Now consider THIS: http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/images/fbfiles/files/Just_Another_Emperor.pdf
There is great movement in the non-profit sector to reformulate their business practices (also grantmaking practices) to more closely resemble the for-profit sector, resulting in Philanthrocapitalism.
To further explain what I'm getting at... Zuckerberg is applying capitalist models to spread the ethos of the hacker culture. Non-Profits are applying capitalist models to spread the philanthropic culture. BUT, can this be done without tainting the culture that we are trying to spread?
I think Mr. Mark is trying to co-opt the term "hacker" here and redefine it, at least as I understand it. The big difference between what makes someone a "hacker" vs. a "motivated/innovative employee" (which i'd say it what he's describing), even though they may physically be performing similar actions, is their motivation intent behind doing it. It's hacking when it's done for fun, or an intellectual exercise, or in some cases vandalistic intent, but when you're doing it b/c you're paid and told to, then it's your job. It's nice that they've created a corporate culture that encourages innovation and experimentation, but it is still just that - a corporate culture. He can say that it's "not about the money", but I find it hard to believe they still be doing it without it. I guess when you have that much cash, you have the lxury of making that kind of diffcult to dsiprove claim.
So, you don't think Mr. Mark aims to hire employees that would be doing the same thing whether or not they were paid for it? Throughout the IPO it seems that he is making a case for non-top-down approaches to management, trusting the "tinkerer" nature of his employees.
I'd like you to define Cyborgs a little further. I am taking it to mean people who are highly digitally connected, and Cyborg Culture, therefore, the aggregate commonalities among them - the common traits and characteristics of how they utilize the technology. Please expound or correct me if this is not what you mean.
"Post Capitalist"? Gee, and I've been wondering whether the theorists of "late capitalism" were still holding their breath. I don't see capitalism going anywhere anytime soon. Certainly not in social media. I mean, MZ can say what he will, but an IPO is an IPO; it's textbook capital accumulation. More to the point, what is "post" or "late" or even "aint" capitalist about "visual art in its entirety"?
Maybe you could explore what you see happening at the intersection of the market and the visual arts, to carve out more clearly a niche within which cyborg culture might more compellingly be explored as a post-capitalist enterprise. Maybe it's a type of cyborg culture--one out of several--that is at work/play here; maybe post-capitalism is not a destination but a trajectory; maybe....
I completely agree, that post-capitalism is not destination, but a trajectory. Furthermore, I'm not sure that capitalism is going anywhere either! In fact, I think that we are viewing a re-ordering/evolution of capitalism, that may even (arguably) be a retrospective shift.
I included the Facebook IPO, and specifically Zuckerberg's letter here because I feel there seems to be a palpable dichotomy between the act of the IPO and the culture he is trying to describe. Which (I think) does start to define that niche where cyborg culture is a post-capitalist enterprise. While acting within the accepted capitalist structure, Zuckerberg is proposing a way of thinking wherein the priority is not profit, but exploration. It is (has become) acceptable within the art community to think in this way, and yet I think that we (the art community) have neglected to see this thinking as (perhaps) definitive of The Artist, as (s)he is defined in the post-conceptualist, contemporary art context. By shifting our focus away from the terms "art" or "artist" (which are practically impossible to define anyway), and shifting it towards an idea of a certain culture (cyborg) that the majority of the population is actually a part of, we can explore how these shifting priorities are affecting culture in a broader sense - thus, visual art. (At least that's what I think, I think).
To further my point see this article from Wired: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2012/03/ff_facebookipo/all/1 Removing the pressure of modern capitalism can foster innovation, and creative practice. Perhaps its a retreat to the "better mousetrap" position, but capitalism today is certainly not driven by the "better mousetrap" model.
Now consider THIS: http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/images/fbfiles/files/Just_Another_Emperor.pdf
ReplyDeleteThere is great movement in the non-profit sector to reformulate their business practices (also grantmaking practices) to more closely resemble the for-profit sector, resulting in Philanthrocapitalism.
To further explain what I'm getting at... Zuckerberg is applying capitalist models to spread the ethos of the hacker culture. Non-Profits are applying capitalist models to spread the philanthropic culture. BUT, can this be done without tainting the culture that we are trying to spread?
DeleteI think Mr. Mark is trying to co-opt the term "hacker" here and redefine it, at least as I understand it. The big difference between what makes someone a "hacker" vs. a "motivated/innovative employee" (which i'd say it what he's describing), even though they may physically be performing similar actions, is their motivation intent behind doing it. It's hacking when it's done for fun, or an intellectual exercise, or in some cases vandalistic intent, but when you're doing it b/c you're paid and told to, then it's your job. It's nice that they've created a corporate culture that encourages innovation and experimentation, but it is still just that - a corporate culture. He can say that it's "not about the money", but I find it hard to believe they still be doing it without it. I guess when you have that much cash, you have the lxury of making that kind of diffcult to dsiprove claim.
ReplyDeleteSo, you don't think Mr. Mark aims to hire employees that would be doing the same thing whether or not they were paid for it? Throughout the IPO it seems that he is making a case for non-top-down approaches to management, trusting the "tinkerer" nature of his employees.
Deleteooh, i made a lt of typos - can you add an edit function?
ReplyDeleteI'd like you to define Cyborgs a little further. I am taking it to mean people who are highly digitally connected, and Cyborg Culture, therefore, the aggregate commonalities among them - the common traits and characteristics of how they utilize the technology. Please expound or correct me if this is not what you mean.
ReplyDeleteSee part II - Towards a Networked Paradigm, Cyborg Defined. The problem of comments as produced; this is just the intro after all. :D
Delete"Post Capitalist"? Gee, and I've been wondering whether the theorists of "late capitalism" were still holding their breath. I don't see capitalism going anywhere anytime soon. Certainly not in social media. I mean, MZ can say what he will, but an IPO is an IPO; it's textbook capital accumulation. More to the point, what is "post" or "late" or even "aint" capitalist about "visual art in its entirety"?
ReplyDeleteMaybe you could explore what you see happening at the intersection of the market and the visual arts, to carve out more clearly a niche within which cyborg culture might more compellingly be explored as a post-capitalist enterprise. Maybe it's a type of cyborg culture--one out of several--that is at work/play here; maybe post-capitalism is not a destination but a trajectory; maybe....
I completely agree, that post-capitalism is not destination, but a trajectory. Furthermore, I'm not sure that capitalism is going anywhere either! In fact, I think that we are viewing a re-ordering/evolution of capitalism, that may even (arguably) be a retrospective shift.
DeleteI included the Facebook IPO, and specifically Zuckerberg's letter here because I feel there seems to be a palpable dichotomy between the act of the IPO and the culture he is trying to describe. Which (I think) does start to define that niche where cyborg culture is a post-capitalist enterprise. While acting within the accepted capitalist structure, Zuckerberg is proposing a way of thinking wherein the priority is not profit, but exploration. It is (has become) acceptable within the art community to think in this way, and yet I think that we (the art community) have neglected to see this thinking as (perhaps) definitive of The Artist, as (s)he is defined in the post-conceptualist, contemporary art context. By shifting our focus away from the terms "art" or "artist" (which are practically impossible to define anyway), and shifting it towards an idea of a certain culture (cyborg) that the majority of the population is actually a part of, we can explore how these shifting priorities are affecting culture in a broader sense - thus, visual art. (At least that's what I think, I think).
To further my point see this article from Wired: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2012/03/ff_facebookipo/all/1 Removing the pressure of modern capitalism can foster innovation, and creative practice. Perhaps its a retreat to the "better mousetrap" position, but capitalism today is certainly not driven by the "better mousetrap" model.
DeleteIn particular, I like this quote: "Simply put: we don’t build services to make money; we make money to build better services."
Delete