Re: Latin as revolutionary act?
Retreating into a dead language is the most idiotic thing I've heard in a while - unless this is a symbolic parody of how isolated much of the academic humanities is. Why not just stick w the outdated 1970s critical theory that everyone already regularly invokes? Garnet Hertz On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 11:44 AM Iain Boal wrote: > Eheu Sean, > > As you say, 'Obscurity, especially in latin, is not a guarantee of > anything.’ A training in Latin used to be regarded as a portal to the > full resources of the English language, which is in effect a post-1066 > Anglo-Norman creole. Historically this involved a training in “classics” > (no accident that “classics” is cognate with “class”) and typically > correlated with a privileged education. > > The Welsh critic and *tribunus plebis* Raymond Williams grappled head-on > with the problem of English as a two-tiered diglossia. (He was looking in > at English from the outside, approaching the language as a native Welsh > speaker.) He saw clearly the problems produced by a language with class > inscribed so deeply in the structure, and for that reason he suggested a > regular column in the *Tribune* newspaper on 'difficult' words, > especially those with polysyllabic Greek and Latin roots. The editors > turned the proposal down, and so Williams published *Keywords*, never > having had the chance to take on, in the pages of *Tribune*, what he > thought was the disastrous policy of George Orwell, who had suggested that > proletarians (or ‘nobodies’, in Morlock’s formula) stick to simple > Anglo-Saxon monosyllables, more honest and less liable to fall into > Stalinist obscurantism and gobbledegook. Williams considered this strategy > a bogus and condescending populism that was all too easy a recommendation > coming from the dissident Etonian and classical scholar Eric Blair. > Ironically, learning Latin was, for Williams, a means to the precise > antithesis of Morlock’s conceited proposal. > > Iain > > > On 10 Nov 2019, at 07:14, Sean Cubitt wrote: > > Eheu Morlock > > sadly you picked the wrong language: the UK premiere B Johnson has made a > habit of adding latin tags to his outrageous posh-boy persona behind which > hides a refusal to publish a budget, the official financial predictions for > Brexit, the results of an enquiry into alleged financial impropriety and > the results of a major enquiry into Russian interference and donations to > his party. Obscurity, especially in latin, is not a gurantee of anything > > perhaps ancient Greek . . . > > Sean Cubitt > Goldsmiths, University of London > (U of Melbourne from Jan 2020) > -- > *From:* nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org > on behalf of nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org < > nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org> > *Sent:* 10 November 2019 11:00 > *To:* nettime-l@mail.kein.org > *Subject:* nettime-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 17 > > Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to > nettime-l@mail.kein.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nettime-l-ow...@mail.kein.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Latin as revolutionary act? (Morlock Elloi) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 14:48:36 -0800 > From: Morlock Elloi > To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org > Subject: Latin as revolutionary act? > Message-ID: <5dc74244.8090...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > What would be consequences of using Latin language among > group/clique/cabal/underground/elite for discourse, publishing, idea > exchange, tweets? (let's ignore for the moment how does one get the > above set to learn Latin) > > First of all, the noise goes down, as there is intellectual effort > barrier involved. Feeble-minded, distracted, low IQ, vacuous, and other > nobodies are out. It would be like early Internet (1990s) - only nice > and interesting people, no rabble. Only more resilient, because the > 'price' of learning tongue will never go down, unlike computer equipment > and access. > > Second, the cross-pollution from deluge of mechanically augmented media > firehoses goes way down. Language is the medium, and, of course, the > medium is the message. It's much harde
Re: The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel
9, at 14:20, Richard Sewell wrote: >> >> Sam - it's a self-description that works well for people who find >> themselves doing several of those things, and don't want to be pigeonholed >> into doing just one. >> >> Garnet makes the same mistake, I think: >> " Language typically expands into a rich lexicon of terms when a field >> grows, and the generality of ‘making’ is the polar opposite. Ceramicists, >> welders, sculptors, luthiers, amateur radio builders, furniture makers and >> inventors have been conflated into the singular category of makers, and the >> acceptance of this shift seems to indicate that any form of making is novel >> enough in popular culture that it is not worth discerning what is being >> built." >> >> If you're making some ceramics and some robots and some lutes, it just >> doesn't work to call yourself a luthier. You could think of the term as an >> acceptance that some people will be making all sorts of things, not going >> along with the traditional commercial specialisation of making skills. >> >> Yes, it might mean that you get paid less, but then it's not really a >> description of a job, it's a description of an activity that's often >> happily not commercial. >> >> One of the things about Make that made me sad was that it tended to >> presume that everybody aspired (or should aspire) to turn their making into >> some kind of business, and that was often missing the real point of the >> making. It assumed that if you liked to cook a nice dinner you'd be even >> happier running a restaurant. >> >> R. >> >> On 18/06/2019 21:11, Sam Dwyer wrote: >> > It was always fated to be a high poser and huckster zone, because if >> you were really good at making stuff, wouldn't you consider yourself an >> engineer or a designer or an artist first? >> >> >> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission >> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: >> >> >> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission >> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission > #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: -- Dr. Garnet Hertz Canada Research Chair in Design and Media Arts Emily Carr University of Art and Design 520 East 1st Avenue, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 0H2 # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel
Make was good, but it was > the classic startup problem - the correct person wasn't leading it. Dale > wasn't able to increase his vision beyond a classical version of monetizing > making. By not welcoming (and also actively discouraging) a bunch of his > audience, he limited some of the scope of the Maker movement. > > --xx--xx-- > > Best wishes -- > > Geoff > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 04:02:26PM -0700, Garnet Hertz wrote: > > James: I think part of the problem w Make / Maker Faire is that it was > at a > > crossroads of hacker culture, electronic art and commerce (and several > > other things) - but it conflated and misunderstood almost all of them. > > Maker Media only took all of this stuff and put it under the banner of > > leisure without really understanding industrial design, what motivates > > artists, how to sell stuff, etc. - it started and stopped as an exercise > or > > demo - and it lacked the fuel to move beyond this. The stuff you're doing > > in Sheffield looks amazing - it's really encouraging to see that you've > > kept this running. It's a great idea to include a storefront. > > > > As an update to the idea about starting some form of a new organization, > > I'm talking with Karen Marcelo (Survival Research Labs), Johannes > > Grenzfurthner (monochrom) and Mitch Altman (TV-B-Gone, Noisebridge) on > > Tuesday - we're going to kick around a few ideas. I'm not thinking of a > > replacement for Maker Faire or Make magazine - Adrian: I think a messy > > cluster is best - but I see some value in putting a few ideas forward to > > try to bring people together. I found the dorkbot network very useful and > > interesting, for example. > > > > I'll report back with more ideas in about a week, > > > > Garnet > > > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, 8:33 am Minka Stoyanova, > > wrote: > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I've really been enjoying this discussion in the wake of Make's > > > dissolution. As noted, the corporatization, whitewashing, and > > > delocalization of potentially critical and creative diy approaches was > > > certainly a problem with the "maker movement" as defined by Make. I > also > > > completely agree that the focus on 3D printing over CNC, laser > cutting, or > > > (even) traditional building is a problem. I'm excited about Garnet's > > > proposals for a new direction/umbrella for critical approaches as well > as > > > Adrian's proposals, that recall arts and crafts ideas for 21st century > > > problems. > > > > > > I wonder though, about the educational angle. My own local makerspace > as > > > well as local non-profits that aim to bring tech education to young > people > > > (often underserved) relied on the Make / "maker" phenomenon for tools, > > > educational resources, and funding. Perhaps making an LED blink isn't > > > really interesting for a critically-minded artist; as a > critically-minded > > > artist, I certainly feel that way. But, it's certainly a stepping > stone for > > > tech education. Make had a significant role in that sphere. > > > > > > However, I see an potentially interesting/exciting new direction that > > > could come of the dissolution of Make's stronghold in the realm of > > > education. Tech education could be more than "teaching electronics to > kids" > > > -- which is *very* important, in my opinion. It could (and I think, > > > should) include teaching critical approaches to technology, teaching > media > > > literacy, critical thinking, and environmental thinking. I think the > > > discussion here could point towards ways of bringing those perspectives > > > into what was, under Make, a largely naive approach. > > > > > > Is there a space in what Adrian and Garnet's proposals for youth > > > education? ...for educating the next generation? ...or, for aiding the > > > educators of the next generation? > > > > > > Minka > > > (trying to contribute and not just "lurk" so much) > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:56 AM James Wallbank > wrote: > > > > > >> Responses both to Richard, Adrian and Garnet - great points! (Hope > this > > >> doesn't make things difficult!) > > >> > > >> I think that, taking a longer perspective, the key question we have to > > >> ask is whether the
Re: Periodizing With Control
ese mystical 6 pages of Deleuze's > writings! Voila!": > > Could it be that the final sketch of control, the “Postscript on Control > Societies,” encrypts the kind of multithreaded historical method that is > necessary for engaging with the epistemic demands of the period it > ostensibly defines? > > I am read in Deleuze, adore his thought, and I've never understood why > people have this sort of "there's gold in them hills!" attitude about the > Postscript in particular. It's of very minor academic interest at best that > Deleuze makes an uncharacteristic judgment call (things are getting worse, > not better). I'd actually love it if anyone on this list would like to > convince me otherwise. > > But back to the point...maybe this text isn't unhinged from reality, but > demonstrates the reality that academic grooming is primarily aimed to keep > academia alive. So Seb and many of us here think thoughts just lofty enough > to subordinate direct action to spending inordinate amounts of time reading > and writing theses that basically say "history isn't neat, everything is in > play". > > And yet! I like to read texts like these! They inspire me. I work in open > source tech now and ideas like these both remind me that what I do is > culturally important, and WAY more important than my ego needs, it's a real > site of struggle. When I share these ideas with my collaborators, we think > critically together about how our abstract plans will hit the "ground" as > habitus for users. > > TLDR if you think a work of theory is too abstract, it's probably > inspiring someone "on the ground", anyway. if you're uncomfortable with a > division of labor whereby academics do this and other people do other > stuff, take my and probably most other nettimers' lives as evidence that > such a division is not fixed > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:25 PM Garnet Hertz > wrote: > >> I'm likely going to get torn apart for saying this, but in regards to >> "Periodizing With Control"... who cares? What are the implications of this? >> >> Seb is super smart and this is nicely crafted and researched - but this >> lacks any sort of case study, place, context, time or any connection to the >> real world. It's a bit like Foucault theorising about a concept, Deleuze >> putting a layer on top of it, Jameson reinterpreting a layer on top of >> that, Galloway building on top of that, and Seb embellishing that. It's the >> standard incantation of names that resembles an item that has 5 layers of >> paint (or clay) on it but the base is lost in the process. >> >> While all this was going on, the base layer of world is literally melting >> down, politics and nationalism has gone to hell, academic institutions are >> in a tailspin and the writing has never taken notice - or at least this >> text doesn't notice. I'd argue (and would love to be proven wrong, but) >> this text is completely unhinged from reality. No? >> >> Garnet >> >> >> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019, 6:29 pm Nil, wrote: >> >>> Periodizing With Control >>> >>> by Seb Franklin >>> >>> This essay is guided by the following question: what kinds of critical >>> possibilities become legible if one reads Gilles Deleuze’s >>> conceptualization of control societies both as a work of periodization >>> theory and as a theory of periodization? In other words, how might one read >>> control in methodological terms? One of the motivations for this inquiry is >>> Fredric Jameson’s observation that periodizing hypotheses “tend to >>> obliterate difference and to project an idea of the historical period as >>> massive homogeneity (bounded on either side by inexplicable chronological >>> metamorphoses and punctuation marks” (1991, 3-4). Jameson’s solution to >>> this problem is to conceive of the “cultural dominant” that replaces the >>> concept of style within aesthetic analysis and that thus allows for “the >>> presence and coexistence of a range of different, yet subordinate, >>> features” (1991, 4). The features that Deleuze attributes to control >>> suggest the possibility that this analytical rubric can be extended to the >>> analysis of “dominant” features that occur not in spheres conventionally >>> described in aesthetic (or stylistic) terms, such as architecture, >>> literature, and visual art, but in material- discursive arrangements like >>> governmentality, technology, and economics. A close reading of Deleuze’s >>>
Re: The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel
t;> have sprung out of the world of makers, but only a small fraction of the >> people that want to make things actually want to make it into a business. >> It's one of the things about Make's approach that I never really got on >> with - the idea that there was a sort of admirable or even inevitable >> progression from making things for yourself to starting a business. >> >> Richard >> >> On 12/06/2019 16:19, James Wallbank wrote: >> >> Hi Adrian, >> >> I'm really interested in this comment: >> >> "There are people in the space who see it as a way to bootstrap their >> startup, and there is a risk that it can be exploited by someone only out >> for themselves, but the culture of the space mostly manages to protect >> itself from that." >> >> My view is that the key to wider adoption of superlocal making is not >> just to allow, but to encourage people to use your space to bootstrap their >> startup, and find some way to that the space benefits via that. >> >> In our case at "Makers", we manufacture for others for money, so there's >> nobody we like better than people who are bootstrapping a startup and >> shifting lots of product! As peoples' micro-enterprises take off, we make, >> they pay, and they take away items of greater value than we charge. >> Everyone's winning! >> >> The issue, it seems to me, is that many makers want to make "just out of >> interest" and manufacture fascinating things that just don't make economic >> sense. For us, having a shop in front of our workshop really helps - when >> you put something on the shelf, you can start, quite easily, to see what >> price it must have to sell (not always lower than you hoped, BTW). Typical >> maker products, chock-full of sensors, logic and LEDs, often cost more than >> people will pay for them. >> >> Getting to grips with the reality of products, and the hard facts of >> economies of scale (a wifi enabled, music playing, colour changing >> light-bulb retails for £6!) starts people thinking about "the new economy". >> Things people are prepared to pay a sensible price for are ludicrously >> specific and particular. They're about them, their lives, and their >> particular context. >> >> This flies in the face of just about everything we've been taught (and >> how we've been taught) about making: look for the common factors, ways to >> increase efficiency, ways to generalise solutions, methods to scale up. >> Perhaps we need to start thinking about the unique, the special, the "only >> works here and now". Perhaps the things that the new artisans will >> manufacture in each locality will be not just the hard to replicate at >> scale, but the pointless to replicate at scale. >> >> Cheers, >> >> James >> >> P.S. Was talk of the death of Nettime somewhat premature? >> >> = >> >> On 12/06/2019 15:20, Adrian McEwen wrote: >> >> >> There are people in the space who see it as a way to bootstrap their >> startup, and there is a risk that it can be exploited by someone only out >> for themselves, but the culture of the space mostly manages to protect >> itself from that. >> >> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission >> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> https://www.avg.com >> >> >> >> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission >> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: >> >> On 13/06/2019 03:55, Garnet Hertz wrote: >> >> This discussion is great - I just subscribed with Chris's message to me - >> it's nice to connect with like-minded people around this topic. I've >> obviously been hanging around the wrong places online (like Facebook). >> >> "maker as a disconnection to class struggle" - I could talk about this >> for YEARS
Re: Periodizing With Control
I'm likely going to get torn apart for saying this, but in regards to "Periodizing With Control"... who cares? What are the implications of this? Seb is super smart and this is nicely crafted and researched - but this lacks any sort of case study, place, context, time or any connection to the real world. It's a bit like Foucault theorising about a concept, Deleuze putting a layer on top of it, Jameson reinterpreting a layer on top of that, Galloway building on top of that, and Seb embellishing that. It's the standard incantation of names that resembles an item that has 5 layers of paint (or clay) on it but the base is lost in the process. While all this was going on, the base layer of world is literally melting down, politics and nationalism has gone to hell, academic institutions are in a tailspin and the writing has never taken notice - or at least this text doesn't notice. I'd argue (and would love to be proven wrong, but) this text is completely unhinged from reality. No? Garnet On Thu, 13 Jun 2019, 6:29 pm Nil, wrote: > Periodizing With Control > > by Seb Franklin > > This essay is guided by the following question: what kinds of critical > possibilities become legible if one reads Gilles Deleuze’s > conceptualization of control societies both as a work of periodization > theory and as a theory of periodization? In other words, how might one read > control in methodological terms? One of the motivations for this inquiry is > Fredric Jameson’s observation that periodizing hypotheses “tend to > obliterate difference and to project an idea of the historical period as > massive homogeneity (bounded on either side by inexplicable chronological > metamorphoses and punctuation marks” (1991, 3-4). Jameson’s solution to > this problem is to conceive of the “cultural dominant” that replaces the > concept of style within aesthetic analysis and that thus allows for “the > presence and coexistence of a range of different, yet subordinate, > features” (1991, 4). The features that Deleuze attributes to control > suggest the possibility that this analytical rubric can be extended to the > analysis of “dominant” features that occur not in spheres conventionally > described in aesthetic (or stylistic) terms, such as architecture, > literature, and visual art, but in material- discursive arrangements like > governmentality, technology, and economics. A close reading of Deleuze’s > theorization of control reveals those three threads to be knotted together > in ways that both invite and are irreducible to historical breaks. Because > of this, Deleuze’s writing on control societies points towards modes of > historical analysis that can account for complex assemblages of epistemic > abstractions and the concrete situations that undergird and (for worse and > for better) exceed them. > > It is certainly the case that periodizing gestures appear to ground the > essays “Having an Idea in Cinema” (1998; first delivered as a lecture at La > Fémis in 1987) and “Postscript on Control Societies,” as well the > conversation with Antonio Negri published as “Control and Becoming” (1995; > first published in 1990). [1] Across these texts Deleuze names and sketches > the contours of a sociopolitical and economic logic that diverges in > important ways from the earlier regimes of sovereignty and discipline > theorized by Michel Foucault. In the earliest of what one might call the > control texts, ostensibly a commentary on the cinema of Jean-Marie Straub > and Danièle Huillet, Deleuze itemizes the signature components of > disciplinary societies—“the accumulation of structures of confinement” > (prisons, hospitals, workshops, and schools)—in order to demarcate a period > in which “we” were “entering into societies of control that are defined > very differently” (1998, 17). These newer types of societies are signaled > by a specific mode of social management: the age of control comes about > when “those who look after our interests do not need or will no longer need > structures of confinement,” with the result that the exemplary forms of > social regulation begin to “spread out” (1998, 17-18). > > So, the dissolution of institutional spaces and the concomitant ‘spreading > out’ of disciplinary power marks the first characteristic of control > societies and, apparently, establishes their difference from arrangements > centered on ‘classical’ sovereignty or disciplinary power. The exemplary > diagram here is the highway system, in which “people can drive infinitely > and ‘freely’ without being at all confined yet while still being perfectly > controlled” (1998, 18). In “Control and Becoming” Deleuze once again speaks > of the passage through sovereignty and discipline and the breakdown of the > latter’s sites of confinement, but he adds a second valence in the form of > a discussion of technology that is only hinted at in the earlier piece’s > allusions to information and communication. In this conversation Deleuze > again appears b
Re: The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel
the space > >>>>> mostly manages to protect itself from that. > >>>>> > >>>> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission > >>>> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > >>>> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > >>>> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > >>>> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > >>>> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > >>>> https://www.avg.com > >>> > >>> > >>> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission > >>> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > >>> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > >>> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > >>> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > >>> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > >> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission > >> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > >> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > > > > > > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission > > #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission > #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: -- Dr. Garnet Hertz Canada Research Chair in Design and Media Arts Emily Carr University of Art and Design 520 East 1st Avenue, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 0H2 # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel
the commercial and neoliberal dimensions of > what fell under the new Make umbrella, at the expense of the less-easily > monetized ones. In some ways, this goaded people to tighten their narrative > about what they liked about locally and counter-culturally produced > material culture, as Garnet Hertz did with his zines [ > http://www.conceptlab.com/criticalmaking/]. But in most ways it exposed a > lot of people to the idea of getting involved in material production in an > anodyne, corporate-friendly way. Make's culture co-opted anything > threatening to markets, and encouraged a false consciousness that might > change *how* but not *what* is made. Not to say that the "Make" hegemony > was complete, but it was strong. Even those of us with older and very > different platforms suddenly found ourselves living in his maker > (conceptual) space. > > My main concern now (apart from the people now unemployed) is: if the > "Make" enterprise collapses, what might be the collateral damage? Will the > more organic threads it co-opted suffer? > > My intuition is that this is more an opportunity than a danger to less > commercial, more transformative initiatives around material culture. The > hype of Make has certainly brought a lot of people increased access. It > helped a few important retailers (Sparkfun, Adafruit Industries) to > increase their visibility; these companies differentiated themselves from > the upstream engineering-focused companies (Digikey, Mouser) by providing > solid educational material, and kits and tools specifically made for > beginners. But unless the larger STEM fever breaks -- unlikely since it is > driven by the US military and the US tech industry -- I don't see a sudden > disappearance of these companies. Projects like Arduino existed before > Make, and while Make no doubt boosted sales, there will continue to be > art/design/engineering crossovers making free projects. Of more concern, > Make and Maker faires also did help quite a few maker spaces to be created, > giving them guidance and exposing them to peer networks. Offering better > cooperative templates seems a key area where some other free/libre > initiatives could step up. > > I have argued before that maker spaces could be much more transformative > (dangerous) if they could facilitate a strong interaction with local > issues, knowledge, and economics. The "maker movement" has been an > impediment to this; projecting from the Bay Area it emphasized laser > cutters over labor, technical fascination over criticality, and reinforcing > rather than questioning solutionist approaches. Perhaps now some other > platforms can fill the vacuum from below. Scholars like Cindy Kohtala, Kay > Braybrooke, Adrian Smith, and Silvia Lindtner have all been doing great > work in these areas; see for example: > > http://digicults.org/callforpapers/cfp-alternative-histories-in-diy-cultures-and-maker-utopias/ > > In the spirit of including new voices on Nettime, I'm bringing these > experts in through bcc. Garnet is, I believe, on Nettime and I'd love to > hear his thoughts, or maybe he could update us on his new projects. > > Chris. > > PS Felix & Ted, while I love the idea of *refreshing* Nettime, have you > thought of approaching Tim O'Reilly? I'm sure he could rebrand it as a > Nettime 2.0. Just remind him: time is money, and net is better than gross. > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 3:21 PM Bruce Sterling wrote: > >> *Well, so much for the O’Reilly Web 2.0 version of popular mechanics. >> Fifteen years is not too bad a run by the standards of an increasingly >> jittery California Ideology. Now what? — Bruce S >> >> >> Maker Media goes broke >> https://hackaday.com/2019/06/07/maker-media-ceases-operations/ >> >> Over the years we’ve had the dubious honor of bidding farewell to >> numerous companies that held a special place in the hearts of hackers and >> makers. We’ve borne witness to the demise of Radio Shack, TechShop, and >> PrintrBot, and even shed a tear or two when Toys “R” Us shut their doors. >> But as much as it hurt to see those companies go, nothing quite compares to >> this. Today we’ve learned that Maker Media has ceased operations. >> >> Between the first issue of Make magazine in 2005 and the inaugural Maker >> Faire a year later, Maker Media deftly cultured the public face of the >> “maker movement” for over a decade. They didn’t create maker culture, but >> there’s no question that they put a spotlight on this part of the larger >> tech world. In fact, it’s not an exaggeration to say that the shuttering of >> Maker Media could have far reaching consequences t
