> >> 1. In what ways does the use of new technologies challenge existing power > >> relations and established practices in your field? (Please specify your > >> field--art, entertainment, law, policy, etc) In my professional field, internetworking, the unquestioned folly of "newer is always better" reigns as it does elsewhere. Of course internetworking is new and still dominantly technological, most of its practitioners have the same perspective as chronic HSN viewers, shiny bauble good. It's true though, unlike cubic zirconia (is that plural?), that we perceive actual value in the internet (duh), and that because of it's newness, a lot of things and tools are really crappy and since many people work on these things, often times newer really is better. But there's far too little criticality, I think, and a lot of real creeps out there with bad/greedy intent. "new technologies challenge existing power relations" -- huh?! They *are* 'existing power relations' In my real work, well, self-defense to shiny-bauble is partly built-in, since my work is somewhat reactionarily anti-tech, on the surface. I've been doing electronics and software long enough to develop good methodologies and bad habits both, and I tend to look for tools that I can use for a looong time. It's not really a cost thing; and this is a pet peeve of US culture -- you can't really know a thing until you experience it for a while. I try to work a lot of good stuff out of the things I work with -- like ancient display technology using small bits of software -- because I think the end result is *better*, they feel nice to touch, they transparently (well, to various degrees, intentionally or otherwise :-) perform some function... Alan Kay said something to the effect that a technology has succeeded when it disappears, like a light switch on the wall. You don't have to know about electricity, wiring, operating the little electro-mechanical device in the wall -- you brush your hand along the wall and then you can see. We're obviously not there with internetwork communications technologies. I try to play with that transparency thing. Some of my stuff the technology is apparently foregrounded, but usually there's some thing going on that's less obvious (not always). Anyways, people tend to forget that technology is mainly 'product' -- manufacturers would just as happily sell you wicker baskets if that would make them bags and bags of money. It's just product. > >> 2. To what extent do utopian fantasies either inform or present obstacles to > >> realistic and productive strategies for cultural change? I think it's abundantly obvious that marketing of high-end technology (including most automobiles) appeals to no-critical-thinking cynical-utopian feel-good-now selfishness. Especially including most high-end computer buying. > >> 3. What are some of the concepts and practices "at the edges" that suggest > >> new ways to think about agency and escape from social control? My biggest daily fear and loathing is that I cannot now think of ways to communicate about this. I see two big scary objects: direct social control via drug-war or terror-war nonsense, as well as corporate credit and medical tracking, all that sort of obvious stuff. Hey, that's not us living in Columbia! This is bad, and large, and so far or at the moment unassailable. Two, control-through-complacency: utopian technology, shiny toys to occupy and round out credit cards. 'yeah, it's bad, but look at my new LCD monitor'. The first requires mass reaction, not the lefty masses of the past, but some new thing that doesn't quite exist yet (but the optimist in me believes it will happen, and soon, and from no where that any of us who saw last 'left opposition' will recognize or maybe even agree with). The second is very personal, and you can stop right now, without having to give up all the shiny toys we love. > >> > >> About the interview: > >> > >> The success of this convening at large and the Saturday sessions in > >> particular, requires pre-conference preparation so that Blur 02 can be a > >> seminar that generates and evaluates content. To initiate this process, we > >> have sought the expertise of the firm Cognitive Management > >> (www.cognitivemanagement.com) to conduct a network study. The study entails > >> interviews of all attendees regarding their artistic/professional function, > >> contact with other participants, as well as initial thoughts on topics > >> specific to the meeting. The information gathered through the interviews > >> will then be used to visualize current social networks. This visualization > >> will be presented during the meeting for discussion. Please note that this > >> process is intended for discovery, both for its potential for clarifying the > >> existing channels of exchange as well as to reveal trickier "grey" areas > >> that defy categorization. > >> > >> If you have any questions about the process and its intent, please contact > >> either of us. > >> > >> Thank you for your help. > >> > >> Robert & Carol > >> Co-chairs, Blur 02 > >> > >> Robert Ransick > >> ransickr@newschool.edu > >> > >> Carol Stakenas > >> carols@creativetime.org > >> > >> http://www.nsu.newschool.edu/blur > >> > >> > >> On 3/29/02 3:43 PM, "Tom Jennings" wrote: > >> > >>> My apologies!!! > >>> > >>> My lab # is 323-665-1741 > >>> My mobile # is 323-356-6323 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> First choice: > >>>> Monday April 1st Noon-1:00pm > >>> (equals 9am my time) > >>> > >>> Second choice: > >>> > >>>> Tuesday April 2nd 1:00pm-7:00pm > >>> Preferably 1pm (equals 10am my time) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> tomj > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >