?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Bourriaud x Curtis - click opera
February 2010
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 09:27 am
Bourriaud x Curtis

Yesterday I bought a copy of Nicolas Bourriaud's Relational Aesthetics. It's specifically about art in the 1990s, but I note that the curators of my most recent art activities in New York and London (Philippe Vergne and Mathieu Copeland) are both key figures in Relational Aesthetics -- Mathieu helped translate the book, and Philippe was one of the first curators to recognize Rirkrit Tiravanija. Bourriaud himself went on to institutionalize his ideas in a "space of encounter": the Palais de Tokyo in Paris.

Relational Aesthetics isn't yet old hat. Despite Jerry Saltz's declaration that it has entered a "mannerist" phase, the movement is still very much at the centre of contemporary art, spreading to a "second generation" of artists and designers like Anneka Eriksson and Carolina Caycedo, Alex Rich and Jan Family. It's also become a "look" involving boxes, tables, books, catalogues and magazines, potted plants, rubber matting, temporary plyboard walkways, platforms, bean bags, camping gas, conviviality. Take the 2006 Rirkrit Tiravanija installation on the cover of the book, for instance. What do we see there? An informal, friendly space, a sort of cafe in an art gallery. A place where people can read art books, hang out, drink beer, chat, relate.

I read the first couple of chapters of Relational Aesthetics in a cafe yesterday, and scribbled some notes in the page margins. But maybe it's not interesting enough to just give you my Bourriaud notes. I'd like to broaden things by bouncing those notes off another set I made later in the day, maybe producing an unexpected third text through the juxtaposition. Adam Curtis, the television essayist, last week sent me DVDs of his new BBC 2 documentary The Trap. So I'm bouncing the Bourriaud notes off the Curtis ones. The bits in bold are me finding a third text in the parallels between what they're saying.

Bourriaud: Relational Aesthetics connects with Marxism via de-reification: a making-visible of the relationships between people that are hidden, in a consumer society, in relationships we have with objects. So, in art, finished objects lose their sovereignty, and the focus shifts to relationships. The opening upstages the artworks.

Curtis: Attempts, post-WW2, to liberate us from the "dead hand" of bureaucracy have led, instead of freedom, to a trap: a world in which a reduced view of human beings as self-interested, suspicious mechanisms leads to a dark world of numerical calculation, targets, rollbacks of legal rights in the face of terrorism, a collapse in social mobility, and the return of privilege and power.

Bourriaud: Art makes "minor modifications" rather than re-shaping the whole field of social relations. It can nevertheless be a dolce utopia.

So art is opening up fluid social relations at precisely the time wider society is closing them down. Is art an experiment, a research into social alternatives, or a compensation and reparation for lacks and failings in the big world?

Curtis: During the Cold War, scientists at the Rand Corporation turned to game theory to model the likely responses of the Soviet Union. The basic model was "fuck you, buddy" -- cold, hard self-interest, suspicion, and the idea that whenever your partner can betray you, he will. In economics, at around the same time, Friedrich von Hayek was promoting a similar idea: that only cold rationality and self-interest (rather than, say, altruism, patriotism, duty, generosity or community-mindedness) could guarantee social stability.

Bourriaud: Developments in the 1990s facilitated Relational Aesthetics: globalization, networks, flexibility, density.

Was the liberating free-flowing openness of the 90s something that happened because of right wing ideas in the 80s, or despite them? Would those ideas have been okay if we had been able to sustain that and widen it globally, rather than swinging into neo-imperialism in the 21st century?

Curtis: John Nash won a Nobel Prize for his Game Theory work at the Rand Corporation. But it was basically paranoid, assuming that your opponent is hostile and bent on your destruction. The problem is, this doesn't correlate to how people behave in the real world -- co-operation, hospitality, love and so on.

Bourriaud: Modernity has two conflicting (or mutually-producing?) sides -- an Enlightenment project of increasing rationality, but also things like Surrealism and Dada, which celebrate the irrational. The sleep of Reason breeds monsters, perhaps?

Curtis: There was an odd harmony between the right's conception of self-interested individuals and the counterculture's mistrust of the establishment. Both attacked public servants' supposed disinterest. R.D. Laing saw love as nothing but selfishness, a struggle for control and power. The modern family was a dark arena of selfish games. "The so-called normal family is like walking into a carbon-monoxide gas chamber."

Actually, this is something Curtis' previous documentary Century of the Self was really strong on -- the way the counterculture played into Thatcherism and Reaganism. The way the creative culture with its emphasis on self-actualisation could be turned easily into an entrepreneurial model.

Bourriaud: There can be interstices, non-profit spaces within for-profit systems. "When an artist shows us something, he uses a transitive ethic which places his work between the look-at-me and the look-at-that."

Curtis: Quantification, checklists, targets arrived in the 80s as business managers were given the opportunity to restructure public institutions as metaphors, simulations of the ideal free market situation. The NHS got an "internal market". Democracy itself was dismantled, seen as a weak marker of public desire. Instead, we got "market democracy", John Major's Citizens' Charter, and New Labour's nightmare of rankings, indices of quality of life, efficiency targets and incentives. Managers seemed to be set free to be entrepreneurs, to meet the targets any way they liked, to "own" their own targets. But many cheated the system, which ended up decreasing social mobility (for instance, because schools were rated and ranked, affluent parents moved to where the good schools were, increasing social polarization).

Bourriaud: Relational Aesthetics is what we do when machines take over. "The general mechanization of social processes gradually reduces the relational space." So art has to increase it again.

When game theory leads to mechanization of social processes, play is all that's left to us.

Curtis: The Rand Corporation's John Nash spent ten years in an asylum as a paranoid schizophrenic. Now he has had an "enlightenment". The model of "the human as businessman" has little relationship with actual human behaviour, he says. His Game Theory work over-emphasized self-interest and rationality. Humans are much more complex. Over the last five years, Nobel Prizes have gone to economists who have shown there's no inherent equilibrium in markets, no "hidden hand". New research shows that only two groups of people behave in a rational, self-interested way: economists themselves, and psychopaths.

It's fine for Jerry Saltz to want to declare Relational Aesthetics over, even before most people are aware it's begun. Art is always going to be a marginal, compensatory activity. But, before we do that, I think it's very important for people to realize that the kind of mentality Adam Curtis is describing -- the selfish, mechanistic view of human nature that emerged out of Game Theory and has infiltrated all our social processes in the West (not so much Japan -- they might still be able to leapfrog this whole foolishness) -- is no longer credible. There's lots of mileage left in the games suggested by Relational Aesthetics, but none left in the kind of paranoid gamesmanship John Nash used to advocate. That's over, played, and needs to be terminated in all areas with very little mercy or regret.

59CommentReplyShare

purveyorofchaos
purveyorofchaos
Hexe
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 08:59 am (UTC)

I found "Century of the Self" fascinating. Had no idea that guy did other stuff, but he must have, no?

You juxtapositions make for good late night reading here in Texas.


ReplyThread

realrealgone
realrealgone
realrealgone
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 10:08 am (UTC)

R.D. Laing saw love as nothing but selfishness, a struggle for control and power.

it annoys me immensely to hear, in 'The Trap' (and in commentaries on 'The Trap', the repeated conflation of R.D.Laing's insights into intra-familial power politics with the ideas of the social engineers of the right. True, both may be observing the same thing - but there is a fundamental difference, I would argue, in their reaction. The right saw (sees) this selfish struggle as an inevitable pre-destined state of being to be accepted and cynically exploited to maintain social equilibrium, whereas Laing was attempting to release individuals from the grip of such psychiatrically-damaged societal structures. Just because he saw what is commonly known as 'love' as all-to-often manipulative and damaging, did not mean that he thought it always had to be that way.

It was interesting, however, to see how Nash (for one) appears to have come to some sort of realisation of the narrow, paranoid nature of his theories. Identifying dynamics is a dangerous business - the realisation can liberate us, but it can also reinforce those very dynamics as immutable realities.

that is all.


ReplyThread
imomus
imomus
imomus
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 10:37 am (UTC)

Curtis does say that Laing's intentions and the effects of his insights were very different things. I think this is one of the things his films are strongest on, because it's counter-intuitive -- the way we're in the pickle we're in today because both left and right have brought us here. Selfishness and self-interest were the effect of the Me Generation counterculture, and identity politics, as much as of right wing economists like Hayek. The corollary of this is also interesting -- there's something true radicals might share with true blue conservatives of the old school: an interest in the kind of "moral sentiments" the marketplace can never provide. Curtis says that in fact, even in the golden age of laissez faire, the self-interest of the market place was distinguished from moral sentiments -- things like sympathy and understanding for others. These, according to Adam Smith, could not be dispensed with.

As for R.D. Laing, he actually discovered Game Theory when he visited Palo Alto, and applied it to family research, making checklists of all the strategies people used in family situations. This is what allowed him to come up with ideas like the "double bind", and it is strikingly similar to Cold War gamesmanship. He concluded that when we talk about "love" we are often talking instead about power, and about imposing impossible demands on people.

Like the right wing, the libertarian hippy counterculture concluded that none of the institutions of postwar life could be trusted, and that altruism didn't exist. They, as much as Thatcher, tore down the UK's Keynsian institutions in the name of "freedom".


ReplyThread Parent Expand




(Anonymous)
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 10:25 am (UTC)
Nobel prize

Ah. And there is no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics. It's a much later invention, not part of the purists Nobel prize canon. Can't imagine Alfred would have wanted it any other way.


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 10:51 am (UTC)

Interesting. I don't know anything about relational aesthetics, but from your descriptions it seems to echo the Lévi-Straussian structuralist turn of the mid 20th C, where context starts to trump content.


ReplyThread
imomus
imomus
imomus
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 12:02 pm (UTC)

Just a reminder of what Jerry Saltz said about Relational Aesthetics and the Sublime:

"The Sublime is us. As messy and embarrassing as it is to admit, these days lots of people get a bigger Sublime jolt from having a cup of coffee with a friend than from standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon. That doesn't mean that we're God or that nature is dead, only that a certain elementary frisson is being generated from being around one another.

"Which brings us back to relational aesthetics. In the hands of subsequent artists a lot, but not all of the art grouped under this moniker, has become mannered. Connectivity has devolved into a neo-hippie hangout involving couches, cots, tables or some kind of shelter in which participants eat, sleep, watch monitors, or whatever. Interactivity now mostly consists of the documentation of artists doing things like interviewing others, meeting workers, etc. Too often the audience is also simply lounging around while thinking about lounging around, or they're just gawking at others. Either way, everyone is essentially telling him- or herself things they already know. Relational aesthetics, once probing and complex, is becoming a cul-de-sac of fun effects, momentary experiences, and comfy playhouses."


ReplyThread
peripherus_max
peripherus_max
peripherus_max
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 03:54 pm (UTC)

I adore this post, and oddly, I immediately think of Tom Marioni:

http://www.crownpoint.com/artists/marioni/act_of_drinking_beer.html

I hope that you don't mind if I borrow your Saltz quote. It's too timely and juicy a meme not to spread. :)


ReplyThread Parent
bongo_kong
bongo_kong
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 01:01 pm (UTC)
the trap

The music is ace too. Episode 2 had clips of Cosmonaut by Stereo Total at the start then a clip later on of their cover of Heaven's In the Back Seat of my Cadillac. Do they symbolise the entrapment of the masses in a post-modern prison of their own design? I hope not cos they're one of my favourite bands.


ReplyThread
chokogin
chokogin
chokogin
Thu, Mar. 22nd, 2007 11:09 am (UTC)
Re: the trap

yeah i kept drifting off wondering what music was playing in the background

good to hear john carpenter in there too


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 01:29 pm (UTC)

Relational Aesthetics isn't yet old hat... the movement is still very much at the centre of contemporary art
I'm afraid old dear, that this is very much a contradiction in terms


ReplyThread
electricwitch
electricwitch
For anything, oh! she´ll bust her elastic
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 01:39 pm (UTC)

I´m really, really trying to think of a pretext to comment with my new Bolan macro here, but it´s not working, damn you.


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 01:54 pm (UTC)

And now, something completely different (or not): The issue you raised a few days ago about art and economics (in an anti-capitalist approach) it will be useful to see this French journal
http://www.revuedumauss.com.fr/

Pedro Félix


ReplyThread
imomus
imomus
imomus
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 01:56 pm (UTC)


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 02:09 pm (UTC)

If being "liberated from the dead hand of bureaucracy" means a decrease in the power of government; how does it follow that a powerless government would be more likely to roll back legal rights?

I think Curtis mistakenly makes this connection because he's lumping together all of the positions that appear on the Right.

The Libertarian wing of the Right, which is the most concerned with eliminating bureaucracy (see The Cato Institute's website), is also very concerned about the erosion of civil liberties (again see their website).

The Neoconservatives are not at all concerned with the temporary erosion of rights, if it means "security." They are also not in the least bit concerned about bureaucracy--which has increased greatly during the Bush administration.

The idea that large government bureaucracies are inefficient is still very much relevant and true. Not to say that many private companies aren't run inefficiently, but naturally if the bottom line affects what goes into your own pocket, you're going to care more about how the company is run. That's just common sense. Government agencies must also deal with increased paperwork because they're spending somebody else's money.

There are plenty of sound arguments against rampant privitization, loosening of corporate restrictions, and unfettered capitalism in general--claiming that they lead to an erosion of civil rights and "neo-imperialism" is not one of them.


ReplyThread
imomus
imomus
imomus
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 04:59 pm (UTC)

If being "liberated from the dead hand of bureaucracy" means a decrease in the power of government; how does it follow that a powerless government would be more likely to roll back legal rights?

Liberation from the dead hand of bureaucracy was the way certain "reforms" were sold to us. In fact, what actually happened was that a synthetic, game theory-style model of the free market replaced old bureaucrats (motivated, sometimes, by elitist "we know best" attitudes, but also by altruism) with new bureaucrats (motivated by incentives to reach targets and quotas on efficiency, "quality of life assurance", etc).

Although this "market democracy" involved mimicry of the private sector -- and relied heavily on market research, and the attitude that selfish behaviour is behaviour that benefits everybody -- it wasn't actually the free market. What led to the erosion of civil rights was "the exportation of freedom to other countries" (otherwise known as war), leading to terrorist reprisals, leading to suspension of habeus corpus, etc. Habeus corpus, of course, wasn't part of the "targets" or "quality of life standards assurances package".


ReplyThread Parent
desant012
||||||||||
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 02:43 pm (UTC)

I'm so tired of theory that talks about creativity. It's like the novelist writing letters to his friends about his novel rather than actually writing the thing - creativity has become the afterthought, and all we've got are works groomed for investment (New York, London, Berlin, etc.), and stacks of theories. We might as well not even have an imagination anymore.


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 03:13 pm (UTC)

At some point in the 20th Century, the art world was taken over by theoretical essayists like John Cage. To him, art is only interesting if it asks some kind of concrete question about society or about art. The purpose of art as a Walter Pater understood it--that is, beauty--was no longer relevant.

So all of a sudden, tonal music wasn't worth doing. It was boring. We've heard all of that before! Explored it completely! What was--a couple of decades earlier--enough for a guy like Maurice Ravel, was definitely not enough for a John Cage. Ravel spent his whole life composing and somehow never became bored with tonal music. Surely a testament to his small mind!


ReplyThread Parent Expand









(Anonymous)
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 02:51 pm (UTC)

Thanks for this - it's really interesting to me. Momus, I wonder if you are monitoring the UK TV telephone calls affair (http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2036766,00.html )- it seems to me to be an illustration of how British media organisations have come to be laid out according to the management principles that Curtis describe. Those principles ultimately manifest themselves in the treatment of the audience as rational self-interested beings, which the audience revolt against, biting the broadcasters firmly in the ass.

I also think you would enjoy the keynote speech given by 42 Entertainment at the recent ARG Fest-O-Con in San Francisco. http://www.argn.com/archive/000564argfest_panel_videos_on_youtube.php

Best

Gideon Reeling


ReplyThread
freesurfboards
freesurfboards
freesurfboards
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 03:24 pm (UTC)

Being around 24 years old, I have grown up in America with this kind of attitude everywhere - I was thinking about how much sarcasm is part of hipster culture here today, how usually it comes about when people who are generally nice try to act tough, by laughing at everything.

I think this idea that it's best to be self-interested comes from the whole cowboy aesthetic, but thinking that it's a post-cold war attitude makes me feel better about the future of america, because if it's a recent attitude then it can be overcome easier.


ReplyThread
rroland
rroland
rroland
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 04:01 pm (UTC)

I hope i can get the DVD's in the states. I don't buy cable service. RD Laing's Game Theory/Love could of been largely based on some of the households on The Farm, a commune I lived in for eight years in the seventies. The living quarters, what food you had to eat, who walked, who drove, were many times based on that take what one can if others will give it to you ideal (or fuck you buddy). And of course all in the name of Love, straight outta the Haight. Like a little ditty I used to sing under my breath 'conservo wolves in hippy sheep's clothing'.

Anyway on this:
"So art is opening up fluid social relations at precisely the time wider society is closing them down. Is art an experiment, a research into social alternatives, or a compensation and reparation for lacks and failings in the big world?"

IMO yes, more an experiment/research. the days have yet to come for the common working class to see art as compensation/reparation, at a political/personal level. Question:
how many persons can one have at an exhibit without getting a permit?


ReplyThread


(Anonymous)
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 04:53 pm (UTC)

Psshh.. Those bridges probably aren't even functionally load-bearing structures. What a joke.


ReplyThread Parent Expand

huh - (Anonymous) Expand




(Anonymous)
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 07:19 pm (UTC)

"Is art an experiment, a research into social alternatives, or a compensation and reparation for lacks and failings in the big world?"

I think art can be all these things, but one shouldn't limit it to just these choices. I take issue with your rejection of expressions of 'thanatos' for this reason. Using art to express an evil, violent, aggressive, or morbid idea is not the same thing as promoting such things as good plans of action in real life.
For instance, the case of the hardcore band playing at the peace rally.. It was arrogant of the Japanther member to tell off the activist in such a rude manner, however it was more arrogant of her to dismiss the artistic value of the band because it did not fit into her idea of peace-promoting aesthetics.
One of the dangers inherent in the politicization art is the "conflation" (good, solid grad student word) of general themes with political meanings.. such as understanding the idea of aggression in terms of war.
To limit art to a sort of utopian social experiment is both misguided and unnecessarily limiting-- it ignores what I think of as art's primary role, that of sublimation. Peaceful, soft music is lovely indeed, but alone it is an insufficient expression of the turbulent human urge. As any Freudian knows well it is harmful to silence the death drive-- better to succesfully sublimate it.. Which brings me to my task for contemporary art: come up with new, more useful sublimatory forms.
Loving life, is all well and good, eros and all that, but I feel cannot be done completely, unashamedly, truthfully without also facing darker energies.


Nate -saving.blog-city.com


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 08:09 pm (UTC)
folk-too-much-timeon-apendges

gentle ballad strummed on acoustic guitar

ohh weft weave tatame so complex, so organ-iiiiised, our brains are so big....no head can fit this wig..juxtaposed broken tooooooiiiy....

(low voice) we're very,..... very clever (artistic exhale)

folk-data-cloud tag told me my girlfriend was a fag-hag..I knew it

(low voice) we're very,..... very clever (artistic exhale)

(bridge - sung like desperate voice in the wildreness)
so were weaving the precious miiiihnd of the inter-web, saving fools from folly and pity


(low voice) ohhhh we're very, we're saving them (artistic exhale)



YAH YEAH RIGH YAH HEARD ABOUT "BLACKING" YEAH ? HIJACKING ANOTHER PERSONS BLOG COMMENT BOARD YEAH ? BLOG ? HIJACKING ? BLOG ? BLACKING YEAH !?

(low voice) we're very,..... very clever (artistic exhale, leading to slight wee bit of phlegm rising in the back of the throat for the niggers)

encore en tres bien subarashii mon tete momie chan....teach us more ! PLEASE were such fools !




ReplyThread Parent
maybeimdead
maybeimdead
Maybe I'm Dead
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 08:22 pm (UTC)

"Over the last five years, Nobel Prizes have gone to economists who have shown there's no inherent equilibrium in markets, no "hidden hand". New research shows that only two groups of people behave in a rational, self-interested way: economists themselves, and psychopaths."

There are actually some economists such as David Levine who show using game theory that things like copyright are welfare-decreasing for society as a whole, and that copyleft might be the way to go. Game theory is not so much about cold-blooded competition between people, but about strategic interactions - meaning making decisions by anticipating what the other party will do. Your criticisms lie more with assumptions about how to model the real world more than it does with the tool that is Game Theory.


ReplyThread
maybeimdead
maybeimdead
Maybe I'm Dead
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 08:29 pm (UTC)

link to Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm


ReplyThread Parent

(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand


(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand

So ? - (Anonymous) Expand

Re: So ? - (Anonymous) Expand


(Anonymous)
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 09:48 pm (UTC)
relational aesthetics

In this context relational aesthetics seems to be little more than name dropping and networking with a view to good old fashionned career advancement......
psouper


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 11:33 pm (UTC)
Re: relational aesthetics

Well career advancement is pretty interstitial ain't it? It's all a bit Documenta11 though, not much Exuberant Analogy going on.
voodlebug


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 09:55 pm (UTC)
Off-topic

Not sure if you know this already, but Pitchfork reviewed Ocky Milk recently.

http://pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/41660/Momus_Ocky_Milk


ReplyThread
pyrop
pyrop
Pronounced "Pie Ropp"
Tue, Mar. 20th, 2007 11:34 pm (UTC)

Game theory doesn't emphasizes self-interest, certain games emphasize self-interest. It could be argued that the modern economic environment is a game that emphasizes self-interest, that's not game theory itself, though. The concept of a Nash equilibrium is probably the most egalitarian theorem in game theory; that for all (finite) games with any number of players, there exists a strategy for the players of a game where no player has anything to gain by changing his personal strategy. Remember the scene from A Beautiful Mind where John Nash figures out that if all the guys at the bar try to get the same girl they'll most likely all end up with no date at all, whereas if they cooperate and diversify their attention they're more likely to all get a date?

If Nash actually just recently came to the realization that the role of the individual in game theory has been overemphasized, he's behind his own research. I don't think any serious game theorist holds that opinion. (Though maybe some weasel financiers see themselves in the concept.)


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Wed, Mar. 21st, 2007 01:21 am (UTC)

Game theory *does* emphasize self-interest. That, and an assumption of rationality on part of the actors, is what makes it tick!
Just because the optimum strategy for certain games involves cooperation doesn't mean that the cooperation isn't fueled by rational self-interest.

Also, there's a huge difference between overemphasizing the role of the individual (which not even Nash claims to have done) and overemphasising rationality (there we go).


ReplyThread Parent Expand

(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand

pay_option07
pay_option07
Wed, Mar. 21st, 2007 02:56 am (UTC)
sleep of Reason breeds monsters

I find the whole game theory justifies narcissism and isolationism.

Both seem reactionary and display specific aesthetic characteristics.
Ola arcanum.

Go Philly!!


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Wed, Mar. 21st, 2007 05:17 pm (UTC)

The dangers of game theory seem similar in nature to the dangers posed by evolutionary psychology. A useful and interesting field on its own, but really scary when the incomplete picture of humanity it provides is used as a template for normalcy and "correct" behaviour!


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Thu, Mar. 29th, 2007 11:00 pm (UTC)
this entry on wikipedia has helped me understand this book a bit i think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_frame_theory

cheers cowboy!


ReplyThread Parent
ohshitman
not_telling
Sun, Oct. 4th, 2009 04:26 am (UTC)
Curtis x Laing x Bourriaud x Bey x more

no idea if you still get notifications for comments on posts this old, but I wanted to let you know that I've been posting a series of essays on my own blog which build upon your notes in this post

part 1 is here:
http://www.brrrptzzapthesubject.com/?p=654

part 2 is here:
http://www.brrrptzzapthesubject.com/?p=675

and there's a third part forthcoming

cheers! (and thanks for the inspiration)


ReplyThread