[NetBehaviour] An interview with Geert Lovink

marc garrett marc.garrett2 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 30 16:02:19 CEST 2015

Hi Annie,

Sorry if my writing may seem a little weird today -- it's to do with having
an extremely painful tooth ache at the moment, whilst being pretty busy at
the same time.


Regarding Netbehaviour being a 'semi-closed network', it's an interesting
question because it's not like facebook or twitter, yet it has a boundary
in as much you become part of specific dialogue and field of ongoing
discussions concerning this field (or fields) of practice.

However, the list is also connected to a larger network via Furtherfield
which is based online and offline -- Not just that, everything is built
through free and open source technology based on grass root values, which
means that it is actively working beyond establishment ends.

So, yes it is semi-closed but also an open group ;-)

wishing you well.


On 30 September 2015 at 14:31, Annie Abrahams <bram.org at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am one of those who isn't really waiting for curators to pick up digital
> art. The so-called art world is institutional, capitalistic, elitist - it
> thrives on money.
> In this article Geert says something very interesting to me :
> " We need to design new ‘stages’ where we can act out our collective
> resistance. I am very interested in new forms of organization (called
> orgnets) and how these cells can become ‘crowd crystals’ for new
> discourses. Later on we can see how these things scale up. Right now we
> need more experimentation, temporary autonomous zones where discussion can
> thrive. I fear this will not happen inside the monopoly social media
> (obviously) but maybe also not on the open internet as we know it as these
> public spaces are terrorized by trolls and controlled by bots. In this
> turbulent yet fragile global condition, what the world needs is semi-closed
> networks."
> I don't even know what orgnets are, nor crowd crystals, but it triggers my
> imagination and Netbehaviour does seem to be an exemple of the semi-closed
> networks he mentions.
> Question: Is netbehaviour semi-closed?
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Paul Hertz <ignotus at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, happy to post polemics, it's a kind of a hobby. :^}.
>> I think there has been a tendency for mainstream curators to approach
>> more recent digitally-mediated works as if they were in effect a sort of
>> hybrid old media, while still neglecting both historical and current "pure"
>> digital media. This has meant that certain kinds of digital hard copy
>> (modded photographic prints, collage and drawings, and even 3D printing ==
>> "post-digital") can be welcomed while the internet as a platform is
>> generally ignored. I don't have any more evidence for this than
>> observation, and I have felt that the situation for digital art was
>> improving over the last ten years. OTOH, I can readily understand the
>> impatience.
>> -- Paul
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:56 AM, dave miller <dave.miller.uk at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I think Geert is probably correct though - seems to me the art
>>> "establishment" aren't interested in internet/ digital art, though maybe
>>> they have a different view of it from us on here.  The art world remains a
>>> mystery to me, so I may well be wrong. Thank god for Furtherfield, and I
>>> would love to know who are the curators 'not' scared of it.
>>> What's the ‘post-digital’ bandwagon?
>>> Dave
>>> On 30 September 2015 at 13:48, Annie Abrahams <bram.org at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> don't be small, don't think sectarism
>>>> Geert is closer to "us" than most "others"
>>>> get in contact with him, explain and connect, use his critical energy
>>>> invite him to curate, to build, to discuss
>>>> xxx
>>>> Annie
>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:40 PM, NIKOS V <nikos.vv at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I see the relevance in this approach, allthough  I have to say its
>>>>> allready to late for that criticism no?
>>>>> Moreover, is he really interested in art?
>>>>> If yes, as Marc says, where are the references and the names ?
>>>>> And why is Venice Biennial important?To whom????
>>>>> 2015-09-30 15:36 GMT+03:00 marc.garrett <marc.garrett at furtherfield.org
>>>>> >:
>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>> Geert needs to be more specific and highlight the curators who are
>>>>>> 'not' scared and who have been showing technical artwork such as
>>>>>> Furtherifeld & others - his words are not grounded and are too absolute,
>>>>>> they do not reflect reality...
>>>>>> marc
>>>>>> http://conversations.e-flux.com/t/geert-lovink-on-social-media-and-the-arts/2581
>>>>>> "The absence at the 2015 Venice Bienale of digital arts and internet
>>>>>> works says it all. Curators are afraid to admit they are clueless and
>>>>>> continue their ignorant attitude towards art that deals with the digital in
>>>>>> a direct matter (while checking their smart phone). Everyone jumps on the
>>>>>> ‘post-digital’ bandwagon because that’s cute and safe. [...] Curators and
>>>>>> critics are more than happy to embrace the race, gender, even the
>>>>>> anthroposcene (whatever that is), but are blind for the techno-politics of
>>>>>> the equipment and media they are using themselves so intensely. The
>>>>>> contradictions are becoming absurd. Video was the last technology they had
>>>>>> to deal with, but then it stopped."
>>>>>> — Geert Lovink
>>>>>> //
>>>>>> enjoy,
>>>>>> -- Paul
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20150930/dfdf843c/attachment.htm>

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list