[NetBehaviour] Do we still engage?

Suzon Fuks suzon at water-wheel.net
Mon Jun 24 14:08:27 CEST 2013


Johannes, yes there are many different meanings for 'engagement': I was
thinking about body perceptions and presence, in terms of engagement.
Somehow as human, I am interested by understanding engagement from
within.I do not just dissolve, I dissolve in the whole? and somehow engage
at that times in a very nuanced way. It is comparable to meditation, and
maybe death, Alan!

Suzon


On 24/06/13 9:00 PM, "netbehaviour-request at netbehaviour.org"
<netbehaviour-request at netbehaviour.org> wrote:

>
>Message: 5
>Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 05:29:48 +0100
>From: Johannes Birringer <Johannes.Birringer at brunel.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Do we still engage?
>To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>    <netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
>Message-ID:
>    <DF657B70CB20304DB745D84933F94B1E03C150C6E8 at v-exmb01.academic.windsor>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
>
>dear Alan and all
>
>you letter Alan is full of disillusionment, and i understand that,
>and I wondered as well about Suzon Fuks's response and her telling us
>that she stood still
>("Anyone is Free to Do Nothing With The Artist"), Suzon you said you
>dissolved, I worry about that.
>
>The dissolution o f  the Whole is what Alan's post argued, and his
>additional critique, I believe,
>is directed at everything, including the street, the galleries, the
>universities and the outside of
>universities, the furtherfields, the eyebeams,  and lists like this, ?
>the lack of depth of continuity of discourse of
>philosophical or critical reflection ? and what TAZ's? i see none, if
>indeed there is no safe and hallow ground.
>but reflection and outrage are happening, Alan, and so is writing, also
>here on this list, though maybe sparsely,
>and those who act out or stand still are part of what Christian Cary, in
>his book "Strange Rebels: 1979 and the
>Birth of the 21st Century" believes to be a continuous revelation of the
>actually feeble dominant ideologies
>- yes, I agree, neoliberal capitalism is a strange monster, hard to grasp
>and what does it affect us to do on a local
>level of political strategy  ?  they are feeble because the crumble and
>fracture, and underlying needs are sustained,
>as you can see all around us in many places where people are upset. These
>expressions of being upset
>are, one could argue, an effect of inquiries that people make about what
>we are doing here. Regardless of whether
>they reread Spinoza or Foucault. Today I met old friends for coffee and
>we did not mention a single writer on your
>list, but others came up, Bohr and Einstein and Hugh Everett's
>many-worlds interpretation (in quantum mechanics),
>and I was not able to follow everything, but got inspired as we discussed
>randomness and unpredictability for
>some time. what i might ask here is what we think 'engagement' ultimately
>means, and I am sure it means many
>different things for different folks. If you ask whether you can find a
>place to think, then only you can answer
>and answer it with the people close to you or in the margins that you
>described;  i cannot even begin now to speculate on,
>say, where Snowden is and how this can possibly have a good ending. Or
>whether there is a good ending for any of us.
>
>regards
>Johannes
>
>
>
>________________________________________
>From: netbehaviour-bounces at netbehaviour.org
>[netbehaviour-bounces at netbehaviour.org] On Behalf Of Alan Sondheim
>[sondheim at panix.com]
>Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:07 AM
>To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Do we still engage?
>
>Hi, just want to add a few things here. A lot of what's being discussed is
>political economy, political strategy, and there are narratives that
>circulate around these. Philosophy moves above and below; it's a ground-
>work of the body and ethos and it's the grand narratives as well: all of
>these are shattered. But the inquiry is relevant and asked everywhere -
>what are we doing here? I would also ask about institutions - so many of
>us in the U.S. operate from none, on the margins; like them I get by with
>a little help from my friends, but have no exhibition or publication
>structure I can rely on, no institutional collegiality (the last I had was
>Eyebeam, and that lasted for six months, ending a year and a half ago). So
>the situation places us on the street, whatever we do, without financial
>support, without the continuity of discourse that tends towards depth. I'm
>not complaining; I also chose this path to some extent. But what then?
>That philosophy, political economy, strategies, if they tend towards
>depth, have to exist outside any institution or academy altogether; I
>think of the Plato etc. as engendering TAZ. So all of this is outside the
>gallery structure to some extent. On the other hand, I wander here, I see
>just as much corrosion in new media and new media institutions, as I found
>in the academy; if the names are different, and the outlets apparently
>mobile, there is still canon- and genre-making at work, just as there was
>with the Situationists for example, or within Eyebeam, or those gatherings
>I've attended this past year. If the academy needs deconstructing - and it
>does - so does the alternative institution, the email list, Occupy, all of
>is. There's no safe or hallowed ground. The issue then, if there is one at
>all (I realize I'm rambling), is - how does one find a place to think, and
>to think deeply? And as well - how does one find a site for action?
>
>Places and sites are invisible, almost virtual in their reality; perhaps
>the dead are the only real among us.
>
>- Alan
>





More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list