nettime's_flametrader on Tue, 22 May 2001 00:16:24 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> no people - Public Offering dig [graham, brozefsky] |
Re: <nettime> Public Offering digest [dery, sondheim] Phil Graham <phil.graham@mailbox.uq.edu.au> Re: <nettime> no people. Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com> ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:29:33 +1000 From: Phil Graham <phil.graham@mailbox.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: <nettime> Public Offering digest [dery, sondheim] At 01:38 PM 5/21/01 -0400, Mark wrote: >a multitude of intellectual sins ... can usually be replaced by clearer >words that cost less ("textual >practice" = *writing*). More often than not, they amount to intellectual >handwaving. This reminds me of the Newspeak enthusiast --- "we're getting rid of *thousands* of useless words" --- since when has "textual practice" meant "writing"? >In any event, if you're arguing for a Nettime that makes room for a vibrant >profusion of ideas and opinions, then we're in complete agreement. If, on >the other hand, you're defending your---and my---right to be willfully >obscure, I'm afraid I can't agree. I found nothing obscure in the post. I enjoyed it and it rsonated with me. >Is there room, here, for "many modes of >thinking, working through ideas"? No question. Nonetheless, I refuse to >unplug my critical faculties in the name of a faux populism that throws wide >the floodgates to any and every post. Are you going to appoint yourself censor, then? Pass judgement on the appropriately economic use of terminologies that don't confuse you? >Let a billion flowers bloom, and you >have intellectual kudzu. We live in an attention economy. Time-starved and >data-glutted, most of us appreciate posts that don't have to be read with a >weed-whacker in one hand. If your attention is overtaxed, there's always the delete button. Be as juducious as you like. >Nettime, as its .sig file suggests, is "a >moderated mailing list for net criticism, collaborative text filtering and >cultural politics of the nets." By that measure, I can't think of anything more appropriate than the "no people" post, since the technology is anthropomorphised ad absurdum. >There's no mention of ePoetry or ASCII art or my own private turbo-blog, >much as >that pains me. Whatever else it is, Nettime is a forum for public discourse. >*Public*, not private. It *was* public. It *is* public. It *is* discourse. >But if you believe your thoughts matter, don't cloak them in the >intellectual equivalent of a cloud >of squid ink; make them transparent to me. Why *you*? Why not *me*? I don't understand *you* or what you are saying. >A parting thought: If you "feel, like many others, outside of the nettime >mainstream," you may want to consider the possibility that Nettime *has* no >mainstream. We're *all* on the outside, Alan. Which is Nettime's greatest >strength---or one of them. Yup, that's a strength. But are we ALL on the outside? If so, what are we on the outside of? Who are the insiders in this public discourse? regards, Phil ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 2001 22:57:10 -0500 From: Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com> Subject: Re: <nettime> no people. "Mark Dery" <markdery@mindspring.com> writes: > Pardon my cluelessness, but what, exactly, is this? Too much of Nettime is > beginning to feel like an in joke for people who live their lives inside > invisible quotation marks. I don't know, but I took it as a contemplative peice about identity. In this case it was reverse-anthropomorphism, but it made me think about the other identities I assign to people when I read them online. For instance, Alan is "the bizarre, sometimes unreadable, net-poet with a kind heart". You might be "the no-nonsense cyber-journalist, his hard-nosed commentary cutting swaths thru hype". Or maybe I was wrong, Alan could be "the net-artist crawling up his own ass, his irony-field collapsing like a gravity well", and you could be "the crapulent hack, scouring the social field for an article's worth of cynic-fodder". I doubt any of those are right. I guess that means it was art, maybe net-art or something. One man's Marty Stoufer is another man's Madison Ave. copywriter. Craig "the lowly theory-worker, cooking up some pie-filler content while lamenting his near-anonymous stature" Brozefsky - -- Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com> http://www.red-bean.com/~craig "Revolution begins by giving things and social relationships their real names". -- L. Trotsky ------------------------------ # 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: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net