(pls. see also the 'fields' thread -- I know, it's over 70 days old, i know)
Focus: ASCII ART wake up call
---in advance of message 500: Practice vv. Preach (Old School)
Scanning <documenta X><blast> this list it seems...
(impatient pre-publication of post 500): ---right, first Qs1st., where's
your meta-content information? How many subscribed do you have? Of each
sex. Where are they from? Why not give some demographics. Publish/expose
the whole Lurkership. Who are/is the list? With all your
identity/subjectivity psychologizing/politicizing there's some simple Qs to
be answered by setting free the list. Allow some interaction outside the
discourse. A little search engine to start with? Mapping possibilities? An
expert summary? Heck, it's the Early Information Age: myriad expert
summaries! Why haven't 100 days 500 savvies been invited to periodically
criticize-summarize-edit the list's content? More savviews, more agents!
Now this list is like any old 'letters-to-the editor' we know, or a
debating club. Aren't we acting in an information media supported/-ive
environment then? Abundancy rules: and you're still tied to economics of
scarcity. While _having_ computational power on either side of the lines.
The lists contents can be filtered, re-organized, de-authorized. In the
current set-up we are completely dependent of rearview methods. Seriously
Jordan, why isn't any of this (authors, arguments, keywords, links, texts,
cross-reference,...) filed in a publicly searchable database, why in other
words is a list like this so backward, both in its technology as in its
arguments? It must be a budget problem? Think about the _informed_
discussion you would have hosted when indeed you would supply more angles,
interpretations, when You would have _invested_ in a concept and format for
the list, beyond 'discussion', beyond lecturing, beyond endless repetition,
quoting. Adding the '100 days' budget to this list would have done the
trick, but i'm not gonna blame you all Catherine's (too much, wrong
academia) mistakes, get used to abundancy and take a stand pro-choice, its
markets are alternative politics, we are the media, so don't support your
authors---
again, I was trying to get more deeply into the
<participants' names (: you have 71, of which 28 only contributed once and
12 did over 10 posts, since June 12>
intended discussion, but my frustration about the informational quality of
the list interrupted my effort. I'll be back on it but this is precisely
why art is dragging behind technology, communication, commerce, and new
literacy will not develop.
Indeed we're lost in Media Space, Old School Academics, Mass Emancipation,
Faux Heroism.
Jouke Kleerebezem Amsterdam
(thnx jean-philippe h., for being the artist who could not imagine
'information space' -- le petit prince)
PS: why artists only see technology -- they have forgotten about art?
unlike the rest of us!
PPS: a succesful list reaches a certain point at which it is ready for a roll
-------------------------------------------------------------
a forum on spatial articulations, perspectives, and procedures
texts are the property of individual authors
for information, email majordomo@forum.documenta.de with
the following line in the message body: info blast
archive at http://www.documenta.de/english/blasta.htm
or http://www.documenta.de/deutsch/blasta.htm
documenta X Kassel and http://www.documenta.de 1997
-------------------------------------------------------------