[-empyre-] time, context, participation?

Green Jo-Anne jo at turbulence.org
Sat Oct 24 01:37:28 EST 2009

Hi All,

You actually don't have to become a member to post; none of the  
comments so far are by people who have registered. The reason we want  
people to register is we'd like to be able to contact them in case we  
need their permission to  publish their comments in print. (As it  
stands, Matt has not succeeded in requiring people to fill in all of  
the fields, so we're not getting all of the info. we'd like. Matt is  
now volunteering his time, so we have to be patient while he  
addresses all of our demands.)

Matt thought that building a social networking platform into the site  
would help build a community around it. Ironically, lots of people  
have registered but none have commented. I'm interested to see how  
Facebook Connect will work; we have over 900 people in the Networked  
group on Facebook; soon it might be possible to bring them over to  
the site.

I actually love the density (and brilliance) of your writing Anna; it  
demands time and attention which I also find sorely lacking in most  
networked environments; that said, I also like the possibilities that  
140 character Twitter posts open up. I think each has its place. I  
think that "density" shouldn't be confused with quality though; many  
dense texts are often poorly written; some authors simply don't  
communicate their ideas well.

Re. participation: many people write dense, comprehensive posts on - 
empyre-, nettime, and iDC: this does not deter people from engaging  
with them conversationally.
This is why I've wondered aloud about the role community building  
plays in participatory practices.

Warm Regards,

On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:59 PM, Anna Munster wrote:

> Hi Johannes,
> A challenging post! Helen is right is stating that comments on  
> blogs lead to lots of spam etc but I myself wondered about the  
> double-layer of permissions with posting comments to Networked ie,  
> you have to become a member to post and comments are also  
> moderated....I am wondering to what extent this makes participation  
> more onerous for some people?
> Helen or Jo is there are rationale for this design, I know you are  
> both incredibly experienced with this stuff and so I imagine there is!
> However, I do want to say something else, which I know will get  
> pounced on as being somewhow elitist, however, I'm willing to get  
> pounced on!
> I am not convinced that participation in a project has to be easy  
> or that ease=open. If we are talking about issues of time here then  
> I think we do have take seriously the time of reading, which is  
> actually rather slow. Furthermore why do theoretical propositions  
> and texts have to be *accessible*? Does this make them necessarily  
> better? Why is text always being asked to be accessible but it's  
> alright to have difficult visuals and/or sound and that is  
> experimental (ie a good thing)?
> pause..waiting for the pounce....
> I actually like difficult ideas and I like the time it takes to get  
> into them, reflect upon them and then respond.
> I am for more slowness in networked thought and something that  
> slows things down and endures may enable its own time and space for  
> new modes of participation
> best
> Anna
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

Jo-Anne Green
New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
Networked: http://networkedbook.org
New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20091023/213be490/attachment.html 

More information about the empyre mailing list