On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Rob Myers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> But however tempting it may be to see them as such and to *study* them
> as such, mailing lists are an incomplete record. Off-list email
> communications could become significant conversations. And people did
> meet up in meatspace occasionally (not just at the historic net.art(TM)
> events) where they gossiped about pseudonymous trolls' real identities...
>
>
They still do;)
[On another more tangential - and less conversationally linear - note: I'm
fighting a reluctance to delve into expanded recollection(s) regarding the
so-termed "net.art" period. I suspect this is due to the overall thematic
directions of the discussions thus far (more emphasis on deliciously
interesting contextualisations/historicisings) and being mindful of not
presenting "flamewar" bait (remember when it was called that instead of
"trolling"?) regarding the actual artistic nature/output of certain
entities or collectives operating at that time. I do, however, find certain
academically loaded documentation that's being highlighted here as
representative a type of neutral playback of the period partially
problematic, and highly skewed. This type of sanctioned retelling carefully
omits any expressive value of the performative material produced, and
interventions occurring, on certain mailing-lists during (especially but
not limited to) the 1994 - 2001 period.
I'm also somewhat perplexed by the labelling of uncategorised creative
actions as "trolling" (via the Luther Blissett/NN Facebook thread). There
seems to be a developing contemporary need to assign any type of activity
that leaks outside of traditional, institutionalised borders as "trolling"
(ie power-loaded endeavours intent on terrorising others). As I've said
previously<http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/10/27/the-problems-with-anonymous-trolls-and-accountability-in-the-digital-age>,
this highly negative labelling of actions that don't clearly fall into
established categorisations seems puzzlingly reductionistic: *"There are
those that think the act of trolling may also operate at a far more
innocuous level, originating from those with more positive intentions or
altruistic motivations. This troll version is termed the constructive
troll. The constructive troll advocates social change through exposing
establishments, organisations and individuals they view as corrupt,
deceptive, or criminal. Constructive trolling differs from negative
trolling through its lack of malevolence (think: Devil’s advocates or
whistleblowers) with a deliberately funny, or cheeky, emphasis.
Constructive trolls may seek to bring attention to issues like the
suppression of freedom of information laws, covert censorship, or
hypocrisies evidenced at a heavily-institutionalised level (think:
Wikileaks or the Occupy movement)."*
And don't even get me started on image boards (4chan, /b board
relevancies)...]
Chunks,
Mez
--
| facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign>
| twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze
|