Due to unexpected behaviour of the chat, we lost the first 15 minutes
of it.
We sorted the problem though and next ones will be completed.
[10:15:07] m_betancourt: but without significant new elaborations.
[10:15:18] Jesse Scott: this is true.
[10:15:21] m_betancourt: too often new tech=/=new aesthetics
[10:15:53] Jesse Scott: can you talk about this in terms of reification?
[10:16:04] m_betancourt: we just assume that the earlier avant-garde paradigm
continues to apply, but it doesn't
[10:16:21] m_betancourt: I think it's less a matter of reification than
valorization
[10:16:36] Jesse Scott: how so?
[10:16:59] m_betancourt: the expansion of authorship provides the framework
for extending market values into areas where they didn't exist before
[10:17:24] m_betancourt: we're moving towards a situation where any activity
becomes a commercially valuable form of "authorship"
[10:17:45] Ana: How does this work wth collective authorship such as this?
[10:17:46] m_betancourt: and this disturbs the paradigms we have created
in the past
[10:18:23] Jesse Scott: okay. the 'democratization' of art and means invests
in micro-economies.
[10:18:33] Ana: Interestingly ana is brendan and brendan is ana right
now
[10:18:48] m_betancourt: lol
[10:18:51] Jesse Scott: lol
[10:18:58] bram: !
[10:19:30] m_betancourt: collective works tend to give value to those
who are in charge, rather than those wo perform the labor
[10:19:39] brendan: Hello Bram
[10:19:46] Ana: ana is outside on my puter having a cigarette
[10:19:51] bram: hi ana
[10:19:52] Jesse Scott: who is in charge then?
[10:20:02] m_betancourt: OS is a good example. Consider Linux. Torvalds
has done quite well
[10:20:21] Jesse Scott: distribution deals...
[10:20:30] m_betancourt: yes. exactly
[10:20:30] brendan: There is a link to history at the top Bram if you
need to catch up with conversation
[10:20:44] Jesse Scott: facilitating means...
[10:20:45] Jem: Isn't this in order to address someone who will be accountable
for the work though?
[10:21:07] m_betancourt: the guy who wrote "Cathedral and Bazaar"
is now a multimillionaire
[10:21:35] m_betancourt: yes, but at the same time they are the ones who
receive economic compensation for other's labor
[10:21:37] Jem: Eric Raymond - but is that from the book?
[10:22:11] m_betancourt: Yes, Raymond. He wrote it after doing a sendmail
OS project in the mid 1990s
[10:22:17] m_betancourt: the book came much later
[10:22:31] Jem: So do you think everyone should get a share of the proceeds?
[10:22:51] m_betancourt: and his money came not from the writing of it,
but from the OS community decidign to give him stock
[10:23:08] Jem: and if so how do you divide it up?
[10:23:26] m_betancourt: I'm not certain that our existing economics are
capable of handling the changes we're imposing
[10:23:41] Jesse Scott: so how do we reclaim authorship? can it be done
in mass or deterritorialized movements? or is it individual aesthetics?
[10:24:02] m_betancourt: I suspect authorship is the problem itself
[10:24:08] Jem: true
[10:24:25] m_betancourt: but our culture is incapable of accepting anon.
work
[10:24:39] m_betancourt: someone will valorize it, creating imbalances
[10:24:54] brendan: Michael you make a point in one of your essays about
the expansion of capitalism into the digital as illusion of exchange wi
[2007-04-04 09:25:04] Jesse Scott: then the modes of presentation - and
the entire suporting spectrum - for a VJ are insufficient.
[10:25:07] Jem: Do you think that ideas don't belong to anyone?
[10:25:26] brendan: without expenditure (or apparently)
[10:25:54] m_betancourt: the illusion of exchange without expenditure
is what makes the valorization possible
[10:26:19] m_betancourt: it isn't about ownership or not, but about the
transfer of economic benefit
[10:26:27] brendan: In terms of collective authorship this is more generation
of the exchangeable
[10:27:00] m_betancourt: yes, but at the same time only a limited few
get to enjoy the benefit
[10:27:21] m_betancourt: Raymond/Torvalds instead of the many who worked
on their projects
[10:27:25] brendan: as 'my space' is 'free' generation of content?
[10:27:54] m_betancourt: lol yes. consider who "bought" myspace
[10:28:03] m_betancourt: and for how much. or YouTube
[10:28:21] m_betancourt: without the labor of users willing to post, these
stop being valuable entirely
[10:28:30] brendan: :devil:
[10:28:48] m_betancourt: yet those users' actions exist to benefit a few
[10:29:16] Jem: So what do you propose as a solution?
[10:29:23] m_betancourt: at the same time there's no clear why to compensate
them. its a systemic myopia that we
[10:29:37] m_betancourt: can't really accomodate without a basic change
to our economics
[10:29:56] Jem: OK ...
[10:30:00] m_betancourt: my concern has largely been identifying the nature
of the situation.
[10:30:34] m_betancourt: we don't really understanding what's happening,
so without that we can't even begin to think of a "solution"
[10:30:50] Jesse Scott: it reinforces the idea that artistic validity
has to converge with wholesale paradigm shifts in the social and political
arenas
[10:31:01] m_betancourt: yes
[10:31:11] Jem: There seems to be a strong link between Open Source thinking
and anarchism don't you think?
[10:31:32] Jesse Scott: it is impossible to pursue liberated artistic
practice in a hierarchyical societ
[10:31:36] m_betancourt: true, in some areas there is. but it is also
arguably potlatch
[10:31:50] Jem: I think Raymond himself is a Capitalistic Anarchist
[10:32:03] m_betancourt: i.e. an example of excessive consumption/waste
[10:32:16] m_betancourt: there's an oxymoron
[10:32:46] Jesse Scott: it should be an oxymoron, but its beenclassified,
thus it exists...
[10:33:28] m_betancourt: true
[10:34:16] Jem: I wonder whether in the digital realm whether we shouldn't
try and build our own economies
[10:34:21] brendan: nothing less than another sense of 'beingness' within
those involved seems to be needed
[10:34:37] m_betancourt: I agree
[10:35:00] Jem: In Second Life for example everyone thinks its worth doing
because you could nmake some money out of it
[10:35:11] m_betancourt: but the digital remains parasitic in relationship
to existing economics which poses a paradox for those trying to get out
[10:35:28] m_betancourt: Jem, this is what I'm talking about
[10:35:40] m_betancourt: you can't escape the economics of reality by
going digital
[10:36:03] Jem: But I think you could create a place where that was so?
[10:36:03] m_betancourt: what happens instead is you get an exaggeration
of the tendencies of reality
[10:37:14] m_betancourt: the digital economy that has been built is centered
on a literalization of capitalism
[10:37:31] Jem: It would be nice to go to a place like Second life where
you could build a new societye without ties to money
[10:37:32] m_betancourt: ever expanding value without corresponding consumption
[10:37:51] m_betancourt: that's the problem
[10:38:08] Jesse Scott: "nice" has nothing to do with it.
[10:38:23] Jesse Scott: it has to translate into action.
[10:38:24] m_betancourt: digital spaces tend to promote utopia ideas,
but can't be separated from the physical reality
[10:38:48] m_betancourt: someone has to built the machines, infrastructure,
etc to support the digital
[10:38:49] brendan: I think this could be the point where we go back to
Jesse's reification
[10:39:05] Jesse Scott: as an aside, i heard Kristiana is being dissolved
of its autonomy...
[10:39:05] m_betancourt: exactly
[10:39:17] Jesse Scott: yes!
[10:39:44] m_betancourt: could you (Jesse) expand on it a little?
[10:40:19] Jesse Scott: Sure. I was thinking of it in reference to the
text you have on this site...
[10:40:30] m_betancourt: ok
[10:40:47] Jesse Scott: and how you talk about remix vs mashup vs sampling,
etc...
[10:41:04] Jesse Scott: how new technology = new aesthetics.
[10:41:26] m_betancourt: actually my argument is that they don't equal
each other
[10:41:50] Jesse Scott: right. but it is assumed that they do.
[10:41:56] Jesse Scott: or purported.
[10:42:13] m_betancourt: yes. the reification happens because we choose
to assume aclean break with reality
[10:42:21] m_betancourt: when in fact we simply repeat the past
[10:42:31] Jesse Scott: thus, the reification, the "materializing"
of the meme...
[10:42:35] Jesse Scott: yes.
[10:42:50] bram: ... is funadamentally different
[10:43:08] m_betancourt: however, the meme in this case is capitalism
itself
[10:43:30] Jesse Scott: when, in terms of interactive media and performance
- vjing and beyond - we have too much parroting, replication, and dross
[10:43:39] Jesse Scott: as it stands already!
[10:43:45] m_betancourt: true
[10:43:53] m_betancourt: but this is also true of most arts
[10:43:55] Jesse Scott: w/o the influence of this...
[10:44:03] Jesse Scott: true.
[10:44:35] Jesse Scott: there seems to be certain factors which hold this
in place, as it were though...
[10:44:46] m_betancourt: yes.
[10:44:51] bram: aesthetics
[10:44:53] Jesse Scott: very strong paradigms.
[10:45:09] m_betancourt: this is the nature of our civilization, not just
politics/economics/aesthetics
[10:45:21] Jesse Scott: limitations. sense of histrory in a young art
form.
[10:45:50] m_betancourt: I think its more that there are established power
structures that replicate themselves in new tech
[10:46:02] brendan: Any qualitative difference in works which process
data in'realtime' or human perceptible 'real' time?
[10:46:18] Jesse Scott: state-of-the-art or art-of-the-state ???
[10:46:41] Jesse Scott: good question ...
[10:46:48] Jesse Scott: [brendan]
[10:47:03] brendan: which mimic human interaction say?
[10:47:09] m_betancourt: in most cases I would say there is little to
be gained from real-time processes unless they create new experiences
[10:47:30] m_betancourt: and that is the problem
[10:48:01] m_betancourt: we have lots of new technology, but we're still
tried to the older art paradigms
[10:48:15] Jesse Scott: a straight video buffer in MAX'Jitter being projected
is hardly authorship.
[10:48:22] Ana: new experiences? any ideas on that?
[10:48:44] m_betancourt: only in a few limited ways
[10:49:01] m_betancourt: I'm as hampered as anyone by my culture
[10:49:38] brendan: In one sense there is the authorship of the programmer
[Jesse]
[10:50:12] m_betancourt: that's the problem: we can't escape this issue
[10:50:15] Jesse Scott: yes. programmer, patcher, community, subject...
[10:50:17] brendan: More problematic in the collective authorship of Pure
data Gem
[10:50:35] m_betancourt: true, but who hosts it's source files?
[10:50:55] brendan: good point
[10:51:16] Jesse Scott: interesting, i downloaded PD for a new machine
yesterday...
[10:51:39] Jesse Scott: and was going through the documentation on puredata.org
(i think)
[10:51:42] Ana: Hi Magda and welcome.
[10:51:54] m_betancourt: I like PD, but I admit I'm a pygmie witha giant
typewriter when it comes to using it
[10:51:54] brendan: Good luck
[10:52:06] Jesse Scott: and Miller Puckette was saying there is a new
site that he recently found
[10:52:20] Jesse Scott: and it is a more comprehensive resource.
[10:52:41] Jesse Scott: interesting admission.
[10:53:07] brendan: Tell us more but probably later as this could become
a pd fest
[10:53:17] m_betancourt: this makes a good point: a lot of what seems
like altruistic activity is actually individually advantageous
[10:53:32] brendan: if anyone wants a hand with pd stuff i can help a
bit
[10:53:34] Jem: documentation is always the unglamourous side of open
source
[10:53:45] m_betancourt: true, but the organizers of the database gain
rewards
[10:53:48] Jesse Scott: no technical stuff, just that the "author"
had admitted to a community resource that had outdone what he could teach.
[10:54:21] Jem: I think he's not interested in teaching it as much as
making it
[10:54:26] m_betancourt: isn't that the point of teaching?
[10:54:44] m_betancourt: or the goal?
[10:54:53] Jesse Scott: well he made it years ago. but it is OS.
[10:55:21] Jem: I think documentation is what its at as far as propogating
new ideas now
[10:55:22] Ana: that is another interesting role on authorship, the teacher.
[10:55:59] m_betancourt: its one of the few roles where the goal is to
eliminate the author entirely
[10:56:28] Jem: What do you mean?
[10:56:59] m_betancourt: teachers have as their goal to produce students
who will not just replace them, but be able to surpass the,
[10:57:08] m_betancourt: need for the teacher
[10:57:38] m_betancourt: this runs counter to most authorship which is
based on assumign control over the result
[10:58:03] brendan: Or is it socially and economically organised to produce
new authors includingt authors of physical
[10:58:05] m_betancourt: control in this case means the ability, among
others, to reap economic gain from a thing
[10:58:06] Jesse Scott: Michael, can you discuss briefly the ideas of
Eco you quoted in your text?
[10:58:09] brendan: commodities
[10:58:28] m_betancourt: briefly?! I can try
[10:58:50] m_betancourt: although Eco does it better
[10:58:54] Jesse Scott: lol
[10:59:14] Ana: We will have to close this chat in a couple of minutes.
unfortunatelly.
[10:59:31] Jesse Scott: but we started late!~
[10:59:45] Ana: Not only the owner wants to close the cafe (oddly, because
its only 11AM)
[10:59:57] Ana: True.
[11:00:17] m_betancourt: eco's iedeas of seriality are built around the
notion that we create specific frameworks that we use to evaluate new
works
[11:00:47] m_betancourt: and that these take the form of past experience
(a black box in his argument)
[11:01:15] m_betancourt: but the key idea is we do this automatically
as viewers, and we can't avoid it
[11:01:28] Jesse Scott: so, if i did some motion capture of this chat
board conversation and was to project it at an event...
[11:01:38] Jesse Scott: how would that be read as authorship?
[11:01:58] m_betancourt: you would still be the one doing it
[11:02:10] Jem: I don't think we should have 'authorship' in that connection
[11:02:30] m_betancourt: authoship is cloesly tied to the person performign
an action
[11:02:33] brendan: We wont be able to document the rest of this chat
from here on in
[11:02:44] brendan: you can however carry on
[11:02:55] m_betancourt: Ok. if you get paid for it, then you are the
author
[11:02:59] brendan: excellent discussion folks
[11:03:04] Jesse Scott: good ending!
[11:03:04] m_betancourt: yes
[11:03:14] Jem: Thanks Michael
[11:03:21] Jesse Scott: thank you!
[11:03:23] m_betancourt: happy to
[11:03:25] m_betancourt: this was interesting
[11:03:29] Ana: we are not paid a penny. just in sace. no econoical profit
at all.
[11:03:43] brendan: Thanks Michael and everyone, I'm just off to bank
the whole thing
[11:03:45] m_betancourt: is there a difference?
[11:03:56] m_betancourt: bye Brendan
[11:04:02] Ana: Thanks so much to all of you. and hope to see you later.
[11:04:04] Jesse Scott: see you all at 11am PST!
[11:04:16] m_betancourt: good morening/evening!
[11:04:36] Ana: good day/night
[11:04:39] brendan: Bye M. Bye everyone, we're just being kicked out this
caf.
[11:04:46] m_betancourt: I'm off. see you all bye
|
