[NetBehaviour] An interview with Geert Lovink

[aharon]

hiyas,

* The http://turbulence.org/commissions/howtolook post seems like a time
quirk link here..

* I think its interesting that actually doing stuff linked to
net/digital/code/etc. seems to render the context/institutional critique
approach a bit disposable, I think..

Precisely because the power arbitrary nature of institutionalism and the
histories attached for their ritualistic effect, being able to pop up in a
bus stop, or gather a bunch of people in a pub, or online via mumble or
something - indeed a mailinglist ;) - offers ways to wonder in between
ways of sharing.
In a sense, by simply doing stuff with other clusters than, say biennales 
etc. there is an innate critique that need not be glued to a certain mode.

In that sense, yes, am utterly with you Annie,
netorg-orgynets-nettynutters - or whatever they might be called - lets go!

However, yes, nothing wrong with engaging the institutionalised. (if
wrong, am guilty.)
I think Geart has done a fab tightrope walking here. Not many could.. Cheers!

Have fun!
hrnxxx


On Wed, September 30, 2015 14:31, Annie Abrahams 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