Re: limits of networks...
Thank you Molly! I will post later a link to Haraway interview where she talks about making networks now Please do! R On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:14 AM Molly Hankwitz wrote: > Dear Kristoffer, et al, > > Yes, you have hit on it for me... > > 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?> > > Very important - as it is not the tools per se or the platform, but now, > possibly new contexts in which even tactical media or “community-based” > networks occur, which utilize varied tools. > > I have been doing both artistic/curatorial research and community-based > work with non-profits around these overlaps. With waterwheel.net, a team > of 30 curators programmer online performance and events for a week with 120 > artists from all over the world. This project, the brainchild of Suzanne > Fuks and James Cunningham, utilized popular online tools such as Skype and > Facebook and email - along with a custom designed media archive and online > performance space. Suzanne kept this network in close connection for 3 > years. We integrated our work remotely with the Balance/Unbalance festival > at Arizona State. For me, this project about water and art was, in addition > to the art, ingenious for a) it’s utilization without apology of everyday > social media b) it’s capavity to connect in person and online via online > performance space - for conferences/panels such that we all actually “saw” > and “met” and heard each other. I am still connected to many of the artists > I worked with! > > Local “campaigns”, for instance, for safe walking streets - from senior > citizen groups - use Twitter, FB, etc and more to “network” —while neither > art nor sophisticated, these campaigns do represent living communities with > “interest in common” - condition of the old online communities AND, > importantly, blur distinctions between virtual spaces and “real” spaces. > > The latter point may seem crude, but it’s possible that social networks > such as these are an historical advancement on communities which put the > network before the flesh meet, or never had a flesh meet and died OR never > had the “real” profile pic at least to color and pepper the imagination. > > I’m no fan of Facebook per se...but it’s not FB alone, but a helpful > feature of FB to have visuals... > > So talking theory...I throw this bone...with bandwidth depletion out of > the way and compression technologies vastly superior, network practices > have been able to better color-in their members...add more > graphics...enrich and make robust vision of community. This may be an > important development in network practice and one to assist radical > practice...as well as a reason why we are occasionally depleted by > text-only communication. > > I will post later a link to Haraway interview where she talks about making > networks now > > Molly > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:25 AM Kristoffer Gansing > wrote: > >> 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 w
Re: limits of networks...
Dear Kristoffer, et al, Yes, you have hit on it for me... Very important - as it is not the tools per se or the platform, but now, possibly new contexts in which even tactical media or “community-based” networks occur, which utilize varied tools. I have been doing both artistic/curatorial research and community-based work with non-profits around these overlaps. With waterwheel.net, a team of 30 curators programmer online performance and events for a week with 120 artists from all over the world. This project, the brainchild of Suzanne Fuks and James Cunningham, utilized popular online tools such as Skype and Facebook and email - along with a custom designed media archive and online performance space. Suzanne kept this network in close connection for 3 years. We integrated our work remotely with the Balance/Unbalance festival at Arizona State. For me, this project about water and art was, in addition to the art, ingenious for a) it’s utilization without apology of everyday social media b) it’s capavity to connect in person and online via online performance space - for conferences/panels such that we all actually “saw” and “met” and heard each other. I am still connected to many of the artists I worked with! Local “campaigns”, for instance, for safe walking streets - from senior citizen groups - use Twitter, FB, etc and more to “network” —while neither art nor sophisticated, these campaigns do represent living communities with “interest in common” - condition of the old online communities AND, importantly, blur distinctions between virtual spaces and “real” spaces. The latter point may seem crude, but it’s possible that social networks such as these are an historical advancement on communities which put the network before the flesh meet, or never had a flesh meet and died OR never had the “real” profile pic at least to color and pepper the imagination. I’m no fan of Facebook per se...but it’s not FB alone, but a helpful feature of FB to have visuals... So talking theory...I throw this bone...with bandwidth depletion out of the way and compression technologies vastly superior, network practices have been able to better color-in their members...add more graphics...enrich and make robust vision of community. This may be an important development in network practice and one to assist radical practice...as well as a reason why we are occasionally depleted by text-only communication. I will post later a link to Haraway interview where she talks about making networks now Molly On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:25 AM Kristoffer Gansing wrote: > 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 soci
Re: limits of networks...
I don't usually comment, but the issue of networks vs social media is of personal interest. So much if the web is a commercialization of what were originally publuc, open spaces, now rdndered as private property. A parallel could be drawn to the enclosure movement. What lurks in the background is the commercialization of human action and association, not jyst the "maker movement," but all of social relationships. This is the real issue, even surveillance/agnotogy is just symptomatic. It's striking how these dynamics emerge, create responses and then commercially assimilate them. This valorization seems to me to be the structural driver that's cresting the current discontent. > On Jul 1, 2019, at 10:24 AM, Kristoffer Gansing wrote: > > 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: # 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: limits of networks...
On 1 Jul 2019, at 15:24, Kristoffer Gansing wrote: > 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. Exciting that the next Transmedialle will look at the re-emergence of discussions of “networked forms” which I suppose would include a reassesment of the sociological concept of the “network society” at the point when there is a strong movement away from the Castells’ depiction of the net as a “universal space”. This was always a vision that flew in the face of many highly situated socio/political movements for whom there is no such thing as any universal categories, principles, or experiences. Does recuperating "autonomous zones" and "safe spaces” of smaller networks represent effective resistence to the new technological formalism of big tech’s computational social scientists? Or does it simply highlight the fact that the twin ideals of autonomy and participation that were once seen as not only related but actually entailing one another have proved themselves to be all to frequently incomensurable as to be a participant is always to be enrolled in some kind of infrastructure ? # 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...
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:
