Re: [-empyre-] G.H. Hovagimyan's responses to M White

[marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>]

Hi all,

Even though H.G, has expressed thoughts in a tone which is not in 
keeping with the usually accepted behaviour on this list, ignoring his 
comments via the process of Dumbing it down to a level that cheapens the 
original intention itself, is not advisable. For what was expressed were 
actually 'bare bones', even though it was intensely shared. What some 
may conveniently perceive as insults, may actually be something else, if 
explored further than mere immediate reactions and protocolian 
default-settings.

A commonly used tactical weapon (especially on the working classes), by 
(inspiring) despotic rulers, or tactically controlling organizations, 
and those who follow such unquestioning, institutional protocols; is to 
drown out valid concerns, dissent and social disquiet by stigmatizing 
the 'subjective and questioning voice', as a whiner or agressive 
attacker. This could be in the form of what is perceived as political 
correctness, which can serve as an officially accepted process and 
authoritarian positioning of a moral code. This moral code sits well 
with conservative behaviour, rejecting 'real-raw energy', in favour of a 
more socially constructed and accepted distant, mechanistic value.

Such properties in essence, whether conscious or not - do act to inflict 
a de-positioning, which is not a necessary action and more creates yet 
another scenario of cultural disempowerment and trivializes the 
disputer's voice, diverting one away from the actual context of what was 
originally argued or disputed. A patriarchal function that pulls rank, 
displacing the upstart in question and literally placing them to the 
back of the queue. Which is political.

H.G. is a very important curator and artist in regard to net art and 
media art, and by not recognising that his voice is of equal value only 
communicates a suspicion that we are only allowed to be discussing, 
under terms of a borgious criterion that serves an elite of people who 
feel more stronger and sure that they are correct and better than 
certain groups or individuals, mainly because they are supported in 
feeling that way.

When one is actually part of a creative field such as net art/new media, 
and aware of certain opposing forces contrary to creative freedoms and 
genuinely interested in sharing troublesome flaws that are either lodged 
in ourselves, or perpetrated institutionally. It is usually constructive 
to air ideas and thoughts (they do not necessarily have to be academic) 
and go through the positive process of discovering where some of these 
varied and interesting issues lie, theoretically and in practise.

Thomas Moore said 'All attempts to give a strict form to life, even if 
they are based in a fantasy of self improvement, participate in Sadeian 
monastic ideals'.

What was experienced on here, on this list was 'Bare Life', and to 
simply brush the essence of such an experience under the carpet says 
something, which is unfortunately all too common. That there is no place 
for urgency, passion and fluid communication that does not conform or 
reflect the alloted 'tags' or 'signifiers'.

There is a big difference between intellectual argument and academic 
argument, academic argument comes from a place of culturalized 
reference, high art, high science, or accepted and supposed informed 
knowledge that has been institutionally accepted. This means that if you 
use an academic argument or already prescribed canon innyour argument, 
you are more likely to be agreed with by those who value such structures 
and theories. Thus, an immediate rapport occurs, a kind of mental 
handshake and recognition that one has equally gone through the same 
learning processes. This is of course a positive experience for those 
who wish to have their so called intellectual and educational references 
re-affirmed, but it serves no solution to solve the issue or crux, that 
'Academia' only serves the few.

I personally, was not insulted by H.G's comments, as Deborah proposed. 
He was rude to only one individual on this list. To me, it seemed very 
much a personal reaction to the position of the debator, and their 
credentials. I also, would not act the same way as H.G, although I do 
possess empathy with the intent of his words, that were discussing the 
wider context and would of been happier if he was not to direct them so 
personally - but hey that's me.

Let's not get too precious about ourselves and start again - some good 
stuff being discussed :-)

marc

--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org