Saturday, June 09, 2007


What the NET is establishing has in mathematics a counterpart the science of random graphs.
Random graphs connects arbitrarily a set of points with multiple lines.This example delivers a picture how the field of communication is falling apart into random connections. The NET amplifies errors and noise. Even the observer himself is producing noise. So we are reaching a communication model governed not only by information but also from noise.Therefore we have to replace the classical mimetic model of communication by quantum physics model which can reduce and compute the noise.We are opening the model of communication to the concept of randomness and incompleteness. But I do not see this as a loss. On the contrary, I see it as opening up choices.

Open Source is a movement which breaks down the barriers of representation imposed on consumers by the industry through the protected mode of the operating system. Open Source is asking for operating systems which can be handled and processed by the consumer.Open Source ideology is also asking for open artwork, open practices.

We live in a surveillance society therefore we need access to the processing of information. Democracy today means control of information by the people, not power by the people.
Our environment has become very complex information-environment built mainly on spin off of military technology.We even live in a militarization of perception.Therefore it is necessary to develop strategies against the militarization of our vision with help of control of the processing of visual information. Moving into processing is a way for art to gain back its power to create visual information. Net Art can play a pivotal role in this battle, regaining individual control in the field of information processing.

Excerpts from a video taped informal discussion between Jenny Marketou and Peter Weibel in ZKM in Karlsruhe, Germany on December 8,1999 in conjunction with the NET_CONDITION exhibition.


Anonymous dataveillance said...

yeah, but don't forget that the image has always been a source of oppression, if it's a noisy image... well, all the better..

name it what you want but it's always a transformed recycling of power or " the control of info by the people"

12:30 PM  
Anonymous ilias said...

It is the image the ''source of oppression'' or the intermediated space between the image and the viewer?

4:53 PM  
Anonymous algebra+need said...

the image commodity can be the source(otherwise the object) of opression
ofcourse the intermediated space is
to a certain degree, even more than the source
since, as all middle men,the mediator(or means of mediation) of any image/product(even if this image/product is "non_opressive)creates the opression of need
while at the same time, mediation, creates the opression of non-direct access to the source
more to follow

8:42 PM  
Anonymous the merry pixel said...

το 'κοψες στη μέση άτιμε δημιουργώντας την καταπίεση της αναμονής...

1:48 AM  
Blogger il said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:16 AM  
Anonymous ilias said...

cannot be both .it would be a logical error. A sentence that is a tautology. can be inferred from any proposition whatsoever.

5:20 AM  
Anonymous sum_parts said...

the source itself and the mediator (or space in which the source i mediated) cannot both be opressive forces?

12:31 PM  
Anonymous antenna /spinal communications said...

Don't get involved in partial problems, but always take flight to where there is a free view over the whole single great problem, even if this view is still not a clear one.

1:42 PM  
Anonymous ilias said...

if by source one defines the primary cause and by mediation the rules under which its perceived, then oppression is the result of the process. consequently , it is impossible to have rules in both because that results or in tautology or in contradiction regarding the rules.(negation impossible).
Antenna: give an example of ''a whole single great''.

2:21 PM  
Anonymous ji_ku said...

is there the possibility that a process can flow while at the same time its course is based/developed thru contradictions ?
is it possible to have multiple rule structures(within an overall process) that are designed to be contradictory or even "seeminlgy" self-negating so that one might achieve an even greater effect as far as opresssion is concerned?
can fragemented dialectics create a greater level of opression because they seem to create a first level of inter-action within the gaps in the system?

2:35 PM  
Anonymous sum_parts said...

you seem to be moving towards a metaphysical discussion
what could be the single great whole?

2:36 PM  
Anonymous the bones said...

i would be intersted in seeing the connecting points between the net_condition and the not_net_condition

2:40 PM  
Anonymous ilias said...

many questions.
i have to think. so later

3:33 PM  
Anonymous ilias said...

First i want to point out that if we start to expand the issues ''all over '' we risk to be victims of the very same matter that we want to discuss.
I mean that by doing this conversation via a blog software mediation, we have to obey at its rules. That obliges me to be ''telegraphic''.
so, what i think for the 1st q is:
contradiction guarantees the flow. eg capital flow was and still is based on the contradiction (and sometimes construction of contradiction as in nowadays)of an inside and an outside. Capitalized centers in the west vs resources areas in the rest of the world. More: human vs machine. Contradiction embedded as if the means of production were an outside of the workers that use them. (The reason of implanting this i guess is obvious).

2nd: yes indeed. eg: christiano-capitalism knows that bodies in collaboration enjoy more thus produce more. At the same time too much collaboration augments the risk of overwhelming the system. Consequently several schizoid (D&G)parameters are embedded in the system as eg corruption to hold the control over it.
3rd : researches are running on the field. data insufficient for the moment.

5:43 PM  
Anonymous ilias said...

@the bones
it should be as examining the fusion or the hybrid forms of 2 different types of organization. That of the pyramid hierarchical model and that of the rhizomatic one.

5:48 PM  
Anonymous ant hills said...

to ill(ias)
do u give any weight to, or which parts of emergence theory(theories) do you find to be worth examining?

5:53 PM  
Anonymous queen ant said...

to ant hills
you might want to look at
Engels and Manchester

5:57 PM  
Anonymous ilias said...

i should recommend something more recent.
After all Engels was the sponsor in the old story (something like having the president/owner of a football team forming the sunday team synthesis instead of the couch).
However, this job has be done in a great way by Mckenzie Wark at the epilogue of his book ''a hackers manifesto''editions Scripta in greek.

6:02 PM  
Anonymous ilias said...

Wth respect to the first post by VINQO DENKENon the conversation betwwen Jenny and Peter:
''Democracy today means control of information by the people, not power by the people.'' power cannot be given to the people for the simple reason that this is already done. But in its corrupted form....

6:05 PM  
Anonymous queen ant said...

I can’t resist answering the football team analogy. Arsenal’s performance on the pitch may show self-organised complexity, but Arsene Wenger their manager would have a different take on it. Their orientation on the field is planned in advance; their routines are rehearsed and choreographed down to the smallest detail. And the game itself is rule-governed in the extreme. None of that works of course without the self-organisation of the players, and no one can plan a Thierry Henry and his spontaneous brilliance. Their performance is an interaction of overall planning and ‘spontaneous’ self-organisation.

6:07 PM  
Anonymous baron brown said...

it seems to me, having followed this discussion that pieces of various posts would(in their oresent state) falll into the category of "wicked" problems

6:09 PM  
Anonymous ilias said...


6:16 PM  
Anonymous baron brown said...

These are problems where there can, by definition, be no objective statement of what the problem is, and thus no ‘objective’ solution, no right answer. Problems solving therefore has to proceed experimentally over time; and those concerned (‘stakeholders’) have to work out and accept the solutions which look most promising at any particular time.

6:21 PM  
Anonymous ilias said...

@dignity of human condition into societies is an objective problem.
The thoughts that lead to the consensus that problems that occurs regarding that contain no the possibility of the right answer is rather metaphysical. What about this statement: Everyone on earth has the right not to be hungry?

6:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home