Re: [-empyre-] Size matters?

kathy rae huffman <kahuffm@attglobal.net> · Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:34:22 +0100

Charlotte, Peter et al,
Just to keep my toes in the water here -- the experience of growing FACES 
has been very specific but has some reflection points vis a vis this 
discussion.  The FACES list initiallty grew from personal meetings between 
women (no advertising or solicitation was ever made).  Then, the list 
subscribers passed information to their friends and associates -- etc. -- 
and events were organised on the list, and then by list members themselves 
(with no moderators involved -- which we thought was really great btw).  It 
was all about personal connections. So, as you say, at first (back in the 
days when there were not 'so many' lists that connected people 
internationally on the topic of net and new media stuff) it was definately 
more chatty and personal among the women who knew each other.  When a new 
person subscribed, we always posted a bio and asked them to introduce 
themselves (much as in a normal social situation).  When no bio was 
submitted, with very few exceptions, the woman was not subscribed.
When the list grew to include many different language groups, we became 
aware of smaller lists springing up among women in various goegraphic 
locations -- these might have started up on their own anyway, especially 
since they became easier to manage without being a sysop -- but it also 
seems that communicating freely in one's language is very 
attractive.  Also, let's be honest, we all have our local/specific 
interests to explore (in addition to complex net and art theory) that may 
be considered too esoteric (and may I say insignificant) for a larger - 
more international discussion lists.
As an example, here in Manchester, we have just this year started up a list 
among women who are involved in art, cinema, and education.  It is pretty 
specific -- to connect and inform each other to interesting events and to 
meet together from time to time.  It started with a huge get 
together/dinner, and it continues to work as a friendly association that is 
much appreciated!  I didn't start this up, btw, but I participate and enjoy 
it.  There are approx.  25 women participating now (and more and more ask 
to be included).
Kathy

At 23:47 11/08/2004 +0200, you wrote:

Charlotte Frost wrote:

I have witnessed this too, and some of the lists I read most tend to be the
smaller ones. I also find that the archives of some of the bigger lists are
very difficult to search. I find nettime a pain to find stuff on and I know
others do too, which is really annoying because I wasn't online during some
of the debates most relevant to my research, and I can't sit around waiting
for them to published in books now can I?!
When there is no archive, they become more like Left Bank Coffee Houses etc
and this is a very interesting arena in itself, perhaps where just having
the discussions and conversations is what counts...and laying testament
occurs in the art works or outcomes of such conversations....
Do you find these lists more fruitful for the production of work? Do they
foster workable collaborations?

My personal experience is that lists where you know a lot of people in 
person make you easier respond to things. What I do however think is that 
on (small) closed lists you easier drop personal ideas and opinions, but 
also more banal things like gossip or questions that seem to be to stupid 
to ask on bigger lists with archives, they are just more intimate. To get 
to your question if they are more fruitful for the production of work, I 
think in some sense they are, because you can ask questions (as for 
example programming related) you probably wouldn't ask on the bigger list. 
If you ask me if they foster workable collaborations my experience is that 
they have more chance in contributing to this than the larger lists.

Peter
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre