recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : transmission   6

Thread by @ecomentario: "p.31 ecoed.wikispaces.com/file/view/C.+A… ecoed.wikispaces.com/file/view/C.+A… p.49 ecoed.wikispaces.com/file/view/C.+A… ecoed.wikispaces.co […]"
[on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ecomentario/status/1007269183317512192 ]

[many of the captures come from: "From A Pedagogy for Liberation to Liberation from Pedagogy" by Gustavo Esteva, Madhu S. Prakash, and Dana L. Stuchul, which is no longer available online as a standalone PDF (thus the UTexas broken link), but is inside the following document, also linked to in the thread.]

[“Rethinking Freire: Globalization and the Environmental Crisis" edited by C.A.Bowers and Frédérique Apffel-Marglin
https://ecoed.wikispaces.com/file/view/C.+A.+Bowers,+Frdrique+Apffel-Marglin,+Frederique+Apffel-Marglin,+Chet+A.+Bowers+Re-Thinking+Freire+Globalization+and+the+Environmental+Crisis+Sociocultural,+Political,+and+Historical+Studies+in+Educatio+2004.pdf ]
isabelrodíguez  paulofreire  ivanillich  wendellberry  subcomandantemarcos  gandhi  2018  gustavoesteva  madhuprakash  danastuchul  deschooling  colonialism  future  environment  sustainability  cabowers  frédériqueapffel-marglin  education  campesinos  bolivia  perú  pedagogyoftheoppressed  globalization  marinaarratia  power  authority  hierarchy  horizontality  socialjustice  justice  economics  society  community  cooperation  collaboration  politics  progress  growth  rural  urban  altruism  oppression  participation  marginality  marginalization  karlmarx  socialism  autonomy  local  slow  small  capitalism  consumerism  life  living  well-being  consumption  production  productivity  gustavoterán  indigeneity  work  labor  knowledge  experience  culture  joannamacy  spirituality  buddhism  entanglement  interdependence  interbeing  interexistence  philosophy  being  individualism  chiefseattle  lutherstandingbear  johngrim  ethics  morethanhuman  multispecies  humans  human  posthumnism  transhumanism  competition  marxism  liberation  simplicity  poverty  civilization  greed  p 
june 2018 by robertogreco
Pookleblinky on Twitter: "Here's a cool thing: most poetic devices in human culture are error-detecting codes."
"Here's a cool thing: most poetic devices in human culture are error-detecting codes.

Poetic meter, rhymes, alliteration, inflection in languages such as Latin, etc. All aided transmission as oral tradition.

From the Iliad to the Mahabharata, poetic devices and organization served to increase the fidelity over an awfully noisy channel

This structure works so well that it is possible to recreate how ancient Greek and Latin sounded, by examining their poetry.

It works so well that it's possible to recreate Shakespeare's accent, by examining his rhymes.

Most of these poetic devices, served to identify errors. You could easily tell if someone fudged a word, snuck in new lines.

Some served to correct errors. The poet has a brainfart, forgets which word is next, realizes only one synonym would fit there.

Redundancy is also a time-honored means of transmitting information through a noisy channel.

"40 days and 40 nights," multiple lazaruses, all the things that confuse and amuse modern people: they served a purpose.

Oral traditions offer a window into both information theory and human communication.

Each one reflects countless generations of trial-and-error honing of information theoretic techniques to maximize channel capacity.

People who had no clue what calculus was, who couldn't even read, figured out the hard way how to encode a message for minimal error.

People encoded their signals so robustly that they survived wars, famines, near exterminations

Some signals were encoded so well that only a handful of people were necessary for their transmission.

Oral traditions survived countless local apocalypses, due to robust encoding schemes evolved organically.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_chant

Look at how many levels of encoding went into the vedic oral tradition

Each syllable was robustly encoded multiple ways. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5Baq_SXUAEPm9D.jpg [https://twitter.com/pookleblinky/status/833265650940395520 ]

Each syllable was subject to both error detecting and error correcting codes, optimized for how humans process language.

Each syllable's transmission exploited multiple methods by which humans process language.

The result is an oral tradition that could transmit, virtually error-free, for longer than agriculture has existed."
language  culture  oraltradition  orality  poetry  meter  rhyme  rhyming  allitertion  transmission  poems  vedicchants  errordetection 
february 2017 by robertogreco
PICTURES - marclafia
"With these new works I want to re-imagine, reinvent time, to see it as a physical dimension, to create an object of the image, that doesn't obliterate it, but teases out its trajectories and brings it back from its overexposure in its continual transmission. Of course the image will never exhaust itself in its repetition but become so domesticated that all its initial charge is gone. How then to see these familiar pictures but to rework them and make them new again with other pictures.

With the use of perspective and lenses long before photography, western picture making, not unlike genres of movies were pretty stable. There were the genres of History, Landscape, Portraiture and Still Life. Picture and picture making was regulated by the church then academies and the discourse around them narrow. It was this controlled discourse, this decorum of the picture and its reception that artists worked against that created occasional shocks and outrage.

My first interest was in History paintings but over time it became the history of painting and with that the history of photography, and I suppose a history of image. I had always been taken by Manet's Execution of Maximilian and only learned at the outset of my project that what Manet had created and abandoned as a painting was also an event that was photographed. Manet's cool and dispassionate take on the event contrasted with Goya's painting Third of May and Goya was in conversation with Rubens and Rubens, Leonardo.

Pictures have often, if not always, been about and in conversation with other pictures. This led me to think of pictures in their many modes and many genres across time and to want to create conversations amongst and between them. I began to imagine new images, to see new things, new thoughts often times by simply placing one image on another, or layering images and cutting them out. These new pictures pointed to things sometimes difficult to discern but there was always a something.

Images in their traces, in their histories, carry forward their techniques, their textures, their surfaces and armatures, their politics. They enfold the world they come from and in conversation I imagined they could present new worlds.

Where images once were the preserve of national archives, ubiquitous digital transmission today is global and each of us has become our own archivists. As to what is, and is not in the archives, and there are a host of them, from a wide variety of transnational corporate search engines and social network services, that is something to discuss elsewhere.

To see these images, to sense their thoughts, we have to look at them with other images. we have to engage them in conversation, in the conversation of images.

All images and sounds are code. As code, they are fluid, viral, infectious, malleable, erasable, moving easily in and out of a wide variety of indifferent contexts.

My interest lies less in photographing reality, and instead focuses on portraying the realities of photography and imaging in the regime of the network, as the world is a network of relations and the network is both a camera and archive, an apparatus of image exchange and circulation.

I want to be clear that when I say picture it may be a mathematical formula, a musical score, a line of code, each of them is a picture. Our capacity to produce Pictures is our capacity to think outside and beyond the present, to go backwards and forwards in time."

[via: https://twitter.com/MrZiebarth/status/593488088183283712 ]
marclafia  networks  internet  archives  cameras  pictures  images  imagery  2015  present  past  atemporality  history  conversation  web  online  time  memory  transmission  paintings  code  fluidity  virality  flexibility  erasability  context  exchange  communication  remixing  remixculture  socialmedia  socialnetworking  socialnetworks  arthistory 
april 2015 by robertogreco
Oscillator | On Democratization
"In the early 1970’s, several Dutch universities created “science shops” (wetenschapswinkels) with the aim of democratizing science. The science shops connected public interest groups who had scientific questions with university students and researchers who could provide answers. Opening access to university research would help activist groups achieve their goals, and would also have an impact on the universities themselves. In an essay for the journal Science, Technology & Human Values, Joseph Wachelder writes about the more radical goals of the science shops early on:
The democratization of science in fact implied a general and even radical transformation of society. The aim was to reorient science toward the social needs of workers and disadvantaged groups and to fight the vested interest of the establishment and the so-called military-industrial complex. In those early days, the political Left pushed science shops as one means of transforming both science and society in radical ways. Unions, targeting issues such as occupational health, social security, and working conditions; environmentalists; patients’ groups; third-world activists; and, slightly later, women’s liberation groups considered themselves as partners in pursuit of a new and better society.
I read about the science shops for the first time over the holidays in Making Genes, Making Waves, Jon Beckwith’s autobiography about his research in molecular biology and his political activism. Given the current fad for “democratizing science” I was surprised that I’d never heard them mentioned before.


Indeed, today’s democratization looks a lot different from the democratization pushed by science shops and radical science movements of the 70s. Science for the People, an activist group of scientists and engineers founded in the early 1970s, organized against the misuse of science by military and corporate interests and advocated that science work for marginalized people rather than maintaining the status quo. A powerful symbol for the group was a fist raised in solidarity next to a hand holding a flask. Alice Bell notes in a recent article on activist science that, “The fist of solidarity stood in front of the chemist’s flask here, not simply used to hold science up high.”

[image]

Compare that with Science for the People, a Canadian radio program about science, which rebranded in 2013 from “Skeptically Speaking.” Their logo echoes the Science for the People cover image from 1970, but here the fist holds up a test tube—literally holding science up high. In a blog post about their rebrand, the producers discuss what “science for the people” means to them:
We’re about getting the word of something we love to people who might not hear about it anywhere else, in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, they’ll love it a little too. We’re about taking tough scientific concepts and teasing out what matters. We’re about taking the latest in scientific progress and relate it to people like our friends and our families, and our communities, and our society.


[image]

Telling people about your love for science is great, but as Bell notes (referring to the flask-toting fist on the cover of the Geek Manifesto), “Looking back at these earlier radicals, [it] seems to pale to a Che Guevara T-shirt in comparison.”

Other efforts seem similarly pale when you begin to examine their claims about democratization in light of what democratization meant to more political generations of scientists. Like the Science for the People radio program, many of these efforts are focused on the one-way transmission of science from the academy to the public, rather than a radical transformation of science itself to address public interests.

Open access publishing has made it easier to publish and read scientific articles, and is gradually (hopefully) chipping away at the tyranny of the impact factor in academic career advancement. These are worthy goals which I support whole-heartedly—I’ve published most of my papers in open access journals—but making papers open to download doesn’t necessarily make science democratic and open to everyone.

Likewise, recent efforts to get more people involved in scientific research have been branded “citizen science,” but unlike the science shops where the citizens dictated research directions, citizen science projects simply allow non-scientists to volunteer their time collecting or analyzing data for professional researchers. These projects can be great learning experiences, allowing non-scientists to get a better picture of the scientific process, as well as great research experiences, allowing scientists to explore topics that they couldn’t have done without the expanded team. But letting people do free work for you isn’t the same as doing work for people.

In synthetic biology, “democratization” has recently been used as a marketing ploy for companies that are selling DNA or DNA editing software. Cambrian Genomics and Genome Compiler both claim to “democratize creation,” an empty statement that helps drive press coverage and TED invitations in the crowded genetic engineering market. Both companies are selling slightly different, cheaper, or easier to use versions of things that have been sold to molecular biologists for decades, but claiming that their versions will suddenly make it possible for “anyone” to do genetic engineering. Making cheaper and more accessible laboratory tools is great, but it’s worth asking what else is necessary to truly make “creation” accessible (I’m not going to get into the differences between synthesizing DNA and “creating life” here, but suffice it to say that I don’t agree with that part of their phrasing either). There are many other tools, training, and above all a reason to do it that are all necessary in order to make a “creature.” It’s no surprise then that, according to SF Gate, Cambrian currently sells DNA primarily to biotech giants like Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and Thermo Fisher. If you don’t work to really democratize science, you’re just making cheaper tools for the people who already had access to them. (Also hype, lots of hype.)

[image]

The contemporary projects that seems most like the 70s Dutch science shops are today’s hackerspaces and community labs, where non-expert scientists can explore techno-scientific questions on their own time (and usually on their own dime). While there are a huge variety of projects and educational goals in these spaces, a particular kind of “hacker” has gone mainstream (and even received DARPA funding). Tinkering in a garage is now seen as the first step towards starting the next multibillion dollar Silicon Valley company. Hackerspaces can be the site of anti-establishment thinking, but they are also becoming part of the military-industrial complex.

None of these projects are necessarily bad. By and large, they all point towards a broader positive shift happening in the scientific community towards more transparency, accountability, diversity, and public involvement. But we shouldn’t let something as important as democratization become an empty label. We need to be critical of self-proclaimed democratizers—who is benefitting and who remains left out? Who is calling the shots and who is working for whom? Where does the money come from? How can we do science better?"
christinaagapakis  democratization  science  history  politics  1920s  netherlands  wetenschapswinkels  scienceshops  canada  scientificallyspeaking  transmission  citizenscience  scientificprocess  learning  education  accessibility  hackerspaces  communitylabs  labs  laboratories  darpa  tinkering  makerspaces 
january 2015 by robertogreco
Radio Re-Volt [at the Walker Art Center]
"If the broadcasting power of the most powerful radio station in the Twin Cities is 100,000 watts, we propose a network of microradio transmitters, which can cumulatively match this power. A movement should be set into motion in the spirit of de-centralization and diversity in ownership and programming of the radio waves. Radio Re-Volt! - Jennifer Allora & Guillermo Calzadilla

RADIO RE-VOLT: ONE PERSON .00ONE WATT

Radio Re-Volt
This project seeks to rethink the voltage (who has the power to transmit, who owns this power, how can this power be re-thought, re-formed, re-directed) in order to recover radio as a self-controlled tool and generate diversity in the ownership and programming of the radio waves.

Workshops
There will be a series of free radio workshops held throughout the Twin Cities led by different technicians (media activities, radio aficionados, etc.). Participants will receive and learn how to operate a one milliwatt transmitter and create a personal sculpture to house the electronic equipment The programming for each radio is to be determined by each radio owner-transmitter.

Radio Stations
Each radio transmitter has the potential to become a meeting station, a place for people within their one block (walking or bicycling distance) transmission range to meet and exchange ideas. These stations could generate a different type of community radio--a dialogue between the transmitters and the listeners, and, as a result, generate new identifications and community formations: block by block, house by house, person by person.

Mob-ile Power Stations
Hundreds of mini-FM radio stations can relay and transmit together through this radio network that will be formed throughout the Twin Cities.

Exercise your Communicative Rights: Transmit Now!"

[See also:
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/09/17_robertsc_radiorevolt/
http://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/10/65137 ]
activism  audio  radio  commons  2004  fmradio  jenniferallora  guillermocalzadilla  edg  radiore-volt  minneapolis  minnesota  broadcast  fcc  transmission  twincities  microradios  art 
january 2015 by robertogreco
Ekstasis: A Kind of Media
"An event is something you want to interact with. Events demand a certain level of participation, if only in the form of paying attention. Hooting and hollering or RTing and linking, certain situations take on a character of interactivity, for good or for ill. The gap between a mob and the crowd at a “happening” isn’t so vast. This isn’t bad, not necessarily. Instead, it’s just something we HAVE to be aware of. The “event,” online or elsewhere, is going to be a defining feature of the near future. It’s the next step in marketing and advertising, among other things and we won’t be able to escape it. “Passive” media of transmission are giving way to “active” media, that demand (at least) close attention be paid to them. This isn’t just about TV, or the internet, or sporting events, or whatever.

It’s about mediation and it’s everything.

“A crowd of people gathered together in public is a kind of media.”"
williamball  public  messaging  transmission  tv  television  alexismadrigal  photography  generativewebevent  experience  happenings  mediation  media  2011  events 
july 2012 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read