<div dir="ltr"><div><div>"...creation of networks, or, as they are called in the internet world,
communities of consumers, who coproduce innovation, diversification, and
identification with the brand, on the basis of open source’ (from the
Violence of Financial Capitalism, p. 56).<br>
<br>
Marazzi takes this further to suggest that it is ‘living-labour’ (by
which he means work covering all forms of life including working as and
in leisure, sleep time, life administration etc AND all the services
required to keep this living labour alive such as the health and
education industries) that sustains the ‘innovation’ necessary for
financial capital to deliver value for its shareholders. (this is a very
reduced version of a complex argument!). Financialisation creates value
(since it has no other mode of productivity) byparasitising on the
creativity of living labour (which it also co-produces)..." <br><br></div>Hi Anna, unless I misunderstand what he is saying, Marazzi has it backwards. In the Google model, the only thing Google produces is eyeballs. In other words, from the financial angle, we the users are not the consumers but the product. Google monetizes itself by selling use to the advertizers. It appears to me that is the scariest part of the net. We are complicit in our becoming pure data. Perhaps the situation is clearer in social media like Facebook, but it is equally true with Google. <br><br>"parasitising on the
creativity of living labour"<br>The living labor that is being parasitized is ourselves.<br><br></div><div>In the net, is there any "innovation" any more that is more than a "condition reflex" ruse to increase our participation in this vicious cycle of production?<br><br></div><div>Ciao,<br></div><div>Murat<br></div><div><br><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Anna Munster <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:a.munster@unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">a.munster@unsw.edu.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
Yes I agree Christiane, it does depend on how you define ‘finance’…and this is perhaps the interesting thing and one reason I thought it would be a great place to begin a discussion on ‘now’ and ‘then’ in net.art….<br>
I’m referring more to the idea of ‘financialisation’ as descriptive of contemporary capitalism. This goes further than the idea that it is the finance sector that both creates both capital (wealth) and crisis in contemporary capitalism - this is pretty much standard economic theory. Rather I am thinking off the back of theorists such as Christian Marazzi who tie financialisation directly to new ‘models’ of production and consumption or ‘the Google Model’. To quote Marazzi: 'The creation of networks, or, as they are called in the internet world, communities of consumers, who coproduce innovation, diversification, and identification with the brand, on the basis of open source’ (from the Violence of Financial Capitalism, p. 56).<br>
<br>
Marazzi takes this further to suggest that it is ‘living-labour’ (by which he means work covering all forms of life including working as and in leisure, sleep time, life administration etc AND all the services required to keep this living labour alive such as the health and education industries) that sustains the ‘innovation’ necessary for financial capital to deliver value for its shareholders. (this is a very reduced version of a complex argument!). Financialisation creates value (since it has no other mode of productivity) by parasitising on the creativity of living labour (which it also co-produces)<br>
<br>
This then places ‘net. art’ in a very precarious and paradoxical position. Many of the early ‘nettime’ discussions from around 1997 were about the ways in which ‘net.art’ superseded and subverted an art market or ‘art on the net’ (the use of the web to promote art by the GLAM sector). Net art cut out middle people, bypassed curators, blurred the distinction between artist and audience/participant/artwork etc. BUT this is exactly the same mode of production Marazzi is talking about as ‘the Google model’….to what extent, then, is net art not simply an extension of financialisation (and of course at the other end, Nick’s post precisely shows the extent to which living labour is required to maintain net art).<br>
<br>
So, then, yes… I think eToy is a really interesting example because it has since 1994 pushed this relation of the network to living labour to an extreme by, as they say, ‘twisting values’….a very clever ‘corporate’ logo!<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
cheers<br>
Anna<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Anna Munster<br>
Associate Professor,<br>
Faculty of Art and Design<br>
UNSW<br>
P.O Box 259<br>
Paddington<br>
NSW 2021<br>
Australia<br>
<a href="mailto:a.munster@unsw.edu.au">a.munster@unsw.edu.au</a><br>
<a href="http://sensesofperception.info" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://sensesofperception.info</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> On 17 Sep 2016, at 3:13 AM, Christiane Paul, Curatorial <<a href="mailto:Christiane_Paul@whitney.org">Christiane_Paul@whitney.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
> It depends on how you want to define and delineate network and finance -- the ToyWar ultimately was a project very related to finance / the stock market, and eToy of course early on used a revenue model based on shares.<br>
> GWEI (<a href="https://www.paolocirio.net/work/gwei/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.paolocirio.net/<wbr>work/gwei/</a>) and Paolo Cirio's Loophole for all (<a href="https://paolocirio.net/work/loophole-for-all/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://paolocirio.net/work/<wbr>loophole-for-all/</a>) also are networked finance projects....<br>
><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>__________<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:empyre-bounces@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au">empyre-bounces@lists.<wbr>artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a> [<a href="mailto:empyre-bounces@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au">empyre-bounces@lists.<wbr>artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>] on behalf of Stephanie Rothenberg [<a href="mailto:rothenberg.stephanie@gmail.com">rothenberg.stephanie@gmail.<wbr>com</a>]<br>
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:34 AM<br>
> To: soft_skinned_space<br>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Response to Anna: Nick Knouf, MAICgregator<br>
><br>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> empyre forum<br>
> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.<wbr>edu.au</a><br>
> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.<wbr>edu</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
empyre forum<br>
<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.<wbr>edu.au</a><br>
<a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.<wbr>edu</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>