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