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

Pall Thayer pallthay at gmail.com
Sun Apr 24 22:49:16 CEST 2016


It just occurred to me that this artwork has already been suggested by Kurt
Vonnegut in Rabo Karabekian's "Windsor Blue Number Seventeen".


On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 2:18 PM Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com> wrote:

> Based on my understanding of Accelerationism, I would think that the ideal
> "Accelerationist" artwork would be work that you get typical art-investors
> to pay a shit-load of money for but that is inherently ephemeral so that no
> portion of the original "investment" can ever grow or even be recouped.
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 1:24 PM ruth catlow <ruth.catlow at furtherfield.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes Annie,
>>
>>  > Ok let's discuss concrete art works, activities etc - let's leave for
>> a moment the theorethical philipoli stuff
>>
>> More examples would be good.
>>
>>  > 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 ...
>>  >
>>
>> To answer your particular questions about my work....
>>
>>  > 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 ...
>>
>> I think/hope that the work is totally explicit for gallery visitors.
>> But now I understand that the documentation needs more clarity for
>> online viewers
>>
>> The plasma screen displays this webpage http://gtp.ruthcatlow.net/ which
>> shows the most recent image taken by the web cam, along with the looping
>> video to which images are added every 3 or 4 images.
>>
>> People can pose for the web cam, or might be caught looking at the video
>> in which they are soon to be portrayed.
>>
>> Here is a photo which shows the set up.
>>
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/60673926@N02/24540097322/in/album-72157663958436545/
>> Here you can scroll through a set of images showing selected stills from
>> the video, as well as some installation shots
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/60673926@N02/albums/72157663958436545
>>
>>
>>  >
>>  > 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?
>>
>> Acceleration as stasis. Yes I think this is right Annie.
>>
>> Yes! more examples
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> :)
>> Ruth
>>
>>
>>  >
>>  > 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.
>>  >     >>>
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > _______________________________________________
>>  > NetBehaviour mailing list
>>  > NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>  > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>>
>> --
>> Co-founder Co-director
>> Furtherfield
>>
>> www.furtherfield.org
>>
>> +44 (0) 77370 02879
>> Meeting calendar - http://bit.ly/1NgeLce
>> Bitcoin Address 197BBaXa6M9PtHhhNTQkuHh1pVJA8RrJ2i
>>
>> Furtherfield is the UK's leading organisation for art shows, labs, &
>> debates
>> around critical questions in art and technology, since 1997
>>
>> Furtherfield is a Not-for-Profit Company limited by Guarantee
>> registered in England and Wales under the Company No.7005205.
>> Registered business address: Ballard Newman, Apex House, Grand Arcade,
>> Tally Ho Corner, London N12 0EH.
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
> --
> P Thayer, Artist
> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
>
-- 
P Thayer, Artist
http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20160424/af031044/attachment.html>


More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list