PLENUM - notes by Marina Vishmidt

ACT 1
Whither net culture/media arts today
(People gather around 8 tables/microphones, the notetaker moves around randomly taking notes)

table 2:
sponsorship and arts funding:
Greenman: reliance on arts funding is too restrictive and inhibits 'raw expression', structures of funding start to shape artistic output
-doesn't believe there is such a thing as selling out, just creating value in different contexts Someone Else: most artists make unfunded work as part of their lives
Corrado: 1989, video art was first popularised and institutions and academy was slow to recognise it, same with media arts now; also question of attribution of labour in collectives
Someone Else 2: relates experience of early video art in clubs, the validating structure there was people's attention
CM: education misrepresents or marginalises tech-based art
SE2: artists are like science fictiion writers; we don't get it til much later
Someone Else 3: what is the distinction between 'interesting' and 'good' in evaluation
SE2: aboriginal cave paintings
SE1: modernism, futurism, all referred to cave paintings and other modes of the 'primitive'
SE1: mentions the 'high aesthetic standards' of cave paintings
SE2: inquires what constitutes 'high aesthetic standards' they just used the techniques that were available to them then, as we do now...advanced/primitive is a historically and culturally situated assessment
Greenman: compare duration of cave paintings to the duration of today's computers/computer art
CM: art is about communication, not technology
Greenman: attendance at NODE.London events is proving that people are starting to listen
SE2: is advertising the most sophisticated form of media art?
CM: what kinds of audiences are coming - is it expanding beyond the usual circle?
Michael: radio - who is listening - relative figures of online and on-air transmission
SE: radio is comforting
Greenman: but media arts isn't comforting
Michael talks a little bit about the logistics and limitations of pirate radio transmission, making programs without transmitters without being sure anyone is listening

table 4
Jonathan Kemp: institutional ecologies - how do we stop from coalescing into institutional rigidity - there is no homogeneity in the involvement
Malin: the question is about agenda, but we're not the ones who set the agenda - this is a false premise of participation
Leo: project such as NODE.London is problematic insofar as institutions participating in it get an alibi not to change
possible topics/questions:
-Inside/Outside Network Culture
-What are the Premises of Participation in Such Projects (participation would be useful to define)
-Does Network Culture work as institutional critique and if so, how?
JK asks Ilze about agenda - who defined it and how Ilze explains that it's related to nodel experiment, Plenum as an attempt to dissect network culture
JK says nodel is invisible to established artworld, there's about 500 people involved in nodel and this is the audience
not much publicity seems to have reached outside this circle, but this could also be a criticism of the groups involved as much as of nodel in general
-if nodel has failed to connect outwards and it constitutes a relatively closed system, is PLENUM a feedback mechanism aimed at optimising the closed system - a 'classical' feedback mechanism, a 'Norbert Wiener case scenario'
-finds level of abstraction in reaching an organisational principle problematic

Table 3
-if we don't maintain nodel, what happens to the momentum and the infrastructure
-Marc Garrett: there are a few possibilities for continuation; a 'positive blemish' on cultural landscape
Ruth Catlow: in London and internationally - "propagation" - it may not happen in London again or may not happen for a while but a lot of other countries and groups are interested in the nodel model - also, we've established an amazing infrastructure
SE3/MG: why is it only focused in one place - because that's how funding structures work - uses example of Rhizome as appropriator of cultural capital in a hierarchical structure, and that it's a US entity that only funds/promotes US talent, it's very 'colonial'
-nodel is like an open software package, it can be adapted and used; projects like Rhizome are claiming a territory and building a hierarchy
RC: London hasn't had a media arts festival before
Ana: yes, media culture is generally discussed/celebrated elsewhere
Keith Watson: nodel made things more visible
MG/RC: the circle's expanded
SE3: in an art that's based on comunication, there's been a communication breakdown
RC: is media arts looking for a different mode of existence distribution from both institutional art world and the creative industries
SE3: human propensity to network will always exist (social software) - emergent behaviours
MG: 'behaviour statements' rather than manifestos - behaviour statements are about how we relate rather than an ossified product. Manifestos are too mechanistic, while behaviour statements are fluid and generative
RC: if it e.g. nodel or similar is too emergent and open, it leaves itself vulnerable to opportunistic behaviour/exploitation
RC: a 'many-festo' takes care of the need to set collaborative goals in a pluralistic and fluid/inclusive fashion

Table 1
AM: it is useful for us to talk within a framework we have set ourselves w/o predetermined outcomes
2 people from Boundless, some discussion of Boundless
-language of discourse and the language of the work itself
-some discussion of open content licences
-language dictates activity

Act 2:
Marc asks why we're creating a hierarchy of points, from 5 to 3
SE3: instead of taking points out, we should take words out
PeteG: there is a paucity of communication in our networks - how much communication has gone on over the past 10 years, and how much constructive communication is going on now? (sceptical)
SE3: this is why a 'many-festo' would be useful
MG: we need to re-appropriate doing what we do, and part of that is writing things down
DG: constructive language of critique
Rob: if we ask questions in words, we should answer in actions
HN: we start to speak in an institutionalised languages, that's part of the idea of 'reclaiming the lexicon' as a means of communication that obviates that kind of standardisation and automation lady in hat and veil: about physical being part of the virtual - the difficulties that we're having is using language about the virtual in a physical space so a lot of misunderstandings arise - it's much easier to do this in a chatroom than have a dialogue with 'real people in a real room' - how can we make it a more 'human' exchange
-Ian: what does re-appropriation mean? the art language is alien to me- we should be drawing pictures
-RC: that would be the point of the 'many-festo' - a how-to
Greenman: we need to think about how to work in a network, how to get beyond the network, how it communicates with what's outside it
RC: nodel is so many different kinds of things - as to pictures rather than words, speech is what we have for our material tonight
MG calls PD people fascists for blocking out someone's words with noise or snippets of recently recorded speech from the room; speaks about working with local people e.g. 'real people', 'kids', introducing them to the tools and getting on with their own projects
PG: when Wireless London was set up, the idea of seed nodes was to disseminate info and support and access in their local areas - scale of london was a real problem - this prevents people from linking up - nodel is the 1st attempt to actually try to bridge all these gaps in a coherent way- art, learning and technology still not communicating in anything but an atomised way
RC: people try to understand media arts in terms of art (art world/market) or technology (creative industries) , these are forms of gatekeeping
melanie clifford: we are engaging in self-congratulatory behaviour if we vouch for our inclusive practices, media arts as more inclusive than art or creative industries but we are inevitably excluding
Leo: we have cultural capital and knowledge; forms of communication are forms of power, hence exclusion - we are not network culture, we are a subset of network society - we need to use our position, our relevant expertise to affect the distribution of power in society - how to make ourselves relevant
Ian: people will use technology for whatever they need to, but what we are missing is useful purposes for all the technology that's out there's
Nancy: sings Electric Dreams

*the three points*

Inside/Outside Network Culture
Reclaim the Lexicon
Real

PG: should there be dialogue between nodel and local government bodies/grassroots political groups
MG; says how much he hates ars electronica and all such centralised, 'crufts showroom' scenarios, rather than deconstructing nodel we could think of ways to make it more interesting, as it's already an unprecedented model
GiniS: people are put off by the discourse of nodel, if we want to communicate beyond the circles we need to be a lot more reflexive about our use of language

Topics:
Relevance - presence
Lexicon - inclusion/exclusion
Real-play
Infrastructures

Ian: if you build it it will come - Internet is not information, it is communication - information is something that can be proprietised and sold - how many people here know what DRM means - intellectual property is theft
MG: maybe 'relevance' can be eliminated , because it's embedded in a lot of other points
-relevance has been eliminated

-real
-infrastructure
-inclusion/exclusion -linguistics

Act 3
multilingual-lexicon-relevance-inclusivity/exclusivity

real-infrastructure-community wireless - intellectual property

real-play-methodology-art extending into everyday life

Mic-Play
Ian vs Maria
Ian: how do we find a new language
an example of transcending language: making badges (very meditative) badges as communication - a blank badge initiated a conversation
girl: if you are using language, how are you transcending language - we need to acknowledge the ruptures ian and girl start making noises into the mics
maria: not just about language and linguistics, but about power, domination, inclusion and exclusion
ian: language is just a convention, it prevents us from dealing with things on a real level (meanwhile a woman attacks the punching bag)

ilze: the question of infrastructure?
james: we've been working with available components and illustrating models that others can adopt, building local wireless networks at very low cost in opposition to commercial infrastructures ian: we are nothing but our experiences and the stories we tell each other; using a computer should be frustrating, when things are frustrating, that means something is going right - frustration is a necessary part of the learning curve - anything worth doing is difficult - it's not a failure to find things difficult - we teach people easy things because we're afraid of failing as teachers, but we shouldn't be altogether confident of what we're teaching

*new topic* education
ian: outcomes - measuring changes the experiment - Heisenberg effect – the issue of intent in what we're doing - if you're enthusiastic, people will get it
greenman: infrastructures should be as much swings and slides as bricks
ian: we need *antagonism in our environment, it fosters creativity* - we need to build not just oppose

*funding*
Armin: is nodel representing media arts in london
James: it's a genuine attempt
AM: where is it going to lead
JS: more confusion and experimentation hopefully, a sustainable infrastucture
AM: 'sustainable' is a problematic word, redolent of governmentality
JS: developers are not remunerated enough
Ian: money for geeks? artists is such a malleable category, geeks and artists can be interchangeable in certain contexts
MG: the notion of an artist is so 20th century, media arts has broken that barrier, and has fostered new forms of collaboration

next point: the Real and poetry, play, methodologies
a fight over the mic near;y breaks out between ian and david goldenberg
greenman emphasises the importance of uselessness and suggests a nap
ian takes over the mic and challenges all the wankers to state their opinions and not be passive spectators lauren and ian have a debate about selling and experience
lw: aesthetic encounter opens larger realms of experiences
girl asks ian to step off the mic so she and lauren can have a conversation

At the end of Act 3, the board looks like this:

1/engagement - Multilingual Lexicon - inclusivity/exclusivity - relevance -Language that people can understand - manifesto about WHAT

2/Real Infrastructure
-concrete skills vs vague wank about network culture eg setting up wireless nodes - education: great things are difficult - intention - *antagonism fosters creativity - 'sustainability' is a buzzword

3/Why don't I feel poetic then? Is this conservative?
Real - Poetry - Play -Methodologies - extended role of art in daily life . . . nonsense is important

Act Four: De-representation By All Means (Necessary)
girl sums up: we are very fragile about our positions, if we were confident we wouldn't be here - if we continue to feel fragile, we obtain security through lack of commitment
ian: security is an illusion ... not only should we feel fragile, but we have to encourage fragility, it is only in situations where we feel fragile that we question ourselves and learn
girl: shall we all go to bed?
proceeds to demonstrate a dance
girl is voted out, runs out the door
Ian: if I was representative, people would be joining in ..I can't talk on your behalf because I don't know who you are - asking me to sum up is a cop-out
language isn't a thing, it's the idea of a thing...we need to get really excited about media art, or anything we are involved in (instead of wondering about marginality and inclusion?)
Greenman: we now have an established media arts infrastructure as a result of Nodel...you have to laugh at what you do, it's easy to take things too seriously
*eruption of satanic laughter*

-someone disputes the utility of summarising - summarising succinctly closes things down rather than opening them up to people outside - 'too wide' = too vague
there's some hegel talk
girl disconnects the machines
pd switches back on and turns it up to 11
nancy asks if anyone would like to elaborate on the 'nonsense is important' strand on the whiteboard
greenman: discoveries made at random, mistakes are important - armin proposes him as spokesperson
rob requests the pd people to come into the circle and explain what they've been doing, how they've been controlling and manipulating us
rob: criticises the spokesperson idea as representative democracy
we end the session w/o a representative and plenty of pd goodness, Rob freestyles
greenman, rob and another guy all do manly chants into the mics
Rob reads endlessly from How to Disappear

Post Match Analysis
-antagonism fosters creativity: yes or no? -
-exhibits: pd incursions and eruptions/conceptualisation and language of PLENUM/striking positions and clashing discourses - the field of antagonism: selection, narrowing down, elimination
-tortured fun/ding
-antagonism between collaboration/networking and staking a position or location in the network - wariness about deploying too many generalities to describe practice, hence wariness of the network culture terminology and drive to delineate an inside/outside that becomes a matter of semantics
-wariness about being pinned down/contained (in a referent such as media arts) and getting lost in an overly amorphous or structureless environment - hence wish to distinguish media arts from artworld and creative industries
-the role of duration and formal rigor in orchestrating friction/production, constraint and arbitrariness, the ramifications of a system, thematised and implicit, discursive and somatic