Hi Rob & all, Thanks for the link to the P2P (Foundation) conversation between Michel Bauwens & Geert Lovink.
Lovink's relationship with 'free culture' comes from a micro perspective, influenced by connections built around an active respect for the idea, and possibly a personal reliance on structures which rely on frameworks dedicated, in supporting some form of 'official' authority. This creates a less socially grounded and intuitive understanding of why people are engaged in such things. Things cannot always be defined through theory or through 'officially' culturalized platforms or accepted intellectually condoned hierarchies alone. To be truly engaged, one has to cross over into different elements of being, connecting and touching - not necessarily because it's part of one's practice, but because it relates to everyday life and experience as well. Thankfully, such things can't be measured, packaged made into chewable concepts so easily. Where ever we happen stand to stand in the scheme of things, we only possess part of the picture, not the whole thing. Yet, what this situation communicates to me, is that many out there feel they know or have a particular advantage of the bigger picture because of their positions in relation to their privilege, rather than their actual engagement in a field such as free culture. And what theorists want, really does not matter - it's what people want that matters precisely because they are the users the community. "At the moment the amateurs are blocking the careers of entire generations of young professionals. With this the rich knowledge of professions is threatened to disappear (for instance those doing investigative journalism). We have to stop this talent drain and not create economies that have to live off charity. Free networks should take themselves more serious. The first step to get there should be to critically investigate the ‘ideology of the free’. New forms of production, as you call it, cost money. We need to circulate money so that it can flow into those circles that have taken up the task to seriously construct tomorrow’s tools.” (http://www.digicult.it/digimag/article.asp?id=1148)" I disagree with the idea that amateurs are the enemy. Free culture is dictated and driven by amateurs' and their very human behaviours, just as much as by anyone else. This may trouble those who wish to control it. The other thing is that, critical engagement does not always have to be defined through specific groups of people. Creating a professional class may sound like a pretty decent idea to some, but for something to really have social significance and a cultural life, it needs to be allowed to live beyond a hermetically sealed vacuum. Having said all this, I feel that is Geert as an individual does propose some interesting arguments. What he proposes may not necessarily sit right, but they address important questions around how and why things 'should' always be free. If we want something to be free, perhaps the motives and ideas need to be explored more regularly or more deeply, rather than everyone just accepting and adopting the idea of it as an absolute. It's a bit like accepting democracy without knowing why its there in the first place - perhaps we just need to remind ourselves why we have it. Wishing you well. marc > > "While such a critique is of course welcome and necessary, I was rather > shocked in Venice when I listened to such a lecture, to discover that > Geert Lovink’s considers the free culture movement as an enemy, because > it advocates everything to be free. Geert presented the following > expressions of free as ‘the enemy’: the freeconomic ideas of Chris > Anderson (who in fact, also does not advocate everything to be free, but > rather explains its economic rationale in a era of very cheap digital > reproducibility), the Oxcars free culture festival (which pays it > artists!), and the Barcelona charter on digital rights. This equation is > of course entirely untrue, and I was surprised that someone of Geert’s > stature, could make the classic mistake between free speech and free > beer, which has been clarified ages ago." > > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/on-the-difference-between-free-speech-and-free-beer-free-culture-as-people-want-to-be-free/2010/05/25 > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
