Re: nettime Critical strategies in art and media gets it wrong
I rather like the idea of comparing the 20's to the 60's/70's. But I don't agree that there was *no* major leftist protest movement. The labor movement was very strong. There was an anti-war movement against WWI and there was a position against the draft. If you dug around enough you could probably find a comparable tragedy to Kent State in there. I'm thinking about corporations like ATT buying libraries for major universities and teaching union busting management tactics. There must have been a student backlash that just passed unnoticed... --- On Mon, 5/24/10, Michael H Goldhaber mgo...@well.com wrote: From: Michael H Goldhaber mgo...@well.com Subject: Re: nettime Critical strategies in art and media gets it wrong To: Nettime nettime-l@kein.org Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 5:08 PM I'd like to point out that the 1920's were also an era of sex, drugs and rock'nroll or at least loosened sexual mores, illicit drugs including alcohol, and jazz, which of course also has African-American roots. But as far as I know there was no major leftish protest movement, at least until October, 1929. The '20's saw a resurgence of the Klan, in fact. # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: nettime Critical strategies in art and media gets it wrong
This is probably as good a time as any to pass along an interesting theory, propounded by Rop Gonggrijp, co-founder of Xs4all.nl and foe of bent (or easily bendable) electronic voting machines, about where the famous Dutch tolerance for drugs, sex and gay marriage came from and where it may be going. It's from an interview in the ps supplement Het Parool, 8 May 2010. I think the theory has legs. I'm elaborating quite a bit, so any hyperbole is mine. Basically, it's that Amsterdam wouldn't be the hippie Xanadu it was if not for all the Europeans, Americans (North, South and Central) and others fleeing the collapse or non-occurrence of the Sixties Revolution in their home countries. The US also had the draft and the Vietnam War, and Europe offered war resisters something a little more exotic than Canada. In the Netherlands, with the size and population of New Jersey, an influx of cultural refugees (and draft dodgers) could have a larger impact than in, say, France or the UK. The battles were fought mostly in the 1960s, but, where they were won, the spoils, like the first coffeeshop or the Wet Dreams Film Festival, were enjoyed in the 1970s. If true, then the cooling of the cultural climate here at least since 2000 is not surprising. It coincides with ongoing Great Baby-Boomer Extinction, and the relatively smaller numbers of newer generations apparently unable to do any more than squander the inheritance of the 1960s. Balkenende II, probably the most successful of the four coalition governments Pieter Balkenende headed, consisted of the Christian Democrats, no friends of the hippies, the People's Freedom Democracy party, which didn't care about hippies one way or the other but wanted to privatize everything (and slam the door on darker-hued would-be immigrants) and the inoffensive D66 (Democrats of 1966 - Provos who donned ties?). The third party could be fed a few crumbs or simply cowed into going along with the other two parties, in the name of harmony. The VVD I think were far more effective than the CDA bluenoses in destroying the fabled Dutch lifestyle by making it financially unfeasible except for the well-off. Gutting social services, reducing subsidized housing--in short, administering the economic solutions of the Chicago Boys, Thatcher, Reagan, Sarkozy, et al. to the problem of citizens having enough leisure time to make trouble for their sociopolitical betters. I've known too many bitter old hippies to become one and rail at those goddamn kids who pissed away a good thing when they had it and the ecopocalypse can't come soon enough, so I'll just conclude that the good life in Amsteram may not be doomed but it certainly is in mortal danger. Selah. On 25-mei-2010, at 2:08, Michael H Goldhaber wrote: I'd like to point out that the 1920's were also an era of sex, drugs and rock'nroll or at least loosened sexual mores, illicit drugs including alcohol, and jazz, which of course also has African- American roots. But as far as I know there was no major leftish protest movement, at least until October, 1929. The '20's saw a resurgence of the Klan, in fact. Half a century later, after 1973 and the end of the draft, the opposition movement faded rapidly, though sex, drugs and even rock'n'roll didn't. Best, Michael # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: nettime Critical strategies in art and media gets it wrong
I'd like to point out that the 1920's were also an era of sex, drugs and rock'nroll or at least loosened sexual mores, illicit drugs including alcohol, and jazz, which of course also has African-American roots. But as far as I know there was no major leftish protest movement, at least until October, 1929. The '20's saw a resurgence of the Klan, in fact. Half a century later, after 1973 and the end of the draft, the opposition movement faded rapidly, though sex, drugs and even rock'n'roll didn't. Best, Michael On May 24, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Flick Harrison wrote: I have to put in a word for Rock and Roll here in relation to May 1968. ... # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: nettime Critical strategies in art and media gets it wrong
Not that I was around then, but: Casey Hayden and Mary King wrote Feminism and the Civil Rights Movement in 1965. NOW was founded in 1966. And (forgive the parochialism but I love this example): in May 1967 this poster appeared at the University of Chicago: a man with a prominent SDS t-shirt expounds at great length while standing on a platform being hauled by four women. Caption: movement women meeting to discuss strategy to end ridiculous and loony DISCRIMINATION AGAINST US in campus 'radical' organizations. GOODBYE TO SHITWORK. You can certainly argue about whether any of these things constitute flowering, but they were there before '68. On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Michael H Goldhaber mgo...@well.comwrote: Martha, I perhaps incorrectly left out feminism because it seemed to me it flowered after '68, more than before. But that might have been more especially in the organized movement.( The first noted feminist march was in '70. The Stonewall riots were in '69. So both followed '68, with the happenings on many college campuses ,notably Columbia, as well as in France, Prague and Chicago.) Of course, The 2nd Sex came out well before. I did mention some books, but you are right about the others. Brecht was quite visible in the very early '60's. But how books are read, or even what drugs end up doing, depends on other factors, I believe. In the context of the times, Tolkien and the movie 2001 might have been as influential or more than anything you name, but Tolkien probably had a conservative intent. Reductiveness is in the eye of the beholder, it seems. Best, Michael # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
nettime Critical strategies in art and media gets it wrong
In the newly published, brief conference book or booklet , “Critical strategies in art and media:Perspectives on New Cultural Practices” at one point Ted Byfield (on the panel) asks the sensible question: “I’d like to ask a question to some of my elders here.We’ve heard various references to 1968 here, but what did all those ‘68ers have in 1967?” The transcript continues, “Audience: Drugs!” Byfield then asks ”Any other suggestions about what they had before the efflorescence that apparently surprised even them?” “Jim Fleming [one of the two convenors and moderators]: Sex, drugs and rock’n’roll.” Fleming then added something about the relative affluence (of students?) in the ’60’s, -- itself a highly debatable assertion. Fleming’s answer is glaringly incomplete, at best. The fact that the participants and the audience accepted it indicates why the whole enterprise of the conference was virtually meaningless, I submit. I was finishing up my Ph.D. In ’68, therefore older than many if not most of the participants in the events, in which I also had a minor role. Let me try therefore to list in no definite order some of what we had in ’67 or earlier in the ‘60‘s that helped lead to ’68: The feelings against racism and for justice and equality that emerged from reaction to the Nazis after WWII, from the civil rights movement and the anti-colonial movement, all of which were well in evidence before ’68; Un-precedented numbers of young people in the universities and colleges, as the baby-boom generation had begun to reach early adulthood; Television news showing the civil-rights and anti-colonial movements in action along with other demonstrations, offering easy-to-understand and compelling role models of resistance; John F. Kennedy’s inaugural and anti-individualist line “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”, along with the founding of the Peace Corps; The continued opposition to the activities of groups such as the House un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and, related to that, the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley in ’64; The Port Huron Statement of ’62 that founded SDS, and called for a variety of democratic socialism; the founding (’66) of the Black Panther Party The ’62 publication of Michael Harrington’s “The Other America,” and of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”; the ’63 translation of Fanon’s (’61) “Wretched of the Earth;” Malcolm X’s ‘ 65 “Autobiography.” In the US, at least , the draft, which put all young men in jeopardy of having to go and fight the Vietnam war, which, as it dragged on, along with its repercussions (such as the self-immolation of Buddhist monks) was also seen on TV; New and relatively cheap jet travel, which enabled many semi-affluent young people to mix with their cohort in other countries, thus adding a sense of a single wide youth movement; The relatively recent Cuban Revolution and its aftermath, such as the hunting down of Che, (and the influential pamphlet by Regis Debray “Revolution in the Revolution”) and Mao’s Cultural Revolution, which was understood idealistically as democratizing decision making and opposing the stultifying power of bureaucrats and experts. Even LBJ’s ‘ 64 promise of the “Great Society.” Note that neither anything which would have gone under the rubric of art nor the sort of people’s media discussed in the conference played a very strong role, although certainly sermons in the southern black churches or Mario Savio’s impromptu speech from on top of a captured police car in Berkeley in ’64 did do so. The most prominent artform in moving people to take political stances was probably not rock, but rather folk and folk-like music, Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, early Dylan, etc. (In derision, Tom Lehrer wrote [in about ’65] : “We are the Folk Song Army, Everyone of us cares. We all hate poverty war and injustice, Unlike the rest of you squares.” But that just proves that those who listened to folk songs in concert or recordings or more informally heard a distinct and intended political message.) Also movies, such as “Dr. Strangelove” and If helped increase opposition to established authority, and probably novels such as “Catch 22’ (’61) and even “Lord of the Rings.” But most of the relevant factors had more to do with the confluence of demographics, new technologies, the lessons of recent history, the examples of other and on-going social movements, etc., and frankly political statements and actions.1968 was to some degree a high tide but also a turning point in all these political movements, in some ways leading directly to a conservative backlash, though also helping to institutionalize certain gains and demands. “Critical strategies” fails to take into account comparatively wide picture of the current situation, instead focusing on “art” as a source of political inspiration and action all by itself. This is of course a narrow and very
Re: nettime Critical strategies in art and media gets it wrong
Michael: I entered UW Madison in '66 and had a moderate role in the events of '68, as well as a front-row seat (since I lived on Gilman Street.) Recall that the radicals in Madtown were often red-diaper babies from New York, at that time, and you'll get the flavor. It was -- for most involved -- much more of a PARTY than an inclination to join a party (i.e. SWP, CPUSA, RU, etc.) Get arrested -- get laid! I later joined SDS and became a serious Luxemburgist but that was long after the tear-gas had disappeared. The arguments about who had the better parties between the counterculture and the anti-war movement has been widely chronicled, often by those who think that someone (i.e. usually the CIA) was behind the SDRR to try to siphon off support from the protests. The fact that the CIA had actually infiltrated the leadership of the Mobilization (and related organizations) somehow gets left out in that analysis. Famously, many tell the story of the Grateful Dead concert in New Haven that wiped out a protest march at Yale pretty much tells it all. Sorry . . . but SDRR was the correct answer. Mark Stahlman 'New York CIty In a message dated 5/18/2010 11:09:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mgo...@well.com writes: In the newly published, brief conference book or booklet , ???Critical strategies in art and media:Perspectives on New Cultural Practices??? at one point Ted Byfield (on the panel) asks the sensible question: ???I???d like to ask a question to some of my elders here.We???ve heard various references to 1968 here, but what did all those ???68ers have in 1967 ... # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: nettime Critical strategies in art and media gets it wrong
The radical right of radical rights of extreme self-interest could be added to the list of pre-1968 influences. And the aesthiticization of politics and culture was on the rise, again, then getting a toehold, now a hegemon, primarily through the supremacism of literature over the other arts, succinctly through the vaunting of criticism -- alway text, blind to other types -- then, the hypervaluation of critical theorism now, legal theory the undergirder of privileged discourse. The mutual admiration of critical theorists and lawyers and their hegemonic declaration of a nation of laws, not of men, nicely comports the demand that literacy is must have to be a responsible citizen, that is a believer in writ. It is not often noted that critical theorists and lawyers are conjoined in the radical rights of extreme self-interest, indolent and duplicitous. Other hegemons pre-68 are the rise of publishing, including publish or perish employment terrorism which produced agri-businesses of printed matter of much bulk and low nourishment, volumes as well as fattened bibliographies and resumes. Perhaps most pertinent for this hangout is the rise of academies of great bulk and low nourishment which herded youngsters into forced feeding pens, still going on, under the rubric of necessity of higher education or else marginalization and you bet, terrrifying poverty. Those to whom this was done are compelled to repeat it. Yes, there were subcultures of this in the arts and sciences, learning from the success model of the BBA and MBA. 1968 was a peak aestheticization of politics without risk. That drug of pretenstiousness is still widely consumed. Ponder May 68 in France: its delirium remains insurpassable, while 68 elsewhere is imginary nostalgia of the deadhead. Pre-68 sex and rock and roll was mostly prophilactic braggardy, when exposed to the post-68 actuality, STD, AIDS and overdose cleansed the experimenters seduced by marketers, then and now aided and abetted by aged addicts practicing critical theorists peddling apologia for justice system incarceraters. In 68 youthism became the superdrug, and still is the elitism of choice for marketers of education in bulk via this very medium. # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: nettime Critical strategies in art and media gets it wrong
Martha, I perhaps incorrectly left out feminism because it seemed to me it flowered after '68, more than before. But that might have been more especially in the organized movement.( The first noted feminist march was in '70. The Stonewall riots were in '69. So both followed '68, with the happenings on many college campuses ,notably Columbia, as well as in France, Prague and Chicago.) Of course, The 2nd Sex came out well before. I did mention some books, but you are right about the others. Brecht was quite visible in the very early '60's. But how books are read, or even what drugs end up doing, depends on other factors, I believe. In the context of the times, Tolkien and the movie 2001 might have been as influential or more than anything you name, but Tolkien probably had a conservative intent. Reductiveness is in the eye of the beholder, it seems. Best, Michael On May 18, 2010, at 7:32 PM, martha rosler wrote: wrong? well, it depends on what you are referring to. ... # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
