Networked_Performance

[iDC] A Reflection on the Activist Strategies in the Web 2.0 Era

A Reflection on the Activist Strategies in the Web 2.0 Era — Towards a new language criticism by Tatiana Bazzichelli

A networking art platform

The ahaCamping took place on the 3rd, 4th and 5th of October 2008 at the S.A.L.E independent exhibition space in Venice (The Salt Warehouses, Dorsoduro 187-188). It was organized and managed directly by the subscribers of the AHA mailing list (aha [at] ecn.org), which is hosted by the Italian independent server Isole Nella Rete (Islands in the Net). The AHA mailing list is the core of the networking project AHA:Activism-Hacking-Artivism, which I founded in Rome in 2001 and later developed in Berlin from 2003 to 2008.

The AHA project is a networking art platform created to promote hacktivism and art on the Internet related to the Italian net culture and underground movement. AHA project has contributed to the creation of a network of relations and practices through exhibitions, conferences, workshops and international meetings. The project received an Honorary Mention in the Digital Communities category of the Prix Ars Electronica, at the ARS Electronica Festival in Linz (AU) in September 2007. The key aspect of the AHA project is the community of the mailing list aha [at] ecn.org, created on the 30th of December 2002. The mailing list is moderated by three women: Eo_Call, Lo|Bo and me (T_Bazz), and it is part of the neighbourhood mailing-lists of Nettime. The aim of the aha list is to encourage participants to think about art as an open network of practices and interventions, providing the possibility of sharing ideas, creative works and projects on art and hacktivism.

The AHA Camping and the development of Hacker Ethics

In March 2008 we had the idea of organizing the ahaCamping. During Turin’s Share Festival, some members of the AHA mailing-list met to discuss the topics of a future common initiative. Subsequently, we discussed the purpose and details of the Camp on the mailing-list, as well as on an open wiki platform later developed by the subscribers themselves: the ahaCamper.

The core themes of the ahaCamping were the analysis of Web 2.0 platforms, the relationships between artistic activities and media strategies, the issue of surveillance in the net and urban space, the Post-Fordist analysis of the precarious collective movement, the experimental artistic possibilities offered by social networking, and the concept of porn and sexuality as an open platform of intervention for fluid (and queer) identities.

The AHA Camping was inspired by the (mainly Italian) activity of organizing Hackmeetings, the annual national hacker meetings, which take place in different Italian city every year. The basic idea of hacker ethics (for the Italian community) has a strong political and activist meaning and it is strictly related to the idea of sharing knowledge, developing free software and fighting for social and political rights. The Italian Hackmeetings are therefore different from other International experiences, such as for example the CCC Camp in Berlin. The entrance fee for the hackmeetings is minimal and they are organized directly by the participants (which are part of the Hackmeeting mailing list).

The Spanish hacker scene has adopted the same “bottom-up strategy” since 2000 (see www.hacklabs.org/en and www.sindominio.net/hackmeeting) as well as some international hacker meetings called Transhackmeeting, which took inspiration from the Italian ones. The first Transhackmeeting took place in Pula, Croatia, in 2004, and the last in Oslo in 2007.

The AHA community decided to meet in Venice last October, inspired by the same background which has animated the hacker and activist scene since the beginning of ’90s (from the Cybernet BBS networks to the Italian Social Center scenario). To set up the meeting, we worked together with the S.A.L.E. collective, an independent local exhibition space, which is at the core of many student social and political activities in the city of Venice.

After three days of workshops and talks, much interesting input was developed but one of the most interesting discussions concerned the definition of our project as a “networking platform”, as the word “networking” has been completely overused after the emergence of the Web 2.0 phenomenon. Since 2001, AHA project has been defined as a social network which critically deals with art and activism. What does it mean to speak about networking and hacktivism today? I have been asking myself this question for many months as I have begun to analyze the emerging of the Web 2.0 phenomena and the actual meaning of “network effects”.

In the definition of “Web 2.0” offered by Tim O’Reilly (first realized in 2004 and then revisited in 2006), “Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them. (This is what I’ve elsewhere called ‘harnessing collective intelligence’)”.

But where is the real revolution? As Dmytri Kleiner discussed in the article “Info-Enclosure 2.0” (Mute Magazine, January 2007), “The Internet has always been about sharing between users. In fact Usenet, a distributed messaging system, has been operated since 1979! Since long before even Web 1.0, Usenet has been hosting discussions, ‘amateur’ journalism, and enabling photos and file sharing (?)”. It is clear that Internet as a place of open and free sharing has already existed for quite a while. At the same time, notions of interaction and collective participation have been central to 20th-century art.

The concept of networking has been practiced since the ’50s – for example, with the mail art experiments and, at the beginning of the ’80s, the Neoist-Network-Web visionary project and the idea of “open situations”. In the hacker and activist scene of the mid-’90s, the concept of sharing knowledge and collective construction of data has been fundamental to the creation of free software and the development of the GNU/Linux operative system.

A battle of language

The crucial point is that today we are facing a battle of language. The real business revolution is the transformation of language. I personally attended the Web 2.0 Expo in Berlin in 2007 and analyzed many presentations of the same event in 2008, and what I found incredibly surprising was that the language used by Tim O’Reilly and the other speakers was very close to the one used by the hackers in the ’90s. Concepts like openness, Do It Yourself, sharing and social networking are now widely used by the inventors, developers and users of platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, MySpace, Del.icio.us etc. Sentences like “Open your data and services for re-use by others, and re-use the data and services of others whenever possible”, which once could have been perfect examples of what is literally called hacker ethics, are used today by Tim O’Reilly to define Web 2.0.

On the Tim O’Reilly Radar website is a section for “Open Source” in which we can read: “The open source paradigm shift transformed how software is developed and deployed. First widely recognized when the disruptive force of Linux changed the game, open source software leverages the power of network effects, enlightened self-interest, and the architecture of participation. Today, the impact of open source on technology development continues to grow, and O’Reilly Radar tracks the key players and projects. O’Reilly has been part of the open source community since the beginning–we convened the 1998 Summit at which the visionary developers who invented key free software languages and tools used to build the Internet infrastructure agreed that “open source” was the right term to describe their licenses and collaborative development process”.

It is therefore obvious that the real business revolution of Web 2.0 is in the strategy of opening new models for the venture capital to solve the dotcom crisis of the early 2000. And the first step towards reaching this goal appears to work on re-appropriating the language used in the first phase of networking culture and to create a new rhetoric to describe the diffusion of a cloud of networking platforms.

Unfortunately these platforms of networking are not open at all as they pretend to be, but they are controlled by business companies mainly based in the Silicon Valley headquarters. This is something similar to what already happened in California twenty years ago, when one of the first collective IT amateur experiences, the legendary Homebrew Computer Club (1975-1976), which promoted the motto “Computer Power to the People”, gave rise to twenty-three of the Valley’s major computer companies.

Another example of the re-appropriation of language is shown in a recent post by Tim O’Reilly: “Thoughts on the Financial Crisis“. Facing the current world-wide economical crisis, he suggests “working on stuff that matters”. After the emergence of issues like the oil price shock, global warming, the decline in US and European economic competitiveness and innovation, the proposal is “to have robust strategies” and work on saving lives, reduce our reliance on oil, be prudent in what we spend money on, and get socially active — and do this using the lesson learned from social networking. These strategies recall some of the claims of activist and political groups active among the underground culture in the ’90s.

Towards a new language criticism

Last winter Bruce Sterling assumed that Web 2.0 is already dead, reconstructing its short and glorious life during a video conference in Turin (see http://dams.campusnet.unito.it). But considering the increasing number of users in MySpace and Facebook, we should still assume that something is going on. What would a valid strategy of radical action be today after a new rhetoric of business has taken over many of the original hacker and activist arguments? How should hackers and activists respond to this appropriation of imaginary? The answer is to reinvent new subversive strategies for discovering “the bug in the system” by creating a new language criticism. Future reflection on activism and hacker culture should therefore include a deep study of the language and rhetoric of presenting conceptual models and dynamics of networking.

This is what we discussed among other topics at the AHA Camping, reflecting on the ability to face creatively the present development of social (commercial) communities. My position is not to refuse the very popular social networking platforms because commercial and closed; rather, it is to try to construct new artistic and activist experiments at the core of their system. It is necessary to criticize the media, applying the Hands-On hacker attitude in new territories of intervention. Tim O’Reilly is learning from hackers, but hackers should be able to reinvent their strategies once again.

A new language criticism is needed!”

Tatiana Bazzichelli

www.ecn.org/aha
www.networkingart.eu
http://au.dk/imvtb@hum

More info on ahaCamping:
http://isole.ecn.org/aha/camper

Responses on [iDC]:

Curt Cloniger wrote:

Hi Tatiana (and all),

It seems less important to adopt a new theoretical language of resistance. If all that differentiates hacktivists from corporate entrepeneurs is the nomenclature they use, then perhaps the original tenets of such hacktivism were not as resistant as they could have been.

de Certeau’s critique of the ways in which modern academics analyse media seems relevant. He observed that media was either analysed in terms of its content (“information”) or in terms of its delivery mechanisms (“television” in his case, in our case “networks.”) What was lacking was a way to talk about the creative reception/consumption/use happening at the consumer end of the line — how were the “users/consumers” modulating institutional input in the practice of their lives? They weren’t merely passive receivers.

youTube and mySpace aren’t so radical in their underlying architecture. As you point out, the interweb has always been 2.0. If anything, these corporate instantiations of that technical truth only serve to commodify and capitalize on the utopian “dream” of many-to-many publishing freedom. So maybe that “dream” in and of itself wasn’t all that tactically resistant (since it’s now being marketed back to us with limited banner-ad interruptions.) youTube and mySpace are radical in their mass distribution and ease of use. They shift the “tactical” conversation away from specialist/artist/hacktivist as strategic producer (of code, platforms, networks, distributed communities) and back toward everyone as tactical consumers/useres. The wrinkle since de Certeau’s time is that a youTube “consumer” has a lot more media agency than de Certeau’s television “consumer.” The youTube “consumer” finally begins to possess at least the potential agency of a proper “user” (hobbyist, prosumer, or whatever). cf: http://oliverlaric.com/5050.htm

So I don’t think we need new nomenclature as much as we need a new realization that tactical “resistance” on the corporate 2.0 web may look a whole lot more like tactical consumption than it looks like a denial of service attack on a government server (although that is still possible). de Certeau provided early net theorists with a model and a vocabulary of “tactical media.” But early net activists weren’t ever really consumers. de Certeau’s model was just an analogy. Now we have actual consumers that have been afforded the agency of “reading,” reblogging, and remixing their various memex trails of consumption through the “information” of the network. de Certeau is no longer applicable merely by analogy.

This new platying field can lead to a different kind of “hacktivist” work — work that (in the nomenclature of Galloway/Thacker) relies more on hypertrophy than overt (or even covert) “resistance.” The danger of this new kind of work (massively distributed “weak” tactics of consumption) is that it can act as a kind of placebo. As Nato Thompson warns, “The problem with accepting this sensibility is that it can lead to fairly privileged forms of resistance, like slacking at work or taking a meandering walk home. I am a fan of these more benign tactics, but not convinced they lead to anything but personal therapy.”

Hopefully we will get to work out some of the details here in March:

Best,
Curt

Ryan Griffis wrote:

Hi,

Curt’s points are well made i think in this discussion, and (with Nato) hits the nail on the head in terms of the problems of de Certeau-ian notions of tactics as resistance. But i wonder about this collapse of a range of behaviors into the smooth container of “consumption”. Perhaps i don’t understand what you’re getting at Curt with this difference between “tactical media” and “tactical consumption? de Certeau was never wholly in the realm of analogy… his theoretical understanding of “tactics” was based on realized behaviors, not just representations of them – following from Lefebvre’s “spatial practices”. And his ideas about “mediators” in the form of “linking agents” were likewise rather concrete regarding media – applicable to web2.0 “social software”, but also to zines and pamphlets (see _The Capture of Speech and Other Political Writings_, 1997) But again, maybe i’m misunderstanding something? Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams’ earlier ideas of media reception and production are i think of value here (and too often left out, IMHO) especially in bridging the political gap between the media apparatus and content in a way that doesn’t merely merge them, but binds them in a dialectic.

Brian Holmes’ short essay from a few years back (that i just discovered in his more recent “Unleashing the Collective Phantoms” book), “Liar’s Poker” on the contradictions within aesthetic “activist” practices is worth a read. Opening with the line “when people talk about politics in an artistic frame, they’re lying,” it goes after the “performative codes” (to use Hall’s term) at play in “political art.”
http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft.php?id=34&pos=1&textid=1276〈=en It ends with:

“The rising fortunes of interventionist art, the multiplication of exhibitions devoted to sociopolitical issues and activist campaigns, are proof enough that something political is at stake in the artistic field. And the stakes keep rising, as artists, curators and critics vie for radicality, relevancy, effectiveness and meaning. But one must constantly question what kind of currency we\’ll get when the chips are cashed in… What is ultimately at stake is the very definition of autonomy, which can no longer be established in the sphere of representation alone. Right now, the greatest symbolic innovations are taking place in self-organization processes unfolding outside the artistic frame. And it is from the reference to such outside realms that the more concentrated, composed and self-reflective works in the museum take their meaning. The only way not to impoverish those works, or to reduce them to pure hypocrisy, is to let our highest admiration go out to the artists who call their own bluffs – and dissolve, at the crisis points, into the vortex of a social movement.”

Reading Brian’s essay reminded me of a Raymond Williams statement from “The Long Revolution” that I has always stuck in my head: “To put on to Time, the abstraction, the responsibility for own active choices is to suppress a central part of our experience.”

Best,
ryan

Curt Cloniger wrote:

Thanks Ryan,

I don’t mean that de Certeau’s own applications are metaphorical or analogical. Of course he means them to be exactly the opposite. I’m saying that a lot of “tactical media” theory and work has applied his ideas by way of analogy rather than directly (although I admit that’s a pretty broad generalization).

Let’s say there is a gradual continuum between strategic production and tactical use (de Certeau prefers “use” but I’m not afraid to say “consumption”). A tactical media artist who uses tactics to make something that she calls “art” is by definition no longer de Certeau’s tactical user/consumer. She is a producer (she has moved further down the continuum toward strategic production). I’m not saying there’s anything ethically wrong with this. I’m just saying, it’s less like an artistic approach to the practice of life and more like analogically adapting de Certeau’s tactical approaches to life as a means of making art. In pointing out this distinction, I’m uninterested in the old ontological differences between art and life. I’m really interested in the efficacy of a practice.

I will check out Hall and Williams.

This resonates with me: “Artists who call their own bluffs – and dissolve, at the crisis point, into the vortex of a social movement.”

It makes me think of negative theology (Eckhart, Marion, even Beckett).

But it’s tricky to perform.

Here is the full Thompson essay (2006):
http://journalofaestheticsandprotest.org/3/thompson.htm

+++++++++

Latour changed my mind about “political” art (particularly “We Have Never Been Modern” and “Making Things Public”). To understand politics in terms of shared matters of concern, gathered in and inextricable from things (not just Heideggerean bridges and jugs; but light, sound, language, even “networks”) — “politics” thus understood finally begins to matter to me as an artist.

Best,
Curt

Lucia Sommer wrote:

Thanks Curt and Ryan and everyone for this discussion. I appreciate the important distinction you’re suggesting between tactical media production and a more-passive (although de Certeau would say more-“dominated” rather than “passive”) use/consumption here, Curt. I would only disagree that even this production would still not be strategic, according to de Certeau. He was very clear that to produce strategy requires the luxury of having colonized space — something reserved for proprietary power. The rest of us only ever have access to the tactical, which instead takes advantage of the medium of time. Quoting de Certeau:

“I call a strategy the calculation (or manipulation) of power relationships that becomes possible as soon as a subject with will and power (a business, an army, a city, a scientific institution) can be isolated. It postulates a place that can be delimited as its own and serve as the base from which relations with an exteriority composed of targets or threats (customers or competitors, enemies, the country surrounding the city, objectives and objects or research, etc.) can be managed.”

For de Certeau, strategy is exclusive to institutional proprietary power. This is contrasted with tacticality:

“… a tactic is a calculated action determined by the absence of a proper locus …The space of a tactic is the space of the other. Thus it must play on and with a terrain imposed on it and organized by the law of a foreign power. It does not have the means to keep to itself, at a distance, in a position of withdrawal, foresight, and self-collection: it is a maneuver “within the enemy’s field of vision,”… and within enemy territory. It does not, therefore, have the option of planning, general strategy and viewing the adversary as a whole within a distinct, visable and objectifiable space. It operates in isolated actions, blow by blow. It takes advantage of opportunities and depends on them, being without any base where it could stockpile its winnings, build up its own position, and plan raids … This nowhere gives a tactic mobility, to be sure, but a mobility that must accept the chance offerings of the moment, and seize on the wing the possibilities that offer themselves at any given moment. It must vigilantly make use of the cracks that particular conjunctions open in the surveillance of proprietary powers. It poaches them. It creates surprises in them. It can be where it is least expected. It is a guileful ruse… In short, a tactic is the art of the weak.”

What better definition of tactical media could we find? We could say, following your important insight here, that there is something like a gradual continuum between tactical production and tactical use/consumption, and that the tactical media artist is a tactical producer — to distinguish this activity from a more-dominated, or more-passive use/consumption.

Best,
Lucia

Curt Cloniger wrote:

Thanks Lucia,

I suppose I am saying that once a “tactical media artist” puts work in a gallery, a museum, or an arts festival, then that works gains a strategic component — because galleries, museums, and festivals, and the practices of art production that surround them, fall within the institutional realm that de Certeau is describing (although some of these institutions and organizations are admittedly more fluid/agile than others). And again, there is nothing ethically wrong with this.

I am trying to problematize de Certeau’s binary distinction. Yes, there is a continuum from the weak tactical consumer to the stronger tactical artist producer, but that same continuum continues on toward the systematic institutional producer, and I don’t think simply calling onesself a “tactical media artist” excludes one from being considered a strategic media producer. Nor should it. Nor should we always rule out stategic institutional production as ethically off limits or pragmatically ineffectual. An artist can and should implement a combination of multiple production approaches/tactics/strategies (and indeed, this has often been the case, regardless of what tactical media artists and theorists have claimed).

Beyond mere resistance, could we push toward modulating and inflecting both ourselves and “the man” until the whole binary system was tweaked into something heretofore unknown?

To quote pithy media theorists ZZ Top: “Jesus just left Chicago and he’s bound for New Orleans / Working from one end to the other, and all points in between.”

Best,
Curt

Ryan Griffis wrote:

[…]

i would quickly add to Curt’s fluidity/continuum model the object of institutions. While there are dominant institutions that occupy space in a (seemingly) hegemonic manner – including museums, etc – there are counter institutions that colonize space (although, i’m not really keen on using that word in all instances) out of both necessity and desire and that can’t be reduced to the tactical. i can understand the desire for tactical media to take on and try to embody the position of “the weak”, but i think TM can be located in a broader field of cultural and political power, where it’s tactical in more ways than one, i.e. “making due” with cultural capital in place of political power – part of the point of Brian’s essay pointed to earlier.

i think Curt is maybe after the matter of concern that such tactics are supposed to address, to go back to his reference to Latour? Which is hard to discuss in the limited vocabulary of tacticality…

ryan

Lucia Sommer wrote:

For de Certeau, individuals and resistant constellations can’t produce strategy, and I think he’s pretty convincing on that point. It’s not an ethical distinction I’m making (and I don’t think it was for de Certeau either, rather his was among other things a challenge to certainties of the orthodox left that had led to impasse and to totalizing notions concerning the location of resistance). I certainly WISH we, the “multitudes”, had strategic power. Indeed, the utopian left has long proposed that we do, and even some recent attempts to re-think Marxism, like Hardt and Negri’s, argue that a “movement of movements” could have strategic power. I myself am sceptical and tend toward the pessimistic on this point, or at least “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will”. While I would in principle support a genuinely left revolution (strategic action), I don’t see it happening any time soon. Meanwhile, all we have is permanent resistance, by definition tactical.

But to return to the kind of discussion that I think you’re proposing with its emphasis on the questions of efficacy of practices — which is also what interests me: I really appreciate your attempt to problematize the binary use/production and to open up discussion about the kinds of negotiations that cultural producers make vis a vis institutions. I agree we need a better language to describe and think about these negotiations.

In this sense de Certeau’s strategy/tactics distinction can be an ally to problematizing unproductive binaries like the “pure” activists vs. “bad” institution. I think we need to acknowledge the degree to which our work has the potential to be used by institutional power in ways that can compromise the public good, for instance by creating a signifier that houses a false set of associations that in turn mask the narrow interests and desire for profit of a few. But that realization can also lead to a paralysis, where one is afraid to do anything at all. One tactic suggested by Certeau’s work on monumentality and used by many cultural producers in the process of institutional negotiations is that of ephemerality (as counter to strategic monumentality): the tactician gets in and out fast, deterritorializing, so as to avoid leaving material monuments or ideological imperatives.

That’s only one example, but perhaps a fruitful area of discussion would be that of failure. CAE sometimes does a talk called “Crash and Burn,” where it discusses times that projects have failed dramatically and even helped reinforce authoritarian power. There’s also the related question of how art fails every day, if we measure cultural activism (or any other resistant action) by the individual achievement of a single action. But fortunately collective power, the aggregate of cultural activism, can create the possibility to shift the status quo.

Thanks again, and best,

Lucia

Curt Cloniger wrote:

Thanks Lucia,

I’m admittedly hijacking and redefining what de Certeau strictly means by “strategy.” I think artists can and do practice a form of “weak” strategic production. I think about Shepard Fairey evolving
from this work (http://blogrivet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/andre_the_giant.jpg)
to this work (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2247/2231258092_43d8e672b5.jpg, http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3319/3210412136_b4918e6bea.jpg?v=0). Not that Fairey is a very good example of someone purposefully controlling his own influence, but his influence has shifted from tactical to strategic.

I’m not proposing a leftist utopian revolution, but I am goading for something beyond “making due” with perpetual “resistance.” I’m wanting to talk about something in the middle of these two extremes (or something that rapidly moves back and forth between them). I agree with Ryan’s post regarding “the matter of concern that such tactics are supposed to address.” To simply be tactically resistant doesn’t de facto constitute efficacy (or radicality, or interesting art).

Yes, failure. Right on. And not just a mimetic re-presentation of failure, or a syntactic definition of failure, but the real-time performance of failure. And I would add (among thousands of potentially efficacious artistic moves) — mind control, massive pseudonymous meme distribution, hypertrophy, institutional critique as abstract expressionist brushstroke, perpetual self-undermining as talisman, curation as personal introspection, http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513SZR65EQL._SL500_AA240_.jpg, http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/museumjt_2035_11671824, http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/MM3Fly-01.jpg.

Best,
Curt


Jan 9, 18:53
Trackback URL

Leave a comment

Tags


calls + opps performance livestage exhibition installation networked mobile writings participatory locative media augmented/mixed reality event new media video interactive public net art conference virtual intervention distributed second life sound political technology narrative festival tactical lecture art + science conversation social networks social games history surveillance dance music workshop urban mapping collaboration live upgrade! reblog activist wearable immersive public/private data architecture platform body collective aesthetics environment systems city identity film visualization culture telematic wireless web 2.0 site-specific ecology place webcast open source tool software text research intermedia space community audio radio nature hybrid 3-D avatar e-literature audio/visual responsive presence pyschogeography interdisciplinary media object interview physical global/ization ubiquitous theory theater biotechnology relational play code archive bioart generative news DIY robotic light place-specific hacktivism synthetic p2p cinema remix education agency interface language im/material live cinema algorithmic labor copyright simulation mashup animation perception image free/libre software multimedia artificial motion tracking voice convergence streaming reenactment gift economy machinima emergence webcam cyberreality glitch DJ/VJ tv censorship ARG nonlinear tag transdisciplinary touch recycle asynchronous fabbing semantic web hypermedia chance synesthesia biopolitics tangible app social choreography gesture unconference forking 1
1 3-D activist aesthetics agency algorithmic animation app architecture archive ARG art + science artificial asynchronous audio audio/visual augmented/mixed reality avatar bioart biopolitics biotechnology body calls + opps censorship chance cinema city code collaboration collective community conference convergence conversation copyright culture cyberreality dance data distributed DIY DJ/VJ e-literature ecology education emergence environment event exhibition fabbing festival film forking free/libre software games generative gesture gift economy glitch global/ization hacktivism history hybrid hypermedia identity im/material image immersive installation interactive interdisciplinary interface intermedia intervention interview labor language lecture light live live cinema livestage locative media machinima mapping mashup media mobile motion tracking multimedia music narrative nature net art networked new media news nonlinear object open source p2p participatory perception performance physical place place-specific platform play political presence public public/private pyschogeography radio reblog recycle reenactment relational remix research responsive robotic second life semantic web simulation site-specific social social choreography social networks software sound space streaming surveillance synesthesia synthetic systems tactical tag tangible technology telematic text theater theory tool touch transdisciplinary tv ubiquitous unconference upgrade! urban video virtual visualization voice wearable web 2.0 webcam webcast wireless workshop writings

Archives

2018

Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2017

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2016

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2015

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2014

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2013

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2012

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2011

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2010

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2009

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2008

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2007

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2006

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2005

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan

2004

Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul

What is this?

Networked Performance (N_P) is a research blog that focuses on emerging network-enabled practice.
Read more...

RSS feeds

N_P offers several RSS feeds, either for specific tags or for all the posts. Click the top left RSS icon that appears on each page for its respective feed. What is an RSS feed?

Bloggers

F.Y.I.

Feed2Mobile
Networked
New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
New American Radio
Turbulence.org
Networked_Music_Review
Upgrade! Boston
Massachusetts Cultural Council
New York State Council on the Arts, a State agency
Thinking Blogger Award

Turbulence Works

These are some of the latest works commissioned by Turbulence.org's net art commission program.
[ openspace ] wilderness [meme.garden] A More Subtle Perplex A Temporary Memorial Project for Jobbers' Canyon Built with ConAgra Products A Travel Guide A.B.S.M.L. Ars Virtua Artist-in-Residence (AVAIR) (2007) Awkward_NYC besides, Bonding Energy Bronx Rhymes Cell Tagging Channel TWo: NY Condition:Used Constellation Over Playas Data Diaries Domain of Mount GreylockVideo Portal Eclipse Empire State Endgame: A Cold War Love Story Flight Lines From the Valley of the Deer FUJI spaces and other places Global Direct Google Variations Gothamberg Grafik Dynamo Grow Old Handheld Histories as Hyper-Monuments html_butoh I am unable to tell you I'm Not Stalking You; I'm Socializing iLib Shakespeare (the perturbed sonnet project) INTERP Invisible Influenced iPak - 10,000 songs, 10,000 images, 10,000 abuses iSkyTV Journal of Journal Performance Studies Killbox L-Carrier Les Belles Infidles look art Lumens My Beating Blog MYPOCKET No Time Machine Nothing Happens: a performance in three acts Nothing You Have Done Deserves Such Praise Oil Standard Panemoticon Peripheral n2: KEYBOARD Playing Duchamp Plazaville Psychographics: Consumer Survey Recollecting Adams School of Perpetual Training Searching for Michelle/SFM Self-Portrait Shadow Play: Tales of Urbanization of China ShiftSpace Commissions Program Social Relay Mail Space Video Spectral Quartet Superfund365, A Site-A-Day text_ocean The Xanadu Hijack This and that thought. Touching Gravity 2/Tilt Tumbarumba Tweet 4 Action Urban Attractors and Private Distractors We Ping Good Things To Life Wikireuse Without A Trace WoodEar Word Market You Don't Know Me
More commissions