[-empyre-] discourse fetishism

along the lines of Kenneth's questions, i'm also interested in the engagement with criticality as an "embodied" practice (to use Brian's phrase). i've been thinking about de Certeau's use of "tactics" v "strategy" in relation to the militaristic use of those concepts... (thanks to a recent discussion with the center for tactical magic)
a lot of critically engaged practice has put much faith in the notion of tactics as a reactionary form of practice, whether of the direct action kind, or the unconscious everyday method of coping. but i'm wondering if it's not important now to develop notions of strategy...
what would a "strategical media" look like?
this is what i've seen as part of the journal's project (not to say that for everyone else, of course). at some point, we have to evaluate the state of embodiment. is the materialization of a given discourse just producing books and conferences? or is it interfacing with life in other ways? i certainly am not saying i know how to evaluate this (if it's even possible) but it seems the questions would have to be raised.
as to the question about where commodification (fetishism) is happening... i think there are multiple ways that one could site that. certainly the publishing system, and what's been called the "academic-military-entertainment complex" on other lists recently...

Hi Christina,

Could you clarify your ideas on the  "commodifation of discourse"?  I'm
unclear as to how and where this is occurring.  Is it the concentration
of discourse within the university/conference system?  MIT Press?
Siggraph? The abstraction of "place" into decentered space and time?...
(but that's a more generic quality of Modernity isn't it?)  There are
certainly approaches to using electronic and computationally-based
media that suggest the possibility of a reconstruction of space and
time into a meaningful articulation of place.  It's not the global
network, or the telematic embrace, but perhaps new approaches to
performance and presentation that allow the artwork to respond more
directly to its place.

I wonder also if there's a critique per se here of the notion of
interactivity itself?  It seems to have been effectively appropriated
by the world of management science and is couched more in terms of
control, efficiency and ease-of-use for the "user".  Artists are not
users, but rather makers.... what is the nature of the things made?
Use-value?... or something else?


This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.