[NetBehaviour] aesthetics examples ... forked from : Re: Accelerationist aesthetics

Annie Abrahams bram.org at gmail.com
Sun Apr 24 12:22:53 CEST 2016


Ok let's discuss concrete art works, activities etc - let's leave for a
moment the theorethical philipoli stuff
In this discussion we have until now Ruth's work http://gtp.ruthcatlow.net/
on time: human time, life time, computertime, scientific time, stone time
and Rob's examples in his article
http://furtherfield.org/features/articles/accelerationist-art  - what are
these doing, what duscussion, thoughts they further ...

I just watched Ruth's work again, I like the reflexion it brings, how it
articulates all these times.
I have a question: - What do the people who go to the installation get from
this, is there a live video projection?, Can they understand how time is at
stake in this work? (In the catalogue text I read Edward mentioned a
projection, but so far I didn't see any photos of it)*
I admit I had difficulties understanding the complexity of the piece in the
beginning but now, at the end I can enjoy it's beauty.
So probably what I want to know Ruth, is where was your focus on the final
video object or on what happened in the installation ...

What did I get out of the examples Rob gave in his article? They are almost
all art, just art, as far as I can see. Objects, you can show and sell.
They function mostly in the Artworld. Holly Herndon and probably also
Morehshin Allahyari & Daniel Rourke seem to be a bit different in the sense
that they also engage with other domains and feel "whole". They reach out.
As feel "whole" for me someone like Hito Steyerl whose work I like a lot.
http://www.e-flux.com/journal/a-sea-of-data-apophenia-and-pattern-mis-recognition/
the dissappearance of an horizon - acceleration as stasis
https://vimeo.com/81109235#t=99s
Does this have anything to do with accelerationism? I don't know and would
that be important to know?

Please diversify examples ...

Thanks for these discussions!!!!!!
Annie

*I found a photo of a screen showing what?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako/24284339460/in/pool-wana2021/ a still,
a looping video?



On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Gretta Louw <gretta.elise.louw at gmail.com>
wrote:

> This makes so much sense to me, thank you Ruth. I see so much of this in
> Europe, North America and the western, urban mainstream; an utter inability
> (and, probably, unwillingness) to look outside our own narrowly defined
> cultural lens when purportedly studying/attempting to understand
> technology, media, digitalisation, and their impacts. It hampers real
> discussion and cross-fertilization of ideas. Preaching to the (mostly
> white, educated, urban, western, northern) choir - as most tech/ digital/
> futurist and possibly accelerationist (I hope I'm wrong about the last one,
> still too early to tell) festivals/meetings/discussion do - is a futile
> endeavor and exhausting to watch. Diversification is essential, but the way
> the discourse has developed around diversity actually is counterproductive
> to achieving greater diversity. Just as an example, there are studies that
> have shown that reminding applicants of their 'diverse' (one must ask,
> according to whom, diverse from what??) background in a job ad by
> specifically stating that one is an equal opportunities employer etc, will
> in fact reduce the number of applicants from diverse backgrounds.
>
> I am rambling, but this issue is always tacked on to the sidelines of
> debates around the pressing issues of our time; an afterthought or a nod to
> political correctness. It needs to be at the core: we should not discuss
> these issues unless we have sufficiently broad input, otherwise we are just
> talking ourselves into insignificance. NB: I am talking generally and from
> some disappointing experiences at European 'digital futures'-type round
> tables and panels, not about netbehaviourists. I do think that we all need
> to take a much more radical approach to inclusivity though. Let's not
> participate in mutual back-slapping or hand-wringing with ppl only from our
> own sub-cultures...
>
> All the best to everyone, and thank you for sharing your thoughts. xx
>
> > On 23 Apr 2016, at 21:54, ruth catlow <ruth.catlow at furtherfield.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Here Baruch Gottlieb reviews “Inventing the Future”by Srnicek &
> Williams  (co-authors of the Accelerationst Manifesto)
> >
> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/inventing-future-beholden-present-review/2016/04/08
> >
> > He says
> >
> > "visions or projects for teleportation, nano-surgery and socialist Mars
> colonies, are not going to convince capitalists to stop attacking socially
> produced value every way they can. We need more fundamental knowledge about
> how the present is reproduced in this first place, the legacy of
> colonialism, imperialism, patriarchy and slavery in the very devices we use
> to understand such things, and we need social and cultural technologies to
> integrate that consciousness into new behaviours, new sociabilities, new
> modes of exchange."
> >
> >
> >> On 23/04/16 13:15, ruth catlow wrote:
> >> So is this the accelerationist aesthetics question?
> >>
> >> Q. How can we as artists and people use the logics & tools of
> automation and markets as part of making better art and better life for us
> all?
> >>
> >> : )
> > Tom said
> >>
> >>>>> when it appeared that the prognostications of the first wave of
> >> accelerationists had partly came true: namely, that the accelerations
> >> inherent in capitalism, specifically the tendency to mobilize more
> >> surplus labour and resources at greater rates of efficiency and
> >> abstraction, would exacerbate the system's inherent contradictions to a
> >> catastrophic point. Only partly came true though: the system did not
> >> collapse but massively reorganized itself (all those would-be John Galts
> >> suddenly all too happy to accept government bail-outs, massive
> >> expropriation of assets from the poor). This required a recalibration of
> >> the theses of that first wave of accelerationists, a recalibration that
> >> perhaps either is reflected in art, or in which<<<
> >>
> >> The unfettered development of automation and market-forces is currently
> seen as the preserve of people on the political right (who seek to preserve
> the status quo or enhance their wealth and power). But who may at some
> points ask for time-out (and bail-outs) in order to re-set their position
> of advantage.
> >>
> >> Rob said
> >>
> >> If I was trolling I'd argue that if you're on the left you're either a
> >> conscious or an unconscious accelerationist. But it's possible to do
> >> things in an un-Accelerationist way - it's not an inescapable or
> >> inevitable cultural condition.
> >>
> >> Yes, this is why I declared myself an Accelerationist- it was not a
> proud declamation (a la 'I'm a feminist and I'm proud') more an admission
> (a la, the declaration at meetings of people participating in the 12 step
> programme).
> >>
> >> What I think is worth reflecting on (even if only idly) in this
> >> discussion is whether there is anything in one's own life or work that
> >> this strategy would be productive for. What could each of us better
> >> understand and reason about (in some sense) so as to be able to better
> >> change it?
> >>
> >> Both these points indicate something that Left Accelerationism has been
> >> criticised for from various angles - it is a *selective* acceleration.
> >>
> >>
> >> Left Accelerationists are critiqued as these social-power-tools (of
> automation and market-forces) are seen as inherently dehumanising and
> destructive of solidarity and freedom?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 23/04/16 02:49, Rob Myers wrote:
> >>>> On 22/04/16 03:27 AM, ruth catlow wrote:
> >>>> Not that we all need to be in an unending frenzy of communication and
> >>>> exchange. More that we have ever-more nuanced ways to sense the
> >>>> significance of different kinds of participation: in a loop of
> unwitting
> >>>> participation and active collaboration and organisation.
> >>> I think this (and Simon & Pall's conversation) raises two important
> >>> points about "Accelerationism".
> >>>
> >>> The first is that contemporary society appears to have speeded up
> >>> anyway. We can debate whether progress or the economy has stalled, but
> >>> our experience of life seems to involve the compression of time by
> >>> technology and by socioeconomic demands.
> >>>
> >>> The obvious critic of this kind of speed and acceleration, as Paul
> >>> mentioned, is Virilio. Who I think relates speed to power in a way that
> >>> makes sense of our experience of it as disenfranchising.
> >>>
> >>> Wanting to slow down from *this* kind of acceleration isn't a bad thing
> >>> and is in fact the end point of MAP/Fixing The Future -style
> >>> Accelerationism: let's get the machines to do the busy-work so we can
> do
> >>> something actually useful with our time instead.
> >>>
> >>> The second is that Accelerationism isn't a historical epoch like
> >>> postmodernism or globalisation. It's a *strategy*.
> >>>
> >>> If I was trolling I'd argue that if you're on the left you're either a
> >>> conscious or an unconscious accelerationist. But it's possible to do
> >>> things in an un-Accelerationist way - it's not an inescapable or
> >>> inevitable cultural condition.
> >>>
> >>> What I think is worth reflecting on (even if only idly) in this
> >>> discussion is whether there is anything in one's own life or work that
> >>> this strategy would be productive for. What could each of us better
> >>> understand and reason about (in some sense) so as to be able to better
> >>> change it?
> >>>
> >>> Both these points indicate something that Left Accelerationism has been
> >>> criticised for from various angles - it is a *selective* acceleration.
> >>>
> >>>> I am currently showing a live networked video piece, I created with
> >>>> Gareth Foote, called /Time is Speeding Up/ at 20-21 Visual Arts Centre
> >>>> up in Scunthorpe as part of the show We Are Not Alone. I have no idea
> >>>> whether this is an Accelerationist artwork.
> >>> It's increasing our ability to perceive and reason about our situation,
> >>> so quite possibly.
> >>>
> >>>> I agonized about the aesthetics of the work- at first- so un-"cool",
> so
> >>>> un-cyber - because the humans are so alive AND they make the work.
> >>>> But now I'm really happy with it and would like to assert a place for
> >>>> this almost folksy aesthetic (rather than a rush to slick, black
> >>>> fluidity) in post-capitalist art.
> >>> Bladerunner's lived-in street-culture future is paradigmatically cyber,
> >>> but I do know what you mean. The work is qualitative (or has a strong
> >>> qualitative element), and this is in contrast to the strong
> quantitative
> >>> bias of shiny information graphics and *some* proposals for
> >>> Accelerationist aesthetics.
> >>>
> >>> - Rob.
> >>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20160424/86be95f8/attachment.htm>


More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list