[NetBehaviour] The Blockchain as a Modulator of Existence

Alan Sondheim sondheim at panix.com
Mon Mar 5 21:40:10 CET 2018


Second this; I'm on some other lists where I'm totally quiet;  I have to 
dig through the language and I feel if I don't respond in kind I'll be 
ignored or tolerated at best. -


On Mon, 5 Mar 2018, Edward Picot via NetBehaviour wrote:

> Marc -
> 
> Your stuff I can understand. It's full of references to people I've never
> heard of, but I can understand it. Keep writing it!
> 
> Edward
> 
> On 05/03/18 11:39, marc.garrett via NetBehaviour wrote:
>       Hi Edward,
> 
> Fair enough - I wouldn't dare use those words, and i think it makes
> the subject less interesting. However, if you fancy a bash at this --
> Marc Garrett - Unlocking Proprietorial Art Systems.
> 
> It's a sketch at the moment, and will be published in an academic book
> after a rigorous peer to peer, critiquing & editing process. It may
> even change in front of your very eyes - while reading it ;-)
> 
> Unlocking Proprietorial Art Systems.
> 
> Marc Garrett - Unlocking Proprietorial Art Systems.
> 
> ?And assure yourselves, if you pitch not right now upon the right point
> of freedome in action, as your Covenant hath it in words, you will
> wrap up your children in greater slavery then ever you were in??[1]
> (Winstanley 1649)
> 
> Introduction
> 
> The cultural, political and economic systems in place do not work for
> most people. They support a privileged, international class that grows
> richer while imposing increasing uncertainty on others, producing
> endless wars, and enhancing the conditions of inequality, austerity,
> debt, and climate change, in order to own everything under the rule of
> neoliberalism. David Harvey argues that the permeation of
> neoliberalism exists within every aspect of our lives, and it has been
> masked by a repeated rhetoric around ?individual freedom, liberty,
> personal responsibility and the virtues of privatization, the free
> market and free trade?[2] (Harvey 2011) Thus, legitimizing ?draconian
> policies designed to restore and consolidate capitalistic class
> power.?[3] In their essay Manufacturing the Neo-liberal Subject, Pierre
> Dardot and Christian Laval say, that we have not yet emerged from what
> they call, ?the ?iron cage? of the capitalist economy to which Weber
> referred. Rather, in some respects it would have to be said that
> everyone is enjoined to construct their own individual little ?iron
> cage?.?[4] (Dardot & Laval 2011)
> 
> If we are, as Dardot & Laval put it co-designing our own iron cages,
> how do we find ways to be less dominated by these over powering
> infrastructures and systems? How do we build fresh, independent
> places, spaces and identities, in relation to our own peer 2 peer,
> artistic and cultural practices, individually and collectively ? when,
> our narratives are dominated by elite groups typically biased towards
> isolating and crushing alternatives? Does this mean that critical
> thought, artistic and experimental cultural ventures, along with
> creatively led technological practices, are all doomed to perpetuate a
> state of submission within a proprietorial absolute?
> 
> To unpack these questions we look at different types of proprietorial
> systems, some locked and unlocked. All examples deal with examining
> proprietorial conditions, in life, their creative forms of production
> across the fields of the traditional art world, and media art culture.
> It looks at how artists are dealing with these issues through their
> artistic agency, individually, collaborative, or as part of a group or
> collective. This includes looking at the work's intentions, production
> and its cultural and societal contexts, where different set of values
> and new possibilities are emerging, across the practice of art,
> academia, and technology, and thus, the world. The final part of this
> text explores how and why my own arts organization Furtherfield, is
> moving into practices surrounding the blockchain as a space for
> cultural development, and what this means in relation to critiquing
> and actively challenging proprietorial domination.
> 
> The meanings of the words proprietorial and proprietary are closely
> linked. Proprietary is defined as meaning that one possesses, owns, or
> holds the exclusive right to something, specifically an object. For
> instance, it can be described as something owned by a specific company
> or individual. In the computing world, proprietary is often used to
> describe software that is not open source or freely licensed. Examples
> include operating systems, software programs, and file formats.[5]
> Many involved in the Free and Open Source Software movement, share a
> set of values built around its beliefs against proprietary control
> over our use of technology. Olga Goriunova argues that, software is
> not only bound to objects but also includes social relations and it?s
> about breaking away from the fetishism of proprietary software
> structures, and ?commodification of social processes layered into
> software production and operation.?[6] (Goriunova 2008)
> 
> However, if we consider the definition of proprietorial, in the
> Cambridge Dictionary, it is especially poignant when it says ?like an
> owner: He put a proprietorial arm around her.? This brings us directly
> to a biopolitical distinction. The term biopolitics was first coined
> by Rudolf Kjell?n, (who also coined the term geopolitics)[7] (Markus
> 2015) and then later expanded upon by Michel Foucault, arguing that
> certain styles of government regulate their populations through
> biopower. Hardt and Negri developed Foucault?s ideas saying ?Biopower is a
> form of power that regulates life from its interior, following it,
> interpreting it, absorbing it, and rearticulating it.?[8] (Hardt and
> Negri 2001) But, as we will discover further into this text the term
> also reinforces a deep a psychological bias that asserts the right of
> the patriarch to own our personal and social contexts.
> 
> https://researchvalues2018.wordpress.com/2017/12/18/unlocking-proprietorial
> -systems/
> 
> References:
> [1] Benn, Tony. (2011) A Watch-Word for the City of London. Tony Benn
> Presents Gerrard Winstanley: A common Treasury. Verso; Reprint
> edition. P.61.
> [2] Harvey, D. 2011, The Enigma of Capital and the Crisis of
> Capitalism. Profile Books LTD. P.11.
> [3] (Ibid)
> [4] Dardot, P & Laval, C. 2011, Manufacturing the Neo-liberal Subject.
> The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society. Verso Books. P.263.
> [5] Software Terms: Proprietary Software Definition ?
> https://techterms.com/definition/proprietary_software
> [6] Goriunova, Olga. Autocreativity: The Operation of Codes of Freedom
> in Art and Culture. (2088) FLOSS+Art. de Valk, Marloes and Mansoux
> Aymeric (Editors). P.92.
> [7] Gunneflo, Markus. (2015) ?Rudolf Kjell?n: Nordic biopolitics before
> the welfare state?. Retf?rd. 35 (3). ISSN 0105-1121.
> [8] Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio. (2001) Biopolitical Production.
> Empire. Harvard University Press. P.23-24
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> 
> 
> 
>

New CD:- LIMIT:
http://www.publiceyesore.com/catalog.php?pg=3&pit=138
email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 718-813-3285
current text http://www.alansondheim.org/vg.txt



More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list