art at times of alternatives and urgent crisis?

Alternative & crisis is a week long events in response to current capitalistic crisis – I think some economies are not in any crisis. This will be followed by an exhibition curated by Oliver Ressler & Gregory Sholette that, according to the English blurb: “…today artists normally avoid to work on the question of the
crisis and capitalism in the world, this exhibition makes an
exception. It shows international artists of all generations that
confront problems of representation of capital, crisis and
resistance. Their works are driven by the urgent need to respond
to the crisis we are witnessing.”

I have not seen the exhibition, so response is re texts about it.
Are they saying that all these mainly direct and fairly “art oriented” efforts do not exist in relation to the “crisis”?
If indeed the capitalist crisis is of short term speculative acts that discount the possibility of futures, the future of our current unknowns and the pretence of knowing it while having a celebrated carelessness to promote and fetishise the Now/present/today – then why the utilitarian/useful-value-based approach with a sort of advert like focus on Urgency of action, that in my mind echoes precisely the acts of culture we want to overcome?

Am really asking these questions – not being sarcastic at all. While I am very sure that capitalism and its associated imaginations and culture takes us exactly to areas of brutality, power, death, over-distraction, inhumane relationships, total exploitation, anti-equalitisation, anti-democratisation and other authoritarian and fascistic processes – it seems to me that an approach that imagines people as binaries of un/useful mechanical devices, eg Thomas the tank engine Is good because its Useful, is exactly how to illustrate wanting to get a certain result while doing, and imagining exactly the opposite..

Hopefully, am exaggerating, or even better, a bit wrong..

academic anthropological view of art and survival?

In this lecture, the context is attempting to understand art scientifically, and one of the more memorable statements for me is When we undergo art.. Or is it when will we undergo art..?

In the 1st talk though, he is mentioning – among other stuff – the issue of survival. He said that to begin with, stuff we might link to as art practices – had to do with Well-being. You need to have a certain well being to sing/draw/sculpt/dance/drum/talk in a way that affects a sense of well being in another person.
However, in a sort of conservative view, this well being idea then stopped within the illustration of how this meant that more well-being influencing people got a chance to have kids and propagate..
This propagation, in my view, is in fact basic survival, not thrival. Perhaps ironically, I think we can argue that Thriving, having the ability to practice stuff that we have no idea about, to Be utterly non-utalitarianistic, Un-functional, purposeless, dis-instrumentalised, is based on being sure you will in most probability, survive.
In the sense that we use art-linked practices for cultural, social, genetical propagation and survival – rather than questioning/searching and thrival, we are still stuck stuck stucked stuckkered and stuckistically just about surviving..

2nd talk mentions “Drive for art” as a gene.. I tend to think, Imagine genetic practice – from the view of a gene itself – as a search.. Search is trajectorally a drive, no?

3rd talk mentions brain sensations in relation to music. I found myself feeling – or sensing?? – the emotions they mentioned. However, it came as Questions. Do I want to feel X? Should I sense X from this music? Maybe I could change that sensation to something else? If I didn’t want, I’d just discard the effect…
Is this not how people do stuff?
I question any sensation/thought/feeling to then question the questioning of the process and so on..

not THE but A 1st conversation re cultural value policies etc.?

Had what turned out to be the 1st part of a hopefully longer conversation/interview style with Suzzanna re Cultural Value Initiative.

We agreed, at least I think we did, that this will be a conversational interview, in the sense that Suzzanna’s replies to questions will drive the process. Another issue was of saying things of value. (in my interpretation of it at least. An issue that became very much a part of the discussion.) We agreed that the perhaps the aim will be to bring up view/s that might stimulate a wider conversation – rather than having to say something that is and of itself is supposed – intended – to be significant.

The recording is on archive.org via http://arty.li/Zfa
(Skype played up a bit, hence we hope to do a 2nd part next week..)

stuff regarding cultures & religions I get not

Noticed this report by Muslim Women’s Network UK (MWNUK) re abuse of women in contemporary Britain.
Abuse should be stopped and culturally be in a n eliminative process.
However, if this report is correct – have not yet checked my view on this, but will assume it is correct, especially for the writers/mwnuk – I think from my view its interesting that it notes:
* frontline organisations/charities that suppose to assist people in such abusive circumstances – seemingly do not touch cases that to do with muslim & asian culture/people??!!
* muslim communities apparently attempt to avoid – if not even discourage – tackling such abusive practices.

My 1st reaction to these concerns was of being miffed by how come, given the wide spread abuse of women in islamic societies, there is this network of women that actually define themselves by being muslim. It feels like they hope to change certain attitudes from within the religion – which I consider an attempt to make the sun come out from the west on earth, because religions are of mixes of revelations, beliefs, stories and powers to enforce interpretations rather than sharing questionable/arguable thoughts.
Why are they remaining within the religion and the culture of abuse?

My 2nd reaction was well, lets say there is something I do not like elsewhere in MY life, do I just leave? Will the fact I do not like the way these organisations that meant to help, disregard a plight by one group of people, make me want to leave the UK?
No. I will probably not go all the way to leave the uk, however I would use this as another example as to why Britian should have a radical break from its past. Why, apart from the land it is on, Britain should have a different being.
So in my mind, it is the physical element that is the difference.. I live in a certain pgysical environment, and not always its the right time to change that.. (though I did in the case of Palestine/Israel)

Hence – If the mind based practices, such as a religion, is infected/wrong/mistaken, why not just change your mind rather than attempt to change the minds of others..?

I do not get that..

gay barilla pasta boss comments and violence?

Seems like some people from gay communities call for boycotting Barilla pasta, for a pretty cool notion. The Barilla boss, does sound like a blasted rotten tomato with comments that seem to encourage legitimacy of prejudices against a minority.

I will def not get items from than brand – or linked to that brand – because it will feel awkward… However, I do not think its wise, nor clever – or am even unsure how this can be sustained.

The reason(??) i said that am not going to get anything linked to that brand is that in my mind, even if they say “sorry”, and change the boss, go on all 4 and yelp for forgiveness, and write PLEASE FORGIVE US all the way from Rome to Kemp-Town, I will not buy anything to do with them.
For me, this is just an excuse to tick off another capitalist entity from my possible shopping-list.

However, is this the case for people who say lets’ boycott them?
Is it not that if the boycott gets an apology and a change in a policy, the boycotters will happily stop their campaign, feel pretty chuved about themselves, and then re-aim their boycotting activities towards some other bigot?
For me, in a sense, its a practice of both accepting capitalism and, tacitly, bigoted behaviour.. (..as well as violence for resolutions..)

infographics debates and point missing?

Just had a read of this pro minimalistic inforgraphics post. On a google analytics’s info site..
Anyhow.. seems like the thrust – if there is one – is that they rather like the minimalistic infographics approach/language/entity/organism. Seems kind of fair enough until bits in their descriptions/reasoning pop up.. eg – look, these lots of colour, images, etc. infographics are “noisy”. Or that everything should be from one page.. Seems like a fair bits of rules, golden rules, and assumptive attitude about who the other people are.. eg you and me that might check the graphics..

Socio political and cultural plausible implications aside..

Would it not be far more radical to say that infact there is a process that can be done with data.. Others as well, however this one is there to – that of INFOGRAPHICISATION. The making of infographics of data.
Now this process/practice/organism/language could have many different iterations, versions as well as variants and accents – however the artistic imagination/approach/thinking about it will be that of making it available, of letting it be searched and researched.. That way, you can go out of the guide/object/objective/finite production mind mode, and into a far more open.. Far more simple and complex process, no?

valve’s version of un-managed workers in a capitalist game?

Valve, by bbc hacks, is doing some bossless working time with the idea that people will produce more and better without a manager to boss them about.

Workers owning, running and thriving in running workplaces runs deep in time, and in my pov can be traced to pre-roman slave liberation movements.

In this Valve’s iteration of the practice, I find it interesting that the company and its capitalistic structure stays in tact. – The For profit & exploitation structure and practices, for selling stuff to maximise profits & for exploiting products, users and workers for that profit aim..

Is this another example of capitalism nicks socialist/anarchist/communist practices for its own money – numerical exchange – gain?
The case of Monopoly comes to mind here, where the game was slightly – with no understatement – rehashed from a socialist game that highlighted the plague of ownership..)

anti democratic discrimination in the name of democracy?

Where are Jews discriminated against, openly and with a cahooting state power?
Frankelinstine. (otherwise known as israel/palestine)
Where in Frankelinstine Jews are discriminated against in such a manner?
In the area zelot/fanatical/zionist/religious/secular-traditional israeli-jews seem to want to keep most – Jerusalem.
Where in Jerusalem such discriminatory activities take place?
In exactly the space that such big-other-heads gets filled with bog psychogeo beliefs from – where they want to imagine the temple was near to.

The notions above might be very disputable, however, I think the fact that a group of Jews is not being permitted to practice their beliefs freely, is not disputed.. I speculate that if in London, Bradford, Brazilia, Cairo, or else where, Jews – or any kind of religious people – where treated to abuse and denial of their right to practice their beliefs peacefully and without physically harming anyone – there would have been a huge out-cry.. (eg, the outcries that followed attempts to legislate for humane animal killing and outlawing circumcision practices in recent years..)

Another case.. Why would a group of people, in various states and cultures, in the vast majority of contemporary human societies – be denied a right afforded to other group, just because of sexual orientation? Indeed, I think it might be fair to question the democratic credentials of states, societies and cultures that allow such denials to be practised – because they are sexually discriminatory.

The link?
I think that both struggles, that of the Jewish women preying rights and of gay marriage rights – are sort of contemporary poor left overs of forgotten emancipatory freedom movements. The two struggles, unlike movements that questioned social, religious, cultural, political and economical orders, and attempted to energies processes for ever increasing equality and empowerment FOR ALL – the struggles of gay marriage and women praying rights is to accept the order already existing, to accept the culture of religious prayer/marriage – and simply asking to be accepted within it.
Both struggles – which I think should not be denied the rights they demand – are, imho, fail to question and produce a critique that energises democratic processes for all.
For example, the religious women do not struggle for greater emancipation of other religious groups, indeed any other group or individuals – to go around and practice stuff peacefully. That is not their agenda. They seem to demand a right to prey in a certain place, but not the right, for example, other jewish groupings to be accepted in the state that defines itself as jewish. Nor do they seem to wish affording the rights they demand, for free people, or muslims within the israeli state control, to roam and not be denied access into certain areas. (eg, certain areas in jerusalem are dangerous for free women to go into because they’ll get beaten up, or that muslims could go to the beach and not be made to feel un-wanted or in some sort of violent danger..
The gay rights people, like the religious women in jerusalem, do not struggle to question stuff. For example, if marriage is not afforded for gays, why not scrap it? Why not question the religious content? The contemporary relevance of the practice? Why not attempt to invent a democratic answer to democratic questions of marriage?
What about humans that want to marry animals, or in-animate objects, maybe, if marriage is something that should be afforded for all one2one living together arrangements of entities not from same family to begin with, then it should indeed be for all kinds of 121 unions?
In that sense, that these struggles are not for social change but of acceptance within the given order, and that these will be afforded for these limited groups – not others – it seems for me that we are witnessing struggles that are in and of themselves, discriminatory and anti-democratic.

Struggles for emancipation by various groups, like feminism, or indeed the afro-american struggles, and indeed that of jews, were/are not just for these specific groups. They are using these specific issues to shed wider lights and questions over social and cultural practices and processes. They are used to question economic and social structures – eg pay equality. They question voting rights – eg the suffrage was not just for women – but for ALL. Universal, unconditional suffrage.
Even when MLK had a little dream, it was for people of ALL skin colours..

desperate isation of X while X = society?

With the tories in power, and the bedroom tax in place, it suddenly occurred to me that we have an example of dealing activities of search for mass populations..(?)
Tories ask themselves how to create more desperate groups of people – eg social renters, jobless, single parents, etc. – so they could be driven to survival mode and form cheap workforce for tories’ backers. Labour has a similar quest, but with more sense of coercion via acceptance rather than brute force, i think..
Anyhow..
The need to make people desperate – in power holders’ minds – leads to a cultural process of making people desperate.
Desperisation.
Perhaps, somehow similarly, I should imagine searches as processes of their own that inflicts itself.. Crossisation, Gassworks-furtherfields-strndisation? Hack-the-barbican-opera-operation?

how to kill a us president without taking their life while being a mass murderer?

How do I imagine a couple being accused of being a mass murderer by killing bush/obama/clinton – while the accuser acknowledging the people are still alive?
I think this will be an interesting and worth while search in itself!
However, or it might be an element of the search, the question of act & language might be interesting/relevant here.. People can fairly easily exploit what I take to be a possible human, perhaps cultural-specific yet cultural problem, by stoking a sense that words and acts should reflect one another – not cross, reflect upon, question, link, etc. – one another.
I think the idea is that once a person says they are hungry for food, this indicated/reflects a certain sense/feel of a bodily condition. I say X and am X. What if a person said:
am hungry because:
my body is tired? plausible?
am thinking of sound barrier based gallery? hummm..?
am an electric wire?
a coggable wheel?
now say they uttered the above while:
* running.
* cooking.
* dressing up.
* pointing towards the moon.

Perhaps when we attempt to communicate, acts and wording should illustrate and reflect one another? It is, I suppose a certain kind of elements-mutual support. However it distorts how stuffactually is.. (hence am thinking of communication.. an agreeable distortion..)

However, how is it when/if we share – or try to – the more complex rhythm, that of life?

..and then again, if we do the complex – how do we know whether or not a person is a mass murderer that killed a living us president without ever killing anyone..?

non-algorithmic programming links bin ligacow

non algorithmic as not optimal & trial/error

http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?non-algorithmic+procedure
http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/non-algorithmic+procedure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

Not sure they are correct assuming, qualia and meaning production is non-algorithmic.. (transCultural perhaps is, Budhism is not..?)
http://seanrobsville.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/non-algorithmic-phenomena.html
http://kwelos.tripod.com/nonalgorithmic.htm

Lisp, Haskell, Scheme. All functional = nonalgo?
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111108013743AA8QQAw

are neural nets & parallelograms & multi-threads = nonalgos?
http://rebelscience.blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/parallel-computing-why-future-is-non.html

paralelnet

not sure how bulshit this might be.. will check with Phill –
http://rebelscience.blogspot.co.uk/2008/04/parallel-computing-why-future-is_27.html (the earlier post they claim future of programming is graphical..)
http://rebelscience.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/parallel-programming-math-and-curse-of.html

Metathoughts, penrose and non-computable “side”(??!!) of mind
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.1820.pdf

— Seems related to above:

Metalogic: The non-algorithmic side of the mind from Eugenio Battaglia

I think this is the text for the slides..

Is this re problems with algorithms?
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Algorithms/Greedy_Algorithms

Some non-algorithic elements required?
http://www.masswerk.at/algol60/report.htm

An intriguing, historical and philosophical argument-touching article.. I think it assumes or concludes that evolution – interestingly – is non algorithmic.. I wonder if development is..?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/03/is_the_human_mind_algorithmic_1.html

Is this related/linked to search?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem

Doing Building blocks rather than algos?
http://www.metacalculus.com/doc/Appendix%20A%20-%20Meta%20Calculus%20Holonic%20Modeling.htm

MISCs:
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0077098641/student_view0/chapter10/self-test_questions.html

Fair phone fun, future or fairness flop?

Noticed today the Fair Phone which supposed to be made of my mobile device wet-dreams.. I have a basic repulsive sense every-time I need to use my phone, because the 1st thing in my head is the question – How many people died for this to be an object of possibility? How many were spear-raped in Congo for this device to operate? Is this their blood am about to touch..?

So seemingly, a fair phone, might be the kind of stuff I should get?

How? Can I afford the price? Circa £300??!! No way.. Is that fair? Is the price fair on me?
A bit like “fair trade”.. Might be nice ideas in the sense of not screwing the farmers – though it gets slightly more murky – however, at the point of exchange with me, I can not afford being fair.. The “fairness” seems within the capitalistic ideology of money is the bottom-line, an ideology with suspected fairness itself.. (because if money is bottom line, and we work putting same efforts, for example, then why should you get more? Also, with bottom-line money, the currency’s mathematics get their own life..)

Anyhow.. That was a bit of diversion..

In terms of FairPhone.. Perhaps I should not be too harsh.. (despite the fact their price is harsh with me..) This is a beginning and I should not pre-judge their intent.. Perhaps they will be looking into ways of Democratising, even anarchasing, the device, to make this a beginning of a process rather than a product of a process at an end..
I think these kind of movements, like fair phone, should definitely be encouraged – hell as long as you are not thinking of google/apple/MS as a sort of stuff to emulate, perhaps you should be congratulated – however, I think it is also Fair to say that their CURRENT dealings are well within the capitalistic paradigms, and if they seek fairness, I think these are the borders they need to cross.. Having more distrust of the democratic power of the market, might be a place to begin with.. (Despite the fact that after all these years of anti animal testing, we have increasing numbers of animals being tested, might be a clue as to the effectiveness of similar trajectories..?)