Agreed .. maybe there's bit of the Zizek in his style. Yes he is
abrasive in his style but check out his movie rants. When I'm feeling
down and de-energised I play one of them and it re-invigorates me. We
are all liars aren't we ... a poet? why not . G.H. Hovagimyan's
abrasiveness is something that can be effective but I do acknowledge
that Michele's response is genuine. I guess I would have been taken
aback but it doesn't mean we need to smother strong disagreement. At
the heart of the matter is whether we can keep our debate robust.
There are some huge issues out there ... the indifference of a true
political elite, indifferent to our needs, ruthless in its greed. ..
gianni
On 12/07/2006, at 12:29 PM, marc wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre