Thanks, Jon, Alex, et al for assigning Tag to the forum. Not so much in as for the installation itself, but for the questions that it asks.
Tag sets up a series of social metrics based on criteria assigned by the Tag team (I assume). From this, one can assume that the levels of hipness, ponderousness, heat, or namedropping, etc is therefore defined by the paradigm of Tag, and thus the conversation has been framed by the program, at least in part. Are we to believe that Tag has any credibility in regards to what the participants believe these metrics to represent? As much as the community gives it. That is, it will be credible if we wish to complete the social contract and go along with the game, which I will later in this message.
In regards to credibility of Tag's metrics in regard to hipness, namedropping, heat, etc., I like to consider the relationship between street cred and institutional cred, which has a tendency to run inversely to the other. There are rare cases in which there are both, such as Kim Gordon and Sonic Youth, but that's a mighty hard road to go.
The immense irony that is not lost on me is that of two of the three members of Tag, two are linked to powerful institutions. It makes me wonder what the boundaries are between the bohemian, 'hip' and elite? It's quite curious.
I say this quite satirically that I find it funny that highly networked institutional figures are defining 'hipness' 'namedropping', and so on. But that returns me to whether someone in an underground movement can retain their street cred through institutional legitimation. What I am saying is not an indictment; it's an honest question. It's something that I consider s great deal now that I skirt the institutional and underground hinterlands.
Can one keep their street cred while advancing in their career path, or must one maintain the punk disdain of Lydia Lunch towards institutional powers? To be credible on the street, must one remain underground? Would someone like Mark Tribe be held as credible if he were out on the weekends tagging subway cars? Sort of like harley-riding CEO's going to Stugress? Could Bill Gates go to Burning Man?
Following from this, and mind you, I look at the metrics witht he circumspection and irony that they deserve and undoubtedly inspire, can Tag be looked at as a form of community cooptation, a definer of social norms, a complex play witht he sociology of credibility, or otherwise?
It's really a curious thing.
Now, time for name dropping:
Alex Galloway, Mark tribe, Mark River, Christiane Paul, Timothy Drukrey, Jon Ippolito, Keith Frank, Jeremy Turner, Donna Cox, Jack Ox, Chicken Pox, Peter Weibel, Roy Ascott, Peter Anders, Leigh Clemons, Milo Fisher, Bozo the Clown, CTHEORY, Arthur and Marilouise Kroker, Critical Art Ensembele, Holly Hughes, Larry Miller, Rene Broussard, Cory Arcangel, Chiaki Watanabe, and Skippy the Wonder Roach.
Of course, this deconstruction of the discursive parameters of the metastructural constraints of tag only serve to make visible and problematize the ironic social contracts which it inscribes upon the subject, therefore reconfiguring the cultural matrix in which is locates itself.
There, let's see what TAHT does…
Best,
Patrick Lichty,
Editor in Chief,
Intelligent Agent Magazine,
<A Href="http://www.intelligentagent.com" target="_blank">http://www.intelligentagent.com</A>
Social metrics, cooptation, and cred.
-
Type: discussion
Comments
From Jeremy Turner:
I must say Patrick that I am flattered that you
used my name as a name-drop ;-D
So in gratitude and in the name of "TAG", I am
offering to donate you +5 Karmic Hit Points
towards your constitution (remember D&D?) from my
already floundering hipness cache. Don't worry
about the weight, it is only digital karma. No
one will accept such a donation in 20 years when
one individual can dump a sack of karmic baggage
on another - even when the intentions are
(over)noble.
In terms of academic or street cred, what you
raised was a very important question…
Is the hipness scale based upon the hipness level
of its creators? And if so, is it good (digital)
karma for the artist(s) to set the standards for
hipness in a closed-system of one's own creation?
I can see a parallel in all the various avatar
worlds I have encountered where the creators of
each Avatar Domain automatically get virtual
"street cred" (and often - "academic cred") for
setting up the protocols of hipness that all
Avatar citizens in the creator's world must
follow.
I love projects like "Tag" - I wish I created it.
I also wish I could safely namedrop Jon Ippolito.
I'm a fan of the Variable Media Initiative and
now, this "Tag project".
If I was directly involved in the creation of the
criteria that initially pre-determined what
constitutes "hipness", my ratings would not be so
low as they are right now ;-D
I hope everyone's entry will be tagged when it
comes time to edit this down for the print
publication. Uh oh, does this mean that the
editors will only pick the forum entries that are
high on the hipness scale but low in jargon?
Ha ha (oh wait, maybe I am supposed to not laugh
and keep the entries formal enough so I can get
guaranteed a hip rating and get my self-serving
rants into the book version).
My new questions are:
1) Is the use of brackets hip? (It is my crutch)
2) Is it hip or unhip to be self-absorbed these
days?
–which leads to my next questions–
3) Now that we are distributing our creativity
in networked environments, is it fair to say that
my head is swelling with bad karmic engrams?
4) If I suck up enough to the creators of "TAG",
will my hipness ratings magically increase?
From Patrick, quoting Jeremy:
1) Is the use of brackets hip? (It is my crutch)
Not really, at the height of Postmodernism, placing things in 'quotes' was hip. I do this a bit, but I don't do it for hipmness; I do it for emphasis.
2) Is it hip or unhip to be self-absorbed these
days?
To put it back to the community frame, I'd look at it as to whether it's cooler to be part of a community or being allof and caught up in your little artist's world (aka self-absorption).
I woudl say that it is probably cooler to be self-absorbed, but from my vantage point, I find people in this mode of thinking terribly boring, and usually worth about three hours of my time (total, thoughout life).
This is not to say that everyone is not deservingof compassion and attention, it's just that to the self-absorbed, the only one who matters is them, so you're just decoration.
But my take is that being less self-absorbed is more rewarding, satisfying, and fun. More openness leaves greater opportunities for growth and benevolence. This si why I have loved being part of groups like the lonline lists for so long, as I have a good group of (most of them, at least) open, innovative colleages.