well ... change is the only constant, & whatever we do (on a spectrum from nothing to everything) impacts on change in some way or other. therefore my opinion is that it's always worth doing something, even if the impact is very small, & that often a lot of small actions over a long time can have more impact than big fast actions (tortise / hare!).
i agree with your last point - that open, equal, conversation can occur even when there are power imbalances - & that is one of my goals in my work. there are always power imbalances to some degree, so to acknowledge those imbalances & make them visible means that we can start to find ways to address them. h : ) On 02.12.19 17:33, Max Herman wrote: > > Hi Helen, > > Your chapter title is very relevant and makes a lot of sense. Civic > engagement cannot occur without a fundamental basis in conversation; > and conversation is always infused with aesthetic and visual context, > habit, and preference. Therefore starting a conversation by saying > "conversation is informed by our art context, and is itself an > artform" is a good place to start and to practice iteratively. This > approach highlights for people that true conversation is creative not > pre-determined, and a suspension of judgment as to who "wins" or "is > correct" is the only way for this creativity to have the freedom it > needs (especially for network forms of expression like conversation > and many other cultural processes that require participatory > communication). > > Open conversational practice, of course within whatever limits are > deemed appropriate and/or necessary, also suits the dynamics of change > and implementation in complex systems. The field of implementation > complexity provides strong evidence that system change cannot be > completed anew out of whole cloth but will always be a gradual, > partially random, and decentralized process or set of processes > evolving in time and subject to influence by all the other complexity > going on. This of course does not at all mean that change is > impossible, can never happen, is a waste of time, or cannot be > influenced at all by local choices. There must be a commitment to new > modes of behavior and expression, but one which is balanced with an > understanding that not all outcomes can be controlled, known in > advance, or forced to happen on a strict timeline. Some degree of > Hippocratic humility is always advisable to avoid worst outcomes while > making best ones possible. > > To some degree these were the goals of some of my past work, of course > very inconsistently achieved. In some cases I wanted to ask as wide a > variety of people as possible to answer the same three questions. I > tried to precede this with as little performance as possible on my > part, while hoping that the questions themselves and collecting as > many answers as possible within a time constraint would prompt > sufficient uniqueness of expression, generating a creative diversity > and independence of viewpoints on a shared theme. There was an aspect > of data integrity here as you might have in a social science survey so > that to some extent it could be said (and known to myself) that I > avoided scripting or goading people's answers as much as possible. It > was also an aesthetic imperative though -- if there wasn't genuine > creativity by the interviewees the whole thesis that such creativity > is possible from simple origins would be unconfirmed. My contribution > would be to ask the questions, answer the questions myself for the > video, select what footage to include, and read some relevant quotes > from various authors. Also there would be some attempt at visual > interest in the image selection, to enhance context and watchability, > like trees, animals, architecture, etc. "local" to the interviews. > Then I would do my best to create a video that others could view, > allowing permutations on the theme to potentially continue (ideally in > a scalable, adaptive, and evolving way that included both new insight > and error-correction). > > There was certainly a fair amount of conversation though in some of > the interviews, where I would try to follow up with additional > questions or comments to the interviewees. Results in these cases > were very mixed so much of that footage was edited out. Some was kept > where I felt there was an aesthetic or philosophical rationale to > leave it in, it didn't overpower the unique expressions of > interviewees, and/or illustrated some flaw, deficiency, or mistake on > my own part as a means of error correction. > > I still believe that improved mediation and support of open > conversation is a viable goal for our network age, if not a survival > imperative. It seems likely to be a necessary but not sufficient > condition of addressing many of society's greatest challenges, not > guaranteeing success by itself but being a crucial element of > solutions, improvements, and ameliorations. Open conversation has > always been under threat by social censorship, so in many cases a > judicious caution is pragmatic. Some theory has argued that open > conversation is a false goal, because interactions are always > determined by power relations. I don't believe that to be an absolute > truth however, and open equal communication can occur, if only > episodically, even where there are power imbalances (often this is > achieved situationally by obtaining a suspension of hierarchy among > the conversational participants). The nature of complexity (and > recent time theory) means that equality is only ever approximated and > time-bound, therefore better described as "equivalency" which is time- > and context- specific. Where power imbalances and hierarchy dominate > the conversation, whether consciously or unconsciously,it's not really > conversation but coerced scripting. Even in such contexts small > episodes of true conversation, even one word, can emerge and usually do. > > Judging by the state of things it is easy to call conversation a > fool's illusion, but there may be a temporal obligation to keep > attempting it even if it is impossible just in case it isn't. 🙂 > > Best regards, > > Max > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Helen Varley Jamieson <he...@creative-catalyst.com> > *Sent:* Monday, December 2, 2019 4:25 AM > *To:* Max Herman <maxnmher...@hotmail.com>; NetBehaviour for networked > distributed creativity <netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> > *Subject:* Re: [NetBehaviour] "Networked Conversations as Activism" > > > hi max, > > thanks for reading & responding :) > > i can't speak for all of the performers & participants, but for me the > conversation is part of the whole event, therefore part of the > performance / art / activity. it's preceded by a cyberformance which > is definitely an artistic action, and the intention is that the > cyberformance part of the event informs the conversation part of the > event by provoking, questioning, challenging, shifting, encouraging > participants to open up their thinking, to hear other points of view, > to engage in discussion rather than argument. in many contexts our > conversations have become very combative, about trying to convince > others to agree and believe in the same things as we do, rather than > actually listening, sharing, thinking. i try to approach the topics as > openly as possible, drawing material for the cyberformance from a wide > range of sources and involving individuals and groups who have > different perspectives in creating and presenting the cyberformance. > it can become a complex, layered collage, which demands a lot of focus > from the audience & is often other than their expectations. so before > the conversation begins, they have been shifted somewhat, & this means > that the conversation starts from somewhere different. so yes, a > change of consciousness can occur; even if it's a small & subtle > change, it can niggle away under the skin like a tiny splinter & lead > to longer term changes in individual's thinking and approach. these > things are pretty impossible to measure, i'm basing my thoughts mostly > on personal feedback from colleagues or associates who, years after > participating in one of these events, mentions the ongoing effect it's > had. it's personal & small-scale but i believe longer-lasting & > ultimately highly impactful. there are also the further conversations > that participants have beyond the event, & the ripples those cause, > that i don't always know about but they do happen. > > the global-local connection is important because it brings unexpected > contributions & this stops us from falling into familiar patterns. > sometimes it's surprising to learn that things are almost exactly the > same in different places, & other times things are totally different. > the conversation goes between the universal & the particular, & > somehow in this balance there is an openness & understanding. i like > your image of unknotting, it's very fitting - we can become so knotted > up in our own realities that we need someone or something from > somewhere far away to be able to see where the knot needs to be picked > at to loosen it up & undo it. > > i've written a book chapter that explores these methods & projects in > more detail if anyone is interested in reading further, it's in > "Convergence of Contemporary Art, Visual Culture and Global Civic > Engagement", > https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/we-have-a-situation/172764 > > h : ) > > On 28.11.19 19:16, Max Herman wrote: >> >> Hi Helen, >> >> My internet is not working so I'm typing on phone, but I like this >> article and these ideas a lot. Verfremdungseffekt is a good new word >> I didn't know. >> >> Are the performers and participants generally thinking of the >> conversations as art, an art form? I think that idea of >> participatory art forms is important. Bohm writes about group >> conversations in On Dialogue, thinking that if they happen similarly >> to what you describe then a change in consciousness occurs and new >> consciousness can occur. He means dialogue as "through-meaning" or >> meaning-flow rather than exchange per se. He doesn't really view it >> as art, more from a science standpoint, but the idea of "no pre-set >> conclusions" is key. >> >> One challenge of the open-ended discussion I agree is effectiveness >> or "result." There can sometimes be a very predictable repetitive >> outcome, or an attempt to "do too much" that is either overwhelming >> or unfocused. I do think there must be a middle road something like >> "beginner's mind" that can be both a worthwhile state in itself and >> contributive to something larger or in process (like say a method or >> manner, methode so to speak). This mid-range is part of theater and >> literature since their prehuman origins I think, including shared >> visual imagery, symbols, abstractions, etc. >> >> When you refer to global-local that has a relevance to middle or >> betweenness, with an emphasis possibly on the "present" as this >> meeting-space. Where the present knowns of the past, our packets of >> info, can be called into play in the context of massive future >> challenges or unknowns, resulting in a known/unknown mix in the >> present space that can be literally new and permutations can lead to >> ideas or conditions that didn't exist at the start of the conversation. >> >> I have usually found this approach to have a lot of elegance and >> relevance but it doesn't seem to fit most typical definitions. >> Frankfurt school communicative theory sort of relates, but I'm not >> sure that Marx or Freud really do. Postructuralist theory sometimes >> seems unnecessarily complex to me and perhaps obfuscating. You can >> get a lot of complexity and change, perhaps sufficient, from rather >> simple "ingredients" like those you describe. Certainly the natural >> world has tremendously complex and adaptive, innovative capacity with >> arguably no theory whatsoever. >> >> Rambling now, but knot-riddled shoulder (I have device-shoulder >> symptoms lately) makes me think there is a vocabulary of nodes or >> topics, topoi, which come up in conversation but are often knotted. >> Your method seems well designed to ameliorate these, and I think >> there may be a larger historical era calling for this. It would be >> something like a network-literate set of manners for each node, >> methods that defer the fight/flight fixity that freezes up the >> knots. The nodes roughly correlate to the spheres or disciplines of >> knowledge, so each discipline would need a conversible >> network-orientation to be achieved, plus popularly known or at least >> to those in conversation. These would be site specific somewhat or >> situational, so I think your reference to situation is very relevant. >> >> I do think the core method you have of conversation is the key >> though, say a general network intelligence method, which can be >> applied to all particular methods and help elucidate them. For >> example network genetics, network biology, network dramaturgy, >> network math, etc. >> >> Thanks for the very interesting article and link, >> >> Max >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* NetBehaviour <netbehaviour-boun...@lists.netbehaviour.org> >> <mailto:netbehaviour-boun...@lists.netbehaviour.org> on behalf of >> Helen Varley Jamieson <he...@creative-catalyst.com> >> <mailto:he...@creative-catalyst.com> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 27, 2019 8:40 AM >> *To:* NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >> <netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> >> <mailto:netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> >> *Subject:* [NetBehaviour] "Networked Conversations as Activism" >> >> >> my article "Networked Convesrations as Activism" was recently >> published in the latest issue of Interact, a portuguese online >> magazine for art, culture & technology. the article discusses the use >> of cyberformance and networked conversations to encourage critical >> thinking & civic engagement. (it's in english). >> >> https://interact.com.pt/30-31/networked-conversations-as-activism/ >> >> the theme of the issue (30-31) is art, activism and digital networks, >> & it also includes a review (in english) of the cyberformance >> "Letters to the Earth" which we did in april this year >> (https://interact.com.pt/30-31/letters-to-the-earth/). there are lots >> of other interesting-looking articles, if you can read portuguese. >> >> h : ) >> >> -- >> >> helen varley jamieson >> >> he...@creative-catalyst.com <mailto:he...@creative-catalyst.com> >> http://www.creative-catalyst.com >> http://www.upstage.org.nz >> > -- > > helen varley jamieson > > he...@creative-catalyst.com <mailto:he...@creative-catalyst.com> > http://www.creative-catalyst.com > http://www.upstage.org.nz > -- helen varley jamieson he...@creative-catalyst.com <mailto:he...@creative-catalyst.com> http://www.creative-catalyst.com http://www.upstage.org.nz
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
