nettime mailinglist

News Tableau posted today on my Flickr pagehttp://flic.kr/p/dqQVHTHurricane Sandy and Human Encroachment on the Waterfront as a real estate crimeHURRICANE SANDY AND HUMAN ENCROACHMENT on the water front of rivers and oceans... The text below (*) is from a real estate agency selling off the last meters of a what was once a stretch of beach and dunes, centuries ago a place for hunters and whalers. Multi million dollar mansions are now crowding within the direct reach of what is a vast ocean with powers beyond any property deal and counter measures with heaping up a bit of sand with a few bulldozers.The richer class urge for closeness to beach and sea, swallowing up most of the beach in the process, should be critically viewed when there is moaning about human suffering and damage because of a hurricane.The picture explains the actual urbanised ocean front situation."There is no shortage of reasons for why Long Beach Island is one of the most prestigious and desirable areas to live in along the northeast shore of the US. This beach front community & family vacation spot is just a short drive from Manhattan, and has ocean front properties, gorgeous beaches and outstanding shopping for residents to enjoy all year long. This 18 mile long island is located on an island off of the coast of Ocean County NJ yet is close enough to Philadelphia (1 hour) and New York City (1.5 Hours) that commuting to either city is a breeze."(*) Source of this example of real estate vision is taken from:www.dealwithrealtor.com/--------------All 168 News Tableaus (as on 5/11/2012) can be found at this addresshttp://flic.kr/s/aHsjAuj1xhTjebbe van TijenImaginary Museum ProjectsDramatizing Historical Informationhttp://imaginarymuseum.orgweb-blog: The Limping Messengerhttp://limpingmessenger.wordpress.com/

Xbox team’s ‘consumer detector’ would dis-Kinect freeloading TV viewersNovember 3, 2012 at 5:35 pm by Todd Bishophttp://www.geekwire.com/2012/microsoft-diskinect-freeloading-tv-viewers/A newly surfaced patent filing from Microsoft’s Xbox Incubation team details one of the new innovations they’ve been thinking about. This one could be very popular among major movie and television studios. But it probably wouldn’t generate much excitement among Xbox users.The patent application, filed under the heading “Content Distribution Regulation by Viewing User,” proposes to use cameras and sensors like those in the Xbox 360 Kinect controller to monitor, count and in some cases identify the people in a room watching television, movies and other content. The filing refers to the technology as a “consumer detector.”In one scenario, the system would then charge for the television show or movie based on the number of viewers in the room. Or, if the number of viewers exceeds the limits laid out by a particular content license, the system would halt playback unless additional viewing rights were purchased.The system could also take into account the age of viewers, limiting playback of mature content to adults, for example. This patent application doesn’t explain how that would work, but a separate Microsoft patent application last year described a system for using sensors to estimate age based on the proportions of their body.Inventors listed on the latest application include Xbox Incubation GM Alex Kipman, who led the development of Kinect. The others are Andrew Fuller, Xbox director of incubation; and Kathryn Stone Perez, executive producer of Xbox Incubation.Also notable are references in the application to a glasses-style head-mounted display as one of the viewing options — another possible clue to the types of things the Xbox Incubation team is working on.The patent application, made public this week, was originally submitted in April 2011. Filings such as these provide a sense for what a company’s engineers and researchers have been contemplating, but it’s not clear if Microsoft actually plans to roll out the “consumer detector” as part of the next generation of Xbox or Kinect or anything else.Even if the technology were introduced, it seems like there would be endless ways of avoiding it, unless a broad base of technology and content providers were on board.But who knows, maybe someday you’ll need to be extra careful how many people you invite to your big Super Bowl party … unless you’re willing to pony up a few more bucks.

Obama tours with The Boss singing "We Take Care of Our Own"and Romneyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y_y2SjUFTQ(does really bad Karoke with Meatloaf.M

Haldane, Occupy, and the path to reformLisa Pollack| Oct 30 13:53 |http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/10/30/1237921/haldane-occupy-and-the-path-to-reform/On Monday night, FT Alphaville had the pleasure of chairing a discussion on “Socially Useful Banking“. The key speaker was none other than Bank of England’s executive director for financial stability, Andy Haldane. His speech was entitled “A leaf being turned“.Since we were there for the evening, and moderating the lively Q&A, it’s been interesting to see what angles the papers have taken on it. Here-under a headline digest:BoE’s Haldane says Occupy was right – FTBOE’s Haldane Tells Occupy Libor Furor Prompted Change – BloombergBank of England’s Andrew Haldane: Occupy played key role – BBCOccupy protesters who camped at St Paul’s Cathedral were morally right to attack financial system, says Bank of England official – Daily MailOccupy protesters were right, says Bank of England official – The TelegraphBank of England official: Occupy Movement right about global recession – The GuardianUK banks begin to turn over new leaf – BoE’s Haldane – ReutersTop Bank of England director admits Occupy movement had a point – The IndependentHaldane, in many ways, struck a cautiously optimistic note. But first he noted that for much of the history of banks like Lloyds and Barclays, no one questioned their social usefulness (emphasis ours):They extended loans to businesses and helped families buy homes. Nationally and regionally, they were part of the social fabric. Today, that fabric is torn.As for what Occupy has done, it has “entered the collective conscience of the public and policymakers”. This despite the suggestions of some that “Occupy’s voice has been loud but vague, long on problems, short on solutions.” The conclusion to which Haldane came (underlines his):I wish to argue tonight that both are wrong – that Occupy’s voice has been both loud and persuasive and that policymakers have listened andare acting in ways which will close those fault-lines.The money lines for a lot of the headlines we are seeing (emphasis ours again):Occupy has been successful in its efforts to popularise the problems of the global financial system for one very simple reason: they are right.By this I do not just mean right in a moral sense. For sure, Occupy have touched a moral nerve in pointing to growing inequities in the allocation of wealth and incomes globally.Haldane then continued to explain how the crisis exacerbated rises in inequality in advanced economies. He also cited a study by BIS researchers (that FT Alphaville covered previously) that attempted to measure the costs to an economy of a large, and growing, financial sector as resources are drawn into it.What we are left with, in the aftermath of the crisis, is a collection of too big to fail banks with an implicit subsidy from the governments that have backstopped them with taxpayer funded bailouts.Before getting onto what’s to be done about it, a poignant message for banker-bashers (underlines his, bolding ours):But, as disappointing as this might sound to some of you, in building a new financial system I think there are limits to what can be achieved through a “heads on sticks” strategy. For me at least, the financial crisis was in the main not a story of individual fallibility, greed or hubris.There are 400,000 people employed in banking in the UK. The vast majority of those, perhaps even 99%, were not driven by individual greed and were not professionally negligent. Nor, even in the go-go years, were they trousering skyscraper salaries. It is unfair, as well as inaccurate, to heap the blame on them.For me, the crisis was instead the story of a system with in-built incentives for self-harm: in its structure, its leverage, its governance, the level and form of its remuneration, its (lack of) competition. Avoiding those self-destructive tendencies means changing the incentives and culture of finance, root and branch. This requires a systematic approach, a structural approach, a financial reformation.(He earlier notes that it is, of course, important to punish negligence and criminality.)As for what that reformation will involve:I want to argue that we are in the early throes of such a financial reformation. And that this will help to deliver a more socially useful banking system. Let me mention some of the more important of these reform strands. These fall into five categories – the five “c”s: culture; capital; compensation; credit; and competition.Furthermore:Individually, none of these reforms may sound like a game-changer. A number lack the pizzazz of a “tar and feathers” strategy. But taken together, I think they amount to the most radical agenda of financial reform for 80 years. Importantly, I also think they will work.“Culture” involves things like the Volcker rule, the Vickers proposals in the UK, and Liikanen plans in Europe. “Capital” in terms of Basel III and systemic risk charges. “Compensation” to stop short-termism and tame risk-taking. “Credit” as a component of the economy rather than a force destabilising it. “Competition” particularly in the retail banking sector, to encourage new entrants and raise the bar overall. (More detail on all of these in the speech itself.)On the last point, Haldane spoke of a utility that could be set up in the UK to store customer information, making it easier to switch from one bank to another, thereby promoting competition. There was this call to action for consumers of banking services:For banking, this is back to the future. If that sounds attractive, then it is down to us – not regulators, not politicians, you and I – to deliver it. If as bank customers we want to change the culture of banking, then we should start by supporting those banks who are delivering that change.Putting your money where your mouth is would deliver far greater and more durable change than any amount of banker-bashing.As for the future, here is that cautious optimism:Already there are some encouraging signs of the winds of change blowing through the system, not just from the new entrants but among the UK’s oldest banks too. The new heads of the UK’s biggest banks have committed to restoring trust in their institutions and improving their social usefulness. And those words are beginning to turn into actions. Barclays and today Lloyds are seeking to change their sales-oriented culture, returning to their Quaker roots. There is the quiet, but unmistakable, sound of a leaf being turned.If I am right and a new leaf is being turned, then Occupy will have played a key role in this fledgling financial reformation. You have put the arguments. You have helped win the debate. And policymakers, like me, will need your continuing support in delivering that radical change.(A thank you to the FT Alphaville readers who attended the event, especially those of you who came to say hi afterwards!)

Just a link about the Transdisciplinary Bits: Art and Digital Media,november 2012, Rio de Janeiro.You can find the program on the link below. ( Diana Domingues, SimoneMichelin, Guto Nobrega, Edward Shanken, Yolande Harris , DorisKosminsky , Fernanda Gentil e Simone Pereira de S?)http://www.hcte.ufrj.br/downloads/bits_transdisciplinares_release.pdf

One million U.S. citizens are sorted by political affiliation andexposed to public persecution in the aftermath of the 2012presidential election.http://PERSECUTING.USFor months, Paolo Cirio secretly stole data from Twitter.com on overone million Americans. Using a sophisticated sifting process, hedetermined the political affiliation of those people and scored theirpublic statements and social connections in terms of the likelihoodthat they aligned with a political position.http://persecuting.us/_index.php?about=howPersecuting.us offers a platform where everyone can take part in aparticipatory model pushed to extremes, engaging people in surveyingand persecuting each other in a form of info-civil-war of politicalpolarization, which can potentially erupt into defamation,intimidation and oppression of domestic enemies.This art project is a massive citizen-sorting database organized alongpolitical lines, much like the private holdings that have amasseddatabases of voters in order to influence and monitor the electorate.http://persecuting.us/_index.php?about=socialsortingDuring the last election, Twitter was used to track down people’sopinion, promote candidates by buying trending topics in publicdebates and invite citizen participation through tweeting theirpolitical statements. However, Twitter is a private company whichmonitors, manipulates and sells data on personal and public trends.http://persecuting.us/_index.php?about=antisocialmediaThis project breaks boundaries in art transgression with a SocialSculptural Performance made by a mass of people arranged and involvedin an artwork without their permission. The accidental participantsbecome part of a transformative spectacle with an unsettlingnarrative.http://persecuting.us/_index.php?about=socialsculpturalperformanceThe offline art installation evokes the activity of wiretapping theInternet to identify political activities. Through an audioinstallation the audience at the exhibition space can listen to anover-two thousand hour-long track of robotic voices reading selectedstatements of US citizens sorted by their political involvement.Persecuting US is the third project by Paolo commenting oncontemporary privacy issues. Just a month ago, Street Ghosts, aproject about Google Street View, generated media attention andconcern worldwide. In 2011, Face to Facebook hit over one thousandworldwide media outlets just one week after its publication. Paolo iscurrently busy with a new project about global offshore finance thatwill be published shortly.Paolo Cirio. - http://paolocirio.netSocial Sorting:Political parties have begun to equip themselves with databases ofmillions of potential voters’ personal details to target them withindividualized messages and monitor trends in opinion which they canthen manipulate.An entire new industry of political technology is growing with big,centralized databases of voters’ information created for profit andpolitical control. These databases gather massive amounts ofinformation on voters from several sources and from trawling theirtraces left on online platforms like Twitter, which still have poorprivacy protections.George W. Bush won two presidential elections by targeting voters witha database called VoterVault, a model later copied by the Democraticparty with their database, Catalist, helping Barack Obama to win theelections in 2008 [[1]]. In 2011 the Republican party secretly createda new database [[2]], Themis, with the aim of significantly impactingthe 2012 elections. Huge investments in advertising on traditionalmedia platforms are shifting to sophisticated digital tools to createpersuasive personalized messages. This shift keeps those with theeconomic means [[3]] in control of the political process, while movingtheir hegemony to the most influential contemporary media space.These voters never gave permission to log their data like this, butthat’s not the only concern. The main threat is to the democraticprocess itself and malicious use of this data could even lead tofuture anti-democratic politics. Profiling citizens politically meansexploiting people’s opinions for political gain; it allows new formsof effective political manipulation and starts a process of monitoringevery aspect of each person’s life to collect material for politicalsorting.Persecute.US is an artwork that will show people the extent to whichtheir political privacy has been compromised for political gain. Theartwork raises concern through press and personal reactions to anartificial scenario with hundreds and thousands experiencing thepurgatory of being exposed by social profiling.Social media tool for social change.Communication tools can amplify social movements, if not outrightrevolutions. However, both authorities and fanatics can use the sametools to crack down on dissidents and opponents. A person’s politicalaffiliation can be monitored and targeted, not just by theauthorities, but also by any political opponent. The secret ballot isjeopardized by abuse of the data amassed by these new technologies andby encouraging people to express their political position on socialmedia. Consequentially, new frontiers in voter intimidation andinfluence are opened.Everything said publically over social media can be taken as evidenceof a political leaning one way or the other. Mechanized politicaljudgment is constantly operating through algorithms that score peopleand officials looking for opponents. Language and use of words ismonitored through trivial interpretations, subject to mistakes, yet itcan still be incriminatory.Meanwhile, real-time manipulation of people’s opinion is sold offthrough constructed trends like promoted tweets or multimillion dollarpromoted hashtags, a sophisticated and devious utilization of languageand public debate. In addition to these new propaganda techniques,censorship over social media is sold off to authorities as well. Forinstance, Twitter now unveils details of dissidents and censorsmessages on a country-by-country basis [[4]], following theinstructions of the local despot. This results in real politicalpersecution, especially in those countries where Twitter collaborateswith oppressive authorities.Centralization of the digital information flow expands surveillancecapacity. These are the consequences that everyone has to face whensocial media platforms sell out their users and hand over their datato the authorities, since social communication data isn’t independentbut embedded within privately owned environments. Private social mediaplatforms expose personal data rather than protect it, in order togenerate more traffic and users so that the platform itself grows invalue. But the larger the platform, the greater the political risk toeach user and therefore, to politics itself.Social media platforms should be constantly under public scrutiny tomaintain independent, protected and fair communications. Media astools that help to build social relations and enhance generalknowledge shouldn’t be left in private hands for commercial andpolitical exploitation. Rather, it should be in the public domain andkept autonomous for the sake of all humanity.Anti-social media.Social media platforms are proud to claim that they allow socialrelations to grow, but they can destroy just as many, or ghettoizepeople in the same self-referential networks they were already in.Without interaction with others, no pacification or constructivedebate can ever take place. Political fractions become fully isolatedgroups unable to communicate to anyone outside themselves. Politicsbecomes even more polarized as a result of miscommunication andisolation in a multiplication of micro-communities. And the isolationfacilitates social sorting and subsequent manipulation of themicro-targets thereby generated.In social media people mirror the flowing void of present politicaldiscourse. They reproduce the rhetorical language of their politicalmasters in a sort of auto-demagogy. Lately, internalized politicalrhetoric has been driving political subjectivization, and usersinfluence themselves in a self-defensive manner, forgetting thediscursive aspect of negotiation between opinions that makes uppolitics.Encounters with “the Other” happen only through conflict, because ofrestricted social connections dictated by the platform itself and ageneral low quality of communication mediated by these digitalplatforms. We don’t confront others anymore, so we aren’t able tounderstand other opinions or ourselves in relation to them.Social media are often being used to be hateful, and Twitter inparticular can be easily used to publically defame people, since thereare no protections against direct harassment. Hostility is frequentlygenerated as well because of misunderstandings and generalizationsthat easily happen when the medium restrains communication, in thiscase restricting each utterance to 140 characters.The limits and potentials of social interactions on social media areall about the design of the interface and the social algorithm appliedto them. For this reason democratizing the design of the instrumentscan be beneficial for everyone, rather than leaving ownership of theinfrastructure in private hands that can plan social control byconstraining access to and use of information.Social Sculptural Performance.Persecuting.US is a deliberate and explicit exploitation ofindividuals as material for an artistic social experiment. It’s aSocial Sculptural Performance of people potentially involved inproducing new anti-social networks through active and passiveparticipation in an artificial environment designed for a sensationalspectacle. The stage of the performance is delineated inside thewebsite of the Social Sculpture with individuals becoming participantsof a show for spectators watching from outside in the theatre ofpopular media.This sociological exhibition through a coercive approach to forms ofparticipation simultaneously involves hundreds of thousands of peoplein an artistic performance without their authorization [[5]]. It isthe latter transgressive artistic practice that new media provides tothe artist. The notion of spectatorship in art and performance ispushed through new frontiers with the potential of artworks made ofpeople using social media.These sculptures of people have transformative capacity for theviewers through cathartic performances generated by the socialinteractions inside the artful arrangement of people. These sculpturesremind us of the possibilities in constructing new social realities byreconfiguring the arrangement of information flow. Designing newsocial algorithms is a form of sculptural activity, shaping new socialnetworks that interact and participate in lively performances.These sculptural performances of informational power aim to unsettlecontemporary social conventions to raise awareness about problematicsituations by engaging randomly-selected crowds in a work of art,reaching people who usually are excluded by art discourses andbreaking the boredom and passivity of media consumption. The hell created by this Social Sculptural Performance is areenactment of today’s social reality: participatory surveillance,isolated and manipulated public debate, manufactured voters throughmanipulation of people as micro-targets, public disclosure of theiraffinities and commercial exploitation of personal information byprivate companies.The artist can play with this general power of sorting and arranginghuge amounts of personal data and in doing so artistically reprogramsocial forms. The social realities generated by web platforms thatcollect personal information from people are a set of utilitarianstructures ready for artistic creation. Today artists can modelmassive amounts of ready-made informational material andrecontextualize it in new speculative scenarios that comment on thesocial condition of the society.The Time:The 2012 race for the White House was the most interactive electionyet. The 2012 was the first year in which both political partiesheavily used media such as Twitter to conduct their campaigns, andfilled databases of people by aggregating large amounts of personalinformation.The “Hashtag Election” of 2012 represents a new brand ofhyperconnected electioneering, or the major use of Twitter to generatepolls or statistics which influence political strategy. Voters weretargeted to vote for a particular party in a form of directmanipulative language, bordering on intimidation.They were further encouraged to participate by expressing theirpolitical opinion on social media, while political leaders attemptedto target them with their message, engage with key demographics, andstumble on a genuine political “moment” on the same platforms, fueledby the same networks.Some numbers about the 2012 presidential election on Twitter:- During the conventions, Twitter users generated 14,289 tweets perminute in the wake of Republican nominee Mitt Romney's speech. WhenMichelle Obama finished speaking at the Democratic convention, thetweets were flying at a rate of 28,000 per minute. After PresidentObama's speech, Twitter reported a 52,757 tweet-per-minute pace.http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/selling-the-hashtag-election-20120911 - The first Presidential TV Debate generated 11.2M related tweets,the second generated 12.2M and the third debate 7.8M.http://wordpress.bluefinlabs.com/blog/2012/10/23/presidential-debate-3-not-as-social-as-the-first-two/ - During the vice presidential debate, women drove the socialconversation by generating 55 percent of the tweets. There were 72,000tweets (32 percent of the overall Twitter volume) about the economy.Next came Medicare and entitlements, at 45,000 tweets (20 percent),and Afghanistan, at 25,000 (11 percent).http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=2444&doc_id=252331 - The Obama Administration purchased Twitter terms trending duringthe debate, including Jack Kennedy, Malarkey, Afghanistan in 2014 andVPDebate.http://mashable.com/2012/10/11/obama-campaign-twitter-ad-malarkey/- The Republican National Committee, and the Republican-leaning superPAC Americans for Prosperity shelled out an estimated $120,000 eachfor a Promoted Trend - a phrase or slogan like RomneyRyan2012,FailingAgenda and 16TrillionFail.http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-election/obama-romney-in-hashtag-battle-on-twitter-20120906 - In 2010, The Washington Post purchased the hashtag #electionhttp://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/washington-post-buys-election-hashtag/65552/ - In 2012 the presidential campaign set the record for highestspending ever, with a total of $2 billion.http://nationaljournal.com/hotline/ad-spending-in-presidential-battleground-states-20120620[1] Democrats Take Republican Database Model to Target Swing Votershttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aIxU19LXZBa4[2] Koch-backed activists use power of data in bid to oust Obama fromWhite Househttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/18/koch-backed-activists-americans-for-prosperity[3] Why we must 'follow the money' of 2012's political ad spendhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/03/follow-political-ad-spend-money[4] Twitter able to censor tweets in individual countries.http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/27/twitter-censor-tweets-by-country[5] The data on the website is not indexed by search engines, keepingprivate (which was publically available) information protected insidean artistic context, in a way only simulating public exposure.

http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2012/11/19/translation-project-protect-global-internet-freedom-statement/Translation Project: Protect Global Internet Freedom statement -Global Voices AdvocacyOver the next seven days, Global Voices Lingua volunteers will betranslating a public online petition that supports the protection ofhuman rights online and urges government members of the InternationalTelecommunication Union (ITU) to preserve Internet openness at theupcoming conference of the ITU.Open for sign-on by any individual or civil society organization, theProtect Global Internet Freedom statement reads as follows:On December 3rd, the world?s governments will meet to update a keytreaty of a UN agency called the International TelecommunicationUnion (ITU). Some governments are proposing to extend ITU authorityto Internet governance in ways that could threaten Internet opennessand innovation, increase access costs, and erode human rights online.We call on civil society organizations and citizens of all nations tosign the following Statement to Protect Global Internet Freedom:Internet governance decisions should be made in a transparent mannerwith genuine multistakeholder participation from civil society,governments, and the private sector. We call on the ITU and its memberstates to embrace transparency and reject any proposals that mightexpand ITU authority to areas of Internet governance that threaten theexercise of human rights online.To sign the petition, visit the Protect Global Internet Freedomwebsite. To sign, enter your first name, last name, email address,organization name (if you are signing on behalf of a civil societyorganization), organization URL, and select your country.All translations will also be posted on the petition site, which ishosted by OpenMedia, a Canada- based digital rights group.---------------------------Mike Weismanplease respond to popeye-zY4eFNvK5D9If6P1QZMOBw< at >public.gmane.org

Interesting study of copyright and illegal downloading. Mike Weisman Begin forwarded message:Ofcom has today published a consumer research study, carried outon its behalf by Kantar Media, into both lawful and unlawfulaccess and use of online, copyrighted content. This follows arecommendation in the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Propertyand Growth that Ofcom should start gathering independent data andestablishing trends in the area of online copyright before itsformal reporting duties under the Digital Economy Act 2010 begin.The report contains details about the methodology used, and theunderlying data is being made available for further analysis.---------------------------Mike Weismanplease respond to popeye-zY4eFNvK5D9If6P1QZMOBw< at >public.gmane.org

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/14631-an-open-letter-to-president-obama(bwo Goanet)An Open Letter to President ObamaBy Michael Moore, Michael Moore.com20 November 2012Dear President Obama:Good luck on your journeys overseas this week, and congratulations ondecisively winning your second term as our president! The first time youwon four years ago, most of us couldn't contain our joy and foundourselves literally in tears over your victory.This time, it was more like breathing a huge sigh of relief. But, like thesmooth guy you are, you scored the highest percentage of the vote of anyDemocrat since Lyndon Johnson, and you racked up the most votes for aDemocratic president in the history of the United States (the only one toreceive more votes than you was ... you, in '08!). You are the firstDemocrat to get more than 50% of the vote twice in a row since Franklin D.Roosevelt.This was truly another historic election and I would like to take a fewminutes of your time to respectfully ask that your second term notresemble your first term.It's not that you didn't get anything done. You got A LOT done. But thereare some very huge issues that have been left unresolved and, dammit, weneed you to get some fight in you. Wall Street and the uber-rich have beenconducting a bloody class war for over 30 years and it's about time theywere stopped.I know it is not in your nature to be aggressive or confrontational. But,please, Barack - DO NOT listen to the pundits who are telling you to makethe "grand compromise" or move to the "center" (FYI - you're alreadythere). Your fellow citizens have spoken and we have rejected the crazedideology of this Republican Party and we insist that you forcefullyproceed in bringing about profound change that will improve the lives ofthe 99%. We're done hoping. We want real change. And, if we can't get itin the second term of a great and good man like you, then really - what'sthe use? Why are we even bothering? Yes, we're that discouraged anddisenchanted.At your first post-election press conference last Wednesday you were onfire. The way you went all "Taxi Driver" on McCain and company ("Youtalkin' to me?") was so brilliant and breathtaking I had to play it back adozen times just to maintain the contact high. Jesus, that look - for asecond I thought laser beams would be shooting out of your eyes! MORE OFTHAT!! PLEASE!!In the weeks after your first election you celebrated by hiring theGoldman Sachs boys and Wall Street darlings to run our economy. Talk abouta buzzkill that I never fully recovered from. Please - not this time. Thistime take a stand for all the rest of us - and if you do, tens of millionsof us will not only have your back, we will swoop down on Congress in aforce so large they won't know what hit them (that's right, McConnell -you're on the retirement list we've put together for 2014).BUT - first you have to do the job we elected you to do. You have to takeyour massive 126-electoral vote margin and just go for it.Here are my suggestions:1. DRIVE THE RICH RIGHT OFF THEIR FISCAL CLIFF. The "fiscal cliff" is aruse, an invention by the Right and the rich, to try and keep their hugetax breaks. On December 31, let ALL the tax cuts expire. Then, on January1, put forth a bill that restores the tax cuts for 98% of the public. Idare the Republicans to vote against that! They can't and they won't. Asfor the spending cuts, the 2011 agreement states that, for every domesticprogram dollar the Republicans want to cut, a Pentagon dollar must also becut. See, you are a genius! No way will the Right vote against the mastersof war. And if by some chance they do, you can immediately put forthlegislation to restore all the programs we, the majority, approve of. Andfor God's sake, man - declare Social Security and Medicare/Medicaiduntouchable. They're not bankrupt or anywhere near it. If the rich paidthe same percentage of Social Security tax on their entire income - thesame exact rate everyone else pays - then there will suddenly be enoughmoney in Social Security to last til at least the year 2080!2. END ALL THE WARS NOW. Do not continue the war in Afghanistan (athoroughly losing proposition if ever there was one) for two full moreyears! Why should one single more person have to die FOR NO REASON? Stopit. You know it's wrong. Bin Laden's dead, al Qaeda is decimated and theAfghans have to work out their own problems. Also, end the drone strikesand other covert military activities you are conducting in Pakistan,Yemen, Somalia, Colombia and God knows where else. You think history isgoing to remember the United States as a great democracy? No, they'regoing to think of us as a nation that became addicted to war. They'll callus warlords. They'll say that in the 21st century America was so in needof oil that we'd kill anyone to get it. You know that's where this isgoing. This has to stop. Now.3. END THE DRUG WAR. It is not only an abysmal failure, it has returned usto the days of slavery. We have locked up millions of African-Americansand Latinos and now fund a private prison-industrial complex that makesbillions for a few lucky rich people. There are other ways to deal withthe drugs that do cause harm - ways built around a sense of decency andcompassion. We look like a bunch of sadistic racists. Stop it.4. DECLARE A MORATORIUM ON HOME FORECLOSURES AND EVICTIONS. Millions ofpeople are facing homelessness because of a crooked system enacted by themajor banks and Wall Street firms. Put a pause on this and take 12 monthsto work out a different way (like, restructuring families' mortgages toreflect the true worth of their homes).5. GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS. You already know this one. The public issick of it. Now's the time to act.6. EXPAND OBAMACARE. Your health care law doesn't cover everyone. It is acash cow for the insurance industry. Push for a single-payer system -Medicare for All - and include dentistry and mental health. This is thesingle biggest thing you could do to reduce the country's deficit.7. RESTORE GLASS-STEAGALL. You must put back all the rigid controls onWall Street that Reagan, Clinton and the Bushes removed - or else we facethe possibility of another, much worse, crash. If they break the law,prosecute them the way you currently go after whistleblowers and medicalmarijuana dispensaries.8. REDUCE STUDENT LOAN DEBT. No 22-year-old should have to enter the realworld already in a virtual debtors' prison. This is cruel and no otherdemocracy does this like we do. You were right to eliminate the banks asthe profit-gouging lenders, but now you have to bring us back to the dayswhen you and I were of college age and a good education cost us little ornext to nothing. A few less wars would go a long to way to being able toafford this.9. FREE BRADLEY MANNING. End the persecution and prosecution of anAmerican hero. Bush and Cheney lied to a nation to convince us to go towar. Manning allegedly hacked the war criminals' files and then sharedthem with the American public (and the world) so that we could learn thetruth about Iraq and Afghanistan. Our history is full of such people who"break the law" for the greater good of humanity. Army Specialist BradleyManning deserves a medal, not prison.10. ASK US TO DO SOMETHING. One thing is clear: none of the above is goingto happen if you don't immediately mobilize the 63,500,000 who voted foryou (and the other 40 million who are for you but didn't vote). You can'tgo this alone. You need an army of everyday Americans who will fightalongside you to make this a more just and peaceful nation. In your 2008campaign, you were a pioneer in using social media to win the election.Over 15 million of us gave you our cell numbers or email addresses so youcould send us texts and emails telling us what needed to be done to winthe election. Then, as soon as you won, it was as if you hit the deletebutton. We never heard from you again. (Until this past year when you kepttexting us to send you $25. Inspiring.) Whoever your internet and socialmedia people were should have been given their own office in the West Wing- and we should have heard from you. Constantly. Need a bill passed? Textus and we will mobilize! The Republicans are filibustering? We can stopthem! They won't approve your choice for Secretary of State? We'll seeabout that! You say you were a community organizer. Please - start actinglike one.The next four years can be one of those presidential terms that changedthe course of America. I'm sure you will want to be judged on how youstood up for us, restored the middle class, ended the s***ting on the poorand made us a friend to the rest of the world instead of a threat. You cando this. We can do it with you. All that stands in the way is yourunderstandable desire to sing "Kumbaya" with the Republicans. Don't wasteyour breath. Their professed love of America is negated by their profoundhatred of you. Don't waste a minute on them. Fix the sad mess we're in. Goback and read this month's election results. We're with you.

bwo INURA listFriends,At Zuccotti Park, there was always a bit of social service involved inthe occupation:-- homeless people sheltered, the hungry fed -- but itwas ancillary to Occupy's main objectives, which dealt with societal,structural problems. But the reaction to hurricane Sandy, and theformation of Occupy Sandy, brought out a different aspect of the Occupymovement, not directed at Wall Street or big systemic issues, butdirectly providing help to those in need.What kind of role is that forOccupy? How does it fit in with Occupy Wall Street's basic thrust?Look at my earlier blogs at pmarcuse.wordpress.com, #21 (dealing withsocial justice issues in the distribution of public resources afterSandy), #22 (commandeering vacant housing for those displaced) , Blog#23 (treating Occupy Sandy work as prefigurative, rather than as model), and Blog #24, which deals with the relations between helper and thosehelped, between giver and recipient and the institutions involved..Is the "Occupy" in Occupy Sandy a misnomer for a commendable butordinary charitable endeavor, fundamentally unconnected to Occupy WallStreet?No. Blog #23 argues that it has the same ultimate aim as other Occupymovements: achieving fundamental improvements in societal structuresthrough transformative activities. But rather than pursue that taskthrough words and slogans and demonstrations, Occupy Sandy uses itsefforts to prefigure what could be done in an alternative society. Itshows what simple human concern for others can achieve, how solidaritycan motivate actions even where both markets and government fall short.In the process, it prefigures what changed human relationships can be.Unlike efforts to model what an alternative society might look like,from utopian communities to communes to the organization of fullydemocratic encampments in public spaces of the last year, Occupy Sandydoes not seek to separate itself from the surrounding society, to makeitself a demonstrative model of something different. Instead, OccupySandy simply reveals what is already present in the basic nature of menand women, but not allowed its full scope in an alienated society wherethe motor of progress is seen in competition and success is judged inprivate profit terms. Its actions prefigure elements of a model society:solidarity and caring and selflessness,already present, almost at aninstinctual level, in all individuals in the present society. It is adifferent route to social change, prefiguring rather than modeling.Blog #24 then illustrates the way in which Occupy Sandy has affected therelationships among the occupiers involved, those they are helping,others making use of the existence of needs for help for ulteriorpurposes, how different helpers are seen by those they are helping, andhow relations between occupiers and institutions, from churches to thepolice and FEMA employees, have developed.Details of the blogs are spelled out at http://pmarcuse.wordpress.com.Comments, particularly but not only from occupiers, are welcome, eitheron the blog or by email.

For another perspective on Google`s `net freedom` initiative.M From: governance-request-UtHtnd/jhlLpgJrhxKc9hB2eb7JE58TQ< at >public.gmane.org [mailto:governance-request-UtHtnd/jhlLpgJrhxKc9hB2eb7JE58TQ< at >public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of parminderSent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:50 PMTo: governance-UtHtnd/jhlLpgJrhxKc9hB2eb7JE58TQ< at >public.gmane.orgSubject: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website ???A free and open world depends on a free and open Internet. Governments alone, working behind closed doors, should not direct its future. The billions of people around the globe who use the Internet should have a voice.???https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google <https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard> &utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google;1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted from net neutrality provisions. 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net neutral Internet.3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves your own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons Google is currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never asked for the change of default.)I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal by Google). So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the economic, social and political resources of the world. It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep Internet's content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to be careful about whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign. Remember, the lessons from the net neutrality campaign in the US which was sold cheap by those who assumed its leadership. Also, have no doubt whatsoever that ACTAs and PIPAs will come back in new forms, accommodating the interests of the big Internet companies that led the opposition in the first round. (Anyone wanting to take a bet on this! :) ) And. when the second round happens, since 'our leaders' would have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight left to give. For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil society needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public interest causes to players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - sooner or later getting into bed with whoever is economically and politically powerful around to help their business prosper. Such is the structural logic of big business. Let them stick to what they do best - organise productive forces of the world. Leave public interest causes to public interest players - civil society and governments. However, if the sentiment is simply overflowing, maybe just donate some money to such causes, in an arms- lenght /hands-off approach vis a vis managing the precise activities involved. I simply dont fancy corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at policy forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a relatively new game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our democracies. I keep hoping that civil society would give this phenomenon a deeper thought and analysis, rather than just riding the bandwagon. parminder On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ (thanks to a colleague for sharing!)

Mute magazine has been running a crowd-funding campaign for the pastseveral weeks, and happily they've met their goal. Which means there'sno *need* to send an appeal to nettime. Indeed, if anything, they shouldbe acknowledged for their principled restraint in that regard. Mostwould-be crowd-funders will stop at nothing to 'mobilize' every 'socialnetwork' within arm's reach, and often -- as we know -- many that liebeyond reach. Not Mute.Now that Mute's effort has escaped the all-or-nothing demands that driveso many CF efforts, their appeal can take on a different valence. Thehostage has been released and the jaildoors are open: the prisoners nowface a more old-fashioned dilemma, still 'existential' in a way, butmore like Sartre and less like game theory.It's tawdry to use the word 'gift' in such a crass context, I know, butthe gift never really existed outside of its ~economic context, did it?And, anyway, if ever there was a publication that embodied the gift inform and substance, Mute is surely a strong candidate. They've beendoing it on a shoestring for close to twenty years now, and hopefullythey'll keep on doing it for twenty MOAR. Exceeding their modest fundinggoal would be beneficial in its own right; and doing so is the kind ofthing that can impress Measurers farther down the line -- an essentialif oft-missed aspect of how the logic of the gift plays out back andforth over time.The point isn't that you 'should' donate, because, god knows, they werenever in it for the money; from day one, it's been about reading,writing, debating, and disseminating ideas and (yes...) 'practices.'Beneath the banal request there remains the very human gestures ofsupport and mutual aid; and lately some of the people who've maintainedMute all these years have been extending very concrete support to manyother entities and histories displaced by aggressive attacks on culturalinstitutions and histories. Or, as Mute puts it: Proud to be flesh.Behind every click there's flesh. So go click around: http://www.metamute.org/Cheers,T

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21567074-fear-litigation-hobbling-art-market-collectors-artists-and-lawyersAT A Christie’s auction in New York this month, a painting known as Ocean Park #48 fetched $13.5m, a record for a work by Richard Diebenkorn, a Californian artist who died in 1993. The 1971 abstract painting had been certified as genuine by the Richard Diebenkorn Foundation in Berkeley. Less fortunate are the owners of more than 200 purported Diebenkorn paintings and drawings that the foundation declined to certify. Since an unauthenticated picture is not worth nearly as much, three owners got their lawyers to send threatening letters.Spooked, the foundation is beefing up its liability insurance. Richard Grant, the director, expects to protect his authentication board’s seven experts with millions of dollars of liability insurance by the time a comprehensive list of genuine works, known as a catalogue raisonné, is published in about three years. The expense is worth it, he says. Authentication reassures buyers, which stimulates sales.Alas, plenty of other experts are now too scared of lawsuits to authenticate pictures, says Clare McAndrew, the founder of Arts Economics, a consultancy. Early this year the Andy Warhol Foundation dissolved its authentication board after spending $7m to fight a lawsuit from a disgruntled London collector. In September the Estate of Jean-Michel Basquiat and the Keith Haring Foundation stopped authenticating works by the two late artists. Last year the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation dissolved its authentication committee rather than “jeopardise our health and well-being”, says Jack Cowart, its director. In the past five years insurance policies taken out by art authenticators have more than doubled at Hiscox, an insurer.Forgers nowadays typically favour 20th-century abstract and expressionist styles. Mimicking Jackson Pollock’s drip-and-splatter paintings is easier than faking old masters such as Rembrandt. Swamped with lawsuits, the Pollock-Krasner Foundation stopped authenticating works in 1996, four decades after Pollock’s death. Lawsuits continued anyway. A court even entertained a suit from a man with a painting signed “Pollack” (he lost).A brush with the lawMost suits fail, but fears keep mounting, says Sharon Flescher, director of the International Foundation for Art Research. Her organisation, based in New York, helps by allowing some scholars to carry out authentication under its auspices after art owners have signed its waivers. Such promises not to sue are now common, but unreliable. The plaintiff who attacked the Warhol foundation sidestepped a waiver he had signed by accusing the group of monopolism. (He eventually gave up.)Courts do not go easy on defendants just because they are art scholars of modest means, says Ronald Spencer, an art lawyer and author of a book about art forgery, “The Expert and the Object”. Scholars are “nervous about taking a $500 fee and getting sued for $10m”, he says.All this is bound to hurt sales. Already the top of the art market is suffering, says Véronique Wiesinger, the chief curator at France’s ministry of culture. As scholars grow reluctant to give opinions, forgers find it easier to circulate their wares. Savvy art-buyers have noticed, she says, and are spending less than they otherwise would. Less sophisticated ones will soon wise up and do likewise, Ms Wiesinger says.Her duties include running the French government body that authenticates and promotes works by Alberto Giacometti, a Swiss artist who died in 1966. The Fondation Alberto et Annette Giacometti recently began fighting a lawsuit from an Italian collector upset that a piece he owns will not be included in the Giacometti catalogue raisonné. Ms Wiesinger reckons the suit will drag on for years and eat up about €30,000 ($38,400) in legal fees. “Something must be done,” she complains.Marc Restellini, a Parisian art historian, rejected as fake numerous works while preparing a catalogue raisonné of drawings by Amedeo Modigliani, an Italian artist who left little documentation when he died young in Paris in 1920. Told by phone in 1999 to leave the drawings alone or be killed, Mr Restellini cancelled the project because, as he puts it: “I’m not James Bond.” (Now head of the Pinacothèque de Paris, a private museum, he continues to work on a catalogue of Modigliani paintings, one of which fetched nearly $69m at a Sotheby’s auction two years ago.) Other Modigliani catalogues are incomplete or at least partially discredited—one French author was convicted for forgery.Such antics dismay dealers. Sales typically increase, sometimes dramatically, upon publication of a catalogue raisonné because buyers like knowing which pieces the artist’s estate or other authorities have declared genuine. If a good new catalogue raisonné of Modigliani drawings were published, sales worldwide would rise by about a fifth, reckons Christophe Van de Weghe, a New York art dealer.The fear of lawsuits makes experts whisper and dodge. For instance, the catalogue raisonné of Isamu Noguchi, a Japanese-American sculptor, won’t be a real catalogue raisonné, says the project’s manager, Shaina Larrivee. To reduce liability, she says, it will be published as an online-only, ever-modifiable work-in-progress. It’s harder to sue “a constantly moving target”, as another expert puts it. Ms Larrivee says that the foundation will keep quiet if it sees an apparently fake Noguchi on sale.Other digital-only catalogues raisonnés are on their way. This is a startling development. Many collectors will spend far less on an artwork that can be removed from a catalogue raisonné with a keystroke.How will the art market adapt? China offers a clue. Art expertise in China often carries little weight because authenticators are thought to be in cahoots with a dealer or seller, says Shin-Yi Yang, a curator in Beijing. So living artists make more money, since they can personally assure buyers that a picture is not a fake, he says.A year ago the Courtauld Institute of Art in London prepared an academic debate on issues related to the authentication of about 600 drawings attributed to Francis Bacon, a British artist who died in 1992. The debate was cancelled a week before it was to have taken place on January 25th 2012, due to the “possibility of legal action”, the institute said. The irony will not be lost on those who consider art to be freedom of expression incarnate.Correction: An earlier version of this article said that the Richard Diebenkorn Foundation's authentication board declined to certify 200 purported Diebenkorns. In fact, many of these paintings were brushed off before they reached the board. We also calculated a figure of $92m of liability insurance on mistaken assumptions. Sorry.

(via Twitter[RB], posted to the Ning group http://artsfunding.ning.com/ )http://artsfunding.ning.com/profiles/blogs/lee-hall-guardian-article-about-the-100-cut-in-arts-funding-in-1Lee Hall: Guardian article about the 100% cut in Arts funding in Newcastle * Posted by Samuel West on November 24, 2012 at 10:58 Lee Hall has written a piece for the Guardian about the Newcastle cuts. The Arts pages reportedly found it too technical, so he asked me to post it here. ***** Like most people connected with the Arts I was stunned by Newcastle Council's announcement this week to cut the entire Arts budget for the City ([GBP]1.6m). It seemed a completely unnecessary draconian gesture but in the context of the [GBP]90m deficit trumpeted by the Council one wonders if it's inevitable, no matter how strong the cultural argument against it. However, when I looked at the report I saw a very different picture. The same document which outlines the total removal of arts funding boasts a [GBP]418m capital programme in the City - for the next three years alone - [GBP]79m of which comes directly from council resources. Much of this money will be spent to regenerate run down commercial areas of the city in the hope of encouraging new businesses, ironically, in the retail and 'leisure' sector. Apparently the Council find it perfectly fine to use council money to pay the admin staff of developers, builders, retailers in the commercial sector but not the admin staff, cleaners, accountants and caretakers of already thriving cultural businesses in the public sector. There's even an astonishing [GBP]1.2m ear-marked for "capital funding to enable council buildings to be incentivized to bid for asset transfer opportunities." i.e. doing them up to flog them to the private sector. Even the overall deficit starts to look problematic when you examine the detail. The actual fall in revenue from central government is [GBP]39m but the figures pump this up to the [GBP]90m by estimating [GBP]21.7m for inflation and nearly another [GBP]30m for some other vague intangibles. The "cost of the downturn" is reckoned to be more than the entire arts budget for the whole three years. I smell sophistry. The Council's defence will inevitably be that there is a difference in Revenue and Capital spend but as anybody knows most of any Capital spend goes on wages. Indeed the report boasts about the fact that this capital spend will help jobs in the construction industry yet at the very same time outlines the plans to lay off librarians and ordinary admin staff who work in theatres and museums. Quite clearly there is money to continue funding the libraries, museums and the Arts. Live Theatre's grant of [GBP]89,000 per year is 0.06% of this discretionary capital spend for the same period. The entire Arts budget is 0.38 % percent of this capital spend and only 0.7% of the general council budget. It directly supports hundreds of jobs but also brings business for restaurants, bars and hotels in the City. Yet the Council is happy to wage a nuclear attack and wipe out all Arts funding, not even trying to strategically protect a single institution. This is a straightforward attack on the Arts buried underneath a load of smoke and mirrors about austerity. They can't have it both ways. It is simply fiscally dishonest and illiterate not to count the economic value of the cultural businesses in Newcastle. Whenever I have a sell-out show the restaurants around the theatre are also full. You would think a vibrant cultural life is vitally important to attract the high fliers the council are trying to attract to the area, let alone to provide succour to the tax payers of the City. These plans outline the transfer of an enormous amount of public money to the private sector. This is not the simple fiscal crisis the Council are claiming it to be. Something is wrong. Look at the figures. It just does not add up. ***** Charlotte Higgins article about the Newcastle cuts: http://bit.ly/WJgs7W Lee Hall letter about proposed Newcastle library closures: http://bit.ly/XMRENO

(via Twitter[RB], posted to the Ning group http://artsfunding.ning.com/ )http://artsfunding.ning.com/profiles/blogs/lee-hall-guardian-article-about-the-100-cut-in-arts-funding-in-1Lee Hall: Guardian article about the 100% cut in Arts funding in Newcastle * Posted by Samuel West on November 24, 2012 at 10:58 Lee Hall has written a piece for the Guardian about the Newcastle cuts. The Arts pages reportedly found it too technical, so he asked me to post it here. ***** Like most people connected with the Arts I was stunned by Newcastle Council's announcement this week to cut the entire Arts budget for the City ([GBP]1.6m). It seemed a completely unnecessary draconian gesture but in the context of the [GBP]90m deficit trumpeted by the Council one wonders if it's inevitable, no matter how strong the cultural argument against it. However, when I looked at the report I saw a very different picture. The same document which outlines the total removal of arts funding boasts a [GBP]418m capital programme in the City - for the next three years alone - [GBP]79m of which comes directly from council resources. Much of this money will be spent to regenerate run down commercial areas of the city in the hope of encouraging new businesses, ironically, in the retail and 'leisure' sector. Apparently the Council find it perfectly fine to use council money to pay the admin staff of developers, builders, retailers in the commercial sector but not the admin staff, cleaners, accountants and caretakers of already thriving cultural businesses in the public sector. There's even an astonishing [GBP]1.2m ear-marked for "capital funding to enable council buildings to be incentivized to bid for asset transfer opportunities." i.e. doing them up to flog them to the private sector. Even the overall deficit starts to look problematic when you examine the detail. The actual fall in revenue from central government is [GBP]39m but the figures pump this up to the [GBP]90m by estimating [GBP]21.7m for inflation and nearly another [GBP]30m for some other vague intangibles. The "cost of the downturn" is reckoned to be more than the entire arts budget for the whole three years. I smell sophistry. The Council's defence will inevitably be that there is a difference in Revenue and Capital spend but as anybody knows most of any Capital spend goes on wages. Indeed the report boasts about the fact that this capital spend will help jobs in the construction industry yet at the very same time outlines the plans to lay off librarians and ordinary admin staff who work in theatres and museums. Quite clearly there is money to continue funding the libraries, museums and the Arts. Live Theatre's grant of [GBP]89,000 per year is 0.06% of this discretionary capital spend for the same period. The entire Arts budget is 0.38 % percent of this capital spend and only 0.7% of the general council budget. It directly supports hundreds of jobs but also brings business for restaurants, bars and hotels in the City. Yet the Council is happy to wage a nuclear attack and wipe out all Arts funding, not even trying to strategically protect a single institution. This is a straightforward attack on the Arts buried underneath a load of smoke and mirrors about austerity. They can't have it both ways. It is simply fiscally dishonest and illiterate not to count the economic value of the cultural businesses in Newcastle. Whenever I have a sell-out show the restaurants around the theatre are also full. You would think a vibrant cultural life is vitally important to attract the high fliers the council are trying to attract to the area, let alone to provide succour to the tax payers of the City. These plans outline the transfer of an enormous amount of public money to the private sector. This is not the simple fiscal crisis the Council are claiming it to be. Something is wrong. Look at the figures. It just does not add up. ***** Charlotte Higgins article about the Newcastle cuts: http://bit.ly/WJgs7W Lee Hall letter about proposed Newcastle library closures: http://bit.ly/XMRENO

----- Forwarded message from Rob Dyke <robdyke-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org> -----From: Rob Dyke <robdyke-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>Subject: Re: <nettime> Collectors, artists and lawyers. Fear of litigation is hobbling the art marketDate: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:31:58 +0000To: nettime-l-fO7mttO5ZDI< at >public.gmane.orgProof denies faith and without faith art is nothing.With apologies to Douglas Adams.On Nov 24, 2012 6:18 PM, "Brian Holmes" <bhcontinentaldrift-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>wrote:----- End forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message from Keith Sanborn <mrzero-VmQCmMdMyN0AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org> -----From: Keith Sanborn <mrzero-VmQCmMdMyN0AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>Subject: Re: <nettime> Collectors, artists and lawyers. Fear of litigation is hobbling the art marketDate: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:46:33 -0500To: nettime-l-fO7mttO5ZDI< at >public.gmane.orgWonderful to out art dealers as thugs.On Nov 24, 2012, at 11:53 AM, nettime-l-fO7mttO5ZDI< at >public.gmane.org wrote:

dear nettimerslet me post a part of my new essay about users here.full version at http://contemporary-home-computing.org/turing-complete-useryoursoliaTuring Complete User==================== "Any error may vitiate the entire output of the device. For the recognition and correction of such malfunctions intelligent human intervention will in general be necessary." -- John von Neumann, First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC, 1945 "If you can't blog, tweet! If you can't tweet, like!" -- Kim Dotcom, Mr. President, 2012 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MokNvbiRqCM&t=3m38s>Invisible and Very Busy-----------------------Computers are getting invisible. They shrink and hide. They lurk underthe skin and dissolve in the cloud. We observe the process like aneclipse of the sun, partly scared, partly overwhelmed. We divide intocamps and fight about advantages and dangers of The Ubiquitous. Butwhatever side we take -- we do acknowledge the significance of themoment.With the disappearance of the computer, something else is silentlybecoming invisible as well -- the User. Users are disappearing asboth phenomena and term, and this development is either unnoticed oraccepted as progress -- an evolutionary step.The notion of the Invisible User is pushed by influential userinterface designers, specifically by Don Norman a guru of userfriendly design and long time advocate of invisible computing. He canbe actually called the father of Invisible Computing.Those who study interaction design read his "Why Interfaces Don'tWork" published in 1990 in which he asked and answered his ownquestion: "The real problem with the interface is that it is aninterface". What's to be done? "We need to aid the task, not theinterface to the task. The computer of the future should beinvisible!"[1]It took almost two decades, but the future arrived around five yearsago, when clicking mouse buttons ceased to be our main input methodand touch and multi-touch technologies hinted at our new emancipationfrom hardware. The cosiness of iProducts, as well as breakthroughs inAugmented Reality (it got mobile), rise of wearables, maturing of allsorts of tracking (motion, face) and the advancement of projectiontechnologies erased the visible border between input and outputdevices. These developments began to turn our interactions withcomputers into pre-computer actions or, as interface designers preferto say, "natural" gestures and movements.Of course computers are still distinguishable and locatable, but theyare no longer something you sit in front of. The forecasts forinvisibility are so optimistic that in 2012 Apple allowed tothemselves to rephrase Norman's predictive statement by putting it inthe present tense and binding it to a particular piece of consumerelectronics: We believe that technology is at its very best when it is invisible, when you are conscious only of what you are doing, not the device you are doing it with [...] iPad is the perfect expression of that idea, it's just this magical pane of glass that can become anything you want it to be. It's a more personal experience with technology than people have ever had.[2]In this last sentence, the word "experience" is not an accident,neither is the word "people".Invisible computers, or more accurately the illusion of thecomputerless, is destroyed if we continue to talk about "userinterfaces". This is why Interface Design starts to rename itself toExperience Design -- whose primary goal is to make users forget thatcomputers and interfaces exist. With Experience Design there is onlyyou and your emotions to feel, goals to achieve, tasks to complete.The field is abbreviated as UXD, where X is for eXperience and U isstill for the Users. Wikipedia says Don Norman coined the term UX in1995. However, in 2012 UX designers avoid to use the U-word in papersand conference announcements, in order not to remind themselves aboutall those clumsy buttons and input devices of the past. Users were forthe interfaces. Experiences, they are for the PEOPLE![3]In 2008 Don Norman simply ceased to address Users as Users. At anevent sponsored by Adaptive Path, a user interface design company,Norman stated "One of the horrible words we use is users. I am on acrusade to get rid of the word 'users'. I would prefer to call them'people.'"[4] After enjoying the effect of his words on the audiencehe added with a charming smile, "We design for people, we don't designfor users."A noble goal in deed, but only when perceived in the narrow context ofInterface Design. Here, the use of the term "people" emphasizes theneed to follow the user centered in opposition to an implementationcentered paradigm. The use of "people" in this context is a good wayto remind software developers that the User is a human being and needsto be taken into account in design and validation processes.But when you read it in a broader context, the denial of the word"user" in favor of "people" becomes dangerous. Being a User is thelast reminder that there is, whether visible or not, a computer, aprogrammed system you use.In 2011 new media theoretician Lev Manovich also became unhappy aboutthe word "user". He writes on his blog "For example, how do we call aperson who is interacting with digital media? User? No good."[5]Well, I can agree that with all the great things we can do with newmedia -- various modes of initiation and participation, multipleroles we can fill -- that it is a pity to narrow it down to "users",but this is what it is. Bloggers, artists, podcasters and even trollsare still users of systems they didn't program. So they (we) are allthe users.We need to take care of this word because addressing people and notusers hides the existence of two classes of people -- developers andusers. And if we lose this distinction, users may lose their rightsand the opportunity to protect them. These rights are to demandbetter software, the ability "to choose none of the above"[6], todelete your files, to get your files back, to fail epically and, backto the fundamental one, to see the computer.*In other words: the Invisible User is more of an issue than anInvisible Computer.*Continued at<http://contemporary-home-computing.org/turing-complete-user/>[1]: Don Norman, "Why Interfaces Don't Work", in: Brenda Laurel (Ed.), The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design, 1990, p. 218 <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003ZHEPVA/>[2]: Apple Inc, Official Apple (New) iPad Trailer, 2012 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQieoqCLWDo>[3]: Another strong force behind ignoring the term User comes from adepts of Gamification. They prefer to address users as gamers. But that's another topic.[4]: Video of the talk:<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgJcUHC3qJ8> See also Norman's 2006 essay "Words matter" <http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/words_matter_talk_a.html>: "Psychologists depersonalize the people they study by calling them 'subjects.' We depersonalize the people we study by calling them 'users.' Both terms are derogatory. They take us away from our primary mission: to help people. Power to the people, I say, to repurpose an old phrase. People. Human Beings. That's what our discipline is really about."[5]: Lev Manovich, How do you call a person who is interacting with digital media?, 2011 <http://lab.softwarestudies.com/2011/07/how-do-you-call-person-who-is.html>[6]: Borrowed from the subtitle "You May Always Choose None of the Above" of the chapter "Choice" in: Douglas Rushkoff, Program or be Programmed, 2010, p.46 <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159376426X/>

*V**V **for what?* For *Vendetta *as in the famous movie of theWachowski-Brothers? for Victory? (or for *Peace*?) Or *V *like the title ofthe first novel of Thomas Pynchon? Or *V* like *V2 *? the infamousnazi-rocket which inspired Pynchon for his next novel *Gravity?srainbow<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity%27s_Rainbow>?*in the German translation by Elfriede Jelinek and Thomas Piltz *Die Endender Parabel* (the ends of the parable). The answer is: yes ? all of this. *Vfor Vendetta*, Victory, Peace and as a Thomas Pynchon trope. All of thesereferences I want to use to talk about the actuality of Benjamin & Brechttoday, in times of crisis. And about hand-signs...The image that I want to evoke is that of the statue of Bertolt Brecht infront of the Berlin Ensemble, wearing a *V for Vendetta* mask while someoneis hiding behind him, raising his or her arm to spread fore- andmiddlefinger ? as you normally would behind the head of the person next toyou while a picture is being taken. But in this case, Brecht is not beingmocked, but someone lends an arm to indicate victory. *And *peace. If youput the 2 together you get the outdated German word: ?Siegfrieden? for?victorious peace?. This was the declared aim of the military leadership inthe First World War: peace through victory. As we all know, history took adifferent course and instead Germany saw peace only after defeat. My firstcomment would be that Brecht, who witnessed that war in a med-squad,fancied this kind of peace. Not a ?Siegfrieden? but a Defeat-?Frieden?. Inhis unfinished masterpiece *The downfall of the egoist Johann Fatzer *(*DerUntergang des Egoisten JohannFatzer*<http://www.andco.de/index.php?context=project_detail&id=3822>)he encourages the victor to quickly leave the site of victory, even: toescap from the place of his success and to rather ?dive deep under toexperience the lesson of defeat.?This would be the first lesson by Brecht to be learned: that you can onlylearn through defeat, by being defeated. Only the one who is put in aninferior position, who has lost, the loser is able to learn. One couldargue that exactly this is what did *not* happen in Germany after FirstWorld War, otherwise there would not have been a second one. This is trueand this is also (one of) the reason why Brecht never finished hismasterpiece *The downfall of the egoist Johann Fatzer*. Brecht had workedfor five years on it, rewrote it a couple of times and abondaned italtogether in 1931. Two years later the nazis took over state-power andBrecht had to emigrate. In the following war whose inavoidableness Brechtsaw very clearly, the first rocket was shot into space: the so-called A4(Aggregat 4) which was called *V2* for *Vergeltung*: vengance by thenazi-minister of PR Joseph Goebbels: a revenge-rocket, a so-called *Wunderwaffe*, miracle weapon that should turn the tide and bring about areversal of fortune and finally lead to peace- through-victory. But oncemore, victory was on the other, the allied side, most prominently expressedin the spreading of fore- and middlefinger by the British prime ministerWinston Churchill. Instead of ?Siegfrieden? Germany was faced withunconditional surrender: *bedingungslose Kapitulation*, abbreviated as:U.S. One of the consequences of this unconditional surrender was a militaryoccupaton by allied forces: the U.S., Great Britain and France in theWestern part, the Soviet Union on the Eastern side.When Brecht returned to Germany, he chose the Eastern part. In East-Berlinhe was put in charge of the Theater am Schiffbauerdamm in which he hadcelebrated his greatest success with *Die Dreigroschenoper (Three-pennyopera) *in 1928. Heiner M?ller once joked that Hitler saved Brecht ? frombecoming a star of the Boulevard. The truth is that Brecht *had* tried tocontinue in this direction ? and failed. What followed after thiscommercial failure was: the crisis ? not Brecht?s individual one, but theGreat Depression, the crash. This experience ? and subsequently the rise ofthe nazi-movement ? radically altered Brecht?s work. The most radicalplays, the so-called *Lehrst?cke *were written in this period between 1929and 1933. It was also the time when Brecht & Benjamin started their intensecollaboration: Five years before Benjamin had unsuccessfully tried to makethe acquaintance of Brecht. In the same year he wrote that he was nowconvinced of the ?actuality of a radical communism.? By now he hadabandoned his academic career to become a freelance writer. He had decidedto become the most important literary critic of his time.Thus Hannah Arend wrote about the match between Brecht & him: ?The mostimportant literary critic working with the most important writer of histime.? She was one of very few who described their alliance in positiveterms. Most of Benjamin?s friends and colleagues, Gershom Scholem inJerusalem, members of the Institute of Social Research, most prominentlyTheodor Adorno, but also Sigfried Kracauer, G?nther Anders and others, werehighly suspicious of this new couple. This suspicion also casted its lighton the way that Adorno and Scholem edited Benjamins ouvre after his death,grossly underestimating and even surpressing the relevance that Brecht hadfor Benjamin. For Benjamin Brecht was ?the most actual writer of ourtimes.? Brecht was the unexpected appearance of a radically modern writerwithout reserve, radically committing himself to his time without havingany illusions about it at the same time. It was not only their sharedpolitical agenda, but the way it expressed itself: ?A literary work canonly be politically correct, if it is also correct from a literary,Benjamin wrote in his essay *The author as producer*. In other words:?Commitment alone won?t do it.?Brecht was a revolutionary cultural worker ? in the literal sense: not as atheater-maker with revolutionary beliefs or convictions, with a certainpolitical commitment, but as an actually revolutionizing artist whose workswere undermining the way cultural production was organized. His aim wasnothing less than the ?total turnover?, die *totale Umw?lzung* of theapparatus of production. His work was an elementary force just like livinglabour in the factory system as described by Marx. (This living labour,which recently has been discussed again a lot, has been described as collectivecreativity<http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/geert-lovink-publications/the-art-of-free-cooperation/>byGeert Lovink.) Brecht wanted to bring the cultural industry ofstate-theatres (today we might rather speak of creative industries) to itslimits, to a point of crisis. He wanted to make his productionsindigestible for what he liked to call ?culinary theatre?: pleasure forgourmets. In his eyes, theatres were drug-dealers: every evening they soldopium to the masses, false consciousness, ideology. Thus his declared goalwas: the destruction of ideology (?Ideologiezertr?mmerung?).With this position Brecht & Benjamin came into opposition to most writersorganized in the Communist party. This became obvious in the failure oftheir attempt to launch a magazine of left-wing intellectuals to intervenein the political situation. The title: *Criticism & crisis *(*Kritik & Krise*). No issue was ever printed, but this project maybe was the mostimportant intellecutal initiative of its time. Its title was its program:?to discover or bring about the crisis by the means of criticism.? For thefirst issue Brecht proposed a text called ?greeting (welcoming) the crisis?(Begr??ung der Krise). For him politics was but a continuation of criticalpractice with other means (die politik als ihre fortsetzung mit anderenmitteln). What he wrote about the crisis in 1931 seems actual today in analmost uncanny way: ?the crisis is recognizable for everyone, but at thesame time it is the crisis that prevents people to really recognize thegreater crisis they are in.?Brecht, Benjamin and all of the writers that they wanted to cooperate within this magazine were forced into exile, many of them, like Benjamin, didnot survive. Benjamin committed suicide in 1940 during his escape throughthe mountains. Brecht only heard about it a year later, when he arrived inCalifornia. Together with the news of his death, he received the manuscriptof Benjamin?s *On the concept ofHistory<http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/benjamin/1940/history.htm>.*In the sixth thesis Benjamin concludes: ?not even the dead will be safefrom the enemy, if he is victorious. And this enemy has not ceased to bevictorious.?These thesis have not lost anything of their actuality today: but it is anactuality intertwined with the past. There is a secret appointment betweenthe generations of the past and that of our own, as Benjamin said. Ourtask: ?to brush history against the grain. And: To explode the continuum ofhistory. The goal: to enter into a new constellation with past events.? Tobe able to quote the past, certain moments of the past. This is exactlywhat *V* does in the movie *V for Vendetta*.*V**V for Vendetta*takes place in a future fascist regime in Great Britain.After acts of terrorism and a terrible plague a new order is beinginstalled. *V* is an avenger, a terrorist, an individual anarchist whoeventually brings down that system. He is wearing a mask because he hadbecome a victim ? *V for victim?* ? of medical experiments that the regimehad undertaken with parts of the population. It turns out that not only didthey carry out the terrorist acts, but also cause the plague which createda state of emergency in which they were able to seize power.*V*individually eliminates everyone who was involved, at the end eventhefascist dictator. The story ends with his death, but instead of revealing (*re-V-ling*) who *V* really is, the people ? masses of people ? turninto *V*by wearing his mask, his hat and his dark coat and marchtowards the Londonparliamant while *V* is being buried. Instead of being put in the ground, Vis put in a underground-cabin full of dynamit and set in motion to explodethe parliamant: this is the revolution.The historical reference that *V* operates with is the memory of theso-called gunpowder plot in Elizabethan England: GuyFawkes<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes>a Catholicrevolutionary ? or counterrevolutionary ? had unsuccessfullytried to bomb the parliamant on Nov. 5th 1605. On the same day *V* startshis action: He manages to enter the public television (*T-V*), to highjacka whole studio and to activate a state-of-emergency channel to commemorateGuy Fawkes? deed as a heroic action of a singular man as a wake-up call tothe people <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqi8m4CEEY>. One year later hismission is accomplished.How come that a Catholic terrorist has become the symbol for a globalanticapitalist movement? My answer would be that *V* has become a symbolfor revolution ? against the principle of representation. The bombing ofthe British parliament is not seen as an attack against a democraticinstitution, rather as an attack against the ?fortress of representation?.This is the sentiment expressed in the mass-masking of *V*. It resonates ina strange way with Brechts poems and plays in the time of crisis in whichrevolutionaries, but also normal city-dwellers (*St?dtebewohner*) are toldto delete their faces, to efface, to become ? *anonymous*.The uncanny quality of these metaphors is that they anticipated a realitywhich became true only a few years later ? in exile. As Heiner M?ller oncesaid: ?the actuality of art is tomorrow.? So is it possible that today isthis tomorrow? I want to argue that Brecht?s images of effacing, ofescaping the place of success, of embracing defeat has been actualized as anew political strategy: an anti-representational strategy. This strategy isshared by the different social movements of last year ? from Tahrir placein Egypt, the tents on Rothschild-Boulevard in Tel Aviv, Puerto de Sol inMadrid to Zuccotti (or Liberty) Park in Wall Street.It is Brecht?s most controversial work since it seems to affirm theelimination of a young activist by his own comrades. Again Brecht hadanticipated the course of events: just a few years later the time of theGreat terror began in the Soviet Union. Today a different reading of theseplays may be possible, they can be actualized in a new constallation. Iwant to argue that this anti-representational aspect brings Brecht to hisown limit, to the site of his defeat. The arm which raises the *V* for hisstatue thus expresses his approval of this defeat. Which defeat? Thedefeat, the downfall, der *Untergang *of the egoist Johann Fatzer.(...)Fatzer is a typical Brecht-figure, a ?type? like Baal or Mecky Messer:Brecht called them ?great asocials?, Benjamin ?virtual revolutionaries?: *Vfor virtual revolutionary! *This is actually what I would like to speakabout: virtual vs. actual revolution or maybe virtual and or even*as*actual revolution. Benjamin?s actuality today derives from termslike?virtual revolutionary?: after the renaissance, the rediscovery of WalterBenjamin in the years following 1968, Benjamin was re-rediscovered in theyears after 1989 in the context of what the internet critic Geert Lovinkcalls ?German media theory?. Benjamin & Brecht both shared a certain senseof enthusiasm for new technology and ? different than most intellectuals ofcritical theory, most prominently Adorno ? of mass-culture. Early forms oftoday?s pop-culture. Benjamin today could be the prototype of what Lovinkcalls ?virtual intellectual <http://thing.desk.nl/bilwet/Geert/100.LEX>?: aprecarious, but independent thinker.I want to use Benjamianians terms to reflect a bit about ?virtualrevolutions?: the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, real, actualrevolutions, were often enough labelled ?facebook?-revolutions. For acertain time the Egyptian google-manager was made into a public figure, apublic face of the revolution. But isn?t the strength of these revolutionsexactly the effacing of its protagonist, that they are ?revolutions ofpersons? ? as a Spanish activist called it, according to the slogan: ?realdemocracy now!? The angry shouting against all politicians: ?They don?trepresent us! They shall all leave!?In Germany in the fall of 1989, just before the fall of the wall, thepeople in East Germany were shouting: ?Wir sind das Volk.? ? ?We are thepeople?. A tricky translation: The English word ?people? means both,population and persons. The German word ?Volk? doesn?t. The excessive usethe Nazis had made of that word has lead Brecht to the conclusion that itshould be dropped, he was only speaking of population, ?Bev?lkerung?. In1998 Christoph Schlingensief founded a political party that was supposed tobe based on persons alone: ?Vote yourself we know how to do it!? was theslogan. The clou was that German law allows individuals to run for officewithout a party ? all you need is 200 signatures of people in your area tobecome a candidate. Schlingensief propagated that: ?*Du bist 1 Volk: 1 V*?(?You are the people: one people!?) Like in Spain today this V meanspersons: not public persons, but also not private persons. How could you beprivate in a mass of millions? Is it rather ?common persons? ? in a verystrong sense of ?common? as a new, a third space between public andprivate. Maybe even as the key-concept of all these social movements wehave seen in the last year: ?common causes? ? maybe even ?commonist??!?This brings us back to Fatzer, rather: to his antagonist Koch, later calledKeuner. The stories from Mr. Keuner later became an independent work ofBrecht ? the name, said Benjamin, derives from the Greek word *koinos *whichmeans: common man. Who is, as Benjamin writes, a leader (F?hrer). And athinker. But thinking, as Brecht & Benjamin always pointed out, is acollective practice. More than that: Thinking *is* the common! Mr. Keuner,the thinker, is very lazy that?s why he has to be carried on stage to watchwhat is going on there. This is exactly the attitude that Brecht wantedfrom his audience: cold-blooded, relaxed experts, smoking cigarettes,looking cool and distanced.Thus Brecht urged his actors and actresses *not* to identify themselveswith their roles, but to des-identify: no ?Einf?hlung? (empathy), but?Ausf?hlung? (*ex-*pathy, so to speak). To put a distance in-between:between actor and role, but also between audience and figure. Thisdistancing device is called: Verfremdungseffekt or *V**-Effect!* *V forVerfremdung! *In English: alienation or estrangement, but it?s tricky: itis *not *Entfremdung, the alienation of the producers from the product thatMarx had analysed, but an artifical device to change the appearance ofwell-known phenomenons in a less known one, stranger, more distant in orderto recognize the misuse behind the use, the exception behind the rule.(...)The epic actor/actress has to put her gestures in quotation marks: *V* likethe fingers that accompany a word or a sentence with a certain gestures tomark them as quotes, to distance the speaker from the spoken. ThisBrechtian technique has to be radicalized and generalized for makingpolitical art: thus a performance is never to be limited to a cause or acertain message, but is always already something else, less or more, doublejust as the actor or the actress on stage who is supposed to show (a role)and to show (the act of) showing: *Verfremdung *as *Verdopplung*, doubling.Art is the second look, a double, doubling look. Becoming identical withthe political process corresponds in a twisted way to the mere onlooker,the *V*oyeur. Art, theatre or performance is something different, it is thethird space between passive watching and acting (in an activist sense). Itis the space that opens up like ? a *V*. It never fully actualizes itself,but always also remains virtual. It is the *re* of revolution, the *re*turn:it is the escape from the site of success, the embracing of failure.At least, that?s what Benjamin said in his last writing *On the concept ofhistory*: Empathy, *Einf?hlung*, is wrong, because with who does oneempathize? The answer is ?irrefutably with the victor. Those who currentlyrule are however the heirs of all those who have ever been victorious.Empathy with the victors thus comes to benefit the current rulers everytime. This says quite enough to the historical materialist.? The practiceof quoting is a means to explode the continuum of history, to brush historyagainst the grain. It is always an act of violence (*V for violence*) ? torip something out of one context and to put it into another one. Only in afree, liberated, resurrected society no violence would be needed , allmoments of history would be at the hands of humanity. Thus Benjamin &Brecht were dreaming of artworks that were composed completly out ofquotes. Which proves Lyotards paradox of postmodernity that one has to bepostmodern in order to become modern. In a variation of a well-knownpostmodern slogan we could say today: ?We have never been postmodern?.Artworks composed completley out of quotes require an audience able to readit. Thus the attempt to abolish the difference between production andreception as consequence of this dream. Brecht was hoping that the radiocould be revolutionized in this way that it transforms from an apparatus ofdistribution to one of communication. Accordingly Brecht tried torevolutionize the way of theatre-making ? in the original sense of the wordfrom the astronomer Copernikus who toppled the geocentric view of the worldand substituted it with a heliocentric one. In his conception of the?Lehrst?cke? (teaching plays), Brecht performs such a Copernican turn: Hetoppled the view of theatre that was centred on the relationship betweenactors acting on stage and an audience watching them do that to ? theactors acting! He proposed to kick out the audience ? since it is theactors who are the ones learning (by acting), not the audience (by watchingthem act). This radical conception of play Brecht labelled ?Lehrst?ck? ?teaching play. But because of this emphasis on the act of learning, hehimself translated it into learning play (?Lernst?cke?). The audience isonly allowed in, he wrote, if they are of any use ? for the actors. Thisnotion radically undermines the differentiation of teaching and learning inorder to transform it into a process, a process that takes placesimultaneously: It is ? quite literally ? a learning (and teaching) bydoing: by performing. There is no longer a certain message being deliveredfrom by a teacher to a pupil, but a continuous process that works bothways. It is a sabotage to the principle of representation (in German: *Darstellung*). And that?s why: it had to be stopped. The experiment had toend.It was ended from the outside: the rise of a fascist regime. The Germanparliamant was set on fire in an individual act by the Dutch anarchistMarinus van der Lubbe, but instead of waking up the people as in *V forVendetta*, the nazis use the incident of the *Reichstagsbrand *to abandonall democratic rights and to install a dictatorship. When Brecht heard theReichstag was on fire, he left Germany immediately ? just in time before heand his team were caught and put into a concentration camp. When Brechtreturned to Germany 15 years later, he could not continue where he hadstopped. Instead he had to rebuild the German theatre slowly out of ruins.But in the mean time he had also changed his theory. Now he announced thatthe focus was no longer on the process of representing, but on that whichis being represented. This, at least from our point of view, was a stepback ? maybe a tactical one as in Lenin?s phrase: *one stead ahead, twosteps back*, but the theatre is still standing on that foot that steppedtwo steps back without ever getting ready to step ahead once more. Thiswould require more than Brecht?s nonaristotelian dramaturgy, rahter apostaristotelian dramaturgy that always begins in the middle: everythingstarts from there. No more beginning, middle and end, only middle. Brechtwas unwilling to go that far. So in the end he remained in the frame ofAristotles. Brecht was not ready to sacrifice the story, the fable orparable.Brecht defended the parable-principle in the exact moment it came to an endaccording to Thomas Pynchons novel *Gravity?s rainbow*, in German: *DieEnden der Parabel *(the ends of the parables). Pynchon?s parable is theline of flight of the *V2* rocket. It is called the *Blitz* (flashlight)since it hits the ground before you can hear its sound. Since then theorder of cause and effect is lost forever. Maybe Brecht was aware of it andthus he defended it. In a terrible way it is the rocket that brusheshistory against the grain, that literally explodes the continuum ofhistory. ?The enemy has not ceased to be victorious.?At last *V for Veto* or for *Voice*: Put your hands in the air! Thehand-signals were invented in New York when the police prohibited theoccupiers of Wall Street to use technical equipment, loud speakers or otherelectric amplifiers, in German: ?Verst?rker?. Thus the group started toamplify themselves by repeating the words of the speakers in a choir: theso called ?human? or ?people?s mic?. Along with this choir went certainhand-signs that enable the gathering, the general assembly or *asamblea* tocommunicate on a horizontal level and to make collective decisions in aradically democratic way. The similarity to Brecht?s learning play practiceand radio-theory is striking: Brecht envisioned to put the listeners incontact with the learned choirs of his plays or to broadcast to the generalpublic the counseling and decisions of the people involved in learningplays which he called ?meeting?hnliche Kollektivveranstaltungen?:meeting-like collective events. Sounds like a fit description for an *asamblea*.Or the other way around: *asambleas* as model for learning plays. The?people?s mic? produces for the participants a strong *V-Effect *?Verst?rker, amplifier-effect ? but also *Verfremdung*, alienation in theoriginal Brechtian sense: the seperation of elements, the showing of theshowing as well as displaying an attitude, a commentary. The people thatconstitute the ?people?s mic? are simultaneously listening, repeating andcommenting via hand-signs, either agreeing with what is said, disagreeingor simply passing it on. While from the outside the ?people?s mic? mightlook like the old model of a preacher preaching to the converted, it is anew model of communication, a multi-voiced choir that could be described asepic in the Brechtian sense. At the same time it follows a postaristoteliandramaturgy, since it is no longer a process of linear representation formproduction to reception, but it begins and ends in the middle. The choir isa form of live media which is no longer a tool or instrument, a means foran end, but what Agamben has described as ?means without ends?: It is partof the production of sociality. It is a Great Education Council ? ?einGro?es P?dagogium? ? as Brecht envisioned in *Fatzer*. By repeating thewords, copying gestures, testing different attitudes the people arelearning. Thus the theatre is transforming into what Benjamin has describedas ?laboratory of versatility?: *V for versatility. *P.S: Sloganomics: ?Stop reading Benjamin, start to live Benjamin!?full version: http://alextext.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/158/

We Are Here, for our Right to BeRefused refugees living on the streets of the Netherlands struggle for lifeEviction of protest camp in Amsterdam expected this Friday November 30, 2012The Mayor of Amsterdam, capital city of the Netherlands, has ordered the eviction of the protest camp of refugees in the western suburb of Amsterdam called Osdorp. A verdict by the court will be announced on Wednesday 28th at 9 a.m. The approximately 100 refugees demonstrating in the camp are determined to stay where they are and face the police force and subsequent detention. They call on all people to witness this show down and show support in a manifestation in front of the camp and on the streets of Amsterdam. This event starts Thursday 29th of November at 2 p.m.. The eviction can be expected the morning after. We call for witnesses, observers and comapssionate citizens to join and demand the rigo a Theatre of Hope.Info: +31.686263381email: m2migrant-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.orgFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/169302156549604/Twitter: < at >WeAreHereWebsite: http://wijzijnhier.orgBlog: http://kamposdorp.blogspot.nl/If you want, you can call us:el mouthena :0685602714younes :0685270643mustafa :0684566733bayisa : 0684482895 mamadou : 0684997713There will be a press conference in the Camp on Wednesday 28th of November at 5 p.m. (Central European Time)Location: Notweg 32, NL1068 LL Amsterdam, The NetherlandsBackground:In Amsterdam and The Hague rejected refugees from Africa and the Middle East are enduring the harsh weather in make shift tent camps where they demonstrate against the Dutch way of treating rejected refugees since September 4th (Amsterdam) and 19th (The Hague). Since 2010 asylum seekers who have been rejected are no longer entitled to basic rights such as shelter and food. Even when it is impossible to return to their countries of origin, the Dutch government argues that they can leave voluntarily. Denying them access to reception centers, putting them in prison and forcing them to survive in parks, railway stations and insecure hiding places, that is the way to convince them to leave this country. In the first half of 2012 4.680 asylum seekers have been dumped on the street without any life support, according to the International Network of Local Initiatives with Asylum seekers (INLIA). These self-organized action by the refugees have highlighted a humanitarian problem that has been growing for years and was hidden from the public eye. Now these people have made themselves visible and seek solutions by entering in dialogue with civil society and democratic representatives. To realize their aims they need to be together, safe and visible. Apparently the authorities want to make them disappear again. The only offer is for some of the refugees to go for 30 days in dispersed shelters for homeless people. After that they would again be on their own, insecure and invisible. A growing number of supporters is trying to create sustainable ways to continue this struggle for human rights. One way would be to make a space available as a meeting point for refugees, a House of Hope.On their blog, the refugees that camp out in Amsterdam declared:"We are here because our life is in danger. There are many reasons for this. War is the most important one. There are several armed conflicts in Africa that cost many lives, disrupt families and livelihoods. Political violence and oppression, religious division, problems between tribes and clans add to make solutions complicated. Drought, famine and other economic factors also push people to find a better future elsewhere. All these cases are inter-related. We can see this in the extremist movements. They make life impossible for you if you do not conform to strict rules. Having a drink can cost you your life. Being a member of another tribe, or of another religion, can bring you into deep trouble. So we are here because we face persecution and danger in our countries. We need to be in the Netherlands because this country is a free country where our lives are safe and we could build a future. "We want your help. We want to get out of this situation. We want your help, not just with food and drinks, but with the broader issues. Help us with publicity, be creative: think about how you could help. Whether you're politically active, or a journalist, everyone can help in their own way. We have 5 representatives you can talk to, to explain our situation.The name “Refugees-on-the-Street” was coined when they started organizing in the spring of 2011 in Utrecht, with support of the STIL Foundation, a solidarity group for migrants without a residence permit. They are people who fled their home country, asked for asylum but were denied permission. The capstone of the asylum procedure is deportation. Undocumented migrants are systematically held in administrative detention for up to 18 months and this can be repeated endlessly. If they cannot be deported they are put on the street without any title of right, no shelter no care, nothing at all. Most of them go in hiding, including women with children. They depend on charity, on good will (or bad will) of private people. But more and more refuse to hide and they fight for a decent life, for hope.Since the big tent camp in ter Apel everybody knows they are here. Through their demonstrations and actions, by their presence in the media and in politics they have joined the public debate. In Amsterdam the Camp against the Cold started on the 4th of September where a growing number of refugees find shelter, food, safety and medical care. With their slogan “WE ARE HERE” (WIJ ZIJN HIER) they show that WE are human beings, WE have nowhere to go, WE stay here until we have a solution that respects our human rights. In the camp at Notweg 32 in Amsterdam Osdorp are mainly African men and women (children are not allowed by the Mayor of Amsterdam) from Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenia, and francophone people from Congo, Mauretania, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Mali and Guinee. There are individuals from Yemen (2), China and Armenia.In Den Haag a group of Iraqi (mostly Kurdish) refugees is camping near the central Staion in open tents in worse conditions than in Amsterdam. They carry the name RIGHT TO EXIST.Self-organizationThe two actual groups of activists continue previous actions, notably the massive protest camp of last May in front of the Deportation Complex in the northern village of Ter Apel. Most of the 400 refugees of this camp are still lodged in various reception centers, where they enjoy limited freedom and are not able to demonstrate. The activists share their experiences and views by mutual visits, mobile phones, and some via Facebook and email. Around the camps a network of helpers, supporters and activists (type Occupy), artists, academics etc. gather to provide direct aid, temporary solutions and advice en optuions for more structural and political tactics.M2M (Migrant to Migrant) Foundation initiated the project WE ARE HERE right after the eviction of the big camp in Ter Apel. The aim was to collect all graphic material from the camp and make collabaritively a selection to produce a mobile exhibition for a wide audience. An underlying purpose was to maintain the communication between the dispersed groups and to reflect on the experiences of the self-managed camp.Parliament of RefugeesOn September 1st 2012 M2M organized a work conference in Arnhem with 30 participants from the Ter Apel camp and 3 academic supporters. By elaborating on the values of the experiences en putting them in a perspective of future solutions the concept arose of a parliament of refugees. This body could articulate the common ground and the vision of the various groups of refugees and undocumented migrants into a coherent discourse and enter into a dialogue with society and authorities. This would help a lot, because a sustainable approach to the global complex of migration cannot be elaborated without the equal participation of all stakeholders.Theatre of Hope“I don’t want to die. I need life, I need hope.” These are the words of the Ethiopean woman Meskeren to mayor Kompier of Vlagtwedde during one of her visits to the tent camp of Refugees-on-the-Street in Ter Apel (May 2012)The Theatre of Hope is a building in Amsterdam where refugees-on-the- street can live and demonstrate as the face and the voice of a growing group of outlawed people. It is a stage for dialogue with Dutch society in search for a normal life. A ring of supporters around the tent camp in Osdorp provides the building and a supporting structure to enable the users to manage the building and the program of activities. This is how the initiators hope to contribute to the self- organization, communication and participation of the Refugees-on-the- Street. This project is about empowerment and democracy in a situation that pushes thousands of people over the brink of civilized life. The democratic process in the Netherlands has created a substantial infringement on the human rights and the dignity of migrants. The Theatre of Hope is a step towards a solution. The creation of a public space is a vital contribution to repairing the present gap of democracy and human rights in our own country today.Design the FutureThe concept of the Theatre of Hope was born in the first workshop called Design the Future on October 13th in the camp itself, again with thirty participants and some ten professional artists, architects and social designers. This workshop was a co-creation of M2M and The Beach of social designer Diana Krabbendam. The Theatre of Hope in the House of Hope will meet the two most urgent needs of the refugees: a place to stay in the winter and a space to develop their movement.In the last two months the Theatre of Hope and the Parliament of Refugees have actually already started in practice. The camps attract wide media exposure and negotiations are going on with council member, mayors, ministers, members of parliament and diplomats. The internal organization and procedures for decision making are in place: general meetings when needed bring all campers together, and every week a public General Assembly ratifies the steps proposed in the workshops. Recently, on October 23rd. A round table meeting with 6 parties who form together a progressive minority in Parliament was prepared by a team of Women against deportation, bringing to the fore the voice of the women in the camp with their gender specific issues and stories. In this manner the process of articulating an independent and coherent discourse the first steps towards a creating a representative body have been taken.The tent camps are a public manifestation, a stage for direct and mediated exchange with neighbors and society at large. Demonstrations and public actions at offices of the Immigration Service and in front of the Parliament are equally public performances of presence, passion and power.The Theatre of Hope was first presented on October 20th in collaboration with the Sandberg Academy of Design within the framework of a public debate on Soft Power.Every Saturday the workshops Design the Future will continue to provide a structure for building both the community and intensifying communication and collaborations with supporters.

Loosely picking up on the thread of "open letter to critics" and"Collectors, artists and lawyers"... (and some of you may stillremember "Critical Strategies in Art and Media", a series of debatesin NY and a book published by Autonomedia...)Christiane Paul recently asked me to contribute a piece for"A Companion to Digital Art" a book that she prepares forWiley-Blackwell's series of Art History. However, involved in artisticpractice for quite a while I find it increasingly difficult to dealwith what is happening in this field and my aversion level has onlyrisen over time.Below is my abstract and before writing this piece I would be curiousabout reactions and interested in comments from the illustriousnettimers circles...Cheers, K***Critical Intelligence in Art and Digital MediaCan digital art practice do more than propagate technical progressand provide affect stimulus in estheticized production-cycles? Howcan cultural intelligence work to provide an informational contextfor others and apply technologies of the imagination to tell anotherstory?The creative imperative has become a dominant force. With culture asan economic engine in post-industrial societies, artistic practicediffuses into business practice and the realm of the CreativeIndustries. In the shift of the economic focus toward a dematerializedvalue creation, innovation cycles of planned obsolescence andestheticized experience design turn into standard market models.In creative cities job profiles demand "creativity" for even themost mundane tasks. Dreams, of everyone being an artist, turn intonightmares of internalized gouvernmentality.Just as Situationist tactics have been appropriated for advertisement,Tactical Media concepts of the 1990's are now Public Relations andviral marketing standards. Dissent is easily appropriated in the newspirit of capitalism and todays critique is tomorrow's business.Creative Industry appropriations of estheticized boutique activismoffer affective relief with a maximum of inconsequentiality. Whileeffective strategies of resistance and critical interventions need tobuild on an understanding of the past, the change from disciplinarianinstitutions to a society of control transformed the playing field.In new control regimes the traditional disciplinarian modes ofpreconfigured enforced categories and educational indoctrinationgive way to the fluid mining of cognitive response and reactionflows. Electronic networks and intelligent materials weave into thefabric of social space and into infrastructures of urban places.Embedded in ambient Big Data intelligence, proprietary protocolsand orchestrated devices exploit the individual. Density and speedof digital networking veils paradoxical effects of increasingfragmentation, segregation and asymmetric relations.Not merely tickling cultural taste buds but providing a criticalinstance of reflective intellectual work, artists as agents ofintelligence demystify the power of media over matter. New forms ofcollective practices that intervene in processes seem more interestingthan past models of individual genius. A practice that offers acritical technical intelligence and a critique of representationby mapping the flows of ideas and power is necessarily based oncooperation. Are there forms of cooperation outside a creative classand a digital proletariat modeled on ecstatic internet bubbles?What are models of critical artistic practice in a fluid field ofpost-Fordism? What are potential roles of cultural agents in societiessaturated and structured by powerful communication technologies?