Hi Eduardo & all,

 >Whatever the reason, in Diwo, some members knew, based on the history of
e-mail lists, not just netbehaviour's, that some would choose to be passive
in a more traditional sense--because some members always are...

The subject of the lurker has been discussed many times on various 
lists. In respect of DIWO, I think that the choice to participate or not 
(or in between), is an important option that allows space for much 
substance that generates on its terms (organically) and that, it is an 
essential ingredient of any list and its culture, or for a project such 
as DIWO. To expect continual, mass involvement on a daily level on any 
list is pushing it and not realistic. Although, I must admit that I am 
personally impressed and encouraged by the amount, the ratio of 
involvement of participants on the Netbehaviour list.

I should also mention that the list has calmed down now and those who 
left because they could not cope  here with the overload, are 
re-registering as I speak.

The other thing is that this type of exhibition demanded a more personal 
and connected approach, not just to the participants but also to all 
those who use the list. We have always been interested in exploring 
processes that connect with others beyond mechanistic means, especially 
when working with technology.

It is not enough to let things be run by default alone. We realised long 
ago that there is more to this than just ideas, art and technology; it 
is as much about people. This means that we had to recognise that we are 
dealing with real stuff (humans) whether it be through email, in 
real-time online, or meeting in physical space. So trying to understand 
behaviour, psychology and social contexts in an intuitive way as well 
intellectually, has always been a strong factor in directing how we deal 
with and conceive certain projects, as well as our everyday experiences. 
This challenges us to re-evaluate our mannerist relationships and 
sometimes ignorant failings on relying technological determinism.
 
So the DIWO project also reflects the relationship between Furtherfield, 
the artists/subscribers on the Netbehaviour list. For us part of the 
art, from a curatorial position is about the negotiation with actual 
people and what comes out that. The process is most definately an 
essential aspect of this but it is also about what can be shared 
contextually and learned. The shared and focused voice of an online 
community and its art practice also needs more attention via discussion, 
perhaps another time..

marc

>Hello everyone,
>
>I've become a lurker lately.  Well, on this list I've always been one.  But
>I was much more active in other lists for many years.  Therefore I think I
>may be able to entertain the position of the lurker with some
>authority--though I'll definitely be brief with my comments to get back to
>my dark virtual corner, which I very much enjoy.
>
>One thing that strikes me about the concept of audience in an online
>collaboration that also finds its way into physical space, such as Diwo, is
>that while what Lauren points out is quite appealing to agree with: that the
>Hello everyone,
>
>I've become a lurker lately.  Well, on this list I've always been one.  But
>I was much more active in other lists for many years.  Therefore I think I
>may be able to entertain the position of the lurker with some
>authority--though I'll definitely be brief with my comments to get back to
>my dark virtual corner, which I very much enjoy.
>
>One thing that strikes me about the concept of audience in an online
>collaboration that also finds its way into physical space, such as Diwo, is
>that while what Lauren points out is quite appealing to agree with: that the
>people on the mailing list had the choice (or at least may have visited the
>possibility) that Brecht professed, such a thing can only be  possible if
>all the list members (including the lurkers) hold on to the idea of an
>audience in the traditional sense, to then become active when realizing that
>being an audience member is a choice on lists, either because they are
>fascinated by it, or because, like some lurkers, they may be indifferent to
>much of what happens on the list.
>
>Whatever the reason, in Diwo, some members knew, based on the history of
>e-mail lists, not just netbehaviour's, that some would choose to be passive
>in a more traditional sense--because some members always are... and when
>there may not be any actual lurkers (fat chance, I know), members will
>probably think some exist anyways because this is a vital part of e-mail
>lists.  Hence the idea of an audience in a traditional sense is quite vital
>to lists in general. Because someone must "listen" or read and when they
>don't, the sender sure will at least acknowledge the message s/he just sent
>when it goes back via the e-mail list, in this way s/he becomes a
>meta-audience, kind of like ouroboros. So lurkers are vital, real or
>imaginary.  This is specific and possible here because an essential factor
>of e-mail lists is that the exchange is all based on texts and attachments
>of graphics of course, no real eye contact is possible. Latency rules. You
>might be performing by yourself for all you know (receiving that e-mail
>back), but you will not know until much later, probably after you're done
>with your obsession.  This makes lurking in e-mails lists quite particular
>and specific, and needless to say, fascinating.  Perhaps a different type of
>Hello everyone,
>
>I've become a lurker lately.  Well, on this list I've always been one.  But
>I was much more active in other lists for many years.  Therefore I think I
>may be able to entertain the position of the lurker with some
>authority--though I'll definitely be brief with my comments to get back to
>my dark virtual corner, which I very much enjoy.
>
>One thing that strikes me about the concept of audience in an online
>collaboration that also finds its way into physical space, such as Diwo, is
>that while what Lauren points out is quite appealing to agree with: that the
>people on the mailing list had the choice (or at least may have visited the
>possibility) that Brecht professed, such a thing can only be  possible if
>all the list members (including the lurkers) hold on to the idea of an
>audience in the traditional sense, to then become active when realizing that
>being an audience member is a choice on lists, either because they are
>fascinated by it, or because, like some lurkers, they may be indifferent to
>much of what happens on the list.
>
>Whatever the reason, in Diwo, some members knew, based on the history of
>e-mail lists, not just netbehaviour's, that some would choose to be passive
>in a more traditional sense--because some members always are... and when
>there may not be any actual lurkers (fat chance, I know), members will
>probably think some exist anyways because this is a vital part of e-mail
>lists.  Hence the idea of an audience in a traditional sense is quite vital
>to lists in general. Because someone must "listen" or read and when they
>don't, the sender sure will at least acknowledge the message s/he just sent
>when it goes back via the e-mail list, in this way s/he becomes a
>meta-audience, kind of like ouroboros. So lurkers are vital, real or
>imaginary.  This is specific and possible here because an essential factor
>of e-mail lists is that the exchange is all based on texts and attachments
>of graphics of course, no real eye contact is possible. Latency rules. You
>might be performing by yourself for all you know (receiving that e-mail
>back), but you will not know until much later, probably after you're done
>with your obsession.  This makes lurking in e-mails lists quite particular
>and specific, and needless to say, fascinating.  Perhaps a different type of
>spectacle dependent on latency?
>
>What I find peculiar about Diwo is that all of a sudden the lurker became a
>much more important figure than usual.  I almost felt exposed, because I
>knew members were performing for me based on what I just explained.  The
>intensity that the postings  reached the first week worried me to the point
>that I considered leaving the list.  It reminded me of Syndicate, a list I
>left because I just could no longer take the SPAM.  But with Diwo it was
>quite different.  In the end I stayed, and I was glad I did.  Quite
>Hello everyone,
>
>I've become a lurker lately.  Well, on this list I've always been one.  But
>I was much more active in other lists for many years.  Therefore I think I
>may be able to entertain the position of the lurker with some
>authority--though I'll definitely be brief with my comments to get back to
>my dark virtual corner, which I very much enjoy.
>
>One thing that strikes me about the concept of audience in an online
>collaboration that also finds its way into physical space, such as Diwo, is
>that while what Lauren points out is quite appealing to agree with: that the
>people on the mailing list had the choice (or at least may have visited the
>possibility) that Brecht professed, such a thing can only be  possible if
>all the list members (including the lurkers) hold on to the idea of an
>audience in the traditional sense, to then become active when realizing that
>being an audience member is a choice on lists, either because they are
>fascinated by it, or because, like some lurkers, they may be indifferent to
>much of what happens on the list.
>
>Whatever the reason, in Diwo, some members knew, based on the history of
>e-mail lists, not just netbehaviour's, that some would choose to be passive
>in a more traditional sense--because some members always are... and when
>there may not be any actual lurkers (fat chance, I know), members will
>probably think some exist anyways because this is a vital part of e-mail
>lists.  Hence the idea of an audience in a traditional sense is quite vital
>to lists in general. Because someone must "listen" or read and when they
>don't, the sender sure will at least acknowledge the message s/he just sent
>when it goes back via the e-mail list, in this way s/he becomes a
>meta-audience, kind of like ouroboros. So lurkers are vital, real or
>imaginary.  This is specific and possible here because an essential factor
>of e-mail lists is that the exchange is all based on texts and attachments
>of graphics of course, no real eye contact is possible. Latency rules. You
>might be performing by yourself for all you know (receiving that e-mail
>back), but you will not know until much later, probably after you're done
>with your obsession.  This makes lurking in e-mails lists quite particular
>and specific, and needless to say, fascinating.  Perhaps a different type of
>spectacle dependent on latency?
>
>What I find peculiar about Diwo is that all of a sudden the lurker became a
>much more important figure than usual.  I almost felt exposed, because I
>knew members were performing for me based on what I just explained.  The
>intensity that the postings  reached the first week worried me to the point
>that I considered leaving the list.  It reminded me of Syndicate, a list I
>left because I just could no longer take the SPAM.  But with Diwo it was
>quite different.  In the end I stayed, and I was glad I did.  Quite
>interesting I will add, as the lurker (me) had to come out of hiding.  And
>here I am typing a few lines on a different list at that, before I go back
>to my little hole.
>
>As to what will happen in the future of Diwo, I will just hope that it does
>not become too self-aware of itself, leading to self-referentiality.  An
>inevitable tendency in all cultural endeavors as history takes hold.
>Very much enjoyed Diwo.
>
>Cheers.
>
>E.
>  
>
>On 3/5/07 2:08 PM, "Lauren A Wright" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>interesting I will add, as the lurker (me) had to come out of hiding.  And
>here I am typing a few lines on a different list at that, before I go back
>to my little hole.
>
>As to what will happen in the future of Diwo, I will just hope that it does
>not become too self-aware of itself, leading to self-referentiality.  An
>inevitable tendency in all cultural endeavors as history takes hold.
>Very much enjoyed Diwo.
>
>Cheers.
>
>E.
>  
>
>On 3/5/07 2:08 PM, "Lauren A Wright" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>spectacle dependent on latency?
>
>What I find peculiar about Diwo is that all of a sudden the lurker became a
>much more important figure than usual.  I almost felt exposed, because I
>knew members were performing for me based on what I just explained.  The
>intensity that the postings  reached the first week worried me to the point
>that I considered leaving the list.  It reminded me of Syndicate, a list I
>left because I just could no longer take the SPAM.  But with Diwo it was
>quite different.  In the end I stayed, and I was glad I did.  Quite
>interesting I will add, as the lurker (me) had to come out of hiding.  And
>here I am typing a few lines on a different list at that, before I go back
>to my little hole.
>
>As to what will happen in the future of Diwo, I will just hope that it does
>not become too self-aware of itself, leading to self-referentiality.  An
>inevitable tendency in all cultural endeavors as history takes hold.
>Very much enjoyed Diwo.
>
>Cheers.
>
>E.
>  
>
>On 3/5/07 2:08 PM, "Lauren A Wright" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>people on the mailing list had the choice (or at least may have visited the
>possibility) that Brecht professed, such a thing can only be  possible if
>all the list members (including the lurkers) hold on to the idea of an
>audience in the traditional sense, to then become active when realizing that
>being an audience member is a choice on lists, either because they are
>fascinated by it, or because, like some lurkers, they may be indifferent to
>much of what happens on the list.
>
>Whatever the reason, in Diwo, some members knew, based on the history of
>e-mail lists, not just netbehaviour's, that some would choose to be passive
>in a more traditional sense--because some members always are... and when
>there may not be any actual lurkers (fat chance, I know), members will
>probably think some exist anyways because this is a vital part of e-mail
>lists.  Hence the idea of an audience in a traditional sense is quite vital
>to lists in general. Because someone must "listen" or read and when they
>don't, the sender sure will at least acknowledge the message s/he just sent
>when it goes back via the e-mail list, in this way s/he becomes a
>meta-audience, kind of like ouroboros. So lurkers are vital, real or
>imaginary.  This is specific and possible here because an essential factor
>of e-mail lists is that the exchange is all based on texts and attachments
>of graphics of course, no real eye contact is possible. Latency rules. You
>might be performing by yourself for all you know (receiving that e-mail
>back), but you will not know until much later, probably after you're done
>with your obsession.  This makes lurking in e-mails lists quite particular
>and specific, and needless to say, fascinating.  Perhaps a different type of
>spectacle dependent on latency?
>
>What I find peculiar about Diwo is that all of a sudden the lurker became a
>much more important figure than usual.  I almost felt exposed, because I
>knew members were performing for me based on what I just explained.  The
>intensity that the postings  reached the first week worried me to the point
>that I considered leaving the list.  It reminded me of Syndicate, a list I
>left because I just could no longer take the SPAM.  But with Diwo it was
>quite different.  In the end I stayed, and I was glad I did.  Quite
>interesting I will add, as the lurker (me) had to come out of hiding.  And
>here I am typing a few lines on a different list at that, before I go back
>to my little hole.
>
>As to what will happen in the future of Diwo, I will just hope that it does
>not become too self-aware of itself, leading to self-referentiality.  An
>inevitable tendency in all cultural endeavors as history takes hold.
>Very much enjoyed Diwo.
>
>Cheers.
>
>E.
>  
>
>On 3/5/07 2:08 PM, "Lauren A Wright" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>  
>
>>But as Ruth raised, what difference does it make to the audience? Without
>>getting off the plot with too much theory, I'd like to mention in closing
>>something I read today while PhD'ing... Been reading Walter Benjamin on
>>Brecht... And he writes in "What is Epic Theatre?" of how Brecht's art form
>>encourages the "false and deceptive totality called 'audience'" to
>>disintegrate and for audience members to realign themselves according to
>>their interests in reality. I think that's what we're seeing here...
>>Brecht's theatre encourages a kind of participation on the part of the
>>audience where the relations between performers and audience are
>>reconfigured.. Certainly that's what this project (like so many other
>>genuinely participative practices) encourages, and the result is that the
>>unmoored audience establishes multiple kinds of new relations between
>>themselves and the "performance" or the collaborative project, in our case.
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>