Briefly mentioned this in my previous post about a certain developers company back in Cyprus. A friend of mine works there and we were discussing some of their marketing and business strategies. A developers company normally makes buildings. They get permits, get proposals from contractors and then finish the job. At least I thought it was that simple. But from what I've been told this particular company will for example sponsor an event, take over the whole advertising campaign (most of it being outsourced) and in return get cheaper contracts, permits from councils and so on. This of course is legit. Surely, to get a permit for building a structure you go through a lot of procedures, so why not speed things up with spending a lot of money. I don't believe this is something purely happening in Cyprus. Large corporations need to invest in other sectors of the economy as well in order to keep their number one objective, increase profits. I consider this approach makes a good name for the company as well. People can see their name on any type of advertisement be it print, tv, web.
Monday, 31 March 2008
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
Village of the Sun
Who can work under crystal clear blue skies and a bright sun? Holidays back home are almost done and I do wish I had another 4 weeks here. Although I did bring my sketchbook and books to read for my dissertation I have done none of it. Sure I attempted to read, tried very hard. But the sun is calling out my name (and my phone is ringing) and I end up having a pint or coffee (or both) under the sunny Cyprus sky.
There have been work developments ofcourse although they appeared in an unexpected, unpredictable way that made them almost being part of the fun process.
Fishbone Records owner and friend asked me, over a cup of coffee, to redesign his websites. He is the guy that managed our concert a couple of days ago. The outcome was quite successful and he has made an offer to sign us up to his record label. That means after 12 years of struggle we get a chance to get into a proper studio without time restrictions to make a proper album. Friends exchanging services really, but with the money thing involved also.
Met up with an old friend from SAE in Athens, who now owns a company that does rentals and sales of audio equipment for live events. He asked me to do a couple of websites for him and we're meeting up tomorrow so I can get his logos and company info.
And another friend working in an estate developers company suggested I look into doing advertisements and 3d design for their architectural blueprints. She says she prefers having someone who is a trustworthy friend and has good communication with than outsourcing the work to foreign companies.
There is also my work with the meditation exercises for ROT.
I'm not sure whether the above are what the client proposal brief requires. Undecided on which one to focus on for the client proposal. For example at the time being I have no contact with the administrator of ROT as she is in Germany doing seminars. Doing the work for Fishbone Records will give me the opportunity for better dialogue and communication with the client and is less secretive than the ROT one. Indeed there's not much time left now with about a week and a half until deadline but I prefer pressuring over the last week than losing precious sun rays. On that note, I smell coffee...
There have been work developments ofcourse although they appeared in an unexpected, unpredictable way that made them almost being part of the fun process.
Fishbone Records owner and friend asked me, over a cup of coffee, to redesign his websites. He is the guy that managed our concert a couple of days ago. The outcome was quite successful and he has made an offer to sign us up to his record label. That means after 12 years of struggle we get a chance to get into a proper studio without time restrictions to make a proper album. Friends exchanging services really, but with the money thing involved also.
Met up with an old friend from SAE in Athens, who now owns a company that does rentals and sales of audio equipment for live events. He asked me to do a couple of websites for him and we're meeting up tomorrow so I can get his logos and company info.
And another friend working in an estate developers company suggested I look into doing advertisements and 3d design for their architectural blueprints. She says she prefers having someone who is a trustworthy friend and has good communication with than outsourcing the work to foreign companies.
There is also my work with the meditation exercises for ROT.
I'm not sure whether the above are what the client proposal brief requires. Undecided on which one to focus on for the client proposal. For example at the time being I have no contact with the administrator of ROT as she is in Germany doing seminars. Doing the work for Fishbone Records will give me the opportunity for better dialogue and communication with the client and is less secretive than the ROT one. Indeed there's not much time left now with about a week and a half until deadline but I prefer pressuring over the last week than losing precious sun rays. On that note, I smell coffee...
Friday, 14 March 2008
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
Saturday, 8 March 2008
Academics for Academic Freedom
Statement of Academic Freedom
'We, the undersigned, believe the following two principles to be the foundation of academic freedom:
(1) that academics, both inside and outside the classroom, have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not these are deemed offensive, and
(2) that academic institutions have no right to curb the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff, or to use it as grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal.'
If you agree with the aforementioned, please take some time to sign the on-line petition. Thank you.
'We, the undersigned, believe the following two principles to be the foundation of academic freedom:
(1) that academics, both inside and outside the classroom, have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not these are deemed offensive, and
(2) that academic institutions have no right to curb the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff, or to use it as grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal.'
If you agree with the aforementioned, please take some time to sign the on-line petition. Thank you.
Feed Lack Loop
Micheál O'Connell's 'Feed Lack Loop' had been a surreal experience to say the least. Whether to call it performance, installation piece I don't know. But what surely fits a description is 'experimental'. Upon entering Lighthouse there was a huge projector I noticed the familiar face of Dave (if I remember his name correctly), the clown Micheál used in some of his other works. There is indeed something intriguing about clowns, but that's another story all together. The event would take place both at Lighthouse and in the virtual world of Second Life supported by Ars Virtua Gallery. The projector would show the event in Second Life while a camera in Lighthouse would show in Second Life what was happening in First Life (or am I wrong, my head hurts already). The result is a strange loop. The avatar in the virtual world, designed to look far from attractive -unlike ones everyday encounters in the MMOG- was controlled by Micheál, while Dan from Grey Area assisted in communication with the other avatars/viewers. When the performance started, even though a bit distracted by the crows talking, an eventual hypnotizing repetition took place. The clown was miming the movement of the avatar in Second Life. I was lost in thought and confusion. The avatar wasn't real. It was controlled, and the clown was in part being controlled either by the avatar or Micheál who appeared every now and again to position the clown in a different place.
What I found very successful in this mundane act of looping was that the avatar, a lifeless, unreal, algorithm seemed to be more confident than the clown himself. This caused a malfunction as to what is real and what is not. The clown performing in front of a live audience, unrestricted and naked in comparison to the avatar, acted as a child; introvert and disoriented he would mimic the avatar as if it was the most important thing in his life.
The question arising from the performance as Micheál also informed on his statement was whether interactivity leads to empowerment or control. My conclusion out of the performance is that interactivity is an illusory form of power. We accept happily to restrict our motion, speech, movement to the limitations of our avatar. We restrict our appearance to the styles and tastes of the limited people creating outfits within Second Life. And all that to feel "empowered". The clown was sometimes moved behind the projector, and one could only see his shadow. Again, perhaps a juxtaposition, of the man ending up a shadow of himself. The avatar dominant in the front while the shadow behind imitates his movements and sounds.
The talk at the end of the show was quite insightful. It gave the audience the chance to think of the work in the artists point of view as well.
Furthermore the title of the performance being Feed Lack rather than Feedback perhaps suggests that the clown could not input any information back to the system. As if trapped in this endless loop of repetition but not being able to change the stream the other way around.
Some other interesting questions arising were how much we are influenced by our avatars looks and behavior. I have friends -ok, I admit I once was part of this as well- who would not talk about anything else apart from World of Warcraft. Imagine sitting round a table having a coffee beneath the warm sun and speaking of urns, spells, assassination, talent points, backstab, subtlety, mages and warlords. It is an interesting subject to look into. Watching a documentary on Second Life on the BBC, a particular woman married with four children was saying how she spent 14 hours a day on Second Life, ignoring her family, with her virtual boyfriend. When she wasn't living her dreams in virtual worlds she spent them complaining about her fights with her virtual boyfriend to her family. Weird? Yes. Empowerment? No. But I'm moving away from the subject again.
I feel that the performance was nothing less but food for thoughts, and a reflection to the infatuation of our world with the term 'interactivity'. As O'Connell said during his talk, artists who use technology to create, sometimes get so lost in it that they forget what it was all about.
The issues raised in this performance cannot be described or portrayed in a monologue post. I think they are themes and subjects that need to be discussed, and only through conversation will the participants reach a conclusion or at least a higher understanding of them. After all, as the theme implies a monologue would only lead back to the beginning, causing a strange loop.
What I found very successful in this mundane act of looping was that the avatar, a lifeless, unreal, algorithm seemed to be more confident than the clown himself. This caused a malfunction as to what is real and what is not. The clown performing in front of a live audience, unrestricted and naked in comparison to the avatar, acted as a child; introvert and disoriented he would mimic the avatar as if it was the most important thing in his life.
The question arising from the performance as Micheál also informed on his statement was whether interactivity leads to empowerment or control. My conclusion out of the performance is that interactivity is an illusory form of power. We accept happily to restrict our motion, speech, movement to the limitations of our avatar. We restrict our appearance to the styles and tastes of the limited people creating outfits within Second Life. And all that to feel "empowered". The clown was sometimes moved behind the projector, and one could only see his shadow. Again, perhaps a juxtaposition, of the man ending up a shadow of himself. The avatar dominant in the front while the shadow behind imitates his movements and sounds.
The talk at the end of the show was quite insightful. It gave the audience the chance to think of the work in the artists point of view as well.
Furthermore the title of the performance being Feed Lack rather than Feedback perhaps suggests that the clown could not input any information back to the system. As if trapped in this endless loop of repetition but not being able to change the stream the other way around.
Some other interesting questions arising were how much we are influenced by our avatars looks and behavior. I have friends -ok, I admit I once was part of this as well- who would not talk about anything else apart from World of Warcraft. Imagine sitting round a table having a coffee beneath the warm sun and speaking of urns, spells, assassination, talent points, backstab, subtlety, mages and warlords. It is an interesting subject to look into. Watching a documentary on Second Life on the BBC, a particular woman married with four children was saying how she spent 14 hours a day on Second Life, ignoring her family, with her virtual boyfriend. When she wasn't living her dreams in virtual worlds she spent them complaining about her fights with her virtual boyfriend to her family. Weird? Yes. Empowerment? No. But I'm moving away from the subject again.
I feel that the performance was nothing less but food for thoughts, and a reflection to the infatuation of our world with the term 'interactivity'. As O'Connell said during his talk, artists who use technology to create, sometimes get so lost in it that they forget what it was all about.
The issues raised in this performance cannot be described or portrayed in a monologue post. I think they are themes and subjects that need to be discussed, and only through conversation will the participants reach a conclusion or at least a higher understanding of them. After all, as the theme implies a monologue would only lead back to the beginning, causing a strange loop.
Friday, 7 March 2008
Libel, Slander and Defamation: An apology to E & S
I have recently made a post regarding two female artists. The post reviewed their works and character in inappropriate mannerism. Coming from a small island in the Mediterranean sea, where Greek is the native language, I did not know that using such terms were considered as defamation. A foreigner watching the mainstream media in the UK, from R&B and Rap music to contemporary arts and stand-up comedy, comes to consider these words as everyday terms. I walk the streets of Brighton to hear the words 'wanker', 'bitch', 'asshole' and so on in repetition, yet I do not see anyone complaining. Evidently such words are seen in the eye of the beholder, and some people take offend. So it is in my deepest humility that I apologize sincerely for using the term 'bitch' to characterize another person.
This situation has given me the opportunity for self-reflection and a general evaluation of society. Critics of modern society such as Bill Hicks, Trey Parker and Matt Stone -creators of Southpark, George Carlin and Frank Zappa have all used swearing to point a finger to either the individual or the collective society. Without this criticism the world would be a terrible place. Censorship leads to a world in breech of what most people consider the highest law: freedom of speech. To quote from the US First Amendment of the Consitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".
We live in terrible times. Times where religion and nationalism have put a ban on words. In the state of New York it is illegal to use the term Nigger. The US TV network Comedy Central refused to air a spoof of Mohammed. In 1985, Frank Zappa appeared before the US Senate, to defend the right of musicians to use inappropriate words in their songs, without labeling and categorizing their albums (what is now seen in albums as 'parental advisory-explicit lyrics'). This is a violation of freedom of speech. To quote from Mr. Zappa's statement: "The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years, dealing with the interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal's design. It is my understanding that, in law, First Amendment Issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC's demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation".
In addition "The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of Moral Quality Control Programs based on "Things Certain Christians Don't Like". What if the next bunch of Washington Wives demands a large yellow "J" on all material written or performed by Jews, in order to save helpless children from exposure to 'concealed Zionist doctrine'?"
To conclude, "Bad facts make bad law, and people who write bad laws are, in my opinion, more dangerous than songwriters who celebrate sexuality. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religious Thought [sic], and the Right to Due Process for composers, performers and retailers are imperiled if the PMRC and the major labels consummate this nasty bargain."
When words are censored what makes the society to ban the public concern on world issues such as war? Should we wash away Bansky from our walls because his work offends homophobics? Should the works of Damien Hurst be burned at a public ceremony in the town square for insulting vegetarians?
Let me explain by giving examples through personal experience. Before moving to the UK to study Digital Media, I was a musician and composer in Cyprus. I have in my background more than 80 concerts during 10 years in the genre of rock/experimental/psychedelic and heavy metal music. I have given interviews to national television and zines, appeared in a magazine which referred to myself in the following words: "Andreas' voice is charismatic, and considered as one of the best frontmen in Cyprus, and people always have a story to tell about "that time I saw him perform live". I have also performed 3 times in the UK and with the band which I play drums with have appeared in the UK magazine "Terrorizer" twice. I have also rejected two contracts for refusing to "sell out". Performing live one needs to expect not only bad criticism but also defamation. Especially when one appears on stage wearing skirts, make-up, fishnets, PVC and so on, and even more so when these performances take place in a fundamental orthodox christian society. I have been referred to as a homosexual, devil worshiper, junkie and other terms. In my whole career, I have never, ever sued anybody, never attacked or retaliated to the accusations. Why? Because there is a saying in Cyprus which translates: "A clear sky is not afraid of the storm". In my 3 years residing in the UK, I have never approached my peers in an arrogant way. Most of them do not even know the aforementioned.
So why am I saying this. Quite simple. When an artist comes to give a lecture to a class of 18 people and is sarcastic and ironic about the mass population expression (YouTube), as well as using phrases such as "don't you read books", they should expect a reaction. Because we do read books. Some study religions of the world and learn about the elimination of ego. Some read Elliott and Yeats. Some study impressionism, cubism and surrealism. Others immerse themselves in quantum physics theories. Yet you do not see them attacking your lack of knowledge on the subject. We all have our interests, and no one is better than the person next to her. We are all equal. We are the people who fund other artists work. We are the people, to use the phrase of Palahniuk in his book 'Fight Club', who serve your food, clean your toilets, and guard you while you sleep. We also know the responsibility of the artist and her art as described by Robert Henri. We too, use quotes and cliche phrases to describe our intellectuality. It is because of us, the people, that you the artist makes a living. And you should respect that as we respect you. Action causes reaction, so self-reflection on personal behavior is required, before judging others behavior on you.
The world is but a mirror of ourselves. And if the world uses swear words to describe a person what does that tell us about ourselves? If we censor other people's work should we censor our own for fear of insult to a particular group or individual? If so, where does that put Art in general?
In conclusion, we should learn to take everything more lightly, even humorous. We should burst the bubble that surrounds us, and learn that we are not the warm little center of the world. We should accept criticism in any form, and rise above it, since we are better than the accusation. Some criticism is constructive, some is not. Some people express themselves in ways that are unacceptable to others. But we shouldn't ban Christmas just because some are not Christians. Neither should we burn churches because science tells us to be atheists.
I apologize once more for using inappropriate terms to express myself. It was not my intention to insult anyone, and I hope that my expression in a second language and not my mother tongue will be taken sensibly, and that this post will be regarded as my own personal belief system, ideology and thought pattern. I accept the disapproval of my ideas, but I must be honest to myself in order to be honest to others. To use me as a scapegoat only makes the Holy Inquisition as an acceptable form of structuring and molding society and the individual. To attack freedom of speech only brings a Big Brother society into being.
Thank you for your time, and sincere apologies once more.
This situation has given me the opportunity for self-reflection and a general evaluation of society. Critics of modern society such as Bill Hicks, Trey Parker and Matt Stone -creators of Southpark, George Carlin and Frank Zappa have all used swearing to point a finger to either the individual or the collective society. Without this criticism the world would be a terrible place. Censorship leads to a world in breech of what most people consider the highest law: freedom of speech. To quote from the US First Amendment of the Consitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".
We live in terrible times. Times where religion and nationalism have put a ban on words. In the state of New York it is illegal to use the term Nigger. The US TV network Comedy Central refused to air a spoof of Mohammed. In 1985, Frank Zappa appeared before the US Senate, to defend the right of musicians to use inappropriate words in their songs, without labeling and categorizing their albums (what is now seen in albums as 'parental advisory-explicit lyrics'). This is a violation of freedom of speech. To quote from Mr. Zappa's statement: "The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years, dealing with the interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal's design. It is my understanding that, in law, First Amendment Issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC's demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation".
In addition "The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of Moral Quality Control Programs based on "Things Certain Christians Don't Like". What if the next bunch of Washington Wives demands a large yellow "J" on all material written or performed by Jews, in order to save helpless children from exposure to 'concealed Zionist doctrine'?"
To conclude, "Bad facts make bad law, and people who write bad laws are, in my opinion, more dangerous than songwriters who celebrate sexuality. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religious Thought [sic], and the Right to Due Process for composers, performers and retailers are imperiled if the PMRC and the major labels consummate this nasty bargain."
When words are censored what makes the society to ban the public concern on world issues such as war? Should we wash away Bansky from our walls because his work offends homophobics? Should the works of Damien Hurst be burned at a public ceremony in the town square for insulting vegetarians?
Let me explain by giving examples through personal experience. Before moving to the UK to study Digital Media, I was a musician and composer in Cyprus. I have in my background more than 80 concerts during 10 years in the genre of rock/experimental/psychedelic and heavy metal music. I have given interviews to national television and zines, appeared in a magazine which referred to myself in the following words: "Andreas' voice is charismatic, and considered as one of the best frontmen in Cyprus, and people always have a story to tell about "that time I saw him perform live". I have also performed 3 times in the UK and with the band which I play drums with have appeared in the UK magazine "Terrorizer" twice. I have also rejected two contracts for refusing to "sell out". Performing live one needs to expect not only bad criticism but also defamation. Especially when one appears on stage wearing skirts, make-up, fishnets, PVC and so on, and even more so when these performances take place in a fundamental orthodox christian society. I have been referred to as a homosexual, devil worshiper, junkie and other terms. In my whole career, I have never, ever sued anybody, never attacked or retaliated to the accusations. Why? Because there is a saying in Cyprus which translates: "A clear sky is not afraid of the storm". In my 3 years residing in the UK, I have never approached my peers in an arrogant way. Most of them do not even know the aforementioned.
So why am I saying this. Quite simple. When an artist comes to give a lecture to a class of 18 people and is sarcastic and ironic about the mass population expression (YouTube), as well as using phrases such as "don't you read books", they should expect a reaction. Because we do read books. Some study religions of the world and learn about the elimination of ego. Some read Elliott and Yeats. Some study impressionism, cubism and surrealism. Others immerse themselves in quantum physics theories. Yet you do not see them attacking your lack of knowledge on the subject. We all have our interests, and no one is better than the person next to her. We are all equal. We are the people who fund other artists work. We are the people, to use the phrase of Palahniuk in his book 'Fight Club', who serve your food, clean your toilets, and guard you while you sleep. We also know the responsibility of the artist and her art as described by Robert Henri. We too, use quotes and cliche phrases to describe our intellectuality. It is because of us, the people, that you the artist makes a living. And you should respect that as we respect you. Action causes reaction, so self-reflection on personal behavior is required, before judging others behavior on you.
The world is but a mirror of ourselves. And if the world uses swear words to describe a person what does that tell us about ourselves? If we censor other people's work should we censor our own for fear of insult to a particular group or individual? If so, where does that put Art in general?
In conclusion, we should learn to take everything more lightly, even humorous. We should burst the bubble that surrounds us, and learn that we are not the warm little center of the world. We should accept criticism in any form, and rise above it, since we are better than the accusation. Some criticism is constructive, some is not. Some people express themselves in ways that are unacceptable to others. But we shouldn't ban Christmas just because some are not Christians. Neither should we burn churches because science tells us to be atheists.
I apologize once more for using inappropriate terms to express myself. It was not my intention to insult anyone, and I hope that my expression in a second language and not my mother tongue will be taken sensibly, and that this post will be regarded as my own personal belief system, ideology and thought pattern. I accept the disapproval of my ideas, but I must be honest to myself in order to be honest to others. To use me as a scapegoat only makes the Holy Inquisition as an acceptable form of structuring and molding society and the individual. To attack freedom of speech only brings a Big Brother society into being.
Thank you for your time, and sincere apologies once more.
Saturday, 1 March 2008
Bands Fest 2008 promo clip
project development
Right, maybe I've posted enough for the day, since I was writing for our current project development and towards the end, firefox crashed, and blogger forgot I was saving. So I'll make this a brief one.
Next plans are to finalize the layout for the website, add environments to the 3d characters and put everything together to make the direct mail advertisement. Also we need to decide on the text that we're going to put in, we have some ideas written down, but need to see which fits best.
Some experimentation:
We have decided on front cover for the direct mail. Managed to narrow down our ideas in terms of screenshots for the 'back' cover and Peter is working/experimenting with website layout. I am rendering the front cover in half the dimensions of an A2 sheet (the other half being the back cover). We've had a satisfactory research on propaganda posters, army psychology, ethics in advertising as well as war game covers for playstation and xbox. The final idea is to create a direct mail advertisement based on war game box covers, that means grungy textures laid on top of 3d images. On the back cover the screenshots will show the life of a soldier, from the deepcut barracks initiation ceremony, to pointing a gun at a child, handicapped, hospital bed and ofcourse in a coffin draped with a British flag. I think the game cover idea offers us the opportunity to be humorous on our description of the 'game', screenshots, and warning/requirements text. At the same time I think it's a great juxtaposition to how the army today is promoting itself like a walk in the park. Adventure, fun, compensation, tuition fees and other fat lies. What? You disagree? I and the 80.000 British soldiers still awaiting compensation unable to work completely agree with your disagreement.
We have a lot of images to our disposal and Peter is doing a great job grunging them up and doing the final look and feels. His layouts for the webpage and style are also brilliant.Next plans are to finalize the layout for the website, add environments to the 3d characters and put everything together to make the direct mail advertisement. Also we need to decide on the text that we're going to put in, we have some ideas written down, but need to see which fits best.
Some experimentation:
John Higgs
Under a different light than the post on Seraphina, I will talk here about the informal talk I had with John Higgs, author of "I have America surrounded - the life of Timothy Leary".
We met up outside the "Druids Head" pub in the north laines, went in and despite my efforts to buy him a drink he insisted on paying for both. Got a pint and sat down at a table where the first thing I thought was "damn, the speaker is there, I'm gonna find it hard to understand what he's saying". So I explained my idea to him, putting the whole Collective Unconscious, Web 2.0 into perspective. He immediately recommended the book "what the dormouse said". The book discusses how the American counter-culture of the 60's shaped the history of the personal computer. The title refers to one of the lyrics in the song "White Rabbit" by Jefferson Airplane, a homage to both Alice in Wonderland and the use of psychedelic drugs as food for the mind. This alone puts things into perspective. What was, after all, the main support of the hippies movement Peace, love, oneness. These ideologies derived from the use of hallucinogenics, psychedelics, entheogens which led to this common understanding that old religions such as Hinduism and esoteric Christianity have supported. But the overuse of drugs as a recreational activity pushed the counter-culture to its demise. Or did it? Most of the people who supported the ideologies, moved on to create Silicon Valley, the center of technological innovation responsible for both the dot-com bubble as well as Web 2.0. This serves as the counter-argument I needed for my essay. As I suggest that perhaps this mass-collaboration, web 2.0 ideology is nothing but an unconscious process trying to bring into conscious notions of the god - we are all one consciousness- archetype. With the Silicon Valley though, we clearly see that perhaps this approach to the use of personal computers could be a well-structured and organized plan by washed-out-hippies-turned-out-businessmen.
John also suggested I look into Timothy Leary's "8-circuit model of consciousness", especially on Level 6 that can be related to my argument. Level 6 - the neuroelectric circuit is concerned with the mind becoming aware of itself, independent of the imprints made by previous levels. Leary supported this Level is capable of telepathic communication. Now instead of viewing telepathy as a paranormal activity, simply look at how you are conversing with a friend over, say, MSN or Skype. This kind of activities were beyond comprehension not so long ago. Now they are everyday activities: posting, commenting on blogs, sharing videos and photos. There is a man-made, neuro-electric network of telepathic activity going on, that is nothing more than electrical currents switching on and off yet we perceive it as real as a conversation with a person face to face.
I asked John whether he thinks Web 2.0 is an actual development from previous states of the Internet, a continuation or simply a remediation of pre-existing structures. Although, he said, he is quite favourable of Web 2.0 as a great business model, quite more organized than its predecessor, which means that the general population is more accepting, it is not something new. Since 1997, he continued, networks were well up and running. You could see streaming video, you could post on forums, and send files. But going to the other end of the screen would probably lead you to a geek romanticizing the idea of cyber-culture. Transfers were slow, and most people involved with it were quite dedicated. Web 2.0 has brought about the redesign of that model to be more accessible by the general masses and is more user inclusive and allows for more freedom. The old Internet, he continued, was simply in its embryonic form. More money were put into it to create the ability of streaming, real-time activities where users started to exchange mp3's and went from there. It used to have certain types of control, in terms of difficulty of use for example, (hence restraint to the geek community) something that has been overcome now. Whether this is true freedom or not, John gave the example of the British Empire once having India as its colony. This comparison was made to explain, how all sort of new experiences came to Britain, instead of the colonizer managing to establish its own to the colony. How many people can be found now in Britain, practicing meditation, yoga, eating curry, drinking herbal teas? The correlation with the Internet is that it gives us the same openness of idea sharing. It allows for what once was impossible: learning and experiencing new cultures, ideas, belief systems, thought patterns - information once impossible to attain unless one was a traveller. Evidently, my question was, that even though this massive database of information is available to us, I don't see a lot of people changing, not in terms of their personal ideologies and beliefs but in terms of acceptance. There is still a huge amount of bickering (elephant talk?). The answer was simple. People head to extremes and become more prejudiced no matter what the counter-arguments. In essence, you form your own thoughts on the subject. People will always complain about what they don't perceive or understand. He used a quote by Terence McKenna, "if the truth can be said in a way that it can be understood, then it will be believed".
We later discussed the music industry making connections with the Internet. Those were in terms of the radical change of perception things have on people who experience them. I myself for example did experience the time when the Internet broke through, but I cannot begin to imagine the impact it had on previous generations who lived a time when hard disks did not exist (I also remember Micheal discussing this in class). The same goes for the music industry. John recalls when psychedelic music came out, it was something completely new, never happened before. Musicians of the 60's through the use of psychedelic drugs created a new form of expression. Later on the punk movement came in opposition to prog and psychedelic rock, again a sound very unique and new having a great impact on perceptions of the masses. Think of how a beat person would first view Rave music when it first appeared in the scene. John ended up to the fact that the music industry does not release anything new anymore. Musicians aren't given the chance to experiment since the popular styles are well established and they work in sales so why try something new? In a way this is quite sad, much like the fact that we live in a post-post modern art world. Does this mean we have reached the peak of our expression? Or is the world too preoccupied with other trivial matters to look at the bigger picture? How long has it been since a new style of music or artform has come out and embraced by the general public? In the same mannerism Web 2.0 is nothing new. It is a continuation of well-established, well-thought softwares that work, they simply improve with technology and are redesigned to fit with current times.
It was about here that our interview was going to finish. When we first met up John said "you have me for an hour, I have to be a good father and put the kids to bed tonight", and that hour had come to a close. I was either a good conversation partner or just got lucky, but he suggested that if I bought the next round he'd stay for another half hour. Which of course I did.
So the conversation went on, we discussed about William Burroughs and his cut-up techniques and the manipulation of mental networks. At first glance there is no clear connection as to why we were discussing mental networks and connections to my essay. But on further evaluation I think it becomes quite evident. The reason, the subject came about was my explanation as to why I had made the connection between Web 2.0 and Carl Jung's theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious. John said that beyond each individuals connections more connections can be found. They might be true or false but connections nevertheless. The reinforcement of ideas, from conversation for example, create connections in the web of chaos. Everything is interrelated in some way or another. You're sitting at a pub and you if you strike up a conversation with a complete stranger you will find something, a person, an event, a hobby that connects the two. Compare it with an endless search on the Internet and you'll see that it is only a reflection of our own reality. One personal example would be when I first started listening to the band Tool, whose members were friends with Bill Hicks, hence me discovering the great man himself. It was from Tool that I had discovered one of my favourite artists Alex Grey. Through one of Tool's links I discovered "Spiral Eyes" a photography studio whose work I really admired only to find out that one of the two women in the company, married to the guitarist of Tool, has also been closely related (living in his basement) with Timothy Leary, and alongside others created one of the first public Internet website for Leary. I could go on for ages with these connections but I don't want to bore you.
So many people deny these connections, our conversation moved on. They claim these connections are mere coincidences and play no role whatsoever. Mainly because Sartre said so. We accept our social reality to the point of ignorance and blindness when everything points to something different, a more universal network of ideas and beliefs. What lies behind the scientific culture is that we have the same brain design. Therefore, these connections are there, and triggered by situations. Unlike Jung who supported that these archetypes of connections are pre-existing since primordial times. Robert Anton Wilson, took a leap from Sartre's belief that everything is meaningless in his book "the cosmic trigger". He supported that a belief system is nothing more but a map of the world, a model that should not be confused with objective reality. In conclusion, each individual looks at her own reality in a different matter/perception forms beliefs, that are still individual, and no man can relate his own belief to be the predominant view of reality. Yet the majority of people share a consensus that this is just how things are. Even the scientific world is filled with holes in their theories, unable to explain the vital questions, yet our new religion today is Science and the scientists our priests. Through them we find reassurance that there is nothing more to humanity than being born, eating, drinking, fucking, dying. We can barely begin to understand how civilizations like the ancient Egyptians and the Mayans could calculate planet distances and movements without todays equipment, we, the post industrial society believe we got it all figured out.
It was inevitable not to ask why Timothy Leary is not academic material. John made a startled look as he said "no,no,no". Was it because he was coined "the most dangerous man in America" by then president Nixon? I laughed as I asked. "Tim was the trickster archetype" he said. "His ideas are not understood now, and as Burroughs said maybe they will appreciate him in a 100 years time". Although an acclaimed psychologist at the start of his career, the academic community feared him, his colleagues 'disowned' him. Even though a great admirer of Marshall McLuhan and supporter of his ideas, Leary was still undermined by most, and some point even by his hippy fans. After his imprisonment and escape, Leary begun preaching about personal freedom and liberation through the use of the Internet and personal computers. Although looking up the term "interweb" on wikipedia will say it's a sarcastic expression for people who don't know much about the Internet, the term was coined before the word Internet in 1977 by Timothy Leary, along with other terms such as mind connect. As McLuhan's prophetic essays on media, Leary followed his footsteps, yet his ideologies and theories were shunned by academia, much like William Blake was at his time. Blake was viewed as an insane personality, obsessed with occultism, mysticism and magic. John told me he had an antagonist during his lifetime, I tried finding out his name, as he didn't remember, but failed to do so. Any input here is more than welcome. The story goes, John continued, that Blake was not accepted as an artist, while his antagonist at the time was making a lot of profit out of his paintings. Flashback to 2008 and you ask anyone about Blake and everyone knows him, ask about his antagonist, no-one ever heard of him. Evidently my research to find out more about him and its failure might be a strong argument.
Another example given by John was Alan Watts and Aldous Huxley. Both belonging to the refined, upper class of the time, considered up until now as great thinkers, philosophers, and well respected in the academic world. Both very well known for their psychedelic drug use. Makes sense? It didn't to me. It reminded me of a paragraph I was reading about, then argued in class about it, on how Walter Benjamin's drug taking was not our drug taking. Meaning, that it was alright for Benjamin to write his theories while being up in the clouds, whilst if I attempt the same thing will probably get thrown out of University. This dichotomy of academia is quite peculiar. It is almost like a work out of a conspiracy theory book. Huxley was known as a heavy user of mescaline, even on his death bed. Leary who preached about the correct use of L.S.D under guidance, preparation and so on, was considered as 'the most dangerous man in America'. Food for thought or merely planting a seed there.
John suggested I look up on the theory of 'idea-space' as a link to Web 2.0. It can be found in the comic book by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell "The disease of Language".
And with that we ended our conversation.
I tried to write the above in as much a comprehensible way as I could. Maybe that's a reason I delayed putting them down earlier; as I was taking time to put them in order in my head, while at the same time drowning my enthusiasm to be as objective as possible in a subject that I feel strongly opinionated. Well it was all good fun and we all had a jolly good laugh
We met up outside the "Druids Head" pub in the north laines, went in and despite my efforts to buy him a drink he insisted on paying for both. Got a pint and sat down at a table where the first thing I thought was "damn, the speaker is there, I'm gonna find it hard to understand what he's saying". So I explained my idea to him, putting the whole Collective Unconscious, Web 2.0 into perspective. He immediately recommended the book "what the dormouse said". The book discusses how the American counter-culture of the 60's shaped the history of the personal computer. The title refers to one of the lyrics in the song "White Rabbit" by Jefferson Airplane, a homage to both Alice in Wonderland and the use of psychedelic drugs as food for the mind. This alone puts things into perspective. What was, after all, the main support of the hippies movement Peace, love, oneness. These ideologies derived from the use of hallucinogenics, psychedelics, entheogens which led to this common understanding that old religions such as Hinduism and esoteric Christianity have supported. But the overuse of drugs as a recreational activity pushed the counter-culture to its demise. Or did it? Most of the people who supported the ideologies, moved on to create Silicon Valley, the center of technological innovation responsible for both the dot-com bubble as well as Web 2.0. This serves as the counter-argument I needed for my essay. As I suggest that perhaps this mass-collaboration, web 2.0 ideology is nothing but an unconscious process trying to bring into conscious notions of the god - we are all one consciousness- archetype. With the Silicon Valley though, we clearly see that perhaps this approach to the use of personal computers could be a well-structured and organized plan by washed-out-hippies-turned-out-businessmen.
John also suggested I look into Timothy Leary's "8-circuit model of consciousness", especially on Level 6 that can be related to my argument. Level 6 - the neuroelectric circuit is concerned with the mind becoming aware of itself, independent of the imprints made by previous levels. Leary supported this Level is capable of telepathic communication. Now instead of viewing telepathy as a paranormal activity, simply look at how you are conversing with a friend over, say, MSN or Skype. This kind of activities were beyond comprehension not so long ago. Now they are everyday activities: posting, commenting on blogs, sharing videos and photos. There is a man-made, neuro-electric network of telepathic activity going on, that is nothing more than electrical currents switching on and off yet we perceive it as real as a conversation with a person face to face.
I asked John whether he thinks Web 2.0 is an actual development from previous states of the Internet, a continuation or simply a remediation of pre-existing structures. Although, he said, he is quite favourable of Web 2.0 as a great business model, quite more organized than its predecessor, which means that the general population is more accepting, it is not something new. Since 1997, he continued, networks were well up and running. You could see streaming video, you could post on forums, and send files. But going to the other end of the screen would probably lead you to a geek romanticizing the idea of cyber-culture. Transfers were slow, and most people involved with it were quite dedicated. Web 2.0 has brought about the redesign of that model to be more accessible by the general masses and is more user inclusive and allows for more freedom. The old Internet, he continued, was simply in its embryonic form. More money were put into it to create the ability of streaming, real-time activities where users started to exchange mp3's and went from there. It used to have certain types of control, in terms of difficulty of use for example, (hence restraint to the geek community) something that has been overcome now. Whether this is true freedom or not, John gave the example of the British Empire once having India as its colony. This comparison was made to explain, how all sort of new experiences came to Britain, instead of the colonizer managing to establish its own to the colony. How many people can be found now in Britain, practicing meditation, yoga, eating curry, drinking herbal teas? The correlation with the Internet is that it gives us the same openness of idea sharing. It allows for what once was impossible: learning and experiencing new cultures, ideas, belief systems, thought patterns - information once impossible to attain unless one was a traveller. Evidently, my question was, that even though this massive database of information is available to us, I don't see a lot of people changing, not in terms of their personal ideologies and beliefs but in terms of acceptance. There is still a huge amount of bickering (elephant talk?). The answer was simple. People head to extremes and become more prejudiced no matter what the counter-arguments. In essence, you form your own thoughts on the subject. People will always complain about what they don't perceive or understand. He used a quote by Terence McKenna, "if the truth can be said in a way that it can be understood, then it will be believed".
We later discussed the music industry making connections with the Internet. Those were in terms of the radical change of perception things have on people who experience them. I myself for example did experience the time when the Internet broke through, but I cannot begin to imagine the impact it had on previous generations who lived a time when hard disks did not exist (I also remember Micheal discussing this in class). The same goes for the music industry. John recalls when psychedelic music came out, it was something completely new, never happened before. Musicians of the 60's through the use of psychedelic drugs created a new form of expression. Later on the punk movement came in opposition to prog and psychedelic rock, again a sound very unique and new having a great impact on perceptions of the masses. Think of how a beat person would first view Rave music when it first appeared in the scene. John ended up to the fact that the music industry does not release anything new anymore. Musicians aren't given the chance to experiment since the popular styles are well established and they work in sales so why try something new? In a way this is quite sad, much like the fact that we live in a post-post modern art world. Does this mean we have reached the peak of our expression? Or is the world too preoccupied with other trivial matters to look at the bigger picture? How long has it been since a new style of music or artform has come out and embraced by the general public? In the same mannerism Web 2.0 is nothing new. It is a continuation of well-established, well-thought softwares that work, they simply improve with technology and are redesigned to fit with current times.
It was about here that our interview was going to finish. When we first met up John said "you have me for an hour, I have to be a good father and put the kids to bed tonight", and that hour had come to a close. I was either a good conversation partner or just got lucky, but he suggested that if I bought the next round he'd stay for another half hour. Which of course I did.
So the conversation went on, we discussed about William Burroughs and his cut-up techniques and the manipulation of mental networks. At first glance there is no clear connection as to why we were discussing mental networks and connections to my essay. But on further evaluation I think it becomes quite evident. The reason, the subject came about was my explanation as to why I had made the connection between Web 2.0 and Carl Jung's theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious. John said that beyond each individuals connections more connections can be found. They might be true or false but connections nevertheless. The reinforcement of ideas, from conversation for example, create connections in the web of chaos. Everything is interrelated in some way or another. You're sitting at a pub and you if you strike up a conversation with a complete stranger you will find something, a person, an event, a hobby that connects the two. Compare it with an endless search on the Internet and you'll see that it is only a reflection of our own reality. One personal example would be when I first started listening to the band Tool, whose members were friends with Bill Hicks, hence me discovering the great man himself. It was from Tool that I had discovered one of my favourite artists Alex Grey. Through one of Tool's links I discovered "Spiral Eyes" a photography studio whose work I really admired only to find out that one of the two women in the company, married to the guitarist of Tool, has also been closely related (living in his basement) with Timothy Leary, and alongside others created one of the first public Internet website for Leary. I could go on for ages with these connections but I don't want to bore you.
So many people deny these connections, our conversation moved on. They claim these connections are mere coincidences and play no role whatsoever. Mainly because Sartre said so. We accept our social reality to the point of ignorance and blindness when everything points to something different, a more universal network of ideas and beliefs. What lies behind the scientific culture is that we have the same brain design. Therefore, these connections are there, and triggered by situations. Unlike Jung who supported that these archetypes of connections are pre-existing since primordial times. Robert Anton Wilson, took a leap from Sartre's belief that everything is meaningless in his book "the cosmic trigger". He supported that a belief system is nothing more but a map of the world, a model that should not be confused with objective reality. In conclusion, each individual looks at her own reality in a different matter/perception forms beliefs, that are still individual, and no man can relate his own belief to be the predominant view of reality. Yet the majority of people share a consensus that this is just how things are. Even the scientific world is filled with holes in their theories, unable to explain the vital questions, yet our new religion today is Science and the scientists our priests. Through them we find reassurance that there is nothing more to humanity than being born, eating, drinking, fucking, dying. We can barely begin to understand how civilizations like the ancient Egyptians and the Mayans could calculate planet distances and movements without todays equipment, we, the post industrial society believe we got it all figured out.
It was inevitable not to ask why Timothy Leary is not academic material. John made a startled look as he said "no,no,no". Was it because he was coined "the most dangerous man in America" by then president Nixon? I laughed as I asked. "Tim was the trickster archetype" he said. "His ideas are not understood now, and as Burroughs said maybe they will appreciate him in a 100 years time". Although an acclaimed psychologist at the start of his career, the academic community feared him, his colleagues 'disowned' him. Even though a great admirer of Marshall McLuhan and supporter of his ideas, Leary was still undermined by most, and some point even by his hippy fans. After his imprisonment and escape, Leary begun preaching about personal freedom and liberation through the use of the Internet and personal computers. Although looking up the term "interweb" on wikipedia will say it's a sarcastic expression for people who don't know much about the Internet, the term was coined before the word Internet in 1977 by Timothy Leary, along with other terms such as mind connect. As McLuhan's prophetic essays on media, Leary followed his footsteps, yet his ideologies and theories were shunned by academia, much like William Blake was at his time. Blake was viewed as an insane personality, obsessed with occultism, mysticism and magic. John told me he had an antagonist during his lifetime, I tried finding out his name, as he didn't remember, but failed to do so. Any input here is more than welcome. The story goes, John continued, that Blake was not accepted as an artist, while his antagonist at the time was making a lot of profit out of his paintings. Flashback to 2008 and you ask anyone about Blake and everyone knows him, ask about his antagonist, no-one ever heard of him. Evidently my research to find out more about him and its failure might be a strong argument.
Another example given by John was Alan Watts and Aldous Huxley. Both belonging to the refined, upper class of the time, considered up until now as great thinkers, philosophers, and well respected in the academic world. Both very well known for their psychedelic drug use. Makes sense? It didn't to me. It reminded me of a paragraph I was reading about, then argued in class about it, on how Walter Benjamin's drug taking was not our drug taking. Meaning, that it was alright for Benjamin to write his theories while being up in the clouds, whilst if I attempt the same thing will probably get thrown out of University. This dichotomy of academia is quite peculiar. It is almost like a work out of a conspiracy theory book. Huxley was known as a heavy user of mescaline, even on his death bed. Leary who preached about the correct use of L.S.D under guidance, preparation and so on, was considered as 'the most dangerous man in America'. Food for thought or merely planting a seed there.
John suggested I look up on the theory of 'idea-space' as a link to Web 2.0. It can be found in the comic book by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell "The disease of Language".
And with that we ended our conversation.
I tried to write the above in as much a comprehensible way as I could. Maybe that's a reason I delayed putting them down earlier; as I was taking time to put them in order in my head, while at the same time drowning my enthusiasm to be as objective as possible in a subject that I feel strongly opinionated. Well it was all good fun and we all had a jolly good laugh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
