[iDC] Re: The Ethics of Leisure

[A. G-C]

Please to know my critical answer today on the question of "what to be done"
being the actual thematic on to Empyre list, which may be is an extended
diverse common debate with the actual discussion on iDC list.

For instance having made a criticism of iDC in another destination I think
that it is cool of it to inform here.

Thanks in advance,

A.

" Whether you want as fine as possible and generously opening claimed, it
stays at my view (and the following quotation of the tribute to Documenta on
the subject of "Bare life" comforts me in this view) that something appears
existentially dividing. It is that the field of art seems to disjoin from
its symbolic task at the moment all the field integrates the expert model of
education through the educated organization from the power, all the more for
a hand as objects of marketing the museums and the flow of exhibitions, for
another hand and all the more that requesting planetary tributes.

All that become really a strictly corporatist expert community more
searching a representative right of credibility through its global
representation I cannot agree with. Because from my part I trust really
something predictable from the popular capacity of create and produce the
relevant structures or dispositions as well the expert research or expert
education: but they are not necessarily linked (I mean that expert research
or education cannot integrate the part of evil of the popular creation so
what missing this best part of social human capacity). At least
Insubordination (whether from not initiated people or from expert entering
insubordination: they are in the same side of what I try to express).

Something too much universal in all these thoughts in the name of respect
the difference and in the view of the certitude of viability of manage the
difference troubles me.

It is not the very problem of your point of view. It is a problem generally
distributed among the good lists, as well iDC discussing to tribute the
discriminating discernment to tribute usefully the research even the social
research coming from Arts or Architecture (in all the senses), as well the
contrary as opening integration of the differences by the reflection.

The question being all the same that one of the representative authority of
the power from what this thought is produced: hierarchy of education and of
sharply its only objectives whatever the situation and the field otherwise
manifest or can manifest.

It is not an ethical problem it is a political problem, beyond the question
of proper power there is that one of killing in fact all eventual emergent
otherness can be only ideas.

I am sorry to say that. It is not a criticism to multi personal subscribers
or curators who tribute this list, but a real question of all the
generalizing disposition of Arts as expert.

I cannot agree this, when all of us knows perfectly how the margin (the
edges) has made gifts of their inventions or creations since one millennium
(the one of the modernity from the monotheism and their succession) and all
the more specially in the scientific discoveries."


On 11/01/07 3:51, "Trebor Scholz" <trebor at thing.net> probably wrote:

> Judith Rodenbeck:
> 
>> What I was pointing out was something a bit more intensive, if you will,
>> that has to do with gender and labor. I suggested that continual partial
>> attention has long existed as one of the determining conditions of a
>> feminized underclass (which I hope I don't need to unpack here)--which
>> Frazer and Warren rightly link to domesticity.
> 
> I completely agree with you, Frazer, and Warren regarding your comments about
> gender and labor. Participation (and not just online) is deeply gendered!
> There surely is massive
> inequality and a participation gap that needs to be accounted for when
> addressing an ethics of participation. Thanks for these comments and I will
> definitely consider that further.
> 
>> To see it described as something "new," then, is to see a gendered history
> 
> Sociable web media (blogs, social networking sites, p2p, etc) expose us to
> more voices, to more information and this fact has absolutely nothing to do
> with "rendering a gendered history
> invisible." It simply acknowledges a "participatory" (or call it "social")
> turn. The level of networked sociality is indeed -- new --. Civic
> participation in meet-space is on the decline (Putnam)
> but 73 percent of American adults are currently Internet users and 55% of all
> American teenagers use social networking sites in general. This massification
> is a big damn difference to the
> early 90s.  Now we hear many Alan Sondheims all at once. In such a
> participatory culture in which 65.000 new videos are contributed to YouTube
> every day, enough people bothered to
> contribute over one million entries to the English version of Wikipedia alone,
> kids are leaving email and turn to Instant Messaging, and every half minute we
> have a new blog, -- attention
> economics has changed. I am not saying that this completely revolutionizes
> education or culture and that we will wake up to a better world... but there
> is a big change in the media
> landscape with regard to the availability of information to 17 years ago.
> 
>> rendered invisible; and then to see it take on a positive valence--"data
>> obesity=good!"
> 
> I certainly did not celebrate data obesity. It is, however, a fact that we are
> living with. Closing our eyes to it does not make it go away. The
> massification of iterations by people who can
> now experience themselves as speakers is indeed -- new -- and it does have
> positive and yes, -- democratizing -- potential. The number of people who can
> speak differs very much to the
> early 90s when blogs and the sizable cadre of web applications was not
> available. The media landscape has changed-- it goes far beyond mailing lists
> and blogs. Networked sociality will
> increasingly enter the city, our online friends are already still with us on
> Union Square. (I simply point this out- I'm not saying that it is a huge
> gain).
> 
> The wealth of information to which I can expose myself effortlessly today is
> radically different to even a decade ago. That is not inherently great or
> horrifying. It depends on my ability to
> judge a piece of information, or resource. What this highlights is not that
> "data obesity=good" or "data obesity=evil", but that filtering skills are
> important. And that this judgment is not a
> slam dunk and that addiction and continuous partial attention are not all that
> easily circumvented, I think, became pretty clear from the previous thread.
> The grammar of sociable media is
> something that we need to learn.
> 
>> "ADD=good!" "mega-connectivity=good!"--is disturbing.
> 
> I also do not favor mega-connectivity, na... Really, it's not a question of
> whether we like what happens in the world or not; it surrounds us. (I should
> think that reading pretty much
> anything I wrote should make it abundantly clear that I am basically
> physically repelled by all that networked capitalist hell.) The question,
> however, is how we deal with it, how we learn
> to use it in sensible ways and change what can be altered.
> 
>> continually suppress bare life in favor of "connected" life, in fact that
>> implicitly privilege "connected" life over those other, "slow" things. Any
>> "ethics of participation" has to take that into account.
> 
> I don't suppress what Agamben and Butler describe as "bare life in favor of
> connected life." Those who will not be able to participate in sociable web
> media, however, will be disadvantaged
> as citizens and as professionals. Rheingold and many others argued that and I
> agree with them. The question is not if I think that this is desirable (it is
> not) but it's already the case.
> Students who are able to use social networking tools like LinkedIn have a
> higher chance to get hired. Education turned informal-- there is more peer
> education going on on sites like
> MySpace than can be achieved in many colleges. It's an informal education (of
> course I'm not arguing that formal education is in any way obsolete). But kids
> in SecondLife teach other
> programming. Then there is the culture of help forums, of knowledge
> repositories, etc... Teens through their participation in sociable web media
> acquire skills that we may not value as
> such because they do not relate to what we know or have experienced. Cutting
> (especially minority) kids off from social networking is a horrible idea also
> for that reason-- legislation like
> the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) is deeply misguided/ill-informed. The
> question is not whether or not I favor "slow things| over "mega-connected
> things" (I do) but the challenge
> is which skill sets student need when she or he leaves the university.
> Judgment & filtering skills, for me, are right at the top of that tool box
> that kids need to meet the challenges of
> today's culture. 
> 
> Trebor
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at bbs.thing.net
> http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
> 
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>