From pit@icf.de
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 01:19:14 +0200
dear nettimers
appologies for the break. it took a while to check the technique..
this is quite a fat message - you can see it as a practical
answer to Jordan's last posting, following Geerts clear and
elegant reply.
it's a bit paradox, just in the moment we have to discuss a lot,
the list is getting 'out of control'. there must be some
undercurrent streams which are popping up now in strange ways.
after the '5 year plan for nettime' Geert and me posted in January,
which was fullfilled until now, even if extremely ambitious, we
have now the problem how to deal and distribute the success of
nettime without breaking down under the needed restructuring of
reaching a new level of organisation which fits to the changed
needs. First, it would need a collaborative description of these
needs. it's partly just a question of scale, but there are
many more questions.
to leave me one question here: what problems have nettime and
name.space in common?
Instead of theorizing i'd like to go to the level where
'i can do something for all of you' without hurting anyone too
much. a moment of silence isn't bad for reflection, the question
is still if we need moderation and how we decide about it.
a basic problem of 'practical democracy'.
during the last weeks i got several mail concerning the
question of moderating nettime, basically expressing a
'clear yes' (ok, there was one 'better not') so, for the
next weeks we will go to the model which was already
tested last year and should work as an interim solution
until we have found something better.
the two channel interim model:
the nettime-l mailinglist
(moderated - by Geert and me until now) and
alt.nettime (unmoderated). both are subscribable.
see the how-to below.
If this becomes extremely difficult, or if many of
you are revolting, we just get back into the old mode
again, but i doubt that it will work for long.
It is an experiment and it needs your participation
critique AND understanding.
how to deal with the interim solution:
A) alt.nettime:
contains *all* mails from nettime-l plus *all* replies.
there is (almost) no traffic limit. the best way
to use this is via a newsreader: zero scarcity!
newsgroup:
news://news.thing.at/alt.nettime or
news://www.icf.de/alt.nettime or
http://www.dejanews.com ...
by mail:
nettime-t@thing.at
alt.nettime@workspace.icf.de (temporary)
subscribe to the newsgroup:
send mail to listproc@thing.at
subscribe nettime-t Your Name <your adress>
into the msg body
B) nettime-l:
like before, but with more editing/moderation.
post reports, essays, manifestoes, lectures..
expect some filtered mails appearing at the newsgroup
and more pauses between sended text-packets.
also see >some questions< below.
a special case: announcements
one suggestion was to set up an own mailinglist for mail-flyers,
(nettime-annouce) which sends out weekly digests. anyone likes to
help with this? it could easily grow and would then need an own
moderator. before announcements will get compiled into a digest
by hand, and if urgent send out immediatly. someone has then
to decide which announcements are out of context (private CVs)
or spam (commercials). with the double mail from Hotwired
lately i wasn't very sure. i would help a lot and add to the
quality of nettime if someone else would like to do this
independently.
some questions:
* how to get to know 'who are we, me, you and the rest of us':
subjectivation and indentification is still a burden, nettime
in a whole did not count too much on it, let's keep it this way.
what colour do you have? who is representing your desires?
* how to get nettime more 'radical democratic' without destroying it?
* how to find, discuss and build up new technical solutions which loose
the limited and inherently feudalist model of the majordomo behind?
* how to program and design social interfaces and free groupware before
nettime has to adapt to given proprietary and closed software standards?
* how to keep or put nettime in the hand of the community instead of
creating distrust, envy, discordia and a potential abuse of power.
* how to keep up the ongoing and still working 'gift economy' of
pre- and re-publishing without getting in trouble.
* how to let nettime not become a slow discoursive battleship under
one central command-and-control-structure.
* how to add more critical questions without getting lost in
a self-destructive nettime criticism.
* how to avoid the creating of splinter groups AND a forced unified
will under some unwritten dogmata OR a aporia of noise?
* how to continue this experiment with this extraordinary group
of mindful people to still let surprises and conflicts happen,
but also work on a continuity and effectivity in the discourse
(on and of the net).
* how to apply technology to enhance and specify the social
functionality without loosing coherence and the productive
aspects of a working economy of gifts? (is an inner-circle,
a group of the oldest nettimers viable, or do we need more
'political apperatus', voting, formal debate... and: how
to distribute tasks+responsibilty if there is 'no money
in sight'? do we all have to become electronic monks?)
* what is a moderator, what are his/her tasks, what are the
responsiblities? is there a way to collectify, enhance or
distribute the task of moderation without adding more chaos
and paranoia.
-- hope these questions are not too compromising, any
criticism and commentary is welcome, whatever comes
in your mind, post it and it will get digested and
reposted here. ---
2. next practical projects (new work to be done..):
A) the nettime offline archive:
as announced long time before, there is a chance now
to put the complete nettime archive+zkp1,2,3,4 on a cdrom.
(plain ascii nettime archive from June 1995 to September 1997.
3.1/2 inch disc) it will get payed by ars electronica and
distributed trough their channels. (le parasite) it will
remain public domain for non-commercial use. any suggestion
for the cover and the database design and a cool copyright
disclaimer are welcome. this weekend a text will follow where
every author will get asked for permission. the print run
will be around 1000. We try to find a way to make an quick
& easy shipping for subribers possible.
ZKP4, and the world
same counts for the zkp4 which will be soon available
trough the v2 archive in Rotterdam, thanks! Ljudmila still
sits on ca. 5000 copies. Here in Kassel we will probably
will be able to run empty. We sucessfully used the dX postal
service (thanks!) and all the authors should now have their
private copy. everything else needs extra funding. IF YOU out
there like to redistribute ZKP4 (find http://www.factory.org/nettime )
in Australia, Asia or Amerika please go in contact with us.
We will try to ship as many as possible copies to Rotterdam
where there is a big harbour.. (You might re-sell the copies
for the shipping costs.)
B) the book also called the nettime bible:
a team of some highly engaged nettime editors will meet
in Kassel during Sept., this group was growing not at least
through the meeting in Ljubljana. we will try to make the
process as transparent as possible without playing 'parliament'.
there will be a way for every serious nettimer to intervene.
we'll work on a raw version of a table of contents sorting and
selecting the textes and locate them around 'several planes'.
Someone mentioned a comic's section, more graphix etc. It is
yet completly unclear who will do this. The first manuscript
may get printed soon for common comments. Mieg van Eden at
factory.org is currently working on a annotation solution,
this will make Paraphernalia (Frank Hartmann) possible
and introduces dialogue into a more discoursive text form.
C) a better place for the nettime-techies:
There is also the idea about setting up the virtual
domain nettime.org, Walter van de Cruisen who soon opens a
web-multiuser-irc-moo at ZKM will redesign the ZKP-site
and downgrades to HTTP1.O. It was long planned to start
a technical mini-mailinglist on the software-side
of nettime. the collaborative interfaces, publishing tools,
e-cash-machines, profile-data-bases, object oriented data
heavens, indulgent agents, chat, net-phone, and psychic
applets, GNU groupware, nettime-linux, and possible contributions
to the content liberation front may get discussed here. Let's
bring some theory and practise into a result (or at least some
cool plans). if you want to add, your competence, time, brain...
please write at this moment to mieg@factory.org or pit@icf.de
processing more diversification
(as discussed in Ljubljana):
SYNDICATE!
(ex-east)european issues theoretical and mainly practical,
specially if media-art related should go now to the V2East list
syndicate@aec.at := Moderator is Andreas Broeckmann <abroeck@v2.nl>
who waits for your mail. it's growing and the output of and after
the meeting in Kassel is amazing, big future. it is obviously
a list with very pragmatic not to say infrastructural goals and
it works(?) perfectly as an example of synergetic coexistence in
the nettime neighborhood.
FACES-L
very cyberfeminist issues get discussed in faces-l@icf.de
moderators: kathy@thing.at, diana@dial.isys.hu, and Connie Sollfrank
<100136.14@CompuServe.COM> et.al. i heard its very productive and vivid.
please have a look at Faith Wilders article posted here on nettime
and expect an surprising autumn.
other friendly neighbors:
Rewired, Rhizome, Telepolis, Ctheory, Mute, Meme, E-minds, Well, RRE,
Enode, The Obvious, Netly News and many more (unsorted). who likes to
administrate a list of cross-links? it will go onto the desk.nl site and
would need some gardening from time to time.
ok i don't want to bother you with mroe sermons. it would be great
if nettime would get back into the good groove. tell us what you think.
/pit
====================================================================
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 23:20:48 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Tapio Makela <director@kaapeli.fi>
To: nettime@Desk.nl
Subject: Suggestion for Nettime...
Dear Pit & other Nettimers,
Being aware that no unified "we" is neither possible nor desirable, "we"
cannot be a starting point for a constructive discussion in an open
list such as Nettime. "We" refers to an understanding of a common ground
or an identity somehow negotiated or represented in Nettime. For me, at
least, Nettime is not about belonging to a group, but rather voluntarily
participating into a flow of writing, discussions, info bits, and
nonsense. Hence "us" may merely refer to those on the list without further
commitments in terms of one's identity.
What surprises me on this list is also a partial closed-mindedness about
different positions from which critical perspectives can arise. Perhaps
for many artists and scholars in a grant based understanding of
independent positionings it is difficult to accept that their
economical independence is that only in relation to a private sector. What
would that signify?
Any of "us" working with new media or any processes that are embedded in
technological change, a connectedness to small and also international
enterprises is there. I would say that more people on this list are more
keen to pinpoint the connections of VR to military industry than their own
connectedness to commonplace media industry. State & Art grants are
connected to art industry with its own games of power.
What I am getting at (to put it short since time is limited tonight and my
flu is bugging me off the keyboard) is that polarization of private and
public capital in terms of political or critical standpoints is not
relevant. At the same time I want to stress, that this remark does not try
to argue against public funding, only the (perhaps neomarxist undertoned)
tendency to make that polarity a political gauge.
Situations for private and public funding certainly have different
political ties in each culture. Here in Finland I, as well as many other
colleagues, are getting extremely tired, angry, and disappointed of the
public cultural funding due to its negativity towards youth & change. Art
industry and public funding here are a close marriage, and the space for
critical activity therein almost impossible. Hence, the possibility to
create independence through other than public sources of funding for
critical activities is extremely interesting at the moment.
If, through using the innovative cultural and media know how and "our"
international networks, it is possible to create such economical
enterprises, how could that somehow deteriorate the position of critique?
Or is the fact that someone or some group of individuals can generate such
a source of economical self support considered as threatening among those
who are dependent on it not existing?
Supporting the privately generated funding as the only alternative is
equally embedded in arhcaic (very current) politics, neo liberalism. Mixed
media, mixed capitals, mixed identities is the state of affairs
independent of Nettime and any thoughts exressed within.
I am not interested in discussing with people who want to attack this
position: there is nothing there for me to defend. It is not a position of
"my subjectivity" - - only a point of view about some very central issues
around "Hybrid Media, Hybrid Capital".
If there are others interested in a interdisclipinary analysis of this
subject matter, I would like to invite you to do a net publication with me
for next year. I will also coordinate a conference next year autumn in
Lapland with Hybrid media and capital as a central theme.
When both media and capital are seen as hybrids of social, cultural,
economical and political layers, no single layer can exist in total
isolation from one another. This leads towards a more responsible idea of
business, but also a more socially and economically connected "art". For
me, no matter in which realm I move, being critical is being political in
each realm through texts, acts and interaction.
To go briefly back to the idea of "us". Internet as an environment is seen
often as far too total, as if its importance was a determining factor of
how one performs as an "I". On Nettime, I think, many of the contributors
perform as writers, artists, poets, hackers, academics, media activists,
off-media activists, or through some other frame of reference.
Everyone is seen through their "Name" in the "From" -field, but what does
that signify? Like right now, the "I" who writes has still 37,7 degrees of
fever, does not use text editing but direct telnet due to something on my
web server, I sit inside the Attila Parasite, busy as usual, not enough
time to follow all the info bits on Nettime, especially now, ill, too much
to do... So being the very random partial "I" on Nettime, as one of the
very fragmentary random "us" there is really nothing else to decide about
besides how to keep this list as an innovative and constructive
environment for potential dialogue - - some of "us" may actually have
common interests.
Disagreeing on things is necessary, but labeling, info/anti-info
campaigns, insulting remarks are frustrating, conradictory to the above
aim. How to be critical and constructive at the same time without being
"personal" in the negative way, yet remaining "personal" in the many
positive fragmentary ways that this interface allows?
I would suggest, for this list, at least one thing. What about opening a
channel called info.nettime@desk.nl, which would distribute announcements
about events, calls for participation, etc, but which would not include
debates? Then the nettime list would be left for discussion on issues,
texts and debates which have more depth than agreeing about whether
1=3D1 or 1=3D0.
In Gordon Cook's case, I see a person who can never admit being wrong
(1=3D1). Paul Garrin, who in my mind is very genuinely attempting to create
a cultural-critical-economical media hybrid together with other people
interested in that approach, uses many arguments to say (1=3D1). But
reading G attacking PG and PG defending against G is unnecessary for
us to read.
But, I do want to read the Name.Space info from Nettime. What is the
solution? I would suggest, that on something like info.nettime there could
be a ban not to flame, an agreement to keep it cool. Since Nettime is a
stage of critical media of a sorts, there are many performeres who just
want to be there for textual narcissism. There seems to be too many of
them around. This is a problem in any public space. Does someone really
like mimics?
On the Flesh Factor AE list there is a discussion going on about how there
should be more "culture" in discussing "technology", and remarks about how
they are really not separate, but intertwined. Quite basic thing, I guess.
Surprisingly enough, this similar simplicity appears every now and then
when discussing media and society, culture and capital, private and
public, x and y, in and endless array. It seems like all the
poststructuralist, deconstructive and postmodern varying practices and
theories have gone down the drain, just like the past two decades had
vapourized in media haze. Could it be that "we" are witnessing a
deteriorating of critical discourse into media positivism, a discourse
where critical means "being there" and media is taken for being critical?
I hope that Nettime will prove the opposite (sic!).
back to drink some hot tea,
nice late summer from Helsinki,
Tapio Makela
from Digital Drive In (muu.autono.net/digit)
and Parasite project with Attila, Rotterdam, going on
www.attila.nl/attila/attila.nl (come see us after a few days)