Gretta,
These points are very well made, and they chime with the sense of
exhaustion and suspicion I have heard expressed by many people (who are
not full time intellectuals) in connecting to the bunch of
Accelerationist stances, concepts and strategies.
I respond very positively to your words, because you speak with the
voice of an activist- informed by a daily practice in which you must
make decisions about which new ideas, networks and actions to include
and exclude...this is not (primarily) about career, reputation or
"getting on" but about making judgements and being effective in the world.
So this debate is a bit of a gamble with the energies of
Netbehaviourists. I guess that we all have to search our own consciences
on the matter of whether we participate in these kinds of discussions,
and if so, whether we do so with the right attitude.
Respect!
Ruth
On 24/04/16 02:33, Gretta Louw 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.cat...@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@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@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@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@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
