nettime transmediale 2013 BWPWAP

2013-01-23 Thread Kristoffer Gansing

Dear nettimers old and new,

I hope some of you are dropping by the transmediale festival next week.
Have a look at an outline of the programme that I provided below!
/Kristoffer Gansing, artistic director, transmediale.


transmediale 2013 BWPWAP

BACK WHEN
Mobile phones were dumb. Letters traveled by pneumatic air. Tweeting was 
for birds. Users were chatting on the Minitel. ICQ beat IRC. Xerox 
challenged the Thermofax. YouTube was just another Web 2 start-up. Fax 
was the new Telex. You were calling up Bulletin Board Systems. Only 
university students were using facebooks. History had ended. We had nine 
planets.


PLUTO WAS A PLANET.

For its 26th edition, transmediale boldly goes BWPWAP – Back When Pluto 
Was a Planet. A net culture expression, BWPWAP is used for that which 
lies in the past or that possess an anachronistic character. In the 
context of transmediale, it does not mean entertaining nostalgia for the 
past. On the contrary, Pluto and its reclassification is taken as a 
metaphor for how quickly cultural imaginaries can change and be 
contested in a world underwritten by parallel developments. Adopting the 
BWPWAP expression in the form of a meme, transmediale 2013 
recontextualizes cultural and technological forms through a travelling 
in time and space that creates moments of crisis in contemporary media 
culture.


The program follows four threads: Users, Networks, Paper and Desire. The 
festival will look at what these topics meant BWPWAP, what they mean 
today and how they might develop in the future following the sense of 
alternate realities that lies at the core of the theme. These threads 
run transversely across the different festival events and by following 
them, visitors can experience constant shifts of modalities and 
perspectives.


The Users thread explores the user as one of the most important figures 
occupying the 21st century cultural landscape: adopting a broad 
perspective which includes a historical look at user cultures' 
development in consumer society and cybernetics, as well as the changing 
roles of the user.


In Networks we ask what it means when networks are BWPWAP, when (social) 
networks have become a pervasive part of daily life and have contributed 
in changing the way we create friendships and connections.


The Paper thread traces the history of paper as a transcendent cultural 
form and its various artistic appropriations from Mail Art and visual 
poetry to electronic literature and beyond.


In the Desire thread, we look at how critical reflections on sexuality 
and pornography can inform digital culture and politics of the present, 
by creating juxtapositions, decompositions, fragments and unexpected 
combinations as forms of queer expression.


As with Pluto itself, these threads are “objects” in crisis. Their 
identity is not to be taken for granted in the post-digital age as is 
evident through the cultural, political and economical crises that they 
are all undergoing. These states of crisis are taken as opportunities 
for artistic intervention and reflection. In each thread, we search for 
new ways to engage with the histories, practices and futures of these 
familiar domains according to the time and place-shifting logic of 
BWPWAP: areas that we might have taken for granted until recently, but 
where we now need to learn from the past in order to intervene in the 
present and create new concepts for cultural practice.


http://www.transmediale.de/bwpwap

SNAPSHOTS OF THE PROGRAMME

transmediale 2013 Exhibition programme: The Miseducation of Anya Major, 
curated by Jacob Lillemose.
This exhibition is presented in three parts and openly investigates 
questions of knowledge, learning and education in relation to 
contemporary media, from the photocopier and paper shredder to computer 
games and the latest smartphone. Within this framework, the exhibition 
Tools of Distorted Creativity presents a series of contemporary works 
that expands the notions of software tools and their affordance of 
creativity in nonconformist, and even dysfunctional directions. Imaging 
with Machine Processes. The Generative Art of Sonia Landy Sheridan, is 
a survey exhibition of an artist who experimented with the machines of 
technological society as instruments of the philosophical mind and 
artistic imagination from inside educational institutions. Finally, 
Evil Media Distribution Centre by the duo YoHa (Graham Harwood and 
Matsuko Yokokoji) is an installation that takes its point of departure 
from the book Evil Media (2012) by Matthew Fuller and Andrew Goffey.


Three Ongoing Networking Projects brought to you by reSource 
transmdedial culture, Berlin, curated by Tatiana Bazzichelli.
Last August 2012, during the transmediale event reSource 002: Out of 
Place, Out of Time event, three installation projects were launched. 
Their ongoing production lasted six months, leading to transmediale 2013 
BWPWAP, where the final results are shown and performed

nettime transmediale 2014 afterglow

2014-01-14 Thread Kristoffer Gansing

Dear nettimers,

It is that time of year again, transmediale festival is coming up at the 
end of the month, this month heading into and hopefully beyond the 
afterglow of digital culture. Accreditations for professionals and 
press ends on Jan 15. Read the programme announcement below and full 
details at www.transmediale.de

Hope to see you there.
/Kristoffer Gansing, artistic director, transmediale festival for art 
and digital culture, Berlin.


transmediale 2014 afterglow, 29 Jan - 2 Feb 2014

///The revolution is over. Welcome to the afterglow.///
///

The digital revolution was a dinner party but its afterglow is not. The 
once utopian promises of high-definition audiovisuals, real-time 
electronic communication and infinite storage possibilities are just 
some of the digital culture perspectives that are now widely 
disseminated. At the same time as these phenomena are still shrouded in 
the glossy aesthetics of the digital, their tarnished appeal cannot be 
denied in a world where 'big data' is also the 'big brother' of mass 
surveillance and where the 'cloud' is made of the metals and minerals of 
the 'earth' on which data centers are built. Far from immaterial and 
neutral, our post-digital culture is one where tech is deeply embedded 
in the geophysical and geopolitical. This is evident at the significant 
'other sites' of digital culture such as e-waste dumps, mines, 
mass-digitisation companies and security agencies.


transmediale 2014 proposes the post-digital moment of 'afterglow' as a 
diagnosis of the current status of the digital hovering between 'trash 
and treasure'. afterglow conjures up the ambivalent state of digital 
culture, where what seems to remain from the digital revolution is a 
paradoxical nostalgia for the futuristic high-tech it once promised us 
but that is now crumbling in our hands. The challenge that this moment 
poses is how to use that state of post-digital culture between trash and 
treasure as a still not overdetermined space from which to invent new 
speculative thought and practice. Are there means of renewal in the 
excess, overflow and waste products of the digital afterglow?

http://www.transmediale.de/content/afterglow

###
Conference programme
###
The conference of this year’s transmediale, curated by Tatiana 
Bazzichelli and Kristoffer Gansing in collaboration with Ryan Bishop, 
Jussi Parikka, Francesco Warbear Macarone Palmieri und Katrien Jacobs, 
takes afterglow as a metaphor for the present condition of digital 
culture, examining the geopolitical, infrastructural and bodily 
consequences of the excessive digitalisation that has taken place over 
the course of the last three decades. Central motifs are mass 
surveillance, excessive big data schemes, whistleblowing, the corrupt 
ecology of technological resources and the effects of digitalisation on 
identity and sexuality.


Japanese artist Sputniko! will thematise technology’s impact on everyday 
life in a performative keynote, the panel The Chinese Dream: The 
Doctrine and the Sexy will feature a discussion about attitudes towards 
patriotism, surveillance culture and body politics in the Chinese sphere 
with Sufeng Song and recorded interventions by Ai Weiwei and Ai Xiaoming.


Independent security analyst Jacob Appelbaum and documentary film 
director Laura Poitras reflect with artist and geograph Trevor Paglen on 
upcoming frontiers of action and awareness for hackers, activists and 
artists in the present context of geopolitical surveillance and control.


Sean Cubitt and Denisa Kera will talk about the effects of electronic 
and synthetic waste on geological and biological bodies, Bill Binney and 
Annie Machon deal with the question how the ethics of cypherpunk, 
whistle-blowing and investigative journalism are evolving into a hybrid 
form of civic resistance.


The conference programme is supported by the Federal Agency for Civic 
Education and one of its streams is presented in collaboration with the 
Winchester School of Art.


Among the participant highlights are:
Sputniko!, Laura Poitras, Trevor Paglen, Jacob Appelbaum, Jeremy 
Scahill, Douglas Coupland, Benjamin H. Bratton, Metahaven, James Bridle, 
Sean Cubitt, Olia Lialina, William Binney, Fabiane Borges, Salvatore 
Iaconesi, Geraldine Juarez, Denisa Kera, Khan, Annie Machon, Shaka 
McGlotten, Sufeng Song, recorded interventions by Ai Weiwei and Ai Xiaoming


***
**KEYNOTES**
***
Art as Evidence
Participants: Trevor Paglen, Jacob Appelbaum, Laura Poitras,Tatiana 
Bazzichelli (moderator)

Location: Auditorium
Thu, 30.1. 20:30h - 22:30h
http://www.transmediale.de/content/keynote-art-as-evidence

The Black Stack
Participants

nettime transmediale 2015 CAPTURE ALL Call for Works

2014-06-27 Thread Kristoffer Gansing

Dear all,

transmediale has just published the Call for Works announcing the
transmediale 2015 festival. Looking forward to your contributions and
any reflections on the theme which is included below.
/Kristoffer Gansing, artistic director, transmediale.

transmediale 2015 CAPTURE ALL
Festival for Art  Digital Culture, Berlin.
28.01 - 01.02 2015

Call For Works, Deadline 10 August, 2014
http://www.transmediale.de/content/transmediale-2015-capture-all

THEMATIC FRAMEWORK: CAPTURE ALL
In a society ruled by algorithms, data is always at play. The drive
towards the quantification of everything means that we are all
contributing to a state of permanent capture of life into data. As
citizens, workers and players of the networks we (often involuntarily)
double as sensors for bodies of global data collection, working for the
potential extraction of value everywhere and increasing the productivity
of everyday life. If work and leisure became mathematically manageable
data units for the assembly line production model of industrial
capitalism, today’s workers even offer their free time to the extent
that it serves a form of unaware labour facilitated by playful
technologies and game-like mechanics. Are there still modes of being
that resist the imperative of digital capitalism to CAPTURE ALL or is
there no option but to play along? If so, are there artistic strategies
and speculative approaches that do not play this game of quantification
by the numbers? What are the blind spots and gaps of relentless
quantification and gamification that can be exploited in order to carve
out new ways of living?
 
Flash crashes caused by out of control algorithms, imprecise “precision
strikes”, the unintended consequences of a badly interpreted meta-data,
the biometrics of a dog applied to a human being, the mismatch of work
and life: not only the productivity but also such evident dysfunctions
of the CAPTURE ALL society originate in the constant algorithmic
operation on data, in instant data-play and the illusion of boundless
control. Playful and participatory structures are purposefully used to
render personal information traceable, social relationships exploitable
and behavioral patterns recognizable. The events of the most recent past
instantly feed the datafied present and are used to predict a probable
future in an endless interpretation loop which is the founding principle
of a society of control hopelessly out of control.
 
transmediale 2015 sets out to push against the limits of digital
culture's pervasive logic of CAPTURE ALL and its quantification of life,
work and play. We are looking for artistic works, critical media
projects and speculative research that delimit modes of existence by
operating in and exploiting the blind spots of a datafied society. There
is always something in excess that bypasses normalization, even in the
most integrated processes of capture. Following this idea, transmediale
calls for artistic descriptions and actions that form pro-active
responses to phenomena like gamification, quantification and algorithmic
control and their ways of making the spheres of everyday life, work and
play increasingly indistinguishable. We welcome proposals for action and
(-de)constructive counter-action including miscalculation and
disproportioning, overidentification and obfuscation, metamodeling and
re-purposing, acceleration and exaggeration, de-gamification and
counter-gamification. We are seeking responses that outsmart and outplay
the logic of CAPTURE ALL and that organise more intimate modes of
post-digital life, work and play.

SUBMIT YOUR WORK
transmediale 2015 will take place from January 28 to February 1 at the
Haus der Kulturen der Welt, Berlin. The programme will feature a
diversity of different types of work in a thematic exhibition as well as
film and video screenings, workshops, performances, and a conference
programme. transmediale is always interested in works exploring our
complex relation to technology, be it through new or old media.

Use our online submission form to submit your work. The final deadline
for handing in your submission is 10 August 2014. Please read our
conditions of entry closely before submitting your work.

http://www.transmediale.de/content/transmediale-2015-capture-all

-- 
Kristoffer Gansing – artistic director
transmediale*/artdigitalculture*
Klosterstr. 68, 10179 Berlin, Germany - tel +49 30 24749 769 - fax +49
30 24749 760, Kulturprojekte Berlin GmbH, Amtsgericht Berlin
Charlottenburg, HRB 41312 B, Stellv. Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrates: Dr.
Christa Juretzka,, Geschäftsführer Moritz van Dülmen
http://www.transmediale.de/





#  distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission
#  nettime  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


Re: ttip: digital respect and resistance

2015-10-12 Thread Kristoffer Gansing
Dear Felix, Olia, Susanne and all,

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

Picking up on Susanne Gerbers last point:

>  Is it not possible, that digital culture, or at least parts of it, in
> the meantime has switched sides and belongs already more to the TTIP
> creators? Then we have to rethink the whole context
> and 'Berührungsangst' would mean something else.

Maybe I should first clarify that this was a quickly written statement
for a presentation of transmediale as a partner in the EMARE, media art
residency exchange programme set up by Werkleitz, a fantastic long
running media art organisation in Halle (and the village of Werkleitz).
This exchange programme has shifting geographical focus but this year
the partners came from Germany, Canada and Australia. So in this
context, my aim was not to say that this type of exchange shares the
same set of values underwriting agreements like TTIP but because of its
international structure could have potential to form an important
enclave in the resistance against this and the other agreements. It
would of course be only one among many initiatives and not the most
significant one, but I do see a lack of transnational coalitions
opposing TTIP in the cultural sector as the debates at least when it
relates to Germany and France seem to follow the usual protectionist
lines of argument, where protecting cultural diversity (in the UNESCO
sense) is foremost about protecting national cultures or European
cultural heritage. I am not arguing against safeguarding
particularities, but it seems to me that what has especially been built
up in parts of the net culture / digital art spheres, perhaps through
tele-presence in a positive sense, are transversal forms of thinking and
practice, that yes, might seem simply to be contingent with the
exploitative planetary networks of the "Three Big T's", but which are
eventually underwritten by completely different values and goals.

This is where Felix rightly points to the key issue of the feeling of
powerlessness of the individual and specialized settings towards these
immense meta-frameworks that seem to challenges everything at once. And
yet we have known for a long time that even without these agreements,
this is where the world is going and maybe it is time to accentuate the
conflicts and differences within what seems to be one big picture or one
big collect it all scheme. As I am pretty sure that even if as Olia
pointed out, it's "Drones yesterday, Snowden today" (or rather the other
way around), the engagement with these topics is not just a
capitalisation from culture professionals of trending social and
economic agendas, but also stemming from a genuine, however at times
misinformed or naive, intention to change our perception, knowledge and
agency in such issues. Many times, this is also a question of developing
new vocabularies instead of trying to bridge the differences or find the
common points of understanding, I think it is now far more relevant to
find ways of making the different positions clear which would amount to
an understanding of the meta-levels - this is what is needed to at all
adress something like the regulation of the regulation and not become
lost in the echo-chambers or opinion against opinion bubbles.

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

ttip: digital respect and resistance

2015-10-09 Thread Kristoffer Gansing
Dear old nettimers,

I am not a particularly regular contributor here, but as long time
lurker, occasional event announcer and artistic director of transmediale
in Berlin, I would like to share with you a short statement that I
prepared for my presentation at the Werkleitz Festival 2015 ".move ON"
in Halle on October 10.

As this day coincides with a big anti-TTIP demo in Berlin, I choose not
to prepare the usual festival presentation but to offer some reflections
on the troubling relation between the digital art and culture field to
this and other free trade agreements currently in negotiation.

My apologies for the somewhat raw, underresearched, possibly naive and
spoken word like form of this text - I am just curious to see what kind
of response it will evoke! Especially I am curious if the nettime
community has anything to say about the supposed fear of dealing with
TTIP within digital art and culture, well knowing of course that there
is an assumed "field" here that might already be declared obsolete or
for which there are many names and definitions.

best,
Kristoffer Gansing


First of all I would like to say that I am extremely happy to be here
among many respected colleagues and to enjoy the impressive programme of
this year's move.on werkleitz festival.

I and transmediale are very happy to have occasionally taken part in the
different cross-border exchanges that Peter Zorn and his team have so
impressively set up over the years. And I am very happy to have hosted
the work of the artist Robyn Moody at the transmediale festival earlier
this year and to see its finished iteration later here today.

This said, I am painfully aware of the fact that while we are gathering
here we are missing out on a manifestation going on in Berlin that deals
critically with a completely different kind of cross-border exchange.

I am talking about today's big demonstration against the TTIP ??? The
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.  And I am saying that I
am painfully aware since I was really planning to join this demo and if
not possible physically then at least by publishing a critical article
that asks why it is that the digital art and culture scene has so far
shown so little engagement in the debate of TTIP. This is paradoxical
since it seems as if the area of digital culture is highly implicated in
the scarce info we have on the ongoing secret negotiations. The little I
have been able to read up on TTIP and similar current trade deals has
led me to assume that digital art and culture has what one in German
calls a ???ber??hrungsangst??? that is a kind of fearful respect towards
critically engaging with this topic precisely because it is steeped in
rhetorics and strategies of border-crossing, access, digital freedom and
innovation. It would not be a new critique of our field that it exploits
hype waves of technological development that are intimately connected to
neoliberal agendas. But I think we are also all in agreement that we are
trying to change such schemes from within and provide the space for
artists, activists and other critical thinkers to formulate
alternatives. The recent drive of media art to capitalise on the EU's
interest in promoting innovation through funding collaboration between
the technology sector and artists is a case in point ??? and it is yet to
be seen if projects formulated in this framework will really be able to
break out of the bubble of quantification and profit oriented conditions
of production that are now being established.  

So where do actors in digital art and culture stand in relation TTIP? A
cynical interpretation could be that in this field, we are already so
accustomed to simultaneously adapt and bending the rules of changing
economic and political agendas that there is a kind laissez-fair
attitude ??? come whatever come and we will use it to our gain somehow.
And especially regarding transnational trade agreements there seems to
be a language at play that comes close to the border-crossing ideals of
digital art and culture ??? BUT, I would argue that the actual practice
associated with these ideals in the end are among the ones that could be
most endangered by TTIP and that there is now an urgent need within
digital culture to drop the ???ber??hrungsangst??? and formulate a critique
of these free trade agreements and their post-digital brand of
neoliberalism.

But as I hinted at in the beginning, part of the problem is that we are
always busy somewhere else. This might be both the biggest asset and
curse of media art and digital culture : that it is always moving on.
The next place, the next site, the next discourse, the next big trend.
When is digital art and culture going to really grow up and deal with
the here and now? How can you formulate a real alternative in the
present when you are always too busy being tele-present?

These questions haunts me on a daily basis as I try to balance my
intensive working life of being the artist

Re: Locating ArtScience

2017-12-11 Thread Kristoffer Gansing
Dear Eric and all,

Thanks for a really enjoyable discussion so far. Not long ago, I would
skip over most ArtScience related material, because as Florian Cramer
already pointed out, this seems to belong to another era and a
particular lab-oriented approach that isn't up to scratch to the
challenges of today. But in the past year or so, I had been wondering
why Art & Science seems to be making a comeback and Eric's article is a
timely response to this. The reason why I am under the impression that
this "field" is surging back is simple - I surprisingly found that this
year, all my transmediale related invitations to participate in a panel
or give a talk were under an ArtScience umbrella. This is rather unusual
for a festival that isn't overtly concerned with Art & Science and its
relation to the legacy of Leonardo and artists that work within the
natural or so called hard sciences. What I ended up doing at these talks
was arguing for transversal approaches, across and beyond disciplines
(much like Eric is advocating), the recognition of the value of the arts
beyond advancing knowledge in linear ways (art does not have to be good,
innovative) while still interacting with all sectors of society and the
importance of including humanities based approaches into ArtScience. The
latter point was made by Eric too and reiterated in the discussion with
Gary Hall - and I can't stress how important this is as there seems to
be a tremendous lack of critical theoretical discussions in many of
these artscience gatherings. At the same time though, there is a doer's
mentality in ArtScience which is refreshing in our current times, not to
say that it is reactionary but rather that there is a positive outlook
on hybridity and the possibility of making ArtScience out of that. This
became evident to me at a meeting in Grenoble under the title "Future
Collaborations between Art & Sciences and their Role for Europe" which
seemed untypical as the participants were a mix of "softer" cultural
institutions like transmediale and Schloss Solitude, EU politicians,
science labs and big corporations. It was uneasy for sure, but there was
a feeling of uncertainty of how to move this field further that could be
productive. At least, it is important to intervene in this field as Eric
suggests, since a lot of policy making and financial resources are being
invested in it, an aspect which has not so much been brought up here
yet. Just take the Horizon 2020 programmes which has set a new agenda
for collaboration between art, technology and science on a European
level and which dictates a very technology-centred view with clear
quantifiable results. A few interesting projects have been able to slip
through and we need to see much more tactical action and long-term
strategies to influence this growing field. As Eric's post was initially
coming from an institutional context, maybe there are other voices on
the list who can share experiences from working "within" projects in
this field and reflect on how it might be transforming?

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:


Re: Towards a Non-facebook (Pit Schultz)

2018-05-25 Thread Kristoffer Gansing
Pit wrote:
> Towards a Non-facebook
> a pretext
> 
> 
> The current facebook debate is a chance to get your act together and
> get organized - just a little.

Thanks for this call to action Pit, much needed in these times of
inflated and often misinformed social media critique. As someone who
never joined facebook in the first place, I can’t help wondering what
then to do. Is a facebook user strike strictly for users, since we have
frequently been told you cannot really be outside facebook whether you
are indeed active on it or not. In other words, does suspending your
account for a week really amount to a strike?

Your article touches upon many of the blind spots and deficiencies of
the current drive to create a more “ethical” and/or “transparent”
digital society, i.e. the points about interoperability leading to great
arguments about the need to change education and the referral to a
possible deindividualization of the social media model. What I can’t
help find both fascinating and slightly discomforting however is that
you, as a long-time local radio activist and co-founder of this list,
start out by so vehemently dismissing those who are engaged in imagining
and sometimes designing the outside. Don’t get me wrong, I think one of
the cornerstones of nettime and critical net culture has always been its
resistance to the naive dreams of the cyberlibertarians and I think your
suggestion here that critical art practice might operate a similar
reality diversion pretty healthy, especially when regarded in the
context of a larger “industry of critique” that starts to get absurd
when you see it in connection with the rise of explicit cultural
mechanisms (in organisations and at events) of disarming everything
negative (techlash notwithstanding). But, the larger question I would
like to ask here is if your critique then does not indeed dismiss
artistic and much post-digital activist practice per se? If we have to
give up imagining the outside altogether, why then also still have what
you call “collective agencies of real resistance: running archives,
sharing strange interests and hobbies, collecting and filtering what has
been easily neglected or forgotten.” Would any of that even exist in a
world which ceased imagining an outside to facebook or any other
dominant mode of social interaction? To escape totalitarian thinking,
one should not boil it down to two movements, one fighting against and
one from within. Both and many more struggles have to be allowed to
co-exist and continue to contradict each other from a truly “radical
democratic point of view” (if we by that also mean agonistic). Posing a
new universalism is catchy and seems attractive, but hampered by a
nostalgia for a world that’s not possible to simplify like that any
longer, without (again) committing severe violence, and we should
probably rather look into what Povinelli has called “extimate existence”
, considering entanglements and differences in order to create
interoperability from there.

So, please reformulate and help me strike against facebook also if I’m
not already part of it.

/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:

Reflections on Florian Cramer & Angela Nagle, discussion

2018-03-06 Thread Kristoffer Gansing
David Garcia wrote:
>  A questioner towards the end of the discussion asked if Cramer and Nagle 
> could talk more about affect and affective politics.. more about the 
> emergence of movements and how sub-cultural energies today mobilised. Which 
> the questioner added is  ?also a question of power that is able to legitimise 
> these subcultural sentiments in ways that enable them to enter into the 
> political mainstream.. I?d like you to address the strategies, sentiments 
> within subcultural politics. It was a very good point but sadly it arose to 
> close to the end.. Perhaps we can take up this challenge here?

Thanks to David for taking the time to transcribe and comment on this dense 
discussion. Together with Daphne Dragona, I was responsible for organising this 
and felt that the atmosphere during the event was one of great attention and 
sense of urgency in terms of the audience wanting to have more of a say. Due to 
time constraints and two very talkative speakers, this didn't happen as much as 
it should have but it's nice to see the discussion continuing here. Since I was 
the one asking the question David mentions at the end, I can't but to help to 
step in and elaborate on this further. While I agree that one should not 
ascribe intrinsically progressive values to subcultures, I think it is 
important to situate the rise of the academic study and idealisation of 
subcultures in a historical context. Adorno and Horkheimer in all glory but 
what the British culture studies approach did was to take pop culture seriously 
as a thrust against the idealisation of high culture. One might say that th
 is was snobbish academic appropriation of popular and working class cultural 
movements - but today the impact of this can also be seen in how academia has 
become more accessible to many, where being in a subculture and researching it 
at the same time might even be a viable option.
Also this question of being in a subculture needs to be better addressed as I 
felt that Florian and Angela were in their critique of the cultural studies 
take on subcultures, actually themselves committing the mistake of taking 
subcultures too literally, while in fact the Birmingham school and co. would 
not essentialize subcultures to the degree that I felt was being done here. As 
if a subculture does exist in almost a static way, easily recognized by its 
symbolic language and styles, rather than something that is always transitory 
and, especially in the digital age, can be plugged in and out to at will. This 
is for me where the affective aspect come in, as I believe there are much more 
subcultural sentiments being circulated today without people behind them 
assuming a 1:1 identity with them. But this doesn't make them harmless of 
course, and actually creates a public sphere even more prone to manipulation 
through those who can indeed legitimise certain views over others as well as a
 scribing power to a form of quantified affect, where opinions with more 
followers, more data etc increasingly looks like valid knowledge. To just start 
addressing some of the "challenge" that David mentioned...

best,
Kristoffer

PS. David ends saying that this discussion is not posted prominently on the 
transmediale website: in fact it is not more or less prominently posted than 
any other event of the recent festival since we didn't yet publish anything on 
specific events or even yet publish the videos. so for now, the audio 
documentation is there in a database structure like all the other events.




#  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:


Reflections on Florian Cramer & Angela Nagle, discussion

2018-03-06 Thread Kristoffer Gansing
David Garcia wrote:

>  A questioner towards the end of the discussion asked if Cramer and Nagle 
> could talk more about affect and affective politics.. more about the 
> emergence of movements and how sub-cultural energies today mobilised. Which 
> the questioner added is  ?also a question of power that is able to legitimise 
> these subcultural sentiments in ways that enable them to enter into the 
> political mainstream.. I?d like you to address the strategies, sentiments 
> within subcultural politics. It was a very good point but sadly it arose to 
> close to the end.. Perhaps we can take up this challenge here?

Thanks to David for taking the time to transcribe and comment on this dense 
discussion. Together with Daphne Dragona, I was responsible for organising this 
and felt that the atmosphere during the event was one of great attention and 
sense of urgency in terms of the audience wanting to have more of a say. Due to 
time constraints and two very talkative speakers, this didn't happen as much as 
it should have but it's nice to see the discussion continuing here. Since I was 
the one asking the question David mentions at the end, I can't but to help to 
step in and elaborate on this further. While I agree that one should not 
ascribe intrinsically progressive values to subcultures, I think it is 
important to situate the rise of the academic study and idealisation of 
subcultures in a historical context. Adorno and Horkheimer in all glory but 
what the British culture studies approach did was to take pop culture seriously 
as a thrust against the idealisation of high culture. One might say that this 
was snobbish academic appropriation of popular and working class cultural 
movements - but today the impact of this can also be seen in how academia has 
become more accessible to many, where being in a subculture and researching it 
at the same time might even be a viable option.
Also this question of being in a subculture needs to be better addressed as I 
felt that Florian and Angela were in their critique of the cultural studies 
take on subcultures, actually themselves committing the mistake of taking 
subcultures too literally, while in fact the Birmingham school and co. would 
not essentialize subcultures to the degree that I felt was being done here. As 
if a subculture does exist in almost a static way, easily recognized by its 
symbolic language and styles, rather than something that is always transitory 
and, especially in the digital age, can be plugged in and out to at will. This 
is for me where the affective aspect come in, as I believe there are much more 
subcultural sentiments being circulated today without people behind them 
assuming a 1:1 identity with them. But this doesn't make them harmless of 
course, and actually creates a public sphere even more prone to manipulation 
through those who can indeed legitimise certain views over others as well as 
ascribing power to a form of quantified affect, where opinions with more 
followers, more data etc increasingly looks like valid knowledge. To just start 
addressing some of the "challenge" that David mentioned...

best,
Kristoffer

PS. David ends saying that this discussion is not posted prominently on the 
transmediale website: in fact it is not more or less prominently posted than 
any other event of the recent festival since we didn't yet publish anything on 
specific events or even yet publish the videos. so for now, the audio 
documentation is there in a database structure like all the other events.




#  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:

Reflections on Florian Cramer & Angela Nagle, discussion

2018-03-06 Thread Kristoffer Gansing
David Garcia wrote:

>  A questioner towards the end of the discussion asked if Cramer and Nagle 
> could talk more about affect and affective politics.. more about the 
> emergence of movements and how sub-cultural energies today mobilised. Which 
> the questioner added is  ?also a question of power that is able to legitimise 
> these subcultural sentiments in ways that enable them to enter into the 
> political mainstream.. I?d like you to address the strategies, sentiments 
> within subcultural politics. It was a very good point but sadly it arose to 
> close to the end.. Perhaps we can take up this challenge here?

Thanks to David for taking the time to transcribe and comment on this dense 
discussion. Together with Daphne Dragona, I was responsible for organising this 
and felt that the atmosphere during the event was one of great attention and 
sense of urgency in terms of the audience wanting to have more of a say. Due to 
time constraints and two very talkative speakers, this didn't happen as much as 
it should have but it's nice to see the discussion continuing here. Since I was 
the one asking the question David mentions at the end, I can't but to help to 
step in and elaborate on this further. While I agree that one should not 
ascribe intrinsically progressive values to subcultures, I think it is 
important to situate the rise of the academic study and idealisation of 
subcultures in a historical context. Adorno and Horkheimer in all glory but 
what the British culture studies approach did was to take pop culture seriously 
as a thrust against the idealisation of high culture. One might say that this 
was snobbish academic appropriation of popular and working class cultural 
movements - but today the impact of this can also be seen in how academia has 
become more accessible to many, where being in a subculture and researching it 
at the same time might even be a viable option.
Also this question of being in a subculture needs to be better addressed as I 
felt that Florian and Angela were in their critique of the cultural studies 
take on subcultures, actually themselves committing the mistake of taking 
subcultures too literally, while in fact the Birmingham school and co. would 
not essentialize subcultures to the degree that I felt was being done here. As 
if a subculture does exist in almost a static way, easily recognized by its 
symbolic language and styles, rather than something that is always transitory 
and, especially in the digital age, can be plugged in and out to at will. This 
is for me where the affective aspect come in, as I believe there are much more 
subcultural sentiments being circulated today without people behind them 
assuming a 1:1 identity with them. But this doesn't make them harmless of 
course, and actually creates a public sphere even more prone to manipulation 
through those who can indeed legitimise certain views over others as well as 
ascribing power to a form of quantified affect, where opinions with more 
followers, more data etc increasingly looks like valid knowledge. To just start 
addressing some of the "challenge" that David mentioned...

best,
Kristoffer

PS. David ends saying that this discussion is not posted prominently on the 
transmediale website: in fact it is not more or less prominently posted than 
any other event of the recent festival since we didn't yet publish anything on 
specific events or even yet publish the videos. so for now, the audio 
documentation is there in a database structure like all the other events.




#  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:

limits of networks...

2019-07-01 Thread 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: