Re: Digital Folklore on dat://

[Olia Lialina]

YOU are feeding Google a big time! More people follow your link, more Digital 
Folklore copies will automatically end up in Google cloud, without being seen, 
read and redistributed by its real audience. But maybe your good intentions 
will  find their way through and Google will choke! 

 eh...@posteo.net wrote 

>Don't feed the Google, just say no to Chrome!
>
>Bypass Beaker here:
>https://dat.bovid.space/f1a5ed8cd08dc9704d6261c899bbd0f5a0851e596f132d6edc562c1a4948c43e/
>
>On Monday, July 1, 2019 9:24:29 PM CEST, olia lialina wrote:
>> Dear Nettimers,
>>
>> apropos E2E, P2P, networks and their limits, tactical media and 
>> their impact.
>>
>> two weeks ago we released Digital Folklore Reader (2009) on dat://
>>
>> go to dat://digitalfolklore.org/ if you are on Beaker already
>>
>> or follow instructions at https://digitalfolklore.org/
>>
>> I keep my laptop on and my Beaker browser open for you to get 
>> the book and distribute it further!
>>
>> yours
>>
>> Olia
>>
>
>#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
>#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
>#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
>#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
>#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
>#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: Digital Folklore on dat://

[ehmry]

Don't feed the Google, just say no to Chrome!

Bypass Beaker here:
https://dat.bovid.space/f1a5ed8cd08dc9704d6261c899bbd0f5a0851e596f132d6edc562c1a4948c43e/

On Monday, July 1, 2019 9:24:29 PM CEST, olia lialina wrote:

Dear Nettimers,

apropos E2E, P2P, networks and their limits, tactical media and 
their impact.


two weeks ago we released Digital Folklore Reader (2009) on dat://

go to dat://digitalfolklore.org/ if you are on Beaker already

or follow instructions at https://digitalfolklore.org/

I keep my laptop on and my Beaker browser open for you to get 
the book and distribute it further!


yours

Olia



#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Digital Folklore on dat://

[olia lialina]

Dear Nettimers,

apropos E2E, P2P, networks and their limits, tactical media and their 
impact.


two weeks ago we released Digital Folklore Reader (2009) on dat://

go to dat://digitalfolklore.org/ if you are on Beaker already

or follow instructions at https://digitalfolklore.org/

I keep my laptop on and my Beaker browser open for you to get the book 
and distribute it further!


yours

Olia

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: Has net-art lost political significance?

[Francis Hunger]

  
  
Hi Rachel,


  

  

  

  

  

  
A bit more
  detail about why I'm asking this
  question: 
  
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. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

I think exceptional work in the early 2000s was
done in the Acoustic Ecologies and Acoustic Space series by
rixc.org and Rasa and Raitis http://rixc.org/en/acousticspace/all/.
HMKV Dortmund saw the Waves exhibition 
  https://www.hmkv.de/programm/programmpunkte/2008/Ausstellungen/Waves.php

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
But I’m
  feeling a bit paralysed. 
I love
  these works; I love their
  inventive materiality and the ways
  that they exploit and
  reverse-engineer existing systems,
  but I don’t know what claims I can
  make for their political impact.
  And yet I feel that this work is
  still very worthwhile. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

It may simply be the case that artists have
notoriously overstated the possible impact of their
works/research. Which makes sense against the historical
context: During the late 1990s and early 2000s "Internet" was
still something new and not part of overall discourse and
academic discourse, so it was relatively easy for artists
tapping in or creating a certain discursive field that appeared
to be "avant-garde" at that time. This possibility to create and
direct discourse slowly evaporated with capital on the one hand
and academia on the other joining in, and re-shaping the
discoursive field towards "the digital" as we know it today.
Claims of impact may also have been made to simply
get funding, since one of the tactics of tactical media was
getting public or private funding, since the works were not
being sold on the art market. So no income from Basel.
  
Already early on there has been internal critique
against certain claims that (some) media art made. Personally
for me the most important intervention was Alexei Shulgins 1997
proposal against "interactive art".
https://twitter.com/databaseculture/status/1136256115652603904
and I wonder, if similar critique of tactical media was around
at that time. I think so.
All in all it never has been an undisputed field,
and you feeling paralysed may be just worth to follow. One of
the results of this kind of critical inquiry may be to look more
precisely into the claims that AI based art makes today.
best
Francis
  
-- 

http://www.irmielin.org
http://nothere.irmielin.org

Re: Has net-art lost political significance?

[Rachel O' Dwyer]

Hi everyone,


I really appreciate all the replies both on and off the list.

I hadn't made a connection between this post and the very popular
discussion of net-time and I’m very interested to hear that Transmediale is
exploring the persistence of networks.



One of the most inspiring books I've read in the past few years was *Anna
Tsing's A Mushroom at the end of the world: on the possibility of life in
capitalist ruins. * It might
seem odd that an anthropological text on supply chains and Matsutake
mushrooms changed how I thought about the politics of networks, but the
book also explores the limits and possibilities of political agency from a
position of ecological ruin, hopelessness and precarity. A brilliant
chapter ‘some problems with scale’ also helped me to articulate criticisms
I had of a lot of peer-to-peer and network activist projects. I’m also
re-reading some work from people like the late Mark Fisher
 and Rebecca Solnit

on politics and hope.



A few things have come up in conversations over the past few weeks (I’ve
mostly been talking to and emailing people instead of writing).



1. There also seems to be a shift towards a feminist politics of networks.
Maybe I’m using the term ‘feminist’ incorrectly here because I don’t mean
work that’s particularly concerned with identity politics. But if we say
that people like Butler

and Haraway  and Barad
 disrupt binary
thinking around gender and materiality, this kind of transdisciplinary,
non-binary thinking coupled with an ethics of care (i.e. someone like Maria
Puig de la BellaCasa
)
provides us with a set of tools for thinking through new kinds of
resistance as well as new ways of relating to ourselves with and through
networked communications infrastructure. There seems to be more of an
emphasis on localized and situated interventions for example rather than
things that scale. There seems to be a greater emphasis on pedagogical
practices than on technical implementation. If anything is starting to
emerge as a kind of pattern for me, this is it. I think that’s also
reflected in the sensibilities of projects like Platform Cooperativism
 and the Decode Project
.



2. Techniques that can be identified as part of first and second wave
‘tactical media’ such as reverse-engineering/ circuit bending/ hacking; the
exploit; commoning/DIY; obfuscation; visualization/mapping; and speculative
imagining are still used and are still necessary.  And I think some of
these, particularly reverse-engineering and obfuscation, seem to be
particularly significant in the context of platforms. Not to mention being
able to imagine alternatives in the face of overwhelming odds.



These are some of my own thoughts coming out of returning to the book I’m
writing on the politics of wireless networks and the EM spectrum, from
students while teaching an undergraduate elective on network politics and
art with undergraduate students in NCAD and recent conversations mostly
over networks with Rosa Menkman, Geert Lovink, Jussi Parikka, Surya Mattu,
Patrick Bresnihan, Brian Holmes, Nate Tkacz, Nora O Murchu and Sarah Grant,
the OMG collective in Dublin and C-Node (Paul O’Brien) in the past few
weeks.

On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 3:05 PM Minka Stoyanova 
wrote:

> 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
> 

limits of networks...

[Kristoffer Gansing]

Dear all,

Maybe I can take the opportunity to plug in to the running discussions
by shamelessly plugging the announcement of the next transmediale
festival which aims to deal exactly with the topics of networks, as it
appeared here as a recurring common concern.
https://2020.transmediale.de/festival-2020

I think its quite interesting how the thread on nettime being in a bad
shape and the one Rachel O' Dwyer started on net-art is converging
around questions that have to do with how the limits of networks have
become more tangible today, technically as well as in the form of
"network idealism".

Molly Hankwitz wrote:

> The question comes up more and more - where is the whole idea of networks
> that was once? Answer: sorry, social media has everyone blissed out on
> their own screen.
>
> The great debates that enlivened networks of the 90s, have become muddled
> to the point that "networks" per se don't seem to carry much weight online
> - now its the app, its the website - which don't always reflect a living
> community of net-users as we know...or maybe we are imagining networks
> differently than before and that does not help. Common interests which
> drove the formulation of networks and network 'flows' seem to have been
> replaced by something else. Who is the we of any network now...

Rachel:

> Can we still speak about ?tactical media? or ?the exploit?, and if not is
> this because
>
> a) network activism has transformed so that these older descriptions no
> longer accurately describe net art and ?hacktivist? practices, or
>
> b) these art practices have stayed much the same, but they are no longer
> effective in the current political and economic context?

I would not agree with David Garcia that these meta-discussions is a
sign of the decline of nettime however, rather that the discussion of
networked forms seems to be returning at the moment, maybe especially
also on a list like nettime, because it seems as if it disappeared from
the big "digitalisation" debates that are now anyway everywhere. (except
for the breaking up of THE social network) Meanwhile, users are
returning to smaller networked forms in the form of the fediverse or in
other intimate constellations taking their cue from safe spaces and
intersectional practices online, offline or rather in between. Maybe we
need new ways of modeling networks also beyond the canonical Baran
diagram of centralized, decentralized and distributed, along with
nodocentric visualizations that have been so prevalent from the 1990's
and basically up until today?

best,

Kristoffer




#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: