[NetBehaviour] the aegis of depression and motility

[Alan Sondheim]

the aegis of depression and motility

http://www.alansondheim.org/pression5.png
https://youtu.be/iqB-nEWvhXI
http://www.alansondheim.org/pression2.png
http://www.alansondheim.org/pression4.png
http://www.alansondheim.org/pression1.png

motion capture, apparatus, lines of flight, lineage,
fold and cusp catastrophes, the imminent

The Quality of Air and Its Robins


From eiffage immobilite

From: Eiffage Immobilite

Si vous ne parvenez pas ? lire cet e-mail, cliquez ici
Habiter ou investir en bord de S?vre ! Steve, I'm on board.
Lancement commercial venture of balconies and sofas.
Ekla - Nantes Sud - Eiffage Immobilier
Appartements du studio au 4 pi?ces
avec terrasses, balcons ou loggias (loggia = sofa en French)
Ekla - Nantes Suds and other dire means of cleansing
De beaux volumes lumineux, of the Foofwadian body
habill?s par des material girls (of the avatar sweat)
de grande qualit? and more than one might assume from "just
dance"
choisis avec soin and other parts of the Foofwadic enterprise
Carrelage dans toutes les pi?ces and other pieces not yet
assembled but wait and see what we have in store for you
et rev?tement stratifi? dans les chambres of ostensible
and charistmatic potentials for nice stuff by the shoreline
Salles de bains et salles d?eau :
meuble-vasque avec plan stratifi? panneau miroir d?coratif, applique,
s?che-serviettes et pare-douche let's not get into this
Halls d?entr?e ? double contr?le and triple contrarity
cl?s ?lectroniques et vid?ophone not to mention "la telephone"
Ascenseur desservant tous les niveaux and some below the ground
where "they" are kept
Porte pali?re avec serrure de s?ret? 3 points and five if you
can read this!
Stationnement en sous-sol avec acc?s s?curis? Yes, I'm curious!
Produits en contact avec l?air class?s A+
I will get in touch soon
pour la qualit? de l?air - for the quality of air and its robins!
Robinetteries hydro-?conome
J'EN PROFITE from quinessence. See below (next line):
Quintesis (profitability).
Nos solutions pour vous rendre la vie plus simple
Engagements - Eiffage Immobilite
POUR EN SAVOIR PLUS, RENDEZ-VOUS SUR
Se d?sinscrire myself in myself, with serrures to boot.

- A. sent to
- B. forwarded to
- C. who write to A.
- "What do you think?"

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] on art and knowledge

[Alan Sondheim]

Apologies for not reading, I'm on a residency that's exhausting me.
That said, to at least one of the emails here, I tend to think of art in 
terms of Wittgenstein's language games / family of usages (indeed, even 
defining "game" is impossible for all instantiations). I run by Bourdieu 
in the process. On the other hand, I asked my thesis advisor, what the 
point of studying English literature was; he said to make one a better 
person. I suppose that takes more time than I have on the planet.


Apologies again, Alan
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] on art and knowledge

[Michael Szpakowski]

Hi EdwardI do want to reply briefly to some of the points you make but it's 
late now and that will need to wait until tomorrow or the weekend. I *do* want 
to say right now however how touched & grateful I am that you took the trouble 
to read the piece in such detail especially given the tech related difficulties 
( and the attrition rate of patients thereby occasioned!) thanks!warmest 
wishesmichael

  From: Edward Picot via NetBehaviour 
 To: netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org 
Cc: Edward Picot 
 Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 8:07 PM
 Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] on art and knowledge
   
  Michael,
 
 Infuriatingly, I can access the full article if I click the link while I'm at 
work, but I can only access the precis if I click it at home. This didn't stop 
me reading it - when I was supposed to be getting on with something else - and 
I'll draw a veil over the question of how many patients are now dead as a 
result, when they ought to be still alive. But the worst thing is that my 
comments will have to be based on how I remember your article, because I don't 
have the actual text in front of me. From what I remember, you did rather a 
good job of demolishing other people's ideas about what might constitute the 
'value' of art, but I was a little bit more suspicious when you came to your 
own ideas on the same subject. As I remember these came down to (a) the best 
art is the art which provokes in us the widest/most intense range of 
interpretations/reactions, and (b) art teaches us how to live. Both of these 
sound a bit like F R Leavis to me - in fact there was a whole school of 
literary criticism, particularly based in Cambridge, which was founded on the 
ideas that the best literature teaches us how to experience life more fully, 
distinguish and understand our own ideas, emotions and aesthetic responses more 
scrupulously, and thereby become more fully aware and morally capable people. 
This was used as an argument in favour of (a) doing literary studies at 
University level, and in fact making the study of literature (and by 
implication art more generally) into one of the most important University 
departments; and (b) preserving a canon of the 'best' literature and trying to 
make sure that it was routinely taught in schools. In other words it was a very 
'highbrow' argument; only the best literature could have the sought-after 
uplifting effect; so in the end it came down to 'Reading Shakespeare can make 
you a better person, but reading Longfellow can't', and then down to arguments 
about who deserved to be in the canon and who didn't. Henry James and Jane 
Austen - in (because they're ironic and morally scrupulous). Dickens - out (too 
much of a showman, too sentimental - until Leavis had a change of heart and 
suddenly decided 'Hard Times' was a grownup novel). T S Eliot in, Milton out. 
Dante better than Milton. John Donne better than Spencer. And so forth.
 
 Then along came Structuralism and said, 'Actually, we only find value in art 
because we've been trained to do so; an image means one thing if you see it in 
a museum and something entirely different if you see it on the front of 
somebody's T-shirt; the whole thing, the whole act of interpretation, our whole 
response to art, is a cultural construct, and the context in which we do our 
viewing/reading/listening is everything; it's probably more important than the 
work of art itself'. Which I don't entirely buy, but it had the effect, in 
about the 1970s, of knocking down the whole 'art makes you a better person' 
edifice.
 
 Basically I think I shy away from any attempt to define what art does for us. 
I do think it can make us better people - or at least it can enrich our lives 
by giving us experiences we wouldn't have had otherwise. I do also think that 
some art is better than other art, and the breadth and depth and range of its 
effect have got something to do with how you would calibrate the differences. 
In other words, if I had to put my money anywhere, I might put it somewhere 
very close to where you've put yours. But I don't like to see any of this 
written down as a formula, because it always seems to come out wrong. I'm a 
great believer in responding to individual works of art on a case-by-case 
basis. And I'm also a believer, as someone who tries to be creative himself, in 
just trying to make the stuff that feels right, without worrying too much about 
philosophical justifications.
 
 Edward
 
 On 25/09/18 23:08, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
 > Hi Edward -that link should take you into a screen readable version.> The 
 > way the thing is licensed means that's all I can send unless> people get the 
 > hard copy when it's out ( not sure when)... Mail me> personally if you still 
 > can't get into it... ( & thanks for> looking!) cheers m.> > > 
 > - *From:* Edward Picot via NetBehaviour> 
 >  *To:*> 
 > netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org *Cc:* Edward Picot> 
 >  *Sent:* Tuesday, Septem

Re: [NetBehaviour] on art and knowledge

[Edward Picot via NetBehaviour]

Michael,

Infuriatingly, I can access the full article if I click the link while 
I'm at work, but I can only access the precis if I click it at home. 
This didn't stop me reading it - when I was supposed to be getting on 
with something else - and I'll draw a veil over the question of how many 
patients are now dead as a result, when they ought to be still alive. 
But the worst thing is that my comments will have to be based on how I 
remember your article, because I don't have the actual text in front of 
me. From what I remember, you did rather a good job of demolishing other 
people's ideas about what might constitute the 'value' of art, but I was 
a little bit more suspicious when you came to your own ideas on the same 
subject. As I remember these came down to (a) the best art is the art 
which provokes in us the widest/most intense range of 
interpretations/reactions, and (b) art teaches us how to live. Both of 
these sound a bit like F R Leavis to me - in fact there was a whole 
school of literary criticism, particularly based in Cambridge, which was 
founded on the ideas that the best literature teaches us how to 
experience life more fully, distinguish and understand our own ideas, 
emotions and aesthetic responses more scrupulously, and thereby become 
more fully aware and morally capable people. This was used as an 
argument in favour of (a) doing literary studies at University level, 
and in fact making the study of literature (and by implication art more 
generally) into one of the most important University departments; and 
(b) preserving a canon of the 'best' literature and trying to make sure 
that it was routinely taught in schools. In other words it was a very 
'highbrow' argument; only the best literature could have the 
sought-after uplifting effect; so in the end it came down to 'Reading 
Shakespeare can make you a better person, but reading Longfellow can't', 
and then down to arguments about who deserved to be in the canon and who 
didn't. Henry James and Jane Austen - in (because they're ironic and 
morally scrupulous). Dickens - out (too much of a showman, too 
sentimental - until Leavis had a change of heart and suddenly decided 
'Hard Times' was a grownup novel). T S Eliot in, Milton out. Dante 
better than Milton. John Donne better than Spencer. And so forth.


Then along came Structuralism and said, 'Actually, we only find value in 
art because we've been trained to do so; an image means one thing if you 
see it in a museum and something entirely different if you see it on the 
front of somebody's T-shirt; the whole thing, the whole act of 
interpretation, our whole response to art, is a cultural construct, and 
the context in which we do our viewing/reading/listening is everything; 
it's probably more important than the work of art itself'. Which I don't 
entirely buy, but it had the effect, in about the 1970s, of knocking 
down the whole 'art makes you a better person' edifice.


Basically I think I shy away from any attempt to define what art does 
for us. I do think it can make us better people - or at least it can 
enrich our lives by giving us experiences we wouldn't have had 
otherwise. I do also think that some art is better than other art, and 
the breadth and depth and range of its effect have got something to do 
with how you would calibrate the differences. In other words, if I had 
to put my money anywhere, I might put it somewhere very close to where 
you've put yours. But I don't like to see any of this written down as a 
formula, because it always seems to come out wrong. I'm a great believer 
in responding to individual works of art on a case-by-case basis. And 
I'm also a believer, as someone who tries to be creative himself, in 
just trying to make the stuff that feels right, without worrying too 
much about philosophical justifications.


Edward

On 25/09/18 23:08, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
Hi Edward -that link should take you into a screen readable version.  > The way the thing is licensed means that's all I can send unless > 
people get the hard copy when it's out ( not sure when)... Mail me > 
personally if you still can't get into it... ( & thanks for > looking!) 
cheers m. > > > - *From:* Edward Picot via 
NetBehaviour >  *To:* > 
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org *Cc:* Edward Picot > 
 *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2018 6:02 > PM 
*Subject:* Re: [NetBehaviour] on art and knowledge > > Michael, > > I 
can't get into the full text! Do you need a login or something? > > 
Edward > > > On 25/09/18 11:46, Michael Szpakowski wrote: >> Hi folks I 
have a piece on this topic coming up in a forthcoming >> issue of the 
International Journal of Art and Design Education. >> They've posted a 
public 'read-only' copy of it here: >> https://rdcu.be/7BPg >> >> 
comments, responses, disagreements, whatever most welcome! cheers >> m. 
>> >> >> ___ NetBehaviour 
>> mailing list NetBehaviour@lists.ne

Re: [NetBehaviour] Advertising 2 New Roles at Furtherfield - Executive Director | Financial Administrator

[ruth catlow]

We are busy bunnies - hard at work under the FF-hood

More on "END"s (oh no, unfortunate and misleading acronym!) soon.

:)
Ruth

On 24/09/18 21:17, Helen Varley Jamieson wrote:


hi ruth,

sounds very interesting! looking forward to hearing more about the 
exciting new developments :)


h : )


On 21.09.2018 11:43, ruth catlow wrote:


Dear All,

We are currently advertising 2 new roles at Furtherfield as part of 
some new (very exciting) developments. Please forward this 
information to all the best people you know.


:)
Ruth


*.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:.*

*Advertising 2 New Roles at Furtherfield 


*

*Executive Director | Financial Administrator*

Furtherfield is an international organisation disrupting and 
democratising the arts in a world of advanced technologies. We 
diversify the people involved in shaping emerging arts and 
technologies through open tools and free thinking.  In a range of 
physical and digital contexts we collaborate locally and globally 
with artists, technologists, academics, organisations and the public 
to formulate new ideas and possibilities for art and technology. 
www.furtherfield.org


*Executive Director*
Deadline for applications 12pm Midday 5 October 2018

We invite applications for the role of Executive Director with a 
minimum of 5+ years experience working in the art and technology 
sector to realise the vision, cultivate the values and manage the 
growth of Furtherfield in a moment of great potential.


*Financial Administrator*
Deadline for applications 12pm Midday 19 October 2018

A reliable, diligent, Finance Administrator is required with a track 
record of successful financial administration and/or project 
management. The role will support the Executive Director to ensure 
the organisation has excellent accurate financial systems and 
reporting processes in place to ensure the organisation meets its 
business objectives.


https://www.furtherfield.org/current-vacancies/


--
Co-founder Co-director
Furtherfield

www.furtherfield.org

+44 (0) 77370 02879

Bitcoin Address 1G7SPFpvHhVEqn5trpNEcyNWbDcyZXuAnh

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@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour


--

helen varley jamieson

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



--
Co-founder Co-director
Furtherfield

www.furtherfield.org

+44 (0) 77370 02879

Bitcoin Address 1G7SPFpvHhVEqn5trpNEcyNWbDcyZXuAnh

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@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

[NetBehaviour] Furtherfield Archive. Nam June Paik – Video Philosopher. Interviewed by By Lynn Hershman Leeson.

[marc.garrett via NetBehaviour]

Furtherfield Archive. Nam June Paik – Video Philosopher.
Interviewed by By Lynn Hershman Leeson.

Lynn Hershman Leeson is a renowned and accomplished artist and filmmaker in her 
own right. Over the last three decades she has pioneered uses of new 
technologies in critical investigations of issues, recognised as key to the 
workings of our society today. She tackles the big questions surrounding: 
identity in a time of consumerism; privacy in a era of surveillance; the 
interfacing of humans and machines; the relationship between real and virtual 
worlds; and growing parts of the human body from DNA samples. Last year Modern 
Art Oxford hosted a major solo exhibition of her work Origins of a Species, 
Part 2 and she has work in The Electronic Superhighway, at Whitechapel Gallery, 
in London at the moment. Her work has had a strong influence on many 
contemporary artists working with technology. Recently, ZKM in cooperation with 
the Deichtorhallen Hamburg / Sammlung Falckenberg exhibited the first 
comprehensive retrospective of Leeson’s oeuvre, and also the most recent 
productions of her work. In May this year a book of the same name Civic Radar, 
will be published, featuring a comprehensive monograph of this Feminist pioneer 
in the fields of film and performance art, edited by Peter Weibel.

Nam June Paik was born in 1932 Seoul, Korea and died 2006. Many in the artworld 
regard him as a visionary artist, thinker, and innovator. Considered the 
“father of video art,” his groundbreaking use of video technology blurred past 
distinctions between science, fine art, and popular culture to create a new 
visual language. Paik’s interest in exploring the human condition through the 
lens of technology and science has created a far-reaching legacy that may be 
seen in broad recognition of new media art and the growing numbers of 
subsequent generations of artists who now use various forms of technology in 
their work.

Through his progressive ideas and artworks Paik dared to imagine a future where 
the technological and playful innovations that we now take for granted might 
exist. This interview with Hershman Leeson is timely, documenting the meeting 
of two imaginative beings who have changed the history of work at the 
intersection of art and technology. The issues they discuss are as important 
now as they were then.

Nam June Paik, “Merce/Digital,” 1988 single-channel video sculpture with 
vintage television cabinets and fifteen monitors; color, silent, collection of 
Roselyne Chroman Swig, Copyright Nam June Paik Estate. (Image courtesy Nam June 
Paik Estate)

https://www.furtherfield.org/nam-june-paik-video-philosopher/

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

[NetBehaviour] Rethinking AI through the politics of 1968. Dan Mcquillan

[marc.garrett via NetBehaviour]

Rethinking AI through the politics of 1968.

By Dan Mcquillan

This talk was given at the conference 'Rethinking the legacy of 1968: Left 
fields and the quest for common ground' held at The Centre for Cultural Studies 
Research, University of East London on September 22nd 2018

There's a definite resonance between the agitprop of '68 and social media. 
Participants in the UCU strike earlier this year, for example, experienced 
Twitter as a platform for both affective solidarity and practical 
self-organisation1. However, there is a different geneaology that speaks 
directly to our current condition; that of systems theory and cybernetics. What 
happens when the struggle in the streets takes place in the smart city of 
sensors and data? Perhaps the revolution will not be televised, but it will 
certainly be subject to algorithmic analysis. Let's not forget that 1968 also 
saw the release of '2001: A Space Odyssey' featuring the AI supercomputer HAL.

While opposition to the Vietnam war was a rallying point for the movements of 
'68, the war itself was also notable for the application of systems analysis by 
US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who attempted to make it, in modern 
parlance, a data-driven war. During the Vietnam war the hamlet pacification 
programme alone produced 90,000 pages of data and reports a month2, and the 
body count metric was published in the daily newspapers. The milieu that helped 
breed our current algorithmic dilemmas was the contemporaneous swirl of systems 
theory and cybernetics, ideas about emergent behaviour and experiments with 
computational reasoning, and the intermingling of military funding with the 
hippy visions of the Whole Earth Catalogue.

The double helix of DARPA and Silican Valley can be traced through the 
evolution of the web to the present day, where AI and machine learning are 
making inroads everywhere carrying their own narratives of revolutionary 
disruption; a Ho Chi Minh trail of predictive analytics. They are playing Go 
better than grand masters and preparing to drive everyone's car, while the 
media panics about AI taking our jobs. But this AI is nothing like HAL, it's a 
form of pattern finding based on mathematical minimisation; like a complex 
version of fitting a straight line to a set of points. These algorithms find 
the optimal solution when the input data is both plentiful and messy. 
Algorithms like backpropagation3 can find patterns in data that were 
intractable to analytical description, such as recognising human faces seen at 
different angles, in shadows and with occlusions. The algorithms of Ai crunch 
the correlations and the results often work uncannily well.

The rest of text here...
http://rethinking1968.today/

Marc Garrett

Co-Founder, Co-Director and main editor of Furtherfield.
Art, technology and social change, since 1996
http://www.furtherfield.org

Furtherfield Gallery & Commons in the park
Finsbury Park, London N4 2NQhttp://www.furtherfield.org/gallery
Currently writing a PhD at Birkbeck University, London
https://birkbeck.academia.edu/MarcGarrett
Just published: Artists Re:thinking the Blockchain
Eds, Ruth Catlow, Marc Garrett, Nathan Jones, & Sam Skinner
Liverpool Press - http://bit.ly/2x8XlMK

Marc Garrett – Unlocking Proprietorial Systems for Artistic Practice.
Posted in Journal Issues, Research Values. VOLUME 7, ISSUE 1, 2018
http://www.aprja.net/unlocking-proprietorial-systems-for-artistic-practice/

Furtherfield Editorial – Border Disruptions: Playbour & Transnationalisms.
https://www.furtherfield.org/editorial-border-disruptions-playbour-transnationalisms/

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour