Jordan Crandall on Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:31:01 +0200 (MET DST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> the 'we' of nettime

For whom do the Declarations and Manifestos issued by nettime speak?  Is
it the voice of the nettime community itself? Or is it five people? 
Where do 'we' fit in when 'you' speak for 'us'?  This is something that
has troubled me since the Piran manifesto.  And since it is apparent
that there are more declarations and manifestoes in the works, and the
'Nettime Bible' will be made at the Workspace in September, it's
important for us to know.  

It's also important for us to understand why, in a networked discourse
form that is inclusive and multi-vocal, you should have such a need for
the doctrinal, print-based, univocal forms of the past (declaration,
manifesto, and Bible).  Is it because it is necessary in order to build
your idea of the 'movement' (the self-proclaimed 'nettime movement')?  

Are we to be disciples?

What if we disagree with this strategy?  If we post on nettime -- if we
feel a part of its voice (and granted I don't so much anymore) -- then
do we become part of the 'we' that comprises, by default, its
manifestos, at the service of agendas to which we are not privy?  

While I'm at it, here is another, related issue.  Why do you go to such
great lengths to encamp at art exhibitions while claiming that art is
not important?  Do you gain power by this kind of negation ('no art
beyond this point')?  A negation that helps to aestheticize your
#  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: and "info nettime" in the msg body
#  URL:  contact: