Nettime mailing list archives

RE: <nettime> Request to Nettime to be part of DISTRIBUTED CREATIVITY on
Nato Thompson on Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:45:33 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: <nettime> Request to Nettime to be part of DISTRIBUTED CREATIVITY online forum with Eyebeam

I am fairly new to the net time list but this debate strikes me as
interesting and not unusual. I work at a museum and sympathize with the
constraints and difficulties that institutions have in presenting
history as well as producing criticality. All too often, I find radicals
(of which I do consider myself one) shooting themselves in the foot with
unreasonable demands for representing themselves. Often times this leads
to their non-inclusion which can be useful, but often times is a result
of exhaustion on the part of both parties.

I think Eyebeam is a good place if not somewhat inconsistent at times.
They have supported some very interesting projects. (I think to them
hosting the WTO protest workshops). I don't think their request for the
participation of Net Time is all that bizarre. If a misunderstanding is
in place, that shouldn't be a call for everyone to get on their high
horse and demand that people try to understand this wildly bizarre thing
called a de-centered community (is it really so strange?). I think the
danger is in trying to fit more 'centered' modes of presenting projects.
That is to say, having individuals represent the group in a manner which
offends those participating. Particularly, if people who contribute to
the group feel they are somehow inexplicity supporting the careerist
ambitions of their so-called representatives. This dynamic of resentment
and confusion regarding representation has commonly plagued art
collectives. The absolutely critical resistance to authorship finds a
problem when confronted with those who need a spokesperson. 

My personal feeling is having representatives for such an expansive and
loosely knit group like net time (I mean am I one myself for being a
part for only 2 months?) is just a bad idea. It inevitably will set up a
problematic hierarchy that has no ability to be checked, deliberated on,
or worked out. Instead, Eyebeam should suggest something that provides a
forum for everyone involved and highlights its extraordinarily disparate

I don't find it all that suprising that Eyebeam would like to
incorporate the interesting work that happens on Net time. And I don't
think simple attacks on the fact that Eyebeam has to raise money in
order to survive is very helpful (in reference to the post by Brett
Shand). But then again, I suppose the bigger question this issue begs
is: is the net time crew capable of making a collective decision? My
hopes would be 'no'. But if that is the case, then I suppose asking net
time any questions and hoping for a single answer is ridiculous too.
Hmmm... Quite a quandry.

#  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 {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net