Install this theme
I’m not for everyone. I’m barely for me.
Marc Maron (via nyu-tah)
Yet a memory cannot be trusted, for so much of the experience of the past is determined by the experience of the present.
Jamaica Kincaid, The Autobiography of My Mother (via hoomanao)
Dont you think dreams and the Internet are similar? They are both areas where the repressed conscious mind vents.
Yasutaka Tsutsui, Paprika (via quotes-shape-us)
2014_1_4_58_15_24877 (by the pain of fleeting joy)

2014_1_4_58_15_24877 (by the pain of fleeting joy)

It’s my contention that because complexity-based network models have been mostly ignored, the arts and humanities have produced rather poor analyses when it comes to the Internet, the Web, and networks in general. For example, the rhizome is a simple plant root system that succeeds primarily in the reproduction and distribution of plant life. But the rhizome, at least as a meaningful symbol for the power of networks, is something of a myth. Many or most interesting networks, including the Internet and Web, are not rhizome-like.

The power of the rhizome as a metaphor is probably due to its use by Deleuze and Guattari. It is also, not coincidently, the name of a web-based arts organization. The rhizome is typically suggested as the alternative to hierarchical networks, i.e. tree- or star- structured networks. The rhizome is presented as a network where all nodes are radically equal. But this is a false binary choice.

More typical is a third type of network where, while there are typically multiple paths to any given node, some nodes are more popular and well connected with higher bandwidth than others. These ‘scale free networks,’ where some nodes are more equal than others, can be created through a process called preferential attachment. The driving principle is that the more links a given node has, the more likely it is to collect additional links in the future. As in a chaotic system, slight differences in initial connections can result in radically different networks. This mechanism isn’t merely theoretical or mathematical. For example Google presents nodes in search results based in part on the count of incoming links. This leads to some nodes being found first in searches. And that leads to the increased probability of those nodes gaining new links.

Nevertheless, it was the performative nature and sociality of the network, despite its loose ties, that participants emphasized. What these younger artists seemed to be gesturing toward was a differently imagined frame or apparatus that situated and underwrote their art, that redistributed emphasis away from rigid institutional and ideological categories toward a more loose, intimate framing. Familiarity replaced the sense of revelation that had previously accompanied awareness of the complex apparatus that framed and underwrote the work of art. The idea of “unmasking” art’s institutional conditions and supports was replaced by something closer to the more recent idea of “radical transparency” (a phrase popularized by Wired’s Clive Thompson, who explains, “Your customers are going to poke around in your business anyway, and your workers are going to blab about internal info—so why not make it work for you by turning everyone into a partner in the process and inviting them to do so?”). 12 Suddenly the artworld’s operations, its institutions, exhibitions, publicity, marketing and commodification, all were treated in a nonchalant and conversational way; they were no longer made models or examples out of but rather lived and breathed on a mundane, daily basis. They became the very means of increased communication.