i think simon just ably demonstrated why putting things in 'a more everyday, comprehensive lanuguage, was/is problematic: you need four times the amount of words to say the same thing. why write 'i put my pen on the table' when you could write 'i put my plastic-and-ink-writing-tool' on the 'wooden-platform-held-up-on-four-wooden-legs'? cos the former is simpler than the latter. accessibility is good up to a point: but introduce lifts into multi-storey buildings for the aid of the disabled and you also create the knock-on effect of making the able-bodied less fit and lazier by giving them an effort-free mechanism of going upstairs. much better for the body - and mind - to take the stairs as before.
yeah, the language isn't easy to grasp, but the effort of doing so is probably more rewarding than the effort of simplifying at-first-inaccessible academic prose. 2009/2/3 bob catchpole <bobcatchp...@yahoo.co.uk> > Simon, > > Thanks for the translation, it's fortunate you're on the list! Don't you > think the text, drafted in a language largely understandable by academics, > is guilty of the very thing it claims to be researching? That is, how and > why people are excluded from contested spaces? > > If the text spoke in a more everyday, comprehensible language do you think > it might invite wider engagement? > > Language is power. Often to exclude or oppress, no? > > Bob > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Simon Biggs <s.bi...@eca.ac.uk> > *To:* NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity < > netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> > *Sent:* Tuesday, 3 February, 2009 11:52:17 > > *Subject:* Re: [NetBehaviour] Does it mean something? > > It is clear to me and I have no problems with the language. > > The section that states "the potential of translocally networked spatial > practices" could have been more simply written, however it is clear in what > it says – that the research is engaging the potential of networked practices > by practitioners who are interested in spaces that transcend the local (the > way it was originally written was better). The next section, which states > "urban network processes, spaces of geocultural crises, and forms of > cultural participation and self-determination" is equally clear. Urban > network processes are events that occur in urban environments within the > network infrastructures of which such environments are composed > (communications and transport are examples). Geocultural crises are crises > that are caused by geocultural issues. This is shorthand for the > post-colonial politics around access to land based resources by different > cultural groups (Gaza is an example here, as is Darfur). I do not see what > the problem is with the sub-phrase "cultural participation and > self-determination". It seems clear as it seeks to conflate the > individuation of self (the forging of self) with participation in social > activities (that is, the self depends on others to come into being). Sites > of "alternative urban engagement" simply refers to places where > non-normalised social activities can be pursued and social groupings can > form that facilitate those who do not conform to dominant social norms (eg: > raves, biker cafes, hardcore clubs, etc). The last three words are, I agree, > a little confusing. What is the object of the phrase "emerging architectural > cultures". Does this refer to cultures composed of architects or to cultures > that are shaped by architecture? I would assume the latter, but the grammar > employed here is, I agree, not very clear. > > Overall the text is clear and in its linguistic form usefully suggests what > its cultural origins are (left intellectual academic). The text as a whole > clearly states that its concern is with who gains access to and rights of > definition of social and economic infrastructure in culturally contested > urban spaces and what the implications are for the communities and > individuals involved. > > Where is there a problem with that? > > Regards > > Simon > > > On 3/2/09 10:23, "bob catchpole" <bobcatchp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Mez, > > Does it mean something? > > Bob > > > *From:* mez breeze <*netwur...@gmail.com*> > *To:* NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <* > netbehavi...@netbehaviour.org*> > *Sent:* Monday, 2 February, 2009 23:26:34 > *Subject:* Re: [NetBehaviour] Does it mean something? > > hi bob [+ assorted netbehaviouralists].. > > bob, i'm curious as 2 by u're assuming that the text ur quoting is > muddy in terms of comprehension/meaning? do u think the terminology is > inappropriate or unclear? > > chunks, > mez > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:33 AM, bob catchpole <*bobcatchp...@yahoo.co.uk*> > wrote: > > Yann, > > > > The other day someone posted on this list about a project that was a > > "research platform... on the potential of translocally networked spatial > > practices." The project, it was claimed, investigates "urban network > > processes, spaces of geocultural crises, and forms of cultural > participation > > and self-determination" in which "sites of alternative urban engagement > are > > collected on a database" as research into "emerging architectural > cultures." > > > > > Simon Biggs > Research Professor > edinburgh college of art > s.bi...@eca.ac.uk > www.eca.ac.uk > www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ > > si...@littlepig.org.uk > www.littlepig.org.uk > AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk > > Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number > SC009201 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- richtextformat Ltd. | company number: 06699372 http://richtextformat.co.uk | ad...@richtextformat.co.uk | 078 0706 2090 --
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
