| integer on Thu, 8 Jun 2000 08:51:31 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [Nettime-bold] (no subject) |
01 addtl obzervaz!e 4 dze modl c!t!zn at humanark!tektrz = 0+0 ark!tektr = shal b konztruktd dze futur = agr!kultr = ma! u!sh 2 komput. = 01 tree ztrukt = 01 monumnt dze konzerva apartmnt du = !nhab!t = shal b al!v + grou!ng dze koka kola t!e du = zufokatd b! = aus! shal breathe. = dze futur = 01 tranz!z!e 4rom korporat fasc!zm 2 korporat barbar!zm. = ma! b dez!rabl uak!ng 4rom dze modl z!t!zn eufor!a + h!zter!a = krak!ng + ke!uord ke!uord ur pop.kultr net.t!.me m9nd konta!nr c!ao.nn >open source - lo.tekk mob akz!on \ neu + !mproved fasc!zm > >l!nux - lo.tekk rez!kld zkaled dev!az!on ov 01 korporat agregat > >komputer - lo.tekk 01 shortkut 2 m9nd akt!v!t! > >human@architexturez.com - rough ezt!maz!e - perfa bubl gum m2 ape > >d!zolvd kem!klz = bathe dze env!ronmnt > > > >eusocial.com -> superb source for male fascist antibodies. > > > > > pre.konssept!ÿn > meeTz ver!f1kat!ÿn. > > > >- > >Netochka Nezvanova >f3.MASCHIN3NKUNST >@www.eusocial.com >17.hzV.tRL.478 > e > | > | +---------- > | | < > \\----------------+ | n2t > | > > e > > human@architexturez.com t!pd 0+1 elongatd teczt regurg!tat!ng masz med!a memez >> the following is an inaugural essay for the perspectives section of >> the newly redesigned http://www.architexturez.com website, which >> will launch sometime in the next few weeks. if you're interested >> in writing about the natural and built environment, actual and-or >> virtual, please contact me at human@architexturez.com. thanks. bc >> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>open-source architecture 6/7/2000 >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>the computer industry has borrowed terminology from the discipline of >>architecture to describe structural and conceptual workings of electronic >>computational machines and its designers: computer architecture and >>software architects. >> >>now, what if architecture borrowed popular terminology from the discipline >>of computer science..? >> >>the idea has its genesis in the comparison between a computer >>microprocessor and a city, where, looking down upon the microcosm of a >>microchip, one sees a city plan with its interrelating streets, buildings, >>and infrastructure. >> >>but this paradigmatic model stops inside the heart of every computer. it >>remains invisible to the computer using community at large because it is >>locked-away from most, and thus this conceptual connection remains >>mysterious. >> >>but what if architecture were instead more like the computer itself, where >>the desktop of each computer is a city-state of sorts, with each software >>program being its own architecture, each software file its own building... >> >>this viewpoint borrows from Rudolf Arnheim's idea of architecture as an >>interface. [1] in this case, the computer interface becomes an >>architectural interface, and the software program becomes an architectural >>program, of function, aesthetics, and structure. >> >> each software program can then be seen as a building with its own specific >>architecture, and the operating system as an amalgamation of different >>buildings and architectures in a city plan, and more- as different >>computers are internetworked, they become a mirror of the plan of a local >>and global state, connected via an infrastructure of servers, routers, and >>hubs... >> >>in effect, then, by reciprocally borrowing some terminology from the field >>of computer popular culture, such as interface and programming, architects >>can begin "seeing" the discipline of architecture anew, from a different >>perspective, in relation to the ubiquitous computer. >> >>ultimately, doing so necessitates we analyze the computer operating system, >>the meta-software which orchestrates the running of other softwares on a >>machine, as a determinant of the possible programs or architectures that >>can be designed and built in a computer-based environment. >> >>there are at least two choices of operating systems (OS) that exist today: >>proprietary and open-source. these two different models are represented by >>the Microsoft OS and the Linux OS, respectively. >> >>Microsoft is appealing an anti-trust ruling for alleged monopoly power over >>80 percent of computer desktop operating systems in the world. Microsoft is >>accused of inflating software prices and illegally quashing competition and >>innovation from outsiders. >> >>it is ironic, then, that Bill Gates, who is speculated to become the >>world's first trillionaire given enough time, has stepped down as Chief >>Executive Officer and added the position of Chief Software Architect to his >>title, in addition to being the Chairman of Microsoft. >> >>what do these metaphors mean? >> >>of course, a comparison can be made between Microsoft Chairman and a >>well-known Chairman and founder of the Communist party. and surely has been >>made before that Microsoft acts like a pseudo-Communist state, tightly >>controlling the development of software for the Microsoft OS, so much so >>that the system becomes corrupt from the top-down, with every bit of power >>and wealth going back to the state, or in this case Microsoft as state, >>leaving the individual a servant of the state and not vice-versa. >> >>further, if one is going to "develop" software programs that run under the >>Microsoft OS then, one needs to be in collusion with the ideals and >>ideology of the Microsoft way of seeing. the licensing of Microsoft's >>proprietary source-code to software developers is under a type of total >>control. this concentrates the wealth generated from the platform, so much >>so that Bill Gate's is the world's richest person given a good day on the >>stock market, with a net worth of around 80 billion U.S. dollars, more than >>many countries. >> >>the economic, social, and political nature of Microsoft's proprietary >>computer code, a type of intellectual property, can then be seen as a type >>of communist governance of the state of the computer, where the flag of >>Windows represents the spread of both an ideology and an empire replete >>with programming bugs, protected markets, dumping, and corrupt >>institutions; a type of legalized pyramid scheme. >> >>but that's the old conceptual model, what about architecture- what does it >>mean that Microsoft metaphor has now changed from CEO to Chief Software >>Architect? >> >>Bill Gates decision to work on the future development of Microsoft software >>products as Chief Software Architect refers most directly to the definition >>of an architect as a master builder... and this ultimately relates directly >>to the "development" of the real estate of the computer screen, as it is >>governed by the Microsoft OS. >> >>each software program developed for the Microsoft OS can then be seen as a >>kind of building with its own architecture. and all building development is >>directed by the Microsoft estate. the proprietary OS is the totalized >>master plan. >> >>to be a part of the building process, a licensed "developer" must follow >>the rules and regulations set forth by Microsoft. the computer desktop then >>becomes a visible city, populated by software programs (architectures) and >>their files (buildings) which compose the Microsoft city-state, all of >>which are designed to work together in a completely planned development. >>this makes for a company town on a scope never seen before in history, with >>inhabitants in the hundreds of millions. >> >>the Internet was supposed to change all of this. but instead, the planned >>development of the Microsoft OS continued through its proprietary system of >>order and control also known as the Internet Explorer browser. Microsoft's >>empire keeps growing exponentially, even to this day, industrializing and >>privatizing computer real estate all around the world. >> >>what has changed is that the predominant Microsoft OS ceased being Windows, >>and instead became the Internet Explorer web browser. Internet Explorer >>pushed Microsoft's way of seeing the web into 70+ percent of the Internet >>browser market, defeating its rival Netscape (and others) by giving away, >>or dumping, their proprietary software to capture the majority rule of the >>marketplace. >> >>populated Internet markets began to become homogenized by e-commerce and >>commercialization, with Microsoft leading the way, transforming everything >>in its strategic path. whole industries were taken on, and soon Microsoft >>began diversifying in everything from entertainment and real estate to >>banking and car sales on and off the Internet, in addition to forging ahead >>with its usual computer hardware and software alliances. >> >>this diversification of Microsoft into industries other than computers >>signals the switch from a product-centered OS, Windows, to a services-based >>software program that acts like the OS of the Internet, Internet Explorer >>(IE). >> >>this new software architecture enables the user to access any site in the >>world accessible on the Internet, made by Microsoft or not, but does not >>appear to threaten the monopoly Microsoft has with its indebted users. this >>is because Microsoft's new strategy remains within the context of the >>privatized computer desktop (city-state) created by the Microsoft OS, the >>Internet Explorer browser only extends the reach of this private estate. >> >>Bill Gates, the Chief Software Architect of Microsoft, is a master builder >>who has designed and realized a proprietary state of total architecture. >> >>there seems to be little stopping Microsoft's expansion of the wall it >>builds around its electronic empire under the Windows flag. >> >>and many people are defensive about questioning this successive business >>model, >>but some are not- >> >>the surprise challenger to the hegemony of the Microsoft OS is grassroots >>computer operating system- the Linux OS. >> >>instead of a private organization of total control from the top-down, the >>Linux OS is the ongoing result of a collective of thousands of computer >>programmers working from the bottom-up. >> >>and unlike Microsoft's heavily guarded proprietary source code, the >>computer code for the Linux OS is open-source, meaning that it is publicly >>available to programmers who want to develop the software architecture in >>order to optimize its performance or extend its different tasks. >> >>not only is the software of the Linux OS theoretically less buggy, but the >>wealth of its development is being spread out beyond the workers, to >>potentially include the computer using community, as it promises to bring >>down the price of computers to new lows, making the possibility of a >>mass-market affordable Internet appliance a probability. >> >>in a sense, the Linux OS is equivalent to the democratic development of the >>real estate of the computer, as it represents equal rights for programmers >>and wide-ranging freedoms of individual and collective development. >>additionally, >>because it is open-source and ruled by no one in particular and everyone >>all at once, there is a communal sense that the intellectual property of >>the Linux OS is public property, and a shared endeavor. >> >>the spirit of innovation in the computer industry has in part been freed >>with the Linux OS, as hardware vendors and software programmers are finally >>given a viable mass-market option to the Microsoft model of development. >>software programs are daily being ported over to the open plan of the Linux >>OS, with many of Microsoft's traditional allies crossing over the line. >> >>this shift signals a strategic movement in the mass marketplace of >>computers and ideas, away from the proprietary model of development, and >>towards an open-source software architecture. >> >>but what does this have to do with architecture, besides some mixed and >>muddled metaphors? >> >>there are several parallels to be drawn between proprietary and open-source >>development, and the reigning institution of architectural thought. >> >>like the Microsoft OS, architectural ideas and ideologies are often >>proprietary, belonging to a tradition of hierarchical, privatized, and >>elitist states of mind that then become schools of thought, upon which >>people pay to become "educated" or indoctrinated in this insular >>marketplace of ideas. >> >>although there are a plurality of architectural "developers," they all >>continue to develop the same old institution of architecture, over and over >>again, waving the flag of revolutionary rhetoric, while entrenched in the >>ways of prevailing political, economic, and social system of operation. >> >>students, professors, architects, critics, developers, and clients are >>given little option of another model of architectural thought besides that >>of the established state of the profession, centuries old. >> >>other "issues" which question the current economic, social, or political >>system of operation are considered outside the "programmatic" and >>ideological functions of the discipline of architecture as it operates >>day-to-day. and thus the institution remains as it is, as it has been >>handed down to its willing disciples, a privatized architectural source >>code. >> >>this traditional way of seeing architecture ignores realities outside of >>its walled boundaries, and establishes a privatized state of architectural >>mind. >> >>global warming, energy inefficiency, pollution, waste, homelessness- these >>are not within the domain of Architecture, so says the silent majority, >>heading the calls of a vocal minority of architectural ideologues >>subjectively determining what is and what is not Architecture from atop the >>global pyramid scheme. >> >>everybody becomes an accomplice to this state of mind, because there is no >>other choice for development... >> >>that is primarily because the architectural "debate" is an protected >>market, created to sell architectural stars and world class architectural >>monuments to the masses, along with coffee table books and luxury goods >>designed by the elite name brand architects. this diversification of >>merchandising only fuels the "development" of certain kinds of >>architecture, in the books, in the schools, in the cities, in the minds, >>and with enough time and representation a movement or style is created and >>sustained by which others can emulate their way up the ladder of >>architectural fame. those with a different world view are told to conform >>or to leave the profession. >> >>this model of development which protects the power and prestige of a few >>architectural monopolists can potentially be changed, given the >>opportunity... >> >>the crux of the problem centers around the proprietary role of >>architectural ways of seeing in the realm of architectural discourse, >>manifesting itself within a privatized architectural source code for all >>new development. >> >>the architectural institutions- be they universities, organizations, or >>critics- insulate the architectural discourse from dissent, while >>legitimating those ideas that support their own systems of operation, with >>total authority. >> >>the powerful inhabitants of the architectural pantheon are thus protected >>from having to answer basic questions regarding mission critical economic, >>social, and political realities because such musings are deemed outside the >>rules of the oligarchic game of the architecture. >> >>the Internet has changed all of this. new avenues for architectural >>ideation have formed outside of the traditional institutions of >>architecture. new, more democratic forums for architectural discourse, such >>as the Design-List for art and architecture, are leading the way to a new, >>public model of architectural thought, and architectural development in >>general. [2] >> >>the next step, mirroring the transformation of the computer industry by the >>Linux OS, requires opening up the architectural discourse to all >>architectural "programmers" who hack and crack the open-source >>architectural code. >> >>this new model of architectural development no longer bases itself on >>private property, be it a building or a text, guarded and copyrighted. >> >>instead, open-source architecture is founded on the public, democratic, and >>collaborative research and development of architecture by a collective of >>hundreds of internetworked individuals- lay people, students, professors, >>administrators, architects, developers, researchers, theorists, and >>critics- so as to address the pressing issues the discipline needs to >>address, or else face its own existential extinction. >> >>this new way of seeing is actually an old way, in that architects have a >>tradition of freely copying what is best in a design and bringing it >>forward in time, again and again, mutated and altered, but utilized and >>optimized. >> >> like its software equivalent, the newly incarnated open-source >>architecture would fulfill the need for a democratic grassroots >>architecture, empowering the individual and community, while having the >>architectural state serve the people and not the other way around. >> >>a soft revolution, open-source architecture is still potently able to >>compete and survive while facing and fighting the protected markets of >>proprietary intellectuals, monopoly power, staid institutions, and elitist >>ideologies... >> >>let one thousand open-source architectural programmers bloom for each and >>every entrenched architectural statesmen, acting as the checks and balances >>of the >>architectural operating system-- away with the elitism, perception >>management, and proprietary ideology of the reigning architectural >>establishment! >> >>the new order of development has arrived, and it is open-source. with it >>comes a renewed freedom in the marketplace of ideas-- the intellectual >>bubble economy of the master builders and their emulators will finally >>burst! >> >>it is time for the disciples of architecture to innovate, evolve, and mutate- >>to wrestle control of our public destiny away from the private >>architectural pirates of civilization... [3] >> >>doing so requires institutions of architecture democratize their systems of >>operation- to level the elitist hierarchies of power by declaring >>architectural programmers equals of one another, working on common and >>public goals in our rapidly developing civilization. >> >>now is the time to realize an open-source architecture as the destiny of >>the collective of individual architectural programmers, publicly hacking >>and cracking the architectural code, within the multidisciplinary >>internetwork. >> >>an economic, social, and political architecture will surely follow... >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> [1] Rudolf Arnheim, The Dynamics of Architectural Form >> [2] Design-L: http://jya.com/design-l.htm >> [3] Buckminster Fuller, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> =========================================================== >> a r c h i t e x t u r e z : an online mob akz!on > > > >_______________________________________________ >Nettime-bold mailing list >Nettime-bold@nettime.org >http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold