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