's content. In regard to contemporary and independent publications as agency, a group I'm been interested in, called 'University For Strategic Optomism' (http://universityforstrategicoptimism.wordpress.com/). As an active argument against their education being 'privatised, corporatised and commodified'. Have taken it upon themselves to create their own (peer 2 peer) PhD'S. based on the principal of free and open education, a return of politics to the public, and the politicisation of public space. As our university buildings are being boarded up we inhabit the bank as public space. Not just a public space but the proper and poignant place for the introductory lecture to our course entitled ‘Higher Education, Neo-Liberalism and the State’. They took their research readings of various peer on the subject of neo-liberalism out of the 'official' realms of traditional universities, into
Re: [-empyre-] OSW: open source writing in the network
hi, very interesting conversation and points made in the last days :) one quick thought...if the net is making things fuzzy between public and private then does this also erode the role of 'publishing' to carry things over from private to public? if that is the case then the question might be what happens when publishing ceases to exist...can we imagine that? could we imagine culture and knowledge production not as a private 'in progress work' of a sole author which is then revealed but rather the development of shared public artefacts made by many contributors... publishing for me in this scenario doesn't hold much of what it was (so much so that I think it would need another name) but is tremendously exciting. adam On 01/24/2012 02:42 PM, marc garrett wrote: I agree with Snelting's comment. For if we are to get some kind of grip on what publishing is, we need appreciate what the reasons behind publishing are in the first place. If we mainly consider publishing in terms of facilitation and function alone, we lose the stories that can inspire others to engage themselves in creating their own methods of publishing And gate-keeping is a historical and contemporary situation which we can all relate to, perhaps universally. It is the situations themselves that people experience which define and instruct their motives for publishing. One of my own fascinations around this is how others find ways around systems to get their message out there and heard to a larger audience or potential collaborators. Sometimes to make this happen, it involves activities of illegality or instances of grass root manoeuvrings. This also means that boundaries will be blurred due to the nature of redefining one's or a groups place by finding an alternate space to have a publication made concrete, seen by others. Your comment What can it mean to express political agency, to ‘act’ or to make oneself present in the sense that Hannah Arendt uses it, in this context? Feels poignant, especially now. Hannah Arendt wrote an interesting book 'On Revolution', which it seems you've read. Where she proposes the French Revolution was not successful and the American Revolution was. Not only contentious because of her criticism on Marxist thought, but also seen as re-introducing the much earlier politics by the conservative Edmund Burke. This also links directly to another writer Mary Shelley author of 'Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus'. Where she lived through the wrath of Burke and the post French Revolution backlash. Shelley's rebellion against her own parent's ideas as well as other radicals, seems to take on echoes of Burke's own fears. Rousseau's dream of humanity- the noble savages, claiming power at grass roots and breaking away from the chains of a corrupted civilization, ended in himself anguishing about the death of many across Europe. The combination of Shelley's own personal doubts on Revolution and war, and considerations of Burke's very public discourse against her own father were key influences in the writing of Frankenstein's content. In regard to contemporary and independent publications as agency, a group I'm been interested in, called 'University For Strategic Optomism' (http://universityforstrategicoptimism.wordpress.com/). As an active argument against their education being 'privatised, corporatised and commodified'. Have taken it upon themselves to create their own (peer 2 peer) PhD'S. based on the principal of free and open education, a return of politics to the public, and the politicisation of public space. As our university buildings are being boarded up we inhabit the bank as public space. Not just a public space but the proper and poignant place for the introductory lecture to our course entitled ‘Higher Education, Neo-Liberalism and the State’. They took their research readings of various peer on the subject of neo-liberalism out of the 'official' realms of traditional universities, into physical environments and read them publicly inside Banks to mid-large audiences. Of course, creditation in this respect is not an option in normal, academic terms. But then, I have never believed the notion that an academic is immediately an intellectual or a critical thinker by default. But, we all know this don't we ;-) I see this form of publication as part of the tradition of leafleting and as the natural exponential growth of networked culture and its influence in creating alternative hi-tech frameworks for distribution. Exploiting the idea and very practical solution of bypassing gatekeeping situations in creating one's own context as an alternative to the limits of official representation/distribution. While e-commerce will always depend upon legal regulation, 'interactive creativity' among Net users has little need for courts and police. Barbrook http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/conference/code/texts/barbrook.html Wishing you well. marc * Dear Smita, Marc, Simon and everyone. Many
Re: [-empyre-] OSW: open source writing in the network
Hi Smita all, I want to try and respond clearly to some of the questions you pose below... It’d be interesting to explore thoughts (and experiences) on IP and development of open models of writing and publishing; how does it hinder and can it help, ever?; the motivations behind the use/development of open-models and the value attributed to such use; role and meaning of collaborative authorship for the participants. While several points in relation to these have come up in a number of posts in the last two weeks, it’d be great to develop them a bit further! Firstly, anyone and group or institution who decides to close down possibilities of shared distribution, whether this be publishing, an on-line community/platform, or shared files; are proposing a power shift based on principles. This communicates to its users/community, its consumers we are not open we are closed. The idea that this action creates quality due to proposed ideas in accordance to curation or similar conceptions, are either not acknowledging, not listening or are not aware or do not actually care; of the social disconnect and its consequences when closing down a 'culturally free-zone'. If we are discussing traditional journalism in the UK, most of the individuals writing in these columns are either celebrities or ex oxford and Cambridge students. This declares that class distinction, status and privilege is the deciding factor in respect of who is worthy of 'official' respect and support amongst the ranks of news related 'printed on-line media'. This spurious notion that (quality) selection is objective and in the end creates a higher quality press is a myth, it has more to do with upholding positions of power over others. If we are to evolve beyond the limitations and the tyranny over consciousness, it begins with suborning law or bending it in accordance to our needs at the time. Because, as usual the elites are never ready to accept the needs of others, only their own immediate needs. Hence the constant building of stronger established frameworks and protocols in order to make their positions less vulnerable, by only letting in particular individuals into their fold that accept or become complicit with 'upper' peer agreements which, strengthening the infrastructures of these pantheons - in the Max Weber sense of the word. This is why a blurring of what is deemed as 'legitimate' publishing has to happen, so that we can all re-asses these matters on a more level field, with the inclusion of publicly shared distribution models. Which is why discussions such as this on Empyre are important. In my next post to you and all, I will offer actual examples referring some of the experiences and projects I have been involved in, as well as sharing comparisons that aim to highlight hermetically sealed cultures that act to close things of, relating to the very issues discussed above. Wishing you well. marc Hello everyone! A warm welcome to this week’s guests: Marc Garrett and Joss Hands. Thanks to Simon, Penny, Tiziana, Dmitry, Salvatore and Adam as well all other discussion contributors for their thought-provoking comments in the last two weeks. I have, as a lurker, really enjoyed the comments, examples and references. My research interests are in exploring and investigating artists’ and users’ perspectives on creation, dissemination and exploitation of new forms of content and their relationship with authorship and copyright. I’d like to focus this week’s discussion on intellectual property, economics and open models of writing and publishing. Collaborative authorship does not sit very well within the copyright framework (Seville 2006) and open-source models focus on sustaining collaborative production within the boundaries of existing IP regimes (Biagioli 2011). It’d be interesting to explore thoughts (and experiences) on IP and development of open models of writing and publishing; how does it hinder and can it help, ever?; the motivations behind the use/development of open-models and the value attributed to such use; role and meaning of collaborative authorship for the participants. While several points in relation to these have come up in a number of posts in the last two weeks, it’d be great to develop them a bit further! Best, Smita On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Simon Biggs si...@littlepig.org.uk mailto:si...@littlepig.org.uk wrote: Welcome to the third and last week of this discussion about open source writing and publishing on empyre. Firstly I would like to thank Adam Hyde, Salvatore Ianconesi, Penny Travlou, Tiziana Terranov and Dmytri Kleiner for the dynamic discussion they have established over the past two weeks, as well as all empyre members who have posted emails to the thread. I hope everyone can remain engaged as we move into the third week. To recap the theme: in a globalised and highly mediated context we wish to focus empyre discussion
