[NetBehaviour] The Telekommunist Manifesto from Dmytri Kleiner is out now!

Owen Bowden owen.bowden at gmail.com
Mon Nov 1 13:40:26 CET 2010


Even more so in non-industrialized cultures than in modern Western
societies, music is and was part of the fabric of everyday life. Only
relatively recently in our own culture five hundred years or so ago,
did a distinction arise that cut society in two, forming separate
classes of music performers and music listeners. Throughout most of
the world and for most of human history, music making was as natural
an activity as breathing and walking, and everyone participated.
Concert balls, dedicated to the performance of music. arose only in
the last several centuries.

Daniel Letvin from his book This is Your Brain on Music: Understanding
a Human Obsession

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, marc garrett
<marc.garrett at furtherfield.org> wrote:
>
> Hi ROB,
>
> > I do wonder how much of their criticism of the amateur can be attributed
> > to the knowledge that their position of privilege is no more secure
> > against amateurism than any other creative field.
>
> I think you make a strong point here...
>
> The other thing in regard to Geert's reference to professional journalists being threatened by amateurs; is that, when one looks at British journalism at the moment it seems it is perhaps not, necessarily just amateurism & the Internet challenging more traditional forms of journalism, but the institutions themselves. The drive to sensationalise information and ignoring the (really) essential and important questions about what's happening in our world, is now being asked elsewhere...
>
> >One of the more frustrating aspects of Lovink's apparent criticism of Lessig
> >(http://blogs.fu-berlin.de/fcrc/2010/10/08/geert-lovink-keynote-after-the-
> >critique-of-free-and-open-alternative-platforms-and-revenue-models/
> >) is that it isn't. He *agrees* with Lessig's more recent writing on the
> >idea that amateurs should be protected from professional economic
> >exploitation by reducing everyone else's freedom to use their work.
>
> >On the one hand I recognise that the problem from the point of view of
> >an economic critique of amateur production is that unlike the complete
> >Marxist individual who can "hunt in the morning..." they don't receive
> >the full economic benefit of the exploitation of the products of their
> >labour. On the other hand I don't recall Marxists and Theorists burning
> >down the copy shop, the photo booth or the art materials store because
> >they made far more money from the work of amateurs than the amateurs
> >ever did.
>
> If Geert is being critical about the precarious nature of amateurs not being recognised for their own efforts in contributing to a wider culture, I think he should be clearer about it.
>
> He touches upon it in a paragraph taken from the site you linked...
> "Instead of making demands on the current system, we must look for the implications of the alternatives. Lovink proposed that we move away from the emphasis on amateur as a victim, and towards the empowerment of young professionals, because in Lovink’s view, amateurs are emerging, starting professionals. What should we demand of our new technologies?"
>
> Yet the text of his discussion on the P2P Foundation site declares a contradiction. Although, this may also be due to the complexities of it all in relation to how one observes amateurism clearly and its multifarious nature. When he suggests looking for alternatives for the acceptance or inclusion of amateurism, in creating alternative systems where it can thrive. This puts forward the notion that it is not thriving, it's just that amateurism has found its own culture, its own voice.
>
> He proposes such actions in reflection to his own context, position and professional peers. Just like when theorists try to give something a name so it is easier to get access.
>
> As we all know, some people are not always amateurs because they wish to be. One problem Geert has if he is actually serious about connecting with amateurs, is that he has been part of a culture that has thrived on dividing professionals from amateurs systemically. Using the term 'victim' is not a true representation or useful image when discussing about amateurs, unfortunately - it serves to redefine amateurs as complainers when in reality many have successfully built alternative processes of sharing their own contexts on their own terms.
>
> One other thing which also needs be to considered here is, whether professionalism will kill the spirit of amateurism and its independent voice, or it will all level out somehow? I am suspicious of what he really means by professional. Relationally it could mean many different things and if we look at all the independent hack-labs cropping up everywhere, it is not hard to imagine that there is a lot of talent out there ready to farm. Many of these new self-built communities are there for various reasons, but one thing we can be sure about, is that professionalism is not at the forefront of their minds when collaborating and sharing skills, technology and mutually respected ideas - they have come about because there is a need for it and because there is a lack in the more 'official' forms of society.
>
> Wishing you well.
>
> marc
>
> > Thanks Marc.
> >
> > A few comments...
> >
> >> there those who feel they know or have a particular perspective of
> >> the bigger picture because of their positions in relation to their
> >> privilege,
> >
> > I do wonder how much of their criticism of the amateur can be attributed
> > to the knowledge that their position of privilege is no more secure
> > against amateurism than any other creative field.
> >
> >> I disagree with the idea that amateurs are the enemy.
> >
> > One of the more frustrating aspects of Lovink's apparent criticism of
> > Lessig
> > (http://blogs.fu-berlin.de/fcrc/2010/10/08/geert-lovink-keynote-after-the-critique-of-free-and-open-alternative-platforms-and-revenue-models/
> > ) is that it isn't. He *agrees* with Lessig's more recent writing on the
> > idea that amateurs should be protected from professional economic
> > exploitation by reducing everyone else's freedom to use their work.
> >
> > On the one hand I recognise that the problem from the point of view of
> > an economic critique of amateur production is that unlike the complete
> > Marxist individual who can "hunt in the morning..." they don't receive
> > the full economic benefit of the exploitation of the products of their
> > labour. On the other hand I don't recall Marxists and Theorists burning
> > down the copy shop, the photo booth or the art materials store because
> > they made far more money from the work of amateurs than the amateurs
> > ever did.
> >
> >> What he proposes may not necessarily sit right, but they address
> >> important questions around how and why things 'should' always be
> >> free.
> >
> > IMO individuals should be free to participate in cultural life and their
> > freedom to do so not held hostage either by evil corporations or by well
> > meaning anti-corporatists.
> >
> >> It's a bit like accepting democracy without knowing why its there in
> >> the first place - perhaps we just need to remind ourselves why we
> >> have it.
> >
> > Yes I certainly need to get back in touch with the positive basis for my
> > involvement in free culture. This thread has been a great help for that.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > - Rob.
> > _______________________________________________
> > NetBehaviour mailing list
> > NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour



More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list