<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Niiice! Downright Socratic (if you'll pardon the spectacularity of the reference). Who said that all twitterbots were twittiets anyway? Wonderful to drop those celebrated names like so many empties crushed underfoot despite yourour lightness. Overall I would agree that the stars themselves -- always-already indices of collective programs anyway -- ought to be dropped like Walter's shells as we strive to eliminate that unique phenomenon of distance, however close it may be. Who said that? Why all of us -- but from over here, somewhere.<div><br></div><div>Ah poesy! delicate as a dehiscent dandelion, lethal as a gun.</div><div><br></div><div><br><div apple-content-edited="true"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Jonathan Beller</div><div>Professor </div><div>Humanities and Media Studies</div><div>and Critical and Visual Studies</div><div>Pratt Institute</div><div><a href="mailto:jbeller@pratt.edu">jbeller@pratt.edu</a></div><div>718-636-3573 fax</div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Times" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; "><br></span></font></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br><div><div>On Jun 15, 2009, at 4:09 AM, Julian Kücklich wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Here's a sort of postscript on microfame.<br><br>[Mon, 15 June, 07:57 GMT]<br><br>cycus: Thou shalt follow @cucchiaio for being the personification of<br>ludology and coolnerdism, spitting out teenage angst poetry in a<br>reflected way.<br><br>cucchiaio: @cycus Aww, thx. That's an awfully nice follow recommendation.<br><br>cycus: @cucchiaio was a pleasure since I'm consistently laughing my<br>ass off with your dark sarcasm<br><br>cucchiaio: Thinking about microfame and microfascism. #idc #theory<br><br>cucchiaio: One of the (manymany) problems of academic discourse is<br>that it cannot overcome its oedipal fixation with scholarly<br>celebrities. #idc<br><br>markbuchholz: @cucchiaio I think microfame for many is when their<br>jokes got retweetet by a handful of twitter-bots<br><br>cucchiaio: I mean, how can you sustain a critique of celebrity culture<br>while referencing Marx, Weber, Benjamin, Debord, McLuhan, Deleuze,<br>etc.? #idc<br><br>cucchiaio: @markbuchholz Well, that's precisely what it is. Microfame<br>is mundane, self-referential, and unit-operational. Long live the<br>twitterbots!<br><br>[Mon, 15 June, 08:42 GMT]<br><br>2009/6/14 Jonathan Beller <<a href="mailto:jbeller@pratt.edu">jbeller@pratt.edu</a>>:<br><blockquote type="cite">To continue the conversation:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">First of all, writ large, the structure of the celebrity is a fascistic one<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">-- the accrual of social power by individuals via the captured attention of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the masses, exactly parallels the accrual of social power by the capitalist<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">via the captured labor of the masses. This is not an accidental<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">correspondence but rather an intensification of the very processes that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">created new forms of recognition and personality nascent in bourgeois<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">capitalism. And, by personality, I do not only mean the exterior trappings<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that allow a face to be recognized, I mean also the intense elaboration of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">subjectivity and interiority associated with the richly textured experiences<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of high bourgeois culture. In the case of the capitalist, the celebrity and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the fascist dictator, the individual in question is a creation of the masses<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">even though s/he is not representative of the masses. The charismatic<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">leader, as Gramsci taught us, was a Ceasarist, a kind of master<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">power-broker, who was capable of doing the work of the hierarchical<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">capitalist state precisely by utilizing populist discourse (and today we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">could say the technologies of populism -- what was Hitler without the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">loudspeaker? etc.). The Fascist dictators from Mussolini to Macapagal-Arroyo<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to Bush were also, in the most literal sense -- cyborgs, "individuals"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">created in symbiotic relation to the technical and economic apparatuses of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">his/her time. These mechanisms were/are driven by the sensual labor of the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">masses. The celebrated individual(s) constitute, in Debord's famous words<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">regarding the spectacle, the diplomatic presentation of hierarchical society<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to itself.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Benjamin recognized the co-optation inherent in the celebrity-from already<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">when he spoke of the fascist corruption of the film medium by capitalist<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">industries/nations giving workers the chance not the right to represent<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">themselves. One person is elevated, literally made from the subjective labor<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of the mass audience, and stands in as a point of identification for all<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">those who will remain forever unrepresented. The celebrity becomes a kind of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">compensation for the disempowerment and castration of the masses. We regular<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">folk will never accomplish anything, never achieve universal recognition by<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">all humanity, but, not to worry, the celebrity does this in our stead. Of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">course, as with the dictator or with the capitalist monopolist our<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">disempowerment is the condition of possibility for his/her elevation. Just<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">as the wealth of the capitalist is the obverse of the poverty of the worker,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the hyper-representation of the celebrity is the obverse of the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">non-representation of the rest of us.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">In order to show the historical relationship between the social order<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">denoted by celebrities and fans on the one hand and owners and workers on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the other, I will not recapitulate the entire argument of The Cinematic<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Mode of Production here (my apologies :)) : suffice it to say that cinema<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">brings the industrial revolution to the eye and introjects the social<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">relations of industrial society into the sensorium. In other words, the rise<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of visuality and subsequently of digitality does not happen in parallel to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">capitalism but is in fact an extension of capitalist relations deeper into<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the body -- into the viscera and, as is better understood, into<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">cognitive-linguistic function. The logic of cinema, the chaine de montage,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">etc., extends the logic of the assembly line from the traditional labor<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">processes of the factory to the senses and to perception. This movement of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">production into the visual/cognitive vis-a-vis the cinema is the material<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">history of the emergence of the attention economy; cinema is the open book<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of the contemporary econometrics of attention.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">All of which is to say that with due deference to various forms of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">subversive fandom, we may want to think twice before we celebrate celebrity<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and pitch our brilliant insights to investors. Must we still ask why?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">When referring to the possibility of "social media" to bring about social<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">change Michel Goldhaber writes below:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">While I would not rule out the possibility that some such media could<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">tremendously aid a move toward fuller<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">equality, that cannot be taken for granted, nor would the resulting equality necessarily be so complete as some might hope.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">it seems to me that there are at least two dangerous omissions: One is that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">media do not stand apart from us -- they are made out of us and they are us,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">no less than say, as Fanon reminded his readers, it was the labor of the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Third World that built the European metropoles. The logic of celebrity,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">which is the logic of reification, has taught us to conceptually resolve<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">media technologies as if they were free standing entities and not products<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of centuries of expropriation put to use by and large to continue and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">intensify those processes. We would do well to remember that today's planet<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of slums, with its 2 billion people (population Earth, 1929) in an abject,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">completely modern and utterly contemporary poverty, is also the product of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">whatever socio-technologic matrix of relations we find ourselves in. It is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">important also to recognize that the media, in and of themselves, are not<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">going to progressively alter these relations. They are these relations! Here<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I recall Chomsky's response when asked if he thought internet would bring<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">about greater democratization: "That question is not a matter for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">speculation, it is a matter for activism." In other words, the fight is also<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">here and now. We are being called by the o/re-pressed that lies both within<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and without "us," to activate the vectors of struggle against<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">domination/post-modern fascism/platform fetishism/capitalist<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">technocracy/neo-imperialism/globalization/certain brands of "fun," etc. that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">already inhere in every atom of the status-quo.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The second omission in Goldhaber's statement may well be more self-conscious<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">than the first appears to be -- in saying "nor would the resulting equality<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">necessarily be so compelete as some might hope" he appears to omit himself<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">from those who still have hope or want to hope. When referring to those who<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">hope for equality and presumably social justice, some of us would have said<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"we."<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Jonathan Beller<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Professor<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Humanities and Media Studies<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and Critical and Visual Studies<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Pratt Institute<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:jbeller@pratt.edu">jbeller@pratt.edu</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">718-636-3573 fax<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 13, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Michael H Goldhaber wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Hi Julian and everyone,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I disagree that the notion of dyadic classes never made much sense. On the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">contrary it was an is analytically of great value, even if it ignores some<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">intermediate positions. The dynamics of societies are considerably clarified<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">by the concept. '<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">As for whether Facebook, twitter and other means of social networking<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">aid the attention economy as I use the term, we need not only think in terms of huge attention absorbers like Oprah.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">There are after all small capitalists as well as big ones, and there are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">small stars as well as big ones. to be a star, at the limit you only need to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">take in more attention than you pay out.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If you choose to define a star as someone who takes in several times as much<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">attention as paid out, I still suspect that many of the participants in this<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">very discussion would qualify, and more might well want to. It is critical<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that we remember this as we discuss issues such as exploitation. It is also<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">important to consider this possibility when we discuss the apparent<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">equalizing trends of social media. While I would not rule out the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">possibility that some such media could tremendously aid a move toward<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">fuller<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">equality, that cannot be taken for granted, nor would the resulting equality necessarily be so complete as some might hope.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Best,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Michael<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Juliann wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Hi Michael & all,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">.....<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">You write:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I argue we are<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">passing from one dyadic class system (capitalists and worker) [...] to a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">new dyadic class<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">system of stars and fans<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I think we all agree that the old dyad of capitalists and workers<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">never made much sense to begin with (and this is one of the reasons we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">have so many communist -isms), while the new dyad is neither new, nor<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">does it make much sense in the context of the oh so tautologically<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">named "social media." I think what we see evolving there (and by<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">extension everywhere) is a system of microstardom and tactical fandom<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that calls into question the classical power relationship between fans<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and stars.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">This is obviously preceded by alt.fan communities such as the ones<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Jenkins writes about, but I am not interested so much in slash fiction<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">etc., but rather in the microfame that exists on myspace, facebook,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">twitter, flickr, etc. The recent influx of "real celebrities", such as<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Oprah Winfrey, into the twitterverse provides a good example because<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">it draws attention to the difference between a mass media attention<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">economy (in this case, TV) and a multitudinous media attention<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">economy. Oprah barged into twitter, expecting that people were<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">actually willing to pay attention to the mundane details of her life,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">but as it turned out the mundane details of non-celebrities' lives are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">actually more interesting (Oprah of all people should know).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">In numerical terms, Oprah and Ashton Kutcher may be the "stars" of the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">twitterverse, but they are stars only in the sense that they provide a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">kind of background radiation for the real action. While indigenous<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">microfame is rare, twitter often amplifies attention capital acquired<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">elsewhere, and consolidates distributed and fragmented microaudiences.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">At the same time, however, the agency of microaudiences is heightened<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in multitudinous media such as twitter, and they can use this agency<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">tactically as well as strategically, and often do. In this context, it<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is significant that while "friending" is the basic unit operation (to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">use Ian Bogost's term) of facebook, the basic unit operation of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">twitter is not "following" but "blocking". So if someone is perceived<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">as abusing their microfame this is sanctioned not just by a denial of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">attention but by a reduction of that person(a)'s sphere of influence.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">So I think we are not dealing with a dyadic system at all, but with<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">something much less structured and, for lack of a better word, more<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">fun (fun also being the mechanism underwriting new forms of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(self-)exploitation). Let's not forget, however, that achieving and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">maintaining microfame is a form of labour, and one not so dissimilar<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to the kind of work described in the MechTurk presentation sent around<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">by Matthew yesterday: it's affective and relational labour, much of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">which consists in maintaining a good relationship with the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"requesters" (or "followers"). It seems to me that the decisive<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">difference between mass media fame and microfame resides in the fact<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that the former is systemic, while the latter is endemic. In other<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">words: in mass media stars are made, while in multitudinous media<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">stars make themselves by performing their virtuosity across different<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">registers.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">This does not mean that MechTurk workers are in the same boat as<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"social media entrepreneurs" but it seems evident that menial labour<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is increasingly informed by entrepreneurial ideology while<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">entrepreneurship now requires a much more labour-intensive<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">micromanagement of audiences across a range of different terrains than<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the relationship management (schmoozing, corruption, collusion, etc.)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">engaged in by "capitalists."<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">So, yes, the terrain we are dealing with is "complex and changing,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">with alliances and antagonisms springing up in every possible<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">permutation," but I would contend that the binary oppositions of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">stars/fans and capitalists/workers have been replaced by contextual<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">unit operations that follow a multivalent rather than a dyadic logic.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Julian.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(distributedcreativity.org)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">List Archive:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">iDC Photo Stream:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">RSS feed:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">iDC Chat on Facebook:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(distributedcreativity.org)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">List Archive:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">iDC Photo Stream:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">RSS feed:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">iDC Chat on Facebook:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)<br><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br>https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc<br><br>List Archive:<br>http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/<br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br>http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/<br><br>RSS feed:<br>http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc<br><br>iDC Chat on Facebook:<br>http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647<br><br>Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref</div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>