The perspective developed in a society determines how we distribute resources. How these resources are distributed forms out of what is acceptable in a society; discrimination comes out of what is found acceptable. Therefore, discrimination begins as economic discrimination. Our society reasons that all of discrimination is socio-political, instead it is resource driven. If we examine history we notice this pattern. Anti-semitism in Europe developed out of a perception of a one sided economic model. New world racial discrimination began from economic exploitation( slavery) and was furthered by a fear of distribution of economic resources. These and others are all based on an economic basis: the dominant group striving for control of distribution of assets motivates all discrimination. The resource distribution motivates a sense of collective unconcious to discrimination, we accept it as merely a set of verying factors. Our focus begins to become clouded by own issues and instead denies discrimination occurs.
The solution becomes simple: move beyond a controlled distribution of resources. Move into a system where recourses are distributed without consideration for who they are distributed to. This way we can begin to dissolve prejudice in our society and instead begin to solve our larger problems.
-Mark Brinton
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Protest as breaking the epistemological trap
Democracy exists as an epistemological trap, the knowledge possessed by us is influenced and produced by others. This point focuses our efforts toward new forms of knowledge, the protest begins this different episteme. The mere act of protesting allows us to break the epistemological trap, our protesting changes the way we focus and interpret knowledge.
Protesting develops our knowledge in a different way: old truths are no longer accepted. Truth becomes something that it has never been: unformed. We become the new perceiver of truth, it ceases being perceived and formed by others. The form of the protest develops what we can perceive as truth.
A protest begins the idea of epistemological liberation. This term personifies the new mindset of the liberated individual. The mind breaks free from restraints and perceives things in a new way. The form of the protest becomes the important factor in ensuring the success of this. Self-organizing allows for the proper way of addressing liberated knowledge. Individuals formulating their own knowledge allows for proper liberation.
A set ideology makes true liberation impossible, because the subject assimilates the ideology and is never totally liberated. The right thing to do is to have no set ideology. This way knowledge formulates from the individual, the process of individual liberation becomes ideology. Proper liberation strives to have no set knowledge attached to it, only the knowledge of the liberated.
-Mark Brinton
Protesting develops our knowledge in a different way: old truths are no longer accepted. Truth becomes something that it has never been: unformed. We become the new perceiver of truth, it ceases being perceived and formed by others. The form of the protest develops what we can perceive as truth.
A protest begins the idea of epistemological liberation. This term personifies the new mindset of the liberated individual. The mind breaks free from restraints and perceives things in a new way. The form of the protest becomes the important factor in ensuring the success of this. Self-organizing allows for the proper way of addressing liberated knowledge. Individuals formulating their own knowledge allows for proper liberation.
A set ideology makes true liberation impossible, because the subject assimilates the ideology and is never totally liberated. The right thing to do is to have no set ideology. This way knowledge formulates from the individual, the process of individual liberation becomes ideology. Proper liberation strives to have no set knowledge attached to it, only the knowledge of the liberated.
-Mark Brinton
Monday, October 17, 2011
Occupation as Liberation
The structure of a society does not dictate the way a society behaves. If America were to wake up tomorrow and find itself an anarchist society, the same injustices and inequalities would still exist. The same would be true for any structural or economical change. The goals we hope for will not be achieved by the reformation of an entrenched system, for the system itself breeds these injustices. It is false to believe we do not achieve these goals because some rich white guy does everything he can to stop the poor from gaining liberation. Even though rich people do benefit from the current system, they do not systematically oppress the poor, or the 99%. We all are implicit in the corrupt system. We all share in the blame. We all oppress each other and ourselves because this is the way we have been conditioned to behave.
In order to revolt against the system, we need to change ourselves. From that change, the structural changes within society will organically occur as a natural offshoot of a new people. We need to create space were a new society can be born. The occupation taking place globally can achieve these ends if it dedicates itself, not to changing a flawed system, but to immediate liberation. Within these areas of occupation, a new society and spirit can begin to form, but unlike past societies founded on social contracts which protect a minority, a bottom up system will take hold where each person is dedicated to establishing the freedom of all within the occupied area and anyone who wishes to be liberated.
The first step in creating a space for liberation is to stop being implicit in the flawed system. Because we are all so involved in society, there does not exist many ways to disconnect from the larger society, nor is it very desirable to end associations we have been developing within our own lives. One systematic and potentially productive way to do this positively is to not vote in elections. Of course one individual not voting is ineffectual. If a large and intelligent drive to not vote is organized, the movement could send a powerful message to the political establishment. This would also allow people who would not normally participate or are not comfortable with traditional protest to participate in a positive way. Instead of people tacitly agreeing to an unjust and oppressive system, we declare the political system as bankrupt and unrepresentative of the majority’s opinion.
Revolution is not war, nor is it a simple event. The true and sustainable revolution will occur within ourselves, within the very way we perceive the reality we help to create. A great dedication to liberation, justice, and peace from all humans must become the reason for our existence. One individual is only as free as the next individual because we give each other freedom. By allowing each other freedom, we will achieve our own freedom.
-Eric Virzi
In order to revolt against the system, we need to change ourselves. From that change, the structural changes within society will organically occur as a natural offshoot of a new people. We need to create space were a new society can be born. The occupation taking place globally can achieve these ends if it dedicates itself, not to changing a flawed system, but to immediate liberation. Within these areas of occupation, a new society and spirit can begin to form, but unlike past societies founded on social contracts which protect a minority, a bottom up system will take hold where each person is dedicated to establishing the freedom of all within the occupied area and anyone who wishes to be liberated.
The first step in creating a space for liberation is to stop being implicit in the flawed system. Because we are all so involved in society, there does not exist many ways to disconnect from the larger society, nor is it very desirable to end associations we have been developing within our own lives. One systematic and potentially productive way to do this positively is to not vote in elections. Of course one individual not voting is ineffectual. If a large and intelligent drive to not vote is organized, the movement could send a powerful message to the political establishment. This would also allow people who would not normally participate or are not comfortable with traditional protest to participate in a positive way. Instead of people tacitly agreeing to an unjust and oppressive system, we declare the political system as bankrupt and unrepresentative of the majority’s opinion.
Revolution is not war, nor is it a simple event. The true and sustainable revolution will occur within ourselves, within the very way we perceive the reality we help to create. A great dedication to liberation, justice, and peace from all humans must become the reason for our existence. One individual is only as free as the next individual because we give each other freedom. By allowing each other freedom, we will achieve our own freedom.
-Eric Virzi
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Occupation Without Message
Many observers have failed to realize that the occupation is a positive act of protest in itself, regardless of any specific message that the participants attach themselves to. The act of self-organization, the practice of direct democracy, and the creation of a community based around an ill-defined discontent are not insignificant factors in understanding why people have gathered here. These group actions speak louder than any of the words that have been ineffectually prodded out of any individual person.
The pressure to formulate a list of demands serves only one purpose: to settle them quickly and end the occupation. Are we to celebrate the day we can finally put an end to the inspired discussions, give up the invention of alternative social arrangements, and leave our festival of solidarity only to return to a life submissive to the same economic imperatives employed on slightly more level playing field? No, we must see that 'reform is not a breath of liberty, it is the respiration of tyranny.' The hostile critics who cry “get a job!” (while completely unknowing of how many of us do have jobs, and the various reasons we do not), give both a perfect illustration of the central concern of negotiators, and a portent of what the policy makers will soon say once reform has been made. How miserable their lives must be, that the slightest interruption in the absurd quest for production and consumption at all costs can arouse so much fear and anger in them!
This has been the predominant attitude towards the recent events in the Middle East as well. The instant the regime was overthrown in Egypt, the U.S. media cheers, “Great! Mubarak is gone! Get back to work!.” Why would anyone want to get back to work? No post-protest government will function as healthily as the organization in Tahrir Square, precisely because the miserable indifference of a well-regulated work force and the “every man for himself” attitude engendered by capitalism are violently opposed to the enthusiasm, spontaneity, and spirit of camaraderie generated by a community of protesters. The same is true for Liberty Plaza, as for any other occupation site, no matter how small in number or uncertain in aim.
If we demand anything at the moment, it is an end to the demands being made on us. The occupation offers a place where time is severed from its monetary equivalence and spent luxuriously, commercial relationships based on mutual exploitation are replaced by human ones, and a political system that directly involves the community in decision making is made possible. The more we strive for emancipation on a small scale – through the skill sharing of working groups, the diligent democratic processes of general assemblies, the free giving of food, music, knowledge, etc. - the more senseless it becomes to translate our creative energies into policy changes that will reintegrate us into a world directed by coercion, bitterness, and greed.
The pressure to formulate a list of demands serves only one purpose: to settle them quickly and end the occupation. Are we to celebrate the day we can finally put an end to the inspired discussions, give up the invention of alternative social arrangements, and leave our festival of solidarity only to return to a life submissive to the same economic imperatives employed on slightly more level playing field? No, we must see that 'reform is not a breath of liberty, it is the respiration of tyranny.' The hostile critics who cry “get a job!” (while completely unknowing of how many of us do have jobs, and the various reasons we do not), give both a perfect illustration of the central concern of negotiators, and a portent of what the policy makers will soon say once reform has been made. How miserable their lives must be, that the slightest interruption in the absurd quest for production and consumption at all costs can arouse so much fear and anger in them!
This has been the predominant attitude towards the recent events in the Middle East as well. The instant the regime was overthrown in Egypt, the U.S. media cheers, “Great! Mubarak is gone! Get back to work!.” Why would anyone want to get back to work? No post-protest government will function as healthily as the organization in Tahrir Square, precisely because the miserable indifference of a well-regulated work force and the “every man for himself” attitude engendered by capitalism are violently opposed to the enthusiasm, spontaneity, and spirit of camaraderie generated by a community of protesters. The same is true for Liberty Plaza, as for any other occupation site, no matter how small in number or uncertain in aim.
If we demand anything at the moment, it is an end to the demands being made on us. The occupation offers a place where time is severed from its monetary equivalence and spent luxuriously, commercial relationships based on mutual exploitation are replaced by human ones, and a political system that directly involves the community in decision making is made possible. The more we strive for emancipation on a small scale – through the skill sharing of working groups, the diligent democratic processes of general assemblies, the free giving of food, music, knowledge, etc. - the more senseless it becomes to translate our creative energies into policy changes that will reintegrate us into a world directed by coercion, bitterness, and greed.
-Ryan Wallace
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Economic disenfranchisement must be addressed at the bottom...
One problem that was encountered today during a sympathy protest at UNC Charlotte was the ability for homeless people to gain access for food at the occupation site. Some individuals at this protest balked at the idea of the occupation site being used to service the needs of the most disenfranchised (the homeless). The economic collapse made the ultimate victims out of the homeless. They exist as the ultimate precarious individuals, ones who have been ignored and who show the end result of poor economic policy and a social system developed out of lack of care. The moral thing to do is to use the idea of the community to care for the homeless and let them into the community.
The problem with the society we have now is that ultimately individuals who have nothing to spend or invest (capital or labor wise) are ultimately deemed worthless and non-existant. The idea of the homeless individual is one who has conceded to not exist in the society as a whole, they have been deemed extra precarious and cast aside. Their ontology diminishes by the mere fact of the existence around them; they never choose to exist as homeless people (who would?), but instead have it cast on them. If the occupiers truly want to stand for justice, then developing the occupation as a place where the homeless can be taken care of is the best way to start.
The whole notion of the occupation is to reaffirm the social contract, to show that we are all equal players in our society. The first thing should be to address those who have ultimately been forgotten in the social contract. Show that a distribution of limited resources (the donated resources) can be distributed to other needy members of the community. Setting this as an example would be the best way to show that this can be done in the larger community.
- Mark Brinton
Monday, October 10, 2011
False Logic
In the beginning of the following video, a women remarks on Occupy Charlotte's march on the Bank of America Headquarters that a.) it is not the best idea to march on a Saturday, when people are not at work, and b.) the protesters should get a job. Watch -
Aside from the obvious retort that we are marching on a Saturday because many of us do have jobs, there is a flawed logic behind this. It is an often refrain of detesters that people who protest do not have jobs. I suggest the logic is as follows - A person who opposes the system (whether it be the economic or political system) cannot participate within the system, therefore they cannot possibly keep a job.
There are many reasons why this is false, but the main reason I bring it up is to shed light on similiar logic used by some lifestyle anarchists or by those who wish to drop out of the system. This logic is as follows - A person who opposes the system cannot possibly work within the system. If a person works within the system they cannot possibly oppose the system, therefore they are poseurs or illigetimate.
I won't go into the arguments about how one cannot escape the system, therefore must subvert the system from within. I merely want to demostrate the similarly flawed logic of seemingly completely different perspectives.
-Eric Virzi
Friday, October 7, 2011
ARGUMENTS FOR NOT VOTING
As a society our government is not created by us, but consented to. Our system is a social contract, where rights are given away in order to ensure protection of other rights. By voting we give consent to this system, in essence, by participating we give authority to the state. This occurs regardless of who wins, it is the participation in the system that allows for this consent. Therefore, by not voting, we deny consent and negate the system as a whole.
With this negation occurring, you refuse the present state of the social contract and instead force the current formation of government (the personification of the social contract) to have a.) No credibility and b.) No ability to function as a legitimate entity. With this in place, the social contract would as it currently stands dissolve, because of the lack of consent to its continual existence. In dissolving this, a new contract would be forced to be had. This contract would encompass a new set of values that would encompass the problems and concerns of the body that must consent to it in order for the contract to exist. All of this would be only be possible by a.) Not participating. b.) Enough of the plurality not participating,therefore, allowing for the system to be negated, (this percentage would have to be between 20-25% in order to be feasible.) c.) Having this action of negation dissolving the form and function of the system as a whole.
To explicate, it would negate the current form of the contract and the function that exists from the practice of it. This negation would eliminate power structures. This occurs by negating the system and the structures that support and rely on it. The "contract" protects this system and without consent, it would not be able to function. Resources would be reevaluated, refigured, and dispersed with an absence of hierarchal power. All of this would lead to a new social order and a greater and more profound equality.
-Mark Brinton
With this negation occurring, you refuse the present state of the social contract and instead force the current formation of government (the personification of the social contract) to have a.) No credibility and b.) No ability to function as a legitimate entity. With this in place, the social contract would as it currently stands dissolve, because of the lack of consent to its continual existence. In dissolving this, a new contract would be forced to be had. This contract would encompass a new set of values that would encompass the problems and concerns of the body that must consent to it in order for the contract to exist. All of this would be only be possible by a.) Not participating. b.) Enough of the plurality not participating,therefore, allowing for the system to be negated, (this percentage would have to be between 20-25% in order to be feasible.) c.) Having this action of negation dissolving the form and function of the system as a whole.
To explicate, it would negate the current form of the contract and the function that exists from the practice of it. This negation would eliminate power structures. This occurs by negating the system and the structures that support and rely on it. The "contract" protects this system and without consent, it would not be able to function. Resources would be reevaluated, refigured, and dispersed with an absence of hierarchal power. All of this would lead to a new social order and a greater and more profound equality.
-Mark Brinton
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
ANARCHISM AND PEACE
Paper on Anarchsim - Abstract...
Anarchism has a long history in which it has morphed and varied. In this essay some of the major themes and ideas of anarchism are discussed in the hope to shed light on the current understandings and potentialities of anarchism. The argument this essay attempts is to show how anarchism, as developed and understood by social anarchism, is necessary for the possibility and development of positive peace.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Biography of Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand (birth name: Alisa Rosenbaum) born in Saint Petersburg in 1905, grew up comfortably with her well-to-do family. Her father, a self-sufficient chemist and owner of a successful pharmacy, could comfortably provide for his family until the Russian Revolution began in 1917. Soon after the Bolshevik takeover, his assets were proclaimed part of the Soviet state, which can be argued as the root to Rand's bitterness toward collectivism. In spite of hardship, Rand graduated from the University of Petrograd after studying history and philosophy, and quickly emigrated in 1925 to the United States under the guise of visiting relatives.
Ayn Rand for Beginners by Andrew Bernstein, romantically depicts Rand as a brilliant young, struggling novelist and screenplay writer whose raw talent was dutifully noted by a book publisher, thus setting her free from the shackles which bound her from spreading the word of her personal philosophy. This notion somewhat ignores the fact that Rand moved to Hollywood because of her obsession with becoming famous. Rand showed great interest in film and movie stars from a young age, however her predominant interest pertained to writing screenplays and novels.
Although her early writings were not necessarily bereft of her predominant ideology of man's ability to achieve greatness, her first novel We the Living was the first to genuinely highlight her anti-collectivist ideology, or more specifically her distaste for "Soviet tyranny." Rand is often pegged as a capitalist paragon whose opinion of communism and its implementation is legitimized by her status as a primary source for information on early Soviet rule, however it is often disregarded that Rand was a child during the revolution. It is also often ignored that Rand only experienced Soviet rule during arguably its most tumultuous time, which is to say that no country is spared in facing severe and sometimes catastrophic growing pains in the immediate years after their revolution. Rand only experienced this difficult time for Soviet Russia during her teenage years, which not only exemplifies her bias (which by definition is directly contradictory to "objectivity"), but raises important questions about her as an historical primary source. If one is looking for an historical reference to the life of a bourgeois Russian teen after the Russian Revolution, Rand certainly fits the bill, however her consideration as a sociopolitical and philosophical savant due to her brief life during Soviet rule is a blatant farce.
- Stephanie Centeno
Ayn Rand for Beginners by Andrew Bernstein, romantically depicts Rand as a brilliant young, struggling novelist and screenplay writer whose raw talent was dutifully noted by a book publisher, thus setting her free from the shackles which bound her from spreading the word of her personal philosophy. This notion somewhat ignores the fact that Rand moved to Hollywood because of her obsession with becoming famous. Rand showed great interest in film and movie stars from a young age, however her predominant interest pertained to writing screenplays and novels.
Although her early writings were not necessarily bereft of her predominant ideology of man's ability to achieve greatness, her first novel We the Living was the first to genuinely highlight her anti-collectivist ideology, or more specifically her distaste for "Soviet tyranny." Rand is often pegged as a capitalist paragon whose opinion of communism and its implementation is legitimized by her status as a primary source for information on early Soviet rule, however it is often disregarded that Rand was a child during the revolution. It is also often ignored that Rand only experienced Soviet rule during arguably its most tumultuous time, which is to say that no country is spared in facing severe and sometimes catastrophic growing pains in the immediate years after their revolution. Rand only experienced this difficult time for Soviet Russia during her teenage years, which not only exemplifies her bias (which by definition is directly contradictory to "objectivity"), but raises important questions about her as an historical primary source. If one is looking for an historical reference to the life of a bourgeois Russian teen after the Russian Revolution, Rand certainly fits the bill, however her consideration as a sociopolitical and philosophical savant due to her brief life during Soviet rule is a blatant farce.
- Stephanie Centeno
The Benefits of Vegetarianism
It is nearly inescapable, in our present society, to turn on the television and successfully watch half an hour without hearing of a new and amazing diet. Witness the latest fad that will magically give you the body of your dreams along with astounding health benefits! It is clear that people are concerned about their health, yet with so many different influences and money making companies trying to press their latest “diets” it seems people have lost touch with what exactly the human body needs to be healthy. Being healthy doesn’t mean losing 25 pounds in a week. It means discovering and returning to the diet that the human body has naturally developed to consume.
Studies increasingly show that, despite our culture’s immense consumption of meat products, the human body is not naturally built to digest large quantities of meat. In fact, although humans are omnivorous and have the ability to consume both meat and plants, the body is much better suited to accommodate a vegetarian diet rather than the largely carnivorous diet that our society generally accepts. Although sometimes considered a “new age” or even unusual practice, vegetarianism is continually growing and evidence shows that the health benefits, although far from astounding, do have a solid impact on both way of life and physical fitness.
When a careful look is taken at the differences between carnivores and humans, our unnecessarily large consumption of meat becomes obvious. Every year in the United States alone, over 15 percent of the world’s animal population, about 10 billion animals, are processed (grown and killed) for the sole purpose of providing meat to Americans. The human body is not naturally built to process such large amounts of meat. For example, the human digestive tract is approximately 12 times the height of the individual, whereas the digestive tract in a carnivore is only three times its height. A shorter digestive tract allows rapidly decaying meat to pass quickly out of the body. Because we have a longer digestive tract, the average American man has about 5 pounds of undigested red meat in his bowls by the time he is 40 years old.
Vegetarianism is not only healthier for the individual in providing key vitamins and nutrients that are not found in the average diet, as well as reducing heart diseases and certain types of cancer, but it is also economically and socially more responsible. There are many reasons why a person may choose to become a vegetarian, including religious or social reasons, personal reasons, or health precautions. Recent surveys suggest that the number of people who choose to become vegetarian or vegan is on the rise, due to an increased awareness about the health benefits and general acceptance that such copious amounts of meat consumption is ethically unjust.
Whether a personal choice, or as a health precaution, vegetarianism is on the rise. The push for more people to become vegetarian and take a careful look at what the human body actually needs is a healthier and more conscious effort to change our diets and way of life.
It is nearly inescapable, in our present society, to turn on the television and successfully watch half an hour without hearing of a new and amazing diet. Witness the latest fad that will magically give you the body of your dreams along with astounding health benefits! It is clear that people are concerned about their health, yet with so many different influences and money making companies trying to press their latest “diets” it seems people have lost touch with what exactly the human body needs to be healthy. Being healthy doesn’t mean losing 25 pounds in a week. It means discovering and returning to the diet that the human body has naturally developed to consume.
Studies increasingly show that, despite our culture’s immense consumption of meat products, the human body is not naturally built to digest large quantities of meat. In fact, although humans are omnivorous and have the ability to consume both meat and plants, the body is much better suited to accommodate a vegetarian diet rather than the largely carnivorous diet that our society generally accepts. Although sometimes considered a “new age” or even unusual practice, vegetarianism is continually growing and evidence shows that the health benefits, although far from astounding, do have a solid impact on both way of life and physical fitness.
When a careful look is taken at the differences between carnivores and humans, our unnecessarily large consumption of meat becomes obvious. Every year in the United States alone, over 15 percent of the world’s animal population, about 10 billion animals, are processed (grown and killed) for the sole purpose of providing meat to Americans. The human body is not naturally built to process such large amounts of meat. For example, the human digestive tract is approximately 12 times the height of the individual, whereas the digestive tract in a carnivore is only three times its height. A shorter digestive tract allows rapidly decaying meat to pass quickly out of the body. Because we have a longer digestive tract, the average American man has about 5 pounds of undigested red meat in his bowls by the time he is 40 years old.
Vegetarianism is not only healthier for the individual in providing key vitamins and nutrients that are not found in the average diet, as well as reducing heart diseases and certain types of cancer, but it is also economically and socially more responsible. There are many reasons why a person may choose to become a vegetarian, including religious or social reasons, personal reasons, or health precautions. Recent surveys suggest that the number of people who choose to become vegetarian or vegan is on the rise, due to an increased awareness about the health benefits and general acceptance that such copious amounts of meat consumption is ethically unjust.
Whether a personal choice, or as a health precaution, vegetarianism is on the rise. The push for more people to become vegetarian and take a careful look at what the human body actually needs is a healthier and more conscious effort to change our diets and way of life.
-McKenzie Linden
Democracy: An Epistemological Trap
Our episteme, the knowledge that serves as the foundation for all of our knowledge, ultimately extends from the larger, socially constructed basis. Prejudice, religion, values and even science: all ultimately extend from perceived truths that have become part of the larger concept of “truth”. I state this point to lead to the question I want to ask today: does the democratic political process serve to limit our own knowledge? The answer, simply, is yes.
A Democratic process of any sort relies on the foundation of simple sets of decisions. These decisions serve to categorize and ultimately reflect the established episteme and are constructed to produce specific outcomes and likelyhoods. By making these specific decisions (deciding on a ballot measure or choosing a candidate) we are expecting a specific outcome (like lowering taxes or continuing social security). These outcomes, though, are merely an epistemological trap. The electorate (the democratic decision makers in any society), ultimately make specific decisions for specific results. By choosing candidate (a) an electorate expects an outcome different from choosing candidate (b). What voting individuals ultimately fail to grasp is that neither candidate has sure outcomes and an ability to verify the truth behind “rhetoric”.
This notion of “rhetoric” is where the trap truly occurs. Ultimately, any policy (or set of policies, i.e. a candidate) is founded on the “rhetoric” that must be produced to insure the expected decision must be made. The words and images that are associated with policies and candidates are ultimately developed to produce an ideal decision for those voting. Someone in the electorate makes decision a.) to hopefully receive outcome b.). Because the “rhetoric” much match and conform established episteme, policy is limited to the words used to gain the necessary decision from the electorate. The words limit the understanding of an actual outcome. By doing this, the ability to make decisions outside of established episteme is impossible. With this said the participants in a Democracy find themselves in an epistemological trap, since they have to rely on established epistemes to make and form any decision.
Our episteme, the knowledge that serves as the foundation for all of our knowledge, ultimately extends from the larger, socially constructed basis. Prejudice, religion, values and even science: all ultimately extend from perceived truths that have become part of the larger concept of “truth”. I state this point to lead to the question I want to ask today: does the democratic political process serve to limit our own knowledge? The answer, simply, is yes.
A Democratic process of any sort relies on the foundation of simple sets of decisions. These decisions serve to categorize and ultimately reflect the established episteme and are constructed to produce specific outcomes and likelyhoods. By making these specific decisions (deciding on a ballot measure or choosing a candidate) we are expecting a specific outcome (like lowering taxes or continuing social security). These outcomes, though, are merely an epistemological trap. The electorate (the democratic decision makers in any society), ultimately make specific decisions for specific results. By choosing candidate (a) an electorate expects an outcome different from choosing candidate (b). What voting individuals ultimately fail to grasp is that neither candidate has sure outcomes and an ability to verify the truth behind “rhetoric”.
This notion of “rhetoric” is where the trap truly occurs. Ultimately, any policy (or set of policies, i.e. a candidate) is founded on the “rhetoric” that must be produced to insure the expected decision must be made. The words and images that are associated with policies and candidates are ultimately developed to produce an ideal decision for those voting. Someone in the electorate makes decision a.) to hopefully receive outcome b.). Because the “rhetoric” much match and conform established episteme, policy is limited to the words used to gain the necessary decision from the electorate. The words limit the understanding of an actual outcome. By doing this, the ability to make decisions outside of established episteme is impossible. With this said the participants in a Democracy find themselves in an epistemological trap, since they have to rely on established epistemes to make and form any decision.
-Mark Brinton
Saturday, March 5, 2011
The Ideology of Google’s Art Project-
Image: Daniel Johnston’s mural in Austin, TX. Courtesy of Google Maps Street View.
A lot of attention has been given to the Google Art Project since its launch this February, with the majority of responses in the positive. Most supporters are dazzled by the amount of art the project presents, claiming it “makes visual knowledge more accessible, which benefits us all,”(1) while the focus of critics is “can a digitized masterpiece possibly match being face to face with the original?”(2) To the former it should be pointed out that with the entire history of art in all the world (most of which is already at our disposal online), the amount of art showcased by the GAP is actually extremely small, and the decision of what this privileged selection should consist of is very significant. To the latter it should be pointed out that this question stems from an understanding of art that is only epitomized by the digitization of the museum, and this understanding is what we should really be concerned with.
The first feature of the project is the ability to walk through 17 of the world’s top museums via Google’s Street View technology. The process is tedious, the movements disorienting, and most of the images low quality. On top of this, one of the most laughable drawbacks of the project is the blurring out of certain paintings due to copyright issues. Fortunately for us, every one of these paintings – along with many, many others – can be found elsewhere on the web, for instance through a simple image search. So why put so much effort into reproducing the hindrance of walking, the nuisance of clicking and loading each step, when the images are already instantly available?
My guess is that it is an attempt to recapture the mysticism associated with the museum experience and make it accessible to the web. The irony here is that for all the hype over modern technology (which Google did not invent), the project espouses a very antiquated conception of art. This is done not only through the choice of setting and the choice of works, but also through the limitations of the technology it employs.
The first thing that’s noticeably missing from the virtual museum is time, which consequently excludes any artwork where time or movement is a factor. Of course most kinetic sculptures, process pieces, and performances could be accommodated with videos or webcams, but none of the works on display require this. Instead we have a static archive of paintings forever as they are and as they will be: to be seen once by the camera is enough, to capture one instant is to capture the work in its entirety. This is perfectly contrived to reinforce the notion of art as something eternal, ahistorical, and immune to the forces of time, whether they be physical or social.
Next we have the restrictions imposed through using a camera as a surrogate for a body. Anything involving physical interaction – whether it be the “theatricality” of minimalist sculptures,(3) or happenings predicated upon audience participation – is out of the picture. Art is constrained to the purely visual, and the only possible mode of interaction is observation by a passive spectator.(4) Furthermore, this disembodiment prevents interventions not sanctioned by the artist: you can’t steal, vandalize, or destroy the works (some talented hackers may prove me wrong here), and you can’t steal from the gift shop (a feature I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Google added). The interface of the project thereby enforces a criteria of acceptable behavior, a code of conduct that tells us what we can do in a museum and what we can do with art.
Another distinguishable characteristic of the museums is that they’re all eerily devoid of visitors. Most reviewers have expressed a little excitement at being able to walk through the galleries and see the paintings unobstructed by crowds of other viewers. However, this small pleasure comes at the price of omitting the lifeblood of art altogether: dialogue. Again, this could have easily been allowed with the addition of chat rooms, message boards, virtual curators, etc. But as it stands, we the visitors are left in isolation and in silence.
The second feature of the GAP is the extremely high-resolution images of a select few paintings. You can magnify every millimeter of the canvas, zooming into its materiality to view details imperceptible to the unaided eye, “at a level at which not even the artist himself could have experienced his own work.”(5) Yet this shouldn’t strike us as particularly shocking or distressing. Think of how playing Beethoven on the stereo can be simultaneously louder than the composition intended, louder than would be possible in acoustic performance, and experienced differently from the composer himself, assuming the listener doesn’t share his hearing loss. In fact, the factors that influence the experience of a work are so numerous it is difficult to even speak of “the real thing.”
The problem is not that the works are being viewed in ways that the artist never intended, nor that the digital representations are surpassing their tangible counterparts and obviating the need for firsthand encounters. The real issue here is our absurd, obscene, almost pathological desire to be closer to the objects we seek to understand or adore, which lies behind both the firsthand experience and the digital replication. The appeal of Google’s hyper-zoom comes solely from pandering to this lust, and in doing so brings us within such proximity that it obliterates the cultural significance of the works. If only we could realize: ‘the best way to see a picture is to shut your eyes!’
Given that the GAP is only in its nascent stages, most of these issues may be resolved through expansion and design changes. Nonetheless, the initial choices say everything about the intentions of the project and the assumptions about art that it supports. For all the rhetoric about increased accessibility and the democratization of art, the project is really sending a contradictory message: What counts as art? That which can be found in famed museums, timeless works from the traditional canon of Western high culture (almost entirely composed of white males); not the opposite. Where does art belong? Neatly gathered inside the palace of the white cube, in the ownership of royalty and wealthy intellectuals; not left exposed in the city streets, in the supermarket among commodities, dispersed throughout countless websites, in the hands of the public. What is the function of a museum?(6) To house works of art in isolation from the rest of the world, to provide a ritualistic space where context does not interfere with perception; not to foster and serve communities through collaborative projects, to provide a space of playful creativity for both adults and children. What is art for? Mystical communion, passive contemplation of aesthetics by a silent, disembodied viewer; not for questioning and broadening our cultural expectations, offering a catalyst for change, an opportunity for social and political debate, for touching, changing, helping create and complete.
Ultimately the endeavor is less about the artworks it showcases and more about Google showing off its own capabilities: the multi-billion-pixel camera is the real artwork, the painting just something that happens to be standing in front of its lens. This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if it wasn’t for the pretensions of the traditional art world that it enforces, and all the possibilities it forbids, discredits, and excludes. The virtual domain should not be used to concentrate and replicated the constraints of our world, but to offer an open space for the free exploration of alternatives, and there are other projects that have made admirable attempts at this.(7) As for the GAP, it is one small step forward for technology, one giant leap back for art.
The first feature of the project is the ability to walk through 17 of the world’s top museums via Google’s Street View technology. The process is tedious, the movements disorienting, and most of the images low quality. On top of this, one of the most laughable drawbacks of the project is the blurring out of certain paintings due to copyright issues. Fortunately for us, every one of these paintings – along with many, many others – can be found elsewhere on the web, for instance through a simple image search. So why put so much effort into reproducing the hindrance of walking, the nuisance of clicking and loading each step, when the images are already instantly available?
My guess is that it is an attempt to recapture the mysticism associated with the museum experience and make it accessible to the web. The irony here is that for all the hype over modern technology (which Google did not invent), the project espouses a very antiquated conception of art. This is done not only through the choice of setting and the choice of works, but also through the limitations of the technology it employs.
The first thing that’s noticeably missing from the virtual museum is time, which consequently excludes any artwork where time or movement is a factor. Of course most kinetic sculptures, process pieces, and performances could be accommodated with videos or webcams, but none of the works on display require this. Instead we have a static archive of paintings forever as they are and as they will be: to be seen once by the camera is enough, to capture one instant is to capture the work in its entirety. This is perfectly contrived to reinforce the notion of art as something eternal, ahistorical, and immune to the forces of time, whether they be physical or social.
Next we have the restrictions imposed through using a camera as a surrogate for a body. Anything involving physical interaction – whether it be the “theatricality” of minimalist sculptures,(3) or happenings predicated upon audience participation – is out of the picture. Art is constrained to the purely visual, and the only possible mode of interaction is observation by a passive spectator.(4) Furthermore, this disembodiment prevents interventions not sanctioned by the artist: you can’t steal, vandalize, or destroy the works (some talented hackers may prove me wrong here), and you can’t steal from the gift shop (a feature I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Google added). The interface of the project thereby enforces a criteria of acceptable behavior, a code of conduct that tells us what we can do in a museum and what we can do with art.
Another distinguishable characteristic of the museums is that they’re all eerily devoid of visitors. Most reviewers have expressed a little excitement at being able to walk through the galleries and see the paintings unobstructed by crowds of other viewers. However, this small pleasure comes at the price of omitting the lifeblood of art altogether: dialogue. Again, this could have easily been allowed with the addition of chat rooms, message boards, virtual curators, etc. But as it stands, we the visitors are left in isolation and in silence.
The second feature of the GAP is the extremely high-resolution images of a select few paintings. You can magnify every millimeter of the canvas, zooming into its materiality to view details imperceptible to the unaided eye, “at a level at which not even the artist himself could have experienced his own work.”(5) Yet this shouldn’t strike us as particularly shocking or distressing. Think of how playing Beethoven on the stereo can be simultaneously louder than the composition intended, louder than would be possible in acoustic performance, and experienced differently from the composer himself, assuming the listener doesn’t share his hearing loss. In fact, the factors that influence the experience of a work are so numerous it is difficult to even speak of “the real thing.”
The problem is not that the works are being viewed in ways that the artist never intended, nor that the digital representations are surpassing their tangible counterparts and obviating the need for firsthand encounters. The real issue here is our absurd, obscene, almost pathological desire to be closer to the objects we seek to understand or adore, which lies behind both the firsthand experience and the digital replication. The appeal of Google’s hyper-zoom comes solely from pandering to this lust, and in doing so brings us within such proximity that it obliterates the cultural significance of the works. If only we could realize: ‘the best way to see a picture is to shut your eyes!’
Given that the GAP is only in its nascent stages, most of these issues may be resolved through expansion and design changes. Nonetheless, the initial choices say everything about the intentions of the project and the assumptions about art that it supports. For all the rhetoric about increased accessibility and the democratization of art, the project is really sending a contradictory message: What counts as art? That which can be found in famed museums, timeless works from the traditional canon of Western high culture (almost entirely composed of white males); not the opposite. Where does art belong? Neatly gathered inside the palace of the white cube, in the ownership of royalty and wealthy intellectuals; not left exposed in the city streets, in the supermarket among commodities, dispersed throughout countless websites, in the hands of the public. What is the function of a museum?(6) To house works of art in isolation from the rest of the world, to provide a ritualistic space where context does not interfere with perception; not to foster and serve communities through collaborative projects, to provide a space of playful creativity for both adults and children. What is art for? Mystical communion, passive contemplation of aesthetics by a silent, disembodied viewer; not for questioning and broadening our cultural expectations, offering a catalyst for change, an opportunity for social and political debate, for touching, changing, helping create and complete.
Ultimately the endeavor is less about the artworks it showcases and more about Google showing off its own capabilities: the multi-billion-pixel camera is the real artwork, the painting just something that happens to be standing in front of its lens. This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if it wasn’t for the pretensions of the traditional art world that it enforces, and all the possibilities it forbids, discredits, and excludes. The virtual domain should not be used to concentrate and replicated the constraints of our world, but to offer an open space for the free exploration of alternatives, and there are other projects that have made admirable attempts at this.(7) As for the GAP, it is one small step forward for technology, one giant leap back for art.
-Ryan Shullaw
1http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/arts/design/07google.html?_r=3&pagewanted=2&ref=todayspaper
2http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/feb/06/google-art-project-virtual-masterpieces
3 Michael Fried, “Art and Objecthood.” Fried argues that with minimalism there is a shift from being absorbed by the autonomous, self-contained meaning of an artwork, to the meaning being produced through the presence and interaction of the viewer with the work. One paradox of the GAP, particularly the zoomable images, which I will say more about later, is that in the attempt to dive deeper into the works, they unwittingly becomes props at the whimsy of the viewer. Contrary to Fried, I don’t believe this is anything to be feared.
4 Interestingly, even the experience of observation can be disrupted by the camera-surrogate, for instance, considering how eloquently a mirror refuses translation.
5http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/36950/hype-and-hyperreality-zooming-in-on-google-art-project/?page=1
6 Cf. Brian O’Doherty, “Inside the White Cube.”
7 For example, Second Life contains replicas of famous museums (the most famous one being “Second Louvre”) as well as many original, user-created galleries. Users can take part in creating the virtual world, inhabit it using an avatar, socialize with other residents, etc.
1http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/arts/design/07google.html?_r=3&pagewanted=2&ref=todayspaper
2http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/feb/06/google-art-project-virtual-masterpieces
3 Michael Fried, “Art and Objecthood.” Fried argues that with minimalism there is a shift from being absorbed by the autonomous, self-contained meaning of an artwork, to the meaning being produced through the presence and interaction of the viewer with the work. One paradox of the GAP, particularly the zoomable images, which I will say more about later, is that in the attempt to dive deeper into the works, they unwittingly becomes props at the whimsy of the viewer. Contrary to Fried, I don’t believe this is anything to be feared.
4 Interestingly, even the experience of observation can be disrupted by the camera-surrogate, for instance, considering how eloquently a mirror refuses translation.
5http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/36950/hype-and-hyperreality-zooming-in-on-google-art-project/?page=1
6 Cf. Brian O’Doherty, “Inside the White Cube.”
7 For example, Second Life contains replicas of famous museums (the most famous one being “Second Louvre”) as well as many original, user-created galleries. Users can take part in creating the virtual world, inhabit it using an avatar, socialize with other residents, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)