Response to Anna: Nick Knouf, MAICgregator
Goto page Previous  1, 2
-empyre- Forum Index -> -empyre-
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Murat Nemet-Nejat
PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:34 pm    Post subject: Response to Anna: Nick Knouf, MAICgregator

"...creation of networks, or, as they are called in the internet world, communities of consumers, who coproduce innovation, diversification, and identification with the brand, on the basis of open source’ (from the Violence of Financial Capitalism, p. 56).

Marazzi takes this further to suggest that it is  ‘living-labour’ (by which he means work covering all forms of life including working as and in leisure, sleep time, life administration etc AND all the services required to keep this living labour alive such as the health and education industries) that sustains the ‘innovation’ necessary for financial capital to deliver value for its shareholders. (this is a very reduced version of a complex argument!). Financialisation creates value (since it has no other mode of productivity) byparasitising on the creativity of living labour (which it also co-produces)..."


Hi Anna, unless I misunderstand what he is saying, Marazzi has it backwards. In the Google model, the only thing Google produces is eyeballs. In other words, from the financial angle, we the users are not the consumers but the product. Google monetizes itself by selling use to the advertizers. It appears to me that is the scariest part of the net. We are complicit in our becoming pure data. Perhaps the situation is clearer in social media like Facebook, but it is equally true with Google.

"parasitising on the creativity of living labour"
The living labor that is being parasitized is ourselves.


In the net, is there  any "innovation" any more that is more than a "condition reflex" ruse to increase our participation in this vicious cycle of production?


Ciao,

Murat
Back to top
Craig Saper
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:03 am    Post subject: Response to Anna: Nick Knouf, MAICgregator

Hi Anna,

Yes, my question was based on Christiane’s note that "it does depend on how you define ‘finance’” — and eToy is an excellent example since it concerns finance but also institution building. And, the latter also includes works that seem to resist finance-capital like Thomas Hirschhorn’s Gramsci Monument — built and run by a network of residents — including a computer room and radio station.

Finance is always taught in the context of management — and to those in the so-called “finance world” they are at least in their non-cynical mode using finance capital to build capitalist structures (factories, office buildings, machines, transportation systems, information systems, managing eyeballs and systems and networks, etc.)

So, Finance is imbricated upon (at least the charade) of building and managing vast networks.

And, my question is who is working in that area of net-art … who thinks of their work as “finance” (maybe like Bogg’s Bills) and who thinks of “finance” in their net-art projects as part of institution building like eToy?
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
-empyre- Forum Index -> -empyre- All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous  1, 2


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group; Theme adapted from Minimalistic 1.03 by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum