not

aaaargu zacali v zime chodit cease&desist listy od roznych
vydavatelov (Verso, Uni of Columbia Press, Macmillan, IMO, atd),
je zaujimave sledovat ako sa situacia vyvija.
tu su dva rozhovory (asi jedine ktore doteraz vznikli) so Seanom
Duckrayom, ktory aaaarg.org rozbehol:
http://blog.sfmoma.org/2009/08/four-dialogues-2-on-aaaarg/
http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/2010/01/05/small-is-beautiful-a-discussion-with-aaaarg-architect-sean-dockray/

pre zaujimavost – archiv diskusie uzivatelov aaaargu
po cease&desist liste od Macmillan… spolocne prisli s novym
riesenim:
http://mitochondrialvertigo.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/the-aaaar-org-discussion-of-the-macmillan-threat/

co je priznacne, Sean viedol niekolko rokov v Los Angeles galeriu,
ktora sa postupne pretransformovala na otvorene vzdelavacie centrum
The Public School, ktorej odnoze vznikli uz v dalsich styroch
mestach. niektore workshopy ktore robia vzniknu prostrednictvom
‘issues’ ktore vytvaraju uzivatelia aaaargu, takze obe iniciativy
su uzko prepojene. ale vsetko spomina v rozhovoroch.

tu je celkom pekna komparacia niekolkych projektov zdielania
ebooks…

Scanners, collectors and aggregators. On the ‘underground movement’ of (pirated) theory text sharing

dalej, dnes som sa dozvedel o Silent Library, komunite v Madarsku,
ktora skenuje a zdiela knihy. po tlaku od vydavatelov (okolo 2005)
presunuli web do Ruska. kamarat ktory je clenom mi dnes pisal:
12:57 < pht__> vstupom je odporucanie existujuceho clena, predstavenie/dovod, a korektura 1 ocrkovaneho scanu!
12:58 < pht__> velmi uzavreta komunita s vysokou vstupnou barierou, ale je tam hrozne vela “povodneho” obsahu
12:58 < pht__> a hlavne out-of-print madarske knihy
13:00 < pht__> hlavnym problemom vydavatelstiev bolo, ze sa tam shareovali cerstve bestsellery v textovej forme :)))
13:01 < pht__> http://index.hu/tech/net/slp0826/
13:02 < pht__> Only 75 copies in 1000 of a a printed title survive fifty years. Concerning their endurance the electronic books are more vulnerable, but their unrestricted copyable and convertible qualities ensure the eternity for them in the common cultural treasury of mankind – so long as culture exists at all; the Silent Library Project and related enterprises make some contribution to its existence.
13:06 < pht__> tiez to len dal dole admin pod navalom C&D lettrov
13:06 < pht__> tiez pise ze ked mu niekto konkretny napisal, tak knihu odstranil
13:08 < pht__> a vylucili veci z wild-inetu
13:08 < pht__> len vlastne scany/ocrka
13:08 < pht__> a normalne stovky ludi citaju tie veci a opravuju ocr chyby :)
13:13 < pht__> najpopularnejsia kniha je asimovova before foundation po madarsky, s 14000 dloadmi
13:14 < pht__> v top5 je aj madarsky autor s 10k
13:16 < pht__> v slp je okolo 7000 textov
13:21 < pht__> na tomto slp je uzasne, ze tie texty su vsetky opravene+prekontrolovane
13:21 < pht__> ze to nie je len klik klik upload klik
13:22 < pht__> tu je clanok ale neda sa to moc citat
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//index.hu/tech/net/slp0826/&hl=en&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8
13:23 < pht__> vzniklo to ze si chalan naskenoval par knih a dal ich online
13:23 < pht__> a par kamosov zacalo posielat scany tiez
13:23 < pht__> sa pise v tom clanku

skoda ze mi nevyslo sa v Prahe stretnut s Kennethom z ubu.com,
ale ten ma k teme tiez vela co povedat..
napr:
Goldsmith’s syllabus includes Uncreative Writing, Interventionist Writing and Writing Through Art and Culture in partnership with the Institute of Contemporary Art, Philadelphia. Class tools are appropriation, theft, stealing, plundering and sampling. Cheating, fraud and identity theft are all encouraged. For Goldsmith the classroom, is a free space into which ethical queries can be conducted in a safe environment.

gabika pise ze problem venterovho genetickeho softveru nie su ani tak potvorky ako
mutacie umelej DNA v novom organizme..
—
http://respekt.ihned.cz/zkumavka/c1-43726410-craig-venter-nestvoril-umely-zivot

http://www.rozhlas.cz/zpravy/vedatechnika/_zprava/736218

tak ak to spravne chapem, tak to az take hrozive nebude…uvidime, ako to bude pokracovat dalej, pretoze je fakt, ze vacsina zlozitejsich organizmov ma systemy, ktore odmietaju cudzie molekuly….a nicia ich.
—
ono to tak z laickeho pohladu vyzera k podobnym ‘vynalezom’
sa postupne nevyhnutne dostaneme…ak s tym nepride venter,
tak niekto iny, ze? otazka je teda asi najma ako sa to da
vseliak zneuzit a ako bude flexibilna legislativa ohladom
prevencie rizik… hmm…. alebo?

> no, musim povedat, ze mna to celkom vydesilo, ked som sa to
> dozvedela….ani nie tak kvoli nejakym potvorkam, ale skor kvoli tomu, ze
> nikdy nevies, ako sa ten organizmus zacne branit zasahu do vlastneho
> DNA….
> moc informacii o tom nepreniklo, tak vlastne ani neviem, do ktorej fazy
> DNA zasiahli, alebo co modifikovali, ale urcite to moc pozitivne nie
> je….
>
> oni sa brania tym, ze sa budu dat liecit rozne druhy ochoreni, rakovin a
> podobne…ale neviem, neviem, do akej miery to su schopny strazit, aby
> nedochadzalo spatne k mutaciam tej DNA….
>
> uvidime, ake info este pustia….este skusim zistit viac…
>
> ale bat sa zatial nemusis, len hrat sa na ” Panov Bohov” je niekedy
> zradne…
>
> ale uvidime…..zatial mozes spavat kludne….
>>
>> pocuj vcera preletela mediami ta sprava, ze venterovmu timu
>> sa podarilo replikovat umelo syntetizovanu dna…
>> napriklad
>> http://veda.sme.sk/c/5385405/vedci-asi-stvorili-umely-zivot.html
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm
>>
>> akurat mi stale neni moc jasne co z toho vyplyva…
>> bude zle? alebo sa to tyka len nejakych pre smrtelnika
>> nepovsimutelnych veci, napr ze ide o malu vedecku epizodku?
>> alebo ze postupne ked to vymakaju tak budu vediet ‘programovat’
>> nejake male organizmy, ktore sa v hejnach budu prehanat
>> labakmi pripadne aj mimo nich?
>>

Dmytri Kleiner kritizuje Creative Commons aj Benklerovu ideu ‘commons-based peer-production’..

o CC hovori, ze namiesto toho aby podporovala slobodu uzivatela (napriklad GPL definuje slobodu ako 4 slobody uzivatela–to use/share/study/modify), dava autorovi ‘slobodu’ urcit uroven kontroly nad uzivatelom (teda rozne obmedzenia ako noncommercial-only/view-only atd).. cim CC neberie kontrolu z ruk producentov (co je ideou Free Culture), ani vobec nerusi rozdiel medzi producentom a konzumentom, ako tvrdi Lessig.

no a Benklerova teza z Wealth of Networks o ‘commons-based peer-production’ hovori o komunite autorov (peers), ktori spolocne tvoria v prostredi bez vlastnictva (commons). tu zas Kleiner tvrdi, ze tym ze Benklerovo commons ma imaterialnu/digitalnu povahu, tak ti co skutocne profituju v takejto situacii su ti, ktori vlastnia (materialne) prostriedky na vyrobu (nematerialnych) statkov, pretoze tvorcom neposkytuju slobodny pristup, ale na nom zarabaju. no a na to, aby autori prispievajuci do takejto commons neboli vykoristovani vlastnikmi fyzickeho materialu, treba do commons okrem virtualnych prostriedkov (softver, videa, texty, obrazky, atd) produkcie zahrnut aj materialne prostriedky..

problem property a problem hodnoty

(political theory)

1. Michael Hardt – Politics of the Common (2009)
michael hardt gives very good summary of current debates
about the commons. he explains the immaterial property
and the common got into centre of contemporary production
shifting away from industrial capitalist mobile/immobile
commodity properties. he says that today the capital
and economic development paradoxically relies on the common,
and that the central task for contemporary society is
to develop an alternative management of the common.
by the common he means the ecological (earth, ecosystems,
and all forms of life interacting with them) and social/cultural
(shared products of human labor–ideas, images, affects,
social relationships) domains. that is not much news,
but what is interesting – these two domains are often treated
separately, and here hardt mentions two major instances
of contradictions which link them:
contradiction between private property and the common;
and the fact that the value of common is immeasurable with
the traditional capitalist system of measures (and is rather
based on value of life, which we have not yet invented).
/ o ‘the common’ hovori ako o ekologickych (lesy, plaze,
vzduch, jazera) a nematerialnych socialnych/kulturnych
statkoch (videa, texty, fotky, idey, pocity, socialne vztahy,
zabava, nove formy zivota), ku ktorym maju (mat) vsetci
volny pristup. hovori o dvoch hlavnych rozporoch
s ohladom na klasicky system – konkretne nemoznost
urcit ich (ekonomicku) hodnotu, a problem vlastnickeho
vztahu k nim.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21899

2. Slavoj Zizek – Ecology: A New Opium of the Masses
tu zizek vychadza z idei commons ako ju chapu hardt a negri,
a jemne ju rozsiruje: commons ako kultura, externa
priroda (ekologia), a interna priroda (biogenetika).
tvrdi, ze je do commons zasadne zapojit aj mensiny,
populaciu vylucenu z politickych procesov.
http://www.lacan.com/zizecology1.htm
(je tam aj video prednaska)

(economy)

3. Lawrence Lessig – Remix: Making Art and Commerce
Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (2008)
to je jeho nova kniha, hovori tam o tom, ako mozu
ist dokopy ekonomika ‘komercie’ (klasicky online biznis)
a ‘zdielania’ (v ktorej nefigujuru peniaze–napr. priatelstvo
alebo P2P filesharing). odtial by bolo dobre vytiahnut
nejaku cast, ale najst nejaky sumarizujuci text, pripadne
jeho kritiku.
http://burundi.sk/monoskop/log/?p=224

4. Mikael Pawlo – What’s the meaning of “non-commercial”? (2004)
pawlo je sef svedskych iCommons a kritizuje tu fakt, ze drviva
vacsina materialov pod CC pouziva klauzulku ‘non-commercial’.
pyta sa co to znamena — a dava vela prikladov, kde sa to
co je commercial a co non-commercial neda urcit – napriklad:
verejna televizia, verejne skoly, reklamy na neziskovky,
rss-feedy embednute vo weboch na ktorych je reklama –
to su priklady, v ktorych nie je mozne urcit ci mozeme
pouzit CC videa ktore su sirene pod noncommercial licenciou.
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0501/msg00006.html

x. Bauwens – crowdfunding

(software)

5. Richard Stallmann
Stallmann v Lessigovej knihe hovori, ze free software
nie je altruizmus, ze tie veci programatori nerobia
lebo maju dobre srdce, ale spravidla maju pragmaticke
dovody. musi k tomu byt nejaky dobry clanok.

(philosophy)

6. Bernard Stiegler – transindividuation
to je francuzsky filozof, ktory sedel 7 rokov v base
za kradez v banke, a napisal tam niekolko zvazkov, ktore
prepisuju filozofiu z pohladu techniky/technologii.
bol nejaky cas sefom IRCAM, potom aj Centre Pompidou.
v poslednom case ho celkom hypuju. uz dlhsie kritizuje
web 2.0 sluzby a hovori o procese “transindividuacie”,
kedy svoj esteticky vkus menia uzivatelia medzi sebou
tym, ze zdielaju online material. nadvazuje na zabudnuteho
filozofa Simondona, ktory s tym terminom prisiel snad
este v 50-tych rokoch.
k tomu mam zatial len toto kratke video:

(commons in practise)

7. Creative Commons v cz/sk praxi
mozno interview s clovekom z cz/sk projektu, ktory dava veci
pod CC (je ich viac).

8. kauza a predaj Pirate Bay
zatial nemam tip na clanok

9.
jeden zaujimavy projekt v anglicku:
http://uniteddiversity.com/commons-creation/

(art/activism)

10. Ines Doujak – Victory Gardens
instalacia (2007) viedenskej umelkyne kritizujucej politiku USA a EU,
ktora prehliada privatizovanie verejnych statkov (vody, potravin, pody)
korporaciami prostrednictvom patentov [biopiratstvo],
najma v krajinach “mega diverzity” (mexiku, indii, brazili, indonezii).
/ Hardt: I object to calling this piracy, by the way, because pirates
at least have the dignity to steal property. These corporations steal
the common and transform it into private property.
http://www.lakeside-kunstraum.at/archiv.detail.asp?active_semprog_ID=525386989&active_topic_ID=854442775
http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2008/05/raised-above-the-ground-with.php

11. Yes Men – Bhopal

D
Chantal Mouffe:
How do you define democracy if not as consensus?
I use the concept of agonistic pluralism to present a new way to think
about democracy which is different from the traditional liberal conception
of democracy as a negotiation among interests and is also different to the
model which is currently being developed by people like Jurgen Habermas
and John Rawls. While they have many differences, Rawls and Habermas have
in common the idea that the aim of the democratic society is the creation
of a consensus, and that consensus is possible if people are only able to
leave aside their particular interests and think as rational beings.
However, while we desire an end to conflict, if we want people to be free
we must always allow for the possibility that conflict may appear and to
provide an arena where differences can be confronted. The democratic
process should supply that arena.
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article563.html

G
> thanks _ yes yes I now know who she is and I guess in a glorious past
> must have read the book she wrote with laclau, and for a while was
> very much interested in the ideas of gramsci about hegemony etc on
> which they also base their writing/thinking (but that is all so far
> for me – it seems really a revival to go pre-postmodernist-thinking,
> guess it is safer to dig those up again hihi)

D
>> hmm, but that idea doesn’t sound that old fashioned and irrelevant:
>> to understand radical democracy not as a dialogue and
>> negotiation (or even consensus) as an end in itself,
>> but as the provider of the environment that always allows
>> the possibility of disagreement..

• G
  > she did not understand her readings, because she is not researching
  > enough:
  >
  > 1. marx-engels are talking about the freedom of the worker, it is all
  > about how the difference in time as seen in post industrial capitalism
  > compared to early industrial capitalism and an utopian communism at
  > that time (forget the 20th century for a moment) – so “everyone is an
  > artist” is not a statement about art at that time but trying to
  > protect the freedom of the worker: work time (for the factory or for a
  > boss), reproductional time (to eat decently, to keep hygiene and wash
  > yourself, to have healthcare, to be able to for instance look after
  > your vegetables growing etc…)recreational/free time (relaxing and
  > resting, reflected in the regulation of working hours at stand still
  > since 60’s to 35-40 hours and also as the right for retirement later,
  > but mainly realizing the idea of freedom: it is up to the individual
  > and no boss can ask someone to give it up)… so art is seen as the
  > basic creativity everyone his in him/herself and a corner stone for
  > happiness in society, an element to realize yourself or a group and
  > situated within the free will, the fundamental idea of autonomy of
  > subjectivity (of individual or collective unit)… guess today the
  > situation is quite different though reading marx-engels on that point
  > I must admit changed the way I was looking at creating and that is
  > also the reason why in karass suite amateurs and professionals are
  > mixed and there is no discussion about it needed, it is a given fact
  > (guess she does not understand this if you only look at highly payed
  > curatored exhibitions)
• D
  one thing that is clear is that she’s biased – celebrating
  the walls of the white cube beginning in london and ending in nyc.
  • G
    the more problematic thing is that she not only a payed chique art
    chick, but that she never discloses an aesthetical point of view, on
    the contrary she shrouds it in vagueness, remember in our historic
    heroic car discussion the issue was for me how to change evaluation of
    art itself through a redefinition based on a different practice, which
    means not the speculative rhetoric she is throwing around but some
    very concrete issues and somehow up to the mark presence of current
    ‘creative’ (yes in marx-engels sense if you want) practices

  but there is a common ground.

  • G
    no because here is exactly when she is jumping out: she looks at art
    as a very disciplinary and reductionalist thing (isolating even visual
    arts) in the end, and her ‘subjectivity’ is still the 20th century
    postmodern commodity object

  she mentioned marx+engels’ critique of alienation, which when
  abandoned/overcame, gives way to a fully realised subjectivity
  accessible to all.

  i did not read marx’s takes on art, but this is what krylov
  has to say about it:
  “Labour freed from exploitation becomes, under socialism, the
  source of all spiritual (and aesthetic) creativity. Marx and
  Engels point out that only given true economic, political,
  and spiritual freedom can man’s creative powers develop to
  the full and that only proletarian revolution offers unbounded
  opportunities of endless progress in the development of literature.”
  http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/art/preface.htm

  so then art is seen as the basic creativity everyone has access
  to if freed from exploitation. (maybe you mean with ‘autonomy
  of subjectivity’ the similar thing)

  • G
    think so (but it will always be a point of discussion what t really
    is, luckily)

  still, it’s too rough to link art and creativity in such
  a narrow way.

  • G
    ou mean from her side? yes… (she needs it)
    and from our side: we don’t give a shit! (we don’t need that bullshit)

> 2. cultural industry, and the way it was introduced within the dutch
> governmental program way back in 2002-04 has nothing to do with it,
> because it only talks about the support to the organizations that sit
> between private companies, cultural organizations and (she is
> conveniently not mentioning this) educational institutions… the
> history of mediamatic may be emblematic for this, and also waag
> society evolution can be seen as part of this (and the major reason
> why I left de waag and holland altogether), though it cannot be seen
> separate from the status of the artist in netherlands, which is one
> that is very much supported and at the same time a sort of futuristic
> realization of the artist as entrepeneur (the dutch state is paying
> for that idea), and so it is very neoliberal and scary if you think eu
> will spread this in other countries over the coming years… the case
> of city marketing was very vaguely mentioned but tuning into the same
> setting, but it is so diverse in outcome in the different cities…
> compare ars electronica linz and amsterdam and then the annual eu-
> cultural capitals shifting and you see the complexity and repeated
> current failures of matching art with that…

• D
  i guess it’s not that unrelated. just look at richard florida
  >> G
  >> ys and do you believe/trust a guy looking like this?
  >> http://media.thedaily.com.au/img/photos/2007/11/21/florida-large_t350.jpg
  and his infamous book “rise of creative class” – he markets
  >> G
  >> 2002

  the idea of progressive urban development being directly dependent
  on the presence of what he calls the creative class (gays,
  immigrants, people of color, cultural workers), when not necessarily
  artists, but “skilled people are key to urban success”.
  he literally sells this to city governments around the world
  and they do buy it. so in my view the cultural industries
  and (however liberating and homeopatic) imperative for creativity
  (eg. “everybody’s artist”) are intrinsically linked.
  so still, my question here is: isn’t this also a too narrow
  reasoning?
  >> G
  >> but in the 3 points that she made she did not go deep enough, I don’t
  >> accuse her of anything else but superficiallity (and acting like a
  >> postmodern rhetoric to hit the spotlights) she is not doing the home
  >> work right that is all – ukol domaci?

  so these people came with a different receipt than marx+engels.
  >> G
  >> 200 years ago, the times ar a changing dear so it is not a different
  >> receipt it is a different marxism even
  they say there is a liberating potential in being creative
  and more and more people (not all the people, because that
  would mean giving up the neoliberal ideals) should access
  their creativity. although they don’t mention working conditions
  and what marx+engels called alienation and exploitation at all.
  they assume self-employment and entrepreneurship, in other words,
  they integrate creativity into good old market conditions.
  >> G
  >> yes and that is my point that in netherlands self-employment by
  >> artists is valued by government within neoliberal progress not
  >> individual or collective subjectivity and autonomy

  then i guess, if we say that the socially engaged and
  participative art is actually affirmative to the cultural industry
  and its assumptions and implications, then it makes pretty
  much sense not only to critique the neoliberal hegemony by working
  >> G
  >> hegemony/ read gramsci! (think you are using the wrong word here)
  and creating in bottom-up participative environments, but also
  to address, critique and experiment with the participation
  (and its open, consensual and dialogical nature) itself.
  >> G
  >> hey _ she exactly goes like what you say london-kassel-ny but a
  >> different kind of people are doing different things, and i am not
  >> putting myself in the picture here but just saying that okno in its
  >> new skin is inviting different people doing different things than
  >> (also tranzit, which sets the environment haha) she can ever think of

> 3. there is no political take over, there is no impact of avant garde
> and experimental artists on the political program, compared to the –
> she should look into the quantitative importance this plays in economy
> and politics, and then you see that in most of eu-country official
> cultural communiques art is simply left out if it is not done
> according to quantitative measures… it is not that difficult to see
> that the current swing to right in eu has to do with the regulation of
> family and their free time, not with anything marx-engels were hinting
> at: commodity and profit and turn over for the (super)state economy:
> the current crisis can be seen as the family and their possessions,
> not the saveguarding of their autonomy since it are the banks that are
> related to it, ai ai ai while she keeps trying to hit a nail and
> perseveres hitting next to it (for what reason I keep asking myself)

• D
  but there is an impact of neoliberal culture consultants on the
  political program as mentioned above, what concerns the experimental
  artists too (if they care for the social in their work)
  >> G
  >> what artist in reality ever did?

  mouffe says actually pretty interesting thing about ‘swing
  to right’ here:
  >> G
  >> guattari in ‘3 ecologies’ calls it a “heterogeneous” culture, it is
  >> the same but let’s talk about this because it has further repercussions
  >>
  >> and this is not wha tI think, just wanted to point out where in her
  >> presentation she missed 3x the boat and performs the role of the
  >> interested intellectual when she is writing down critique that
  >> audience is giving and not responding to it, you saw her doing it!
  >> so, …

  “In the West today, if there are no democratic channels through which a
  confrontation of values and interests can take place, it is going to lead
  either to apathy so people won’t be involved in politics any more, or even
  worse, there are going to be mobilisations of those struggles which are
  not compatible with democracy such as apartheid, religious fundamentalism
  and fascism. Take France and the growth of the extreme right under Le Pen:
  it is precisely at the moment when the socialists have moved toward the
  centre and acquiesced to the arguments of the democratic right that the
  extreme right began to grow, because they were the only ones who were
  offering an alternative through which antagonism could be focused. Le Pen
  has been able to give a voice to the people who could not find a place
  within the democratic space to express their different positions.”

>> D
>> + i’m still puzzled by what argument can be used against smashing
>> down “everybody is artist” motto too easily only by its political
>> implications (appropriation by cultural industries)
>
> G
> it makes no sense, actually creativity is not about playing amateur
> theatre and going fishing, or playing cards in clubs, and marx-engels
> are not saying this, soldat-facteur and others show something
> different but our dear claire is maybe a little too pop star and
> biased and has no time to take this into account… she likes to read
> books that are too difficult for her or either she sticks to the lost
> myth of the french philosopher (read postmodernist philosopher as
> tourist)