on synchronisity of art and culture, technology and environment

Archive for the ‘society’ tag

The changing role of art in society

without comments

Fields Q & A session

A premise behind this question is that practices which were once subsumed under terms such as media art, digital art, art-and-technology, art-and-science, have become so diversified that no single term can work as a signpost any more. The assumption is also that typically those practices are transdisciplinary and socially engaged, combining imaginative use of technologies old and new with participatory processes and interventions in the social fabric. The changing role of art in society is one where it does not just create a new aesthetics but gets involved in patterns of social, scientific, and technological transformations.

Written by

May 25th, 2013 at 11:57 am

Art and beauty

without comments

“Beauty doesn’t have any meaning whatsoever.” — Ludwig Wittgenstein


“If you go in the direction of what you think is beautiful, your life will become narrower and narrower.” — John Cage



Written by

March 11th, 2013 at 5:36 pm

Social constructivism

without comments

Social constructivism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social constructivism is a sociological theory of knowledge that applies the general philosophical constructionism into social settings, wherein groups construct knowledge for one another, collaboratively creating a small culture of shared artifacts with shared meanings. When one is immersed within a culture of this sort, one is learning all the time about how to be a part of that culture on many levels.

Written by

October 21st, 2009 at 5:39 am

Life has become work

without comments

A Brief History of Italian Autonomia from Sylvère Lotringer |

Now the distinction between work and non-work has been abolished. Now it can’t be calculated where the surplus value which capitalism, according to Marx is bound to extract from workers, is to be found. Life has become work; we are working all the time.

Written by

October 7th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

Distortion-pseudo society

without comments

In the art group Situationist International, which Jorn along with among others the French theorist Guy Debord had founded a few years before his exhibition in Paris, this process was referred to as détournement. In short détournement – which directly translated means distortion – is a kind of anti-artistic method where the past – and, indeed, the whole world – is appropriated, annihilated and scandalized. Through this process a way opens out of the meaningless and empty pseudo-society that the artists referred to as the Society of the Spectacle.

This notion also contains a definite showdown with art as an elevated activity in order to see the artistic process as something containing a proletarian revolutionary potential. Guy Debord went as far as to believe that in order to not be swallowed by the meaningless stream of hollow representations of the Society of the Spectacle art had to be critical and negating and in the end renounce every kind of visual activity. In particular, the last part of it was a cause for different opinions among the members of Situationist International, where for instance Jorn never totally rejected the production of artistic objects. The result was that Jorn was excluded from the group along with a number of other members, and finally the group dissolved.

Written by

May 8th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with ,

Country/now and than/we and them

without comments

General mistake I think people are making when referring to their countries is to people they see around them in everyday life. But I guess you and me, Elenora and Rob and Ricardo are more similar between ourself than people from ‘our’ countries are similar to ‘us’? Its a question that I have received this year and am thinking a lot. I was writing about ‘we’ and  immediately got a question back: who are that ‘we’? In brico world Is it: we bricos and them proprietary consumers people? we south and them north? we vegans them meat eaters? we smokers and them straight? we nomads and them settlers? we socially aware and them not? we technically advanced and them not? and so on…

I can understand deep connections to ethical/cultural roots and appreciate them. But I cannot understand feeling of belonging to a country. As you say ‘my part of the world’. There is a general line going on brico mailing list that underlines relation where is who from and there are different aesthetic how people show love for ‘their’ country (by worrying, loving, being critical and so on)

My parallel is similar to yours when trying to explain my roots and ‘my’ country. A socialist country where there was (at least not  in my immediate neighborhood) such a difference between shoe-shining person and top-floor office person. Today its the same as you are saying: for almost as long as I know for myself western technologies were adopted/bought/obtruded to a country. Everyone was accepting/expecting it as a better tomorrow. Fine example is agriculture technology: hybrids and than GMO. Or water and soil irrigation. Rivers were made to go straight instead of serpent like to get more affordable soil to plant. Devastation of this process could not be apprehended, predicted (so I cannot say we can apprehend  or predict as McLuhan says, but more assume or guess). I have learned recently that somewhere in Germany there is a tendency to get rivers back to their natural serpent like flow. I can only guess that decision is on government level?

Also the communication technology to connect a dissident, refugee or foreign low wage dirty jobs worker to their family and friends – yes. Everyone of them knows skype, maybe still some of them having problems with reading. Also – many small farmers, old grenmas that were bringing their own, natural and biological products to the markets don’t exists for last decade or more. When I was  a kid they were all over markets,bringing fresh natural food to your doors where you would buy them. They don’t exist because it was ruined by politics of importing bad and cheep food (mind you this food was not expensive because it was biological) and because of technology.

So who are we? We are guys who try to survive. And we will sell our land, name, religion today hoping banks will go bankrupt tomorrow as new war will happen so our credits in those banks would disappear. Its shame that we get in credit depth because of new iPhone, but information is to be searched for, not to trust blindly.

So, not all of us will ever go completely Sufi, or divine. Not all society will ever be uniform and go from one step to another. Some of us have cross or bless to care more, but noone can be enlightened without their own will. In that way I think a class on ‘network literacy’ will resemble more to brico mailing list than class where professor will teach students.

Written by

March 12th, 2009 at 3:25 pm