[-empyre-] discourse fetishism

[Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com>]

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...
best,
ryan

> 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?
>
> Kenneth.