Lead Award Gold für CARTA

post 111016

In der Kategorie Online wurde der Blog Carta gestern in Hamburg von der Lead Academy als „Independent des Jahres” ausgezeichnet.

“Gold erhält eine Denk- und Analyseplattform, die manche schon vor dem Aus gesehen haben, die ein unglaubliches Comeback hingelegt hat und die für den politischen und intellektuellen Diskurs in Deutschland Großes leistet.“

Als Mit-Herausgeber, Autor und Verfasser des carta_blinkers freut mich das sehr!
Carta Blinker

5.6. – Geld im ÖRRundfunk – Hamburg

lecture 040614

“Vorschlag für die Verteilung der Gelder im ÖR-Rundfunk” Kurzvortrag “Vorfschlag zur Verteilung der Panel beim Internationalen Kurzfilmfestival in Hamburg, 13-15h, mit Dietrich Kuhlbrodt, Remote Control, Stefan Heidenreich, Robert Bramkamp …

9.10. Media Materialism and the Logic of Links

lecture 170913

Lecture at the Conference Media after Kittler , London

Interview bei der re:publica

interview 140513

Video bei dctp

Why did (German) Media Theory miss the Web?

unfinished 141011

Back in the times, when (German) media theory was first brought up, major topics discussed included simulation, virtual worlds, and media history (forever!). In the mid 80s, Friedrich Kittler was one of the first to sample McLuhan and Foucault and to turn from philology to media studies. At that time, there was no WWW. 10 years later, media studies had been well established within the German academic field. And the web also was well under way at that time. But it was never considered a serious topic within German media theory.
Then the experimental phase ended quickly, and most of the followers turned back to the history of media, as their academic socialisation required.
Was that all the reason to miss the net? Or is there an inherent obstacle, that prevented German media theory from tackling urgent questions ahead? Or was it a mere misconception of technologies’ future? Or, are we about to repeat the same mistake: in focussing on the web, missing again the future questions?

Media are ontogenetic machines. To put it simply, they are operative things that produce and assemble and reproduce things, including themselves.And what is most surprising about media, and what distinguishes them from pure tools, is that they themselves know all of this.

writes Lorenz Engell,so maybe it was the theorists’ fault not to listen carefully enough to their ontological statements. But shouldn’t theory be able to cope with exactly this issue?

Matteo Pasquinelli: Network Surplus Value

reading 121011

Machinic Capitalism and Network Surplus Value: Towards a Political Economy of the Turing Machine reads the full title of an essay that Matteo Pasquinelli put online as pdf.
We had long debates and I have my doubts about Marx’ concept of value in general (which to me looks like a smokescreen to introduce and hide a moral argument, which turns into an accusation by adding the word “surplus”). Anyway, Matteo’s paper gives an excellent introduction to the various attempts to translate the web-economy into Marxist terms (in my view, a futile undertaking, but however – well explained here).

It is time to move from the white cube of digital creativity and dig deep into the black box of network surplus value and the algorithms designed for the capture of the common.

No doubt, but I wonder if the marxist black and white scheme of exploiters and exploited, of capture and surplus is not simplifying things a bit too much.