@Rob >>>>> "let's reframe participation in social media along the model of Happenings Let's make a net we want to be citizens of, for a while.²
Yes, a call-to-action! Bravo!! I think I have not been clear enough when I use the term ³social media,² which of course is a concept that has been co-opted by the giants: Facebook, Twitter, etc. But when I use the term "social media,² I use it in the broadest sense, meaning media systems & techniques that enable many-to-many social interactions via the network. So that also includes mailing lists, blogs, bulletin boards, etc., all ³social media.² So if in fact we have aspirations for using social media without being under the watchful eye of big data, without being part of some grand conspiratorial ³internet of things,² without selling out to a consumerist ideology, let¹s at least conceptualize an approach to networked systems that can be expressed with any social media platform we may invent or even dream of. Let¹s consider ideas that are not platform-dependent, a conceptual framework that is under our control, that emerges from our histories & our performances, our narrative, & our paradigms. Randall From: Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 8:46 PM To: Randall Packer <rpac...@zakros.com> Cc: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>, ruth catlow <ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution On Thu, 5 Mar, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Randall Packer <rpac...@zakros.com> wrote: > @Ruth & @Rob, some additional ruminations on the connection between Net > practice, the Happenings & the 1960s in general: > > With the Internet & social media, like the Happenings, there are opportunities > for collective participation, distributed processes, real-time systems of > performance, information sharing, and viewer interaction. An obvious objection to this is that social media sites are private spaces like shopping malls rather than public spaces like parks or town squares. An obvious response to that objection is so what, and anyway have any of you ever actually read the park bylaws. ;-) Claiming privatised (network) space for the public that is (supposedly economically) exploited to give it its value, and doing so under the banner of art, is a political strategy (for those of us who like political strategies) that has the potential to wrong-foot affective capital's enclosures. It will also be fun. So with the knowledge that we're dancing until the police unplug the sound system, let's reframe participation in social media along the model of Happenings, and reclaim the TAZ nature of the early net(s). Let's make a net we want to be citizens of, for a while. > Whereas process and documentation was essential to the shift away and > dissolution of the object in Fluxus and later forms of performance & > conceptual art, etc., the modern day database, content management system, We all live in databases now. LambdaMOO is still there, but there's far, far, far more of us living in Facebook and Amazon. We can make new databases and networks, or detourne existing ones. There are always possibilities. We just have to believe that there are. > and social media offer new ways to fully integrate the artistic process into a > dynamically-shared, distributed network. Integrating art production into a *peer-to-peer* network would have a very different moral character from integrating it into Facebook. But we can mock up the latter on the former. - Rob.
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
