Saturday, July 29, 2006
The discussion went to freedom of speech
Dear IMAers
I have followed the recent set of posts with interest.
One interest is personal. During the previous Israeli invasion of Lebanon in
the early 1980’s, I went to Lebanon with a camera and an Israeli film school
buddy to document the situation in South Lebanon and see for myself what I
thought of modern war and how to depict it.
It’s not clear to me that the listserve is only about announcements. Other
listserves I participate in have threads, and you follow the ones you’re
intrigued by.
Having said that, the group discussion moved off onto Josh’s personal blog.
That should not limit or prohibit people from bringing up related topics in the
future on the IMA list. How artists in general, and we at Hunter specifically
should respond to question raised by larger and more complex matters in our
society such as wars and invasions are key issues, particularly when they are
raised as they have been raised here in terms of what our responses my be as
media makers, and how those might be relevant. I would argue that this program
has a social dimension. It is not a technical program in media production
software, for instance. Whether the discussion needs to stay on the listserve if
people agree to move it is another issue.
Moving onto a specifically personal blog has an important drawback. The IMA
list has lurkers no doubt, but it is not a schoolyard where the children are
watched at play, or a rec yard where prisoners are observed by guards as the
‘panopticon’ metaphor and the Foucoult-derived paralysis that notion
engenders suggest. The fact is, that in a certain way the listserve is
‘public’ .
In a recent essay Noortje Marres looks at John Dewey’s response to the idea
that in an age of complex technology and big global questions democracy needs
to be attenuated so that problems can be solved by leaders and “experts†in
the know. For Dewey and for Walter Lippmann, it was exactly complex problems
that the public had to grapple with.
I quote: "Lippmann and Dewey began developing the argument that ‘foreign
entanglements,’ far from constituting an obstacle to democratic politics,
actually play an absolutely key role in getting people involved in politics.
The emergence of a strange, unfamiliar complex issue, they posited, is an
enabling condition of democratic politics." from “Issues Spark a Public Into
Beingâ€
Making Things Public Eds. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel
It is at moments like the present, when our leaders seem footless that the
regular channels may not provide space to create public debate. This debate
then overflows channels that we tend to use for other purposes.
Are we clogging up the arteries of communication? The IMA program, with its
ability to create and analyze social software, should be able to investigate
these problems and solve them. Past problems aside, wikis are a typical
solution for groups that need announcements, calendars, AND discussion areas.
Finally, The University is to be treasured, and offers one of a shrinking number
of spaces for the creation of a valid public sphere. (i.e. people not talking to
themselves.) Rather than restricting our discussion space, we should seek to
expand it.
best,
Marty L. ¶ 6:10 AM
I have followed the recent set of posts with interest.
One interest is personal. During the previous Israeli invasion of Lebanon in
the early 1980’s, I went to Lebanon with a camera and an Israeli film school
buddy to document the situation in South Lebanon and see for myself what I
thought of modern war and how to depict it.
It’s not clear to me that the listserve is only about announcements. Other
listserves I participate in have threads, and you follow the ones you’re
intrigued by.
Having said that, the group discussion moved off onto Josh’s personal blog.
That should not limit or prohibit people from bringing up related topics in the
future on the IMA list. How artists in general, and we at Hunter specifically
should respond to question raised by larger and more complex matters in our
society such as wars and invasions are key issues, particularly when they are
raised as they have been raised here in terms of what our responses my be as
media makers, and how those might be relevant. I would argue that this program
has a social dimension. It is not a technical program in media production
software, for instance. Whether the discussion needs to stay on the listserve if
people agree to move it is another issue.
Moving onto a specifically personal blog has an important drawback. The IMA
list has lurkers no doubt, but it is not a schoolyard where the children are
watched at play, or a rec yard where prisoners are observed by guards as the
‘panopticon’ metaphor and the Foucoult-derived paralysis that notion
engenders suggest. The fact is, that in a certain way the listserve is
‘public’ .
In a recent essay Noortje Marres looks at John Dewey’s response to the idea
that in an age of complex technology and big global questions democracy needs
to be attenuated so that problems can be solved by leaders and “experts†in
the know. For Dewey and for Walter Lippmann, it was exactly complex problems
that the public had to grapple with.
I quote: "Lippmann and Dewey began developing the argument that ‘foreign
entanglements,’ far from constituting an obstacle to democratic politics,
actually play an absolutely key role in getting people involved in politics.
The emergence of a strange, unfamiliar complex issue, they posited, is an
enabling condition of democratic politics." from “Issues Spark a Public Into
Beingâ€
Making Things Public Eds. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel
It is at moments like the present, when our leaders seem footless that the
regular channels may not provide space to create public debate. This debate
then overflows channels that we tend to use for other purposes.
Are we clogging up the arteries of communication? The IMA program, with its
ability to create and analyze social software, should be able to investigate
these problems and solve them. Past problems aside, wikis are a typical
solution for groups that need announcements, calendars, AND discussion areas.
Finally, The University is to be treasured, and offers one of a shrinking number
of spaces for the creation of a valid public sphere. (i.e. people not talking to
themselves.) Rather than restricting our discussion space, we should seek to
expand it.
best,
Marty L. ¶ 6:10 AM
