[-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology

[magnus lawrie]

Hi All,

I am so encouraged by the conversation this week. Thanks to Johannes and 
Simon for bringing things more into focus with their recent posts. Ruth, 
best wishes for a speedy return! Apologies that it has taken me a little 
time to formulate my e-mail:

Thinking about an all encompassing system, or of being outside of it, is 
a bit awe inspiring for me at present. I return to education in 
September :o)

I know that 'network ecologies' is one of those phrases that gets 
bandied about ('participation', as has been said, is another), so I 
appreciate possible skepticism towards the term. Cursory investigation 
turned up the following document:

http://www.colbud.hu/apc-aa/img_upload/4d11dfd490c468ca39fcefabae592944/JordanPhysLifeRev2004.pdf

My understanding, very briefly: The origin of network ecology is in 
food-web analysis. The authors state that a distinction between 
structural and dynamic aspects of systems is important to define, as 
well as between mathematical and ecological models of understanding 
system interactions. In seeking to establish a topology of any network, 
quantification is necessary. Network ecology methods can be used to 
graph economic systems. That's a slightly interrupted sequence, I 
realize. My own thought-train leads from there to food chains (and of 
tension between monetizing interests and groups which we might consider 
less sustainable). Johannes asks how we can measure the interactions 
within the latter. Quantification, if I have it correct, might partially 
be done by learning about topology in a network, which sounds too easy, 
but I wonder if it gives scope to quantify effects in a way different 
from the government led blueprints? This could involve methods (I 
speculate that this might involve Human Geography) that take us away 
from talk of 'economic agents' and 'social capital'? Back to the context 
of The Chateau and ChIT, the messy fact of eating, of impregnating 
oneself into the infrastructure, the effect of economic imperatives, the 
sometimes unwelcome leverage of individual and (other) organizational 
agendas, all bring me to Johannes' question of sustainability (which I 
think about as fragility of networks).

I see it is a fact (less so a problem) that people will continually 
reconfigure themselves/their relations within any group. In Glasgow at 
least, I have seen the reservoir of creativity in people continue to 
replenish itself in this way over most of two decades (DIY?). Mobility 
in this I see as more an inherent behaviour, than as a strategy (though 
there are certainly strategists having their effect within this 
particular system). In the case of ChIT, although it is (probably) now 
disbanded, its purpose continues in other activities of other groups and 
the ties and trust are there to underpin and enliven new interactions. 
But perhaps I am romanticizing here already? Let me say for my part, 
that there were definitely drawbacks to The Chateau, which it thankfully 
didn't outlast: Asked about the failure of The Chateau, I would have to 
wonder if there was ever a project to fail.

Thanks to all and best wishes,

Magnus



On 24/07/2010 15:41, Johannes Birringer wrote:
> dear Simon, dear all
>
>
> "Organize a strike in your school or workplace on the grounds that it does not satisfy your need for indolence&  spiritual beauty"
> (Hakim Bey)
>
>
>
> yes, i must agree with you, and i share you skepticism regarding the "blueprint"  for the UK creative industries and "digital futures"  ("Creating growth: a blueprint for the creative industries") that was launched.
> At the same time, i notice that you refer to "the system" and you seem to think that grassroots or other (non affiliated?, alternative?) arts organizations or social networks are not part of "system" or are not in themselves following blueprints or organizational models of system. In my questions I was merely trying to pose a doubt about the illusions (and utopian or transgressive metaphors associated with them) attached to autonomous zones and the many DIY's and DIWOs  we have seen or have been engaged with or romantically interested in.  Perhaps in some cases (of those of us here on the list who are employed by institutions or work partly inside them and imagine working partly outside them) it would be more honest to say that we have been consumed by the systems we inevitably become a part of.
>
> As to the histories of creativities, i value what i learnt this weak about Furtherfield and the Chateau, and i tried to imagine the  "methods and ideas around contemporary networked media arts
> practice" , as Ruth called them, while i kept doubting the cohesion of something defined as collaborative communitiy of networks. What if social networks, as they were described here, are always dissociative, apart from or including the fact that they are economically and psychologically nor sustainable.
>
> It might be valuable to look at the failure of anarchism as an example and, yes, reread the impossible manifesto that Hakim Bey wrote in 1985:
> "The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism"
>
> http://hermetic.com/bey/taz_cont.html
>
> what a fascinating and strange text!
>
>
> regards
>
> Johannes Birringer
> Interaktionslabor
> http://interaktionslabor.de
>    
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre