Lovink, Not Working Dutch Article

The Principle of Notworking
Concepts in Critical Internet Culture

Lector Interactieve Media in het Digitaal Publiek Domein
Instituut voor Interactieve Media

Public Lecture
Delivered on 24 Februari 2005

Hogeschool van Amsterdam

Poets have descended from the peaks, which they believed
themselves to be established. They have gone out into the
streets, they have insulted their masters, they have no gods any
longer and dared to kiss beauty and love on the mouth.
Paul Eluard

1
The Principle of Notworking
Concepts in Critical Internet Culture

Introduction
In this essay I present ongoing theoretical work, developed throughout 2004,
the year I took up the position of ‘lector’ at the Hogeschool van Amsterdam. I
will focus on three conceptual fields: the relation between multitude,
network and culture, the art of collaboration and ‘free cooperation’, and
finally present elements of a theory of ‘organized networks’.
After having finished My First Recession2 (mid 2003) I found myself, again,
emerged in practices, of which the move from Brisbane to Amsterdam was
by far the most challenging one. With the support of Emilie Randoe, the
director of the interactive media school at HvA, I set up a research agenda
related to the ‘digital public domain’ and out of this emerged the Institute of
Network Cultures, a venture that is unfolding as we speak.3 It might be pre-
mature to present a Theory of Network Culture. Instead, the work of the
Institute should be seen as a wide ranging series of interventions, combining
elements of engaged action research, critical reflection on (net) practice and,
last but not least, speculative propositions.

1. Multitude, Network and Culture
George Yudice states in his study The Expediency of Culture4 that we have
moved from the attitude of suspicion towards culture, and with the danger of
its ‘inherent fall’, towards the so-called ‘productive view’. Yudice proposes to

1 - The title refers to the saying ‘networking is notworking’, meaning that chatting keeps one
away of important work that needs to be done. I first heard of it in the early nineties, used by
the billionaire George Soros, who was sceptical of creating cultural networks as part of his
own charity organization.
2 - Geert Lovink (2003). . Rotterdam:
V2/NAi.
3 - See www.networkcultures.org (the Institute of Network Cultures’ website plus weblog).
Besides a lecture series (in Dutch) on new media in the Netherlands and curriculum planning
for the theory part of the Interactive Media program, the Institute scheduled five international
conferences for 2005: A Decade of Webdesign, German Media Theory, Alternatives in ICT for
Development, Curating for Public Screens and Art & Politics of Netporn.
4 - George Yudice (2003). . Durham and London: Duke University
Press.

3 The Principle of Notworking

analyse culture as a resource rather than a commodity. Culture is an active
and, potentially, innovative sector with the capacity to mobilize forces. This
in particular counts for Internet culture. The failed dotcom models of the late
nineties have shown how hideous – and wrong – commercial attempts were
that tried to validate online communication as ‘value’, measured in ‘page
views’. The translation of social activities into financial figures proved to be a
bumpy ride. This is where Yudice’s culture-as-resource as the new epistemic
framework comes into play. Against the Darwinian model of the winner-
takes-it-all, advocated by libertarian ‘first movers’, culture-as-resource trades
on the currency of diversity. Culture cannot thrive in a monopoly situation.
Net culture does not fall out of the sky, and like other resources needs to be
cared for in a sustainable manner. It needs slight distances, autonomous
spaces in which clusters of groups and individuals can develop their own
practices. Infrastructure plus access will not do the job. Culture does not
equal leisure that locals and tourists ‘consume’ but is a strategic asset. In that
sense Richard Florida with his ‘creative class’ theory is right.5 The question is
just how much of ‘creative industries’ policies is a hype in order to cover up
structural problems within the Western labour market.6 Culture Inc. is not
working. It produces, at best, McJobs and mainly runs on voluntary labour.
The rise of creative industries cannot be discussed outside of the broader
issues of ‘precarious’ work (no contracts, ‘flexible’ hours, low payments, no
health insurance, etc.).7 If ‘creative industries’ as a concept wants to be
meaningful, and avoid being a policy version of the nineties’ ‘new economy’
craze (only without the venture capital), it will have to seriously address the
issue of sustainability. Otherwise there is no need to speak of new conditions
caused by digital technologies. Instead we could better speak of rearrange-
ments within existing institutions and drop the claim of the emergence of a
new sector.

5 - Richard Florida (2002). . New York: Basic Book.
6 - For a critique of creative industries, see the work of Ned Rossiter and Danny Butt, for
instance http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0212/msg00057.html. See
also Ned Rossiter (2004). Creative Industries, Comparative Media Theory and the Limits of
Critique from Within, in: Topia, Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies. Number Eleven. Spring
2004. Toronto, Canada.
7 - See www.precairforum.nl.

4 Geert Lovink

Internet culture is in a permanent flux. There is no linear growth, neither
up nor down. The only certainty is the steady rise, both in absolute and rela-
tive numbers of users outside of the West.8 This is the ‘cultural turn’ most
Western Internet experts have yet to come to grips with, in particular with
the declining importance of the English language and the rise of ‘intranets’
for Japanese, Chinese, etc. Against nostalgic characters that portray the Net
as a medium in decline ever since the rise of commercialism, and eternal
optimists, who present the Internet as a holy thing, ultimately connecting all
human synapses, radical pragmatists (like me) emphasize the trade-offs,
misuses and the development of applications such as wikis, P2P and weblogs
that reshape the new media field. The main enemy of ‘net criticism’ still is
the PR sales talk and the religious nature of most theory and educational
material in the new media field.
The culturalization of the Internet is at hand, and both the offline elite and
techno geeks and media activists look at this slow but steady process with
dismay. Culturalization, as Yudice indicates, is not an innocent process but
comes with the ‘mobilization and management of populations.’9 This cannot
merely be understood in terms of control. For Yudice democratic inclusion
of ‘communities of difference’ is a necessary and desirable aim. What Yudice
coins the ‘expediency of culture’ underpins performativity as the fundamen-
tal logic of social life today.10
Culturalization within the broader context of information technology (IT) can
also be read as a moment of anticipation, a tactical sidetrack in response to
the long-term decline of the engineering class in the West. The hegemonic
role of computer scientists as inventors can easily be understood, but wasn’t
going to last forever. Different fields of knowledge, from human computer
interaction to usability and new media studies, have all in their own ways
proclaimed the coming of the cultural turn. With the massive outsourcing of
IT jobs to countries like India we may have finally reached this point. At last,
there is an economic reason to pay more attention to the economic possibili-
ties of techno culture. There is a growing urgency felt, at least in the educa-
tional sector, to start integrating ‘soft’ knowledge into the hardcore IT

8 - See www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
9 - George Yudice (2003). . Durham and London: Duke University
Press, p. 20.
10 - Idem, p. 28.


workforce. Until recently it seemed as if programmers and multi-media
designers were from Mars and Venus. The genderized identity building
imposed on male coders and female designers and communications staff
still had an economic base in the division of labour within firms (IT versus
marketing departments). With IT outsourcing happening at such a fast pace
the dominance of the male geek coder is no longer a given and there is a
chance of ‘cultural mingling’.
The rise of multimedia design and communication courses, such as Interac-
tive Media at HvA, forms a key response to this global transformation. So far,
the educational sector has been slow in terms of adapting network technolo-
gies. Institutional infighting between existing disciplines has prevented
higher education to become truly innovative. Universities worldwide are in
the iron grip of Microsoft. The use of free and open source software is mar-
ginal, if not straight-out forbidden. Whereas academia played a key role in
the development of the Internet, it lost ground over the years and is now des-
perately trying to catch up with a computer games course here or there.
Speaking of 2005, the study of mobile devices is still in a premature phase.
Part of the culturalization process would be to study, in detail, how users
interact with applications and influence their further development. Network
cultures come into being as a ‘productive friction’ between inter-human
dynamics and the given framework of software. The social dynamics that
develop within networks is not ‘garbage’ but essence. The aim of networks is
not transportation of data but contestation of systems.
It is no longer enough, as Yudice argues, to prove that everyone’s culture has
its value. This also counts for Internet researchers and their, currently
popular, ‘ethnographic’ approach.11 The Internet is no longer a marginal
phenomenon that has to be studied, and presented, like an alien tribe. The
study of the ‘everyday life’ of net culture has been useful, but nowadays
seems incapable of providing us with a bigger picture. User-centred method-
ologies tend to overlook changes at the level of infrastructure, software, inter-
face and organization. Sudden changes within mass markets of consumer
electronics are not taken into account, nor are global conflicts over intellec-
tual property regimes. What we instead see happening is the collapse of the
distinction between the ‘micro’ level of ‘users’ and the ‘macro’ level of

11 - See the website of the Association of Internet Researchers: www.aoir.org.

6 Geert Lovink

society. Research into net cultures entails more than the study of ‘virtual
communities’.
It is time to look for elements that can make up a network theory outside of
post-modern cultural studies and ethnographic social sciences. What new
media studies needs is a ‘language of new media’, to speak with Lev
Manovich,12 not a science-centred ‘General Network Theory’. The notion that
networks are not random but have underlying structures, can be a ground-
breaking insight for scientists, but should not come as a surprise for critical
Internet scholars.
It is interesting to see how ‘multitude’ theorists deal with the notions of
users and networks. The term ‘multitude’ is used as an alternative for ‘the
people’, a term closely associated with the project of the nation state. Much
like the cultural studies shift from passive consumers and watchers towards
‘prosumers’ and users, the multitude expresses the diversity within the
workforce, away from the homogeneous notion of class and the fixation on
‘the proletarians’. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri use the multitude
concept to describe today’s social formations in a globalized world.13

Whereas networks hardly played a role in their popular book Empire (2000),
in Multitude (2004) the network form of organization has reached centre
stage. According to Hardt and Negri ‘the multitude must be conceived as a
network, an open and expansive network in which all differences can be
expressed freely and equally, a network that provides the means of encounter
so that we can work and live freely in common.’14 Beyond good or evil, Hardt
and Negri see networks everywhere we look – military organizations, social
movements, business formations, migrations patterns, communication
systems, physiological structures, linguistic relations, neural transmitters,
and even personal relationships.’
After September 11, 2001 the enemy is not a unitary sovereign state, but
rather a network. The enemy, in other words, has a new form. And according
to planners of the War against Terrorism the Internet is not well equipped to

12 - ‘The Language of New Media’ is the title of the influential study by media theorist Lev
Manovich. Lev Manovich (2001). . Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
13 - Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri (2004).
. New York: The Penguin Press.
14 - Idem, p. xiv.


15
face up to the networked enemy. The multitude authors present distributed
networks as a general condition. Hardt and Negri: ‘It is not that networks
were not around before or that the structure of the brain has changed. It is
that network has become a common form that tends to define our ways of
understanding the world and acting in it. Most important from our perspec-
tive, networks are the form of organization of the cooperative and communi-
cative relationships dictated by the immaterial paradigm of production. The
tendency of this common form to emerge and exert its hegemony is what
defines the period.’16 The network form is imposed on all facets of power
strictly from the perspective of the effectiveness of rules, as large top-down
organizations have proved to be inflexible and a managerial nightmare. Dis-
tributed relationships are more open to change.
‘It takes a network to fight a network’, Hardt and Negri write.17 But networks
might be an unsuitable form to win a fight. Hardt and Negri present the
network as the logical follow-up of the guerrilla struggle. ‘Network struggle
does not rely on discipline: creativity, communication and self-organized
cooperation are its primary values.’18 Its focus is primarily on the inside, not
on the enemy. Hardt and Negri rightly note that organization becomes less a
means and more an end in itself. Networks are the best guarantee that no
isolated cells emerge dreaming of armed struggle, suicide bombing, etc.
Network struggles first and foremost question all present and contemporary
forms of organization, from the political party and its Leninist model to the
peoples army and, in my opinion, even the social movement and its residual
form of the NGO. Networks undermine, but not entirely eliminate, authority
and make decision-making next to impossible. They deconstruct power and
representation, and cannot simply be used as a tool by self proclaimed avant-

15 - Former CIA Director George J. Tenet called for new security measures to guard against
attacks on the United States that use the Internet, which he called ‘a potential Achilles’ heel’.
‘I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a
free and open society with no control or accountability’, he told an information-technology
security conference in Washington, ‘but ultimately the Wild West must give way to
governance and control.’ Tenet calls for Internet security by Shaun Waterman, UPI report,
December 2, 2004.
16 - Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri (2004).
. New York: The Penguin Press, p. 142.
17 - Idem, p. 58.
18 - Idem, p. 83.

8 Geert Lovink

garde groups. In fact, networks prevent a lot of events from happening. This
may not always be the right activist strategy but that’s where we are: prevent-
ing the repetition of tragic patterns in history. There are enough stories of
lost struggles and organized idealism resulting in genocide. But then: net-
works do not only end histories, they also produce with their own set of poli-
tics.
Where are the ‘virtual intellectuals’19 that have incorporated the technologi-
cal conditions into their way of operating? How much of the libertarian
values will they incorporate? How long will it take until the roaring nineties,
from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the fall of the dotcoms, have been thor-
oughly digested? To what extent will they be aware of the debates around free
software and open source? The deeper computer networks penetrate the
academy, the more this is becoming an urgent issue. Browsers, operating
systems and search engines are not neutral tools but come with specific
built-in social, cultural and aesthetic agendas. To emphasize the importance
of being networked is one. Understanding network architectures is another.
It is the task of new media activists, artists and theorists to take the lead and
not only undertake critical probes but also mediate the outcomes to a multi-
tude of audiences.
In his book Protocol, How Control Exists after Decentralization, Alex Galloway
takes network theory a step further. Starting out with roughly the same theo-
rists as Hardt and Negri, Galloway utilizes his insightful knowledge of the
workings of the network in order to formulate his ‘protocol’ theory. Accord-
ing to Galloway we should get rid of the myth of Internet as being chaotic.
Protocol is based on two contradicting machines: ‘one machine radically dis-
tributes control into autonomous locales, the other machine focuses control
into rigidly defined hierarchies.’ Networks may dissolve old forms of power,
the hierarchies and bureaucracies, but also install a new regime, what Gilles
Deleuze coined ‘the control society’. Networks constantly undermine the
stable boundaries between inside and outside. While networks provoke a
sense of liberation they install themselves into everyday life as ideal
machines for control.
Let’s face it: friction free capitalism is not in need of networks. It may not
even need Galloway’s protocols. All it requires is seamless data transport

19 - More on the role of the virtual intellectual in: Geert Lovink (2002). . Cambridge
(Mass.): MIT Press, pp. 30-40.


(from client to server, that is, no p2p, please). It aims for distribution without
the network. What makes out today’s networking is the notworking. There
would be no routing if there were no problems on the line. Spam, viruses
and identity theft are not accidental mistakes, mishaps on the road to techno
perfection. They are constitutional elements of yesterday’s network architec-
tures. Networks increase levels of informality and also pump up noise levels,
caused by chit-chat, misunderstandings and other all too human mistakes.
The theory of protocols is retro-garde, in the sense that it tries to explain how
networks were designed during the past decades. But like so many new
media theories, it did not anticipate the backlash fight between libertarian
principles (of openness, self-regulation, etc.) and the neo-conservative take-
over after 9/11, which overruled the ‘protocol’ with its War on Terrorism
security discourse.
A key question of my recent work has been how networks deal with the ‘frus-
trated’, those who breach the consensus culture. After 9/11 and the following
instalment of a global security regime, this is no longer such an odd ques-
tion. The age of the ‘true believer’ is over, as amateur mass psychologist Eric
Hoffer described this twentieth century figure in his study on mass move-
ments.20 Networks are ultimately an obstacle for those who want to sacrifice
their lives for a holy cause. To use networks for propaganda purposes is pos-
sible but not as effective as old school broadcast media. Unlike a century ago,
the frustrated no longer predominate among the early adherents of move-
ments. Today’s frustrated are nihilists, equipped with a perfect technical
knowledge of the available machinery. Frustration, as Hoffer described it,
may generate the characteristics of the true believer, but the ‘frustrated mind’
is a bad partner in online dialogues.
It is desire rather than discontent that lies at the core of the network. Today’s
refusal of martyrdom pushes the ‘frustrated’ to the margins of networks and
excludes them access. This poses the question of the ‘outside’ of networks. If
all power is disseminating into networks what happens to the deleted, the
‘trashed’ subjects of the network society? It is hard to imagine that such indi-
viduals network themselves. The obsession of Western elites and their mass
media with Islamic fundamentalism does not answer any of the passions and
tensions that surround today’s network society. The only thing it does

20 - Hoffer, E. (1951). . New York: Harper and Row. See also my chapter in
, which calls for a ‘mass psychology of the Net’.

10 Geert Lovink

achieve is creating the illusion of an alien and outside, hostile to the global
civilization – yet cleverly infiltrating its infrastructure.
Radical morality is not concerned with opinion. This is where the discourse
of the network society meets its Waterloo. The reason for this is that network
discourse cannot integrate – let alone imagine – outside point of views. This
is where Castells meets his Marxist fellows Negri and Hardt, and Jesuit
bonds blend into the larger Third Way spin machine. Networks have a
certain post-human quality. The ‘most natural human behaviour’ cannot be
found there. Networks are complex techno-social environments that defy
simplistic reductions. They are large-scale power transformation mecha-
nisms in place. If networks were to dissolve power as such, the first such
network has yet to be built. At best we can start describing network cultures
beyond good and evil, in the best possible tradition of the novel, having yet to
reach the psychological depth of Proust, the social drama à la Victor Hugo or
the deep linking of hypertext master James Joyce.21

2. Theory of Free Cooperation
Academics and journalists often reduce the potential of the Internet to an
additional medium for publishing, besides books and journals. But the Inter-
net is not just used for self-promotion. It wasn’t even primarily designed for
that task. There is a Net beyond the obligatory homepage and weblog. For
many Brazilian users the Internet equals chat rooms (dating sites) plus
online TV guide. But let’s not focus on such reductions of the medium. In
countless cases people interact and work together on specific tasks and
exchange opinions and materials online. Or they assist each other in techni-
cal matters and write code together. What defines the Internet is its social
architecture. It’s the living environment that counts, the live interaction, not
just the storage and retrieval procedure.

21 - An introduction to the ‘politics of the information age’ can be found in Terranova, T.
(2004). . London/Ann Arbor: Pluto Press. Disappointing in this context is
Steven Shaviro’s book (2003), .
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Shaviro flirts with the idea of network cultures
but at a closer look only refers to nineties’ Hollywood science fictions. Shaviro fails to make
the connection between the realm of real existing social interactions on the Internet and the
cyber imaginations of Hollywood – a widespread problem amongst literary scholars that enter
the field.


Together with New York artist Trebor Scholz I organized a conference on
‘free cooperation’ that took place on the Buffalo campus of the State Univer-
sity of New York, April 23-24, 2004.22 We decided to further investigate the
art of (online) collaboration from media activist/artist perspectives. From cell
phones to e-mail, and multiplayer online games, mailing lists, weblogs, and
wikis our everyday lives are increasingly enmeshed with technology. The
necessity to examine what happens when we collaborate in these technologi-
cal channels through which we communicate, will soon become more appar-
ent. How can we find independence and enhance freedom in the context of
networked collaboration? How do you collectively manage and own a shared
resource such as a network?
We invited the Bremen-based media critic Christoph Spehr who coined the
term ‘free cooperation’ in his essay ‘ Gleicher als andere’ [More Equal Than
Others]. In 2003 I did an online interview with Spehr.23 Most of Spehr’s
writings are not translated into English and this event was an opportunity to
introduce his ideas into Anglophone media discourses. Spehr’s writings use
references to 1960s sci-fi movies to think about contemporary cooperation
insisting on the option of refusal, independence, negotiation and renegotia-
tion with ‘alien’ corporate or state monsters. Focusing on these ideas of
equality and freedom the conference asked how they could be made useful
for alternative networks of learning and the university. Spehr’s key concept is
that everyone should have the freedom to dissolve collaboration at any given
time. It is important to define a language in which we can openly talk about
difference and power within groups or teams. Or networks, for that matter.
The option to bail out is the sovereign act of network users. Notworking is
their a priori, the very foundation all online activities are built upon. If you
do not know how to log out, you’re locked in.

Another angle I would like to discuss is the relation between the multitude
and collaboration. In A Grammar of the Multitude Paolo Virno attempts to
describe the ‘nature of contemporary production’.24 The questions raised

22 - See the conference website www.freecooperation.org for the archive of the mailing list
and the program. Also a .pdf of the free newspaper, which was produced at the eve of the
event in a circulation of 10,000 can be downloaded from this site.
23 - Nettime, June 6, 2003, Science Fiction for the Multitudes, www.nettime.org.
24 - Virno, P. (2004). . Cambridge (Mass.): Semiotexte.

12 Geert Lovink

there are subjective and come up after the very act of ‘refusal’. What is collab-
oration once we conclude that life is being reduced to work? I would argue
that it is important, at some point, to leave behind the initial, decisive stage
of refusal because one otherwise ends up in individual anarchism or a Max
Stirner-type of egoism in which there is nothing left to collaborate on.
Notworking has to remain an option. It is not the aim. There must be a basic
consensus on what’s on the agenda, what is to be done. The collaboration
question follows from there and cannot either be discussed in a political
vacuum, otherwise it gets reduced to a managerial issue. Collaboration itself
is not generating issues that can be translated into (political) campaigns.
Key to our effort to theorize individual and collective experiences, is the rec-
ognition that there must be a freedom to refuse to collaborate. There must be
a constitutive exit strategy. At first instance this may be a mysterious, some-
what paradoxical statement. Why should the idea of the refusal be promoted
as the very foundation of collaboration, as Christoph Spehr has suggested? It
almost sounds like a new dogma, a next rule, notworking as yet another
human right. The question of ‘free cooperation’ is, in essence, one of organi-
zation and comes up after the crisis of the (Fordist) factory model and its
political mirror, the political party. This may be obvious. The obsession with
(post-)Fordism may be too much focussed on specific Italian subjectivities
(needless to say, a wildcat culture of spontaneous strikes is not universal). It
is up to us to update and modify the Italo concepts and come up with specific
case studies of, for instance, depressing NGO office cultures, power relations
within ‘social software’, dotcom leisure styles, ‘precarious’ freelance con-
tracts, call centre blues or the boredom of project management.
The focus on ‘new social movements’ may already be outdated and should
perhaps be replaced with much more temporary ruptures. With Galloway we
can ask: what is politics after its decentralization? Perhaps it is not even
useful anymore to talk about ‘movements’ (as in ‘movement of movements’).
Movement might suggest too much unity and continuity to describe today’s
event on the streets and the Net. There is no movement without a timeline,
without collective memory of landmark events. While the term is accurate if
we want to express political and cultural diversity, it still has that promise of
continuity in it – and with it comes the suggestion that decline and disap-
pearance can be upheld. The movement should never stop. The energy of the
Event that gave the movement its character and direction ought not to die.


This is where the gestalt of the ‘true believer’ enters the story. Rituals will be
invented to bring back the masses to the street, no matter at what price.
According to Paolo Virno the crisis of the society of labour is reflected in the
multitude itself. We could extend this and say that multitudes are a highly
problematic category, not for capital or the ‘control society’, but for the multi-
tudes themselves. It will take a while to get used to the fact that there is no
consciousness in and for itself, that revolutionaries can be wary – and bored
– of their own revolutions. There is talk of a collective ecstasy without a
Grand Resolution. Fragmentation is not a romantic agony but a prime condi-
tion of political life, and the networked condition only further transcribes this
process, into software, into database structures.
Paolo Virno writes: ‘Social wealth is produced from science, from the general
intellect, rather than from the work delivered by individuals. The work
demanded seems reducible to a virtually negligible portion of a life. Science,
information, knowledge in general, cooperation, these present themselves as
the key support system of production – these, rather than labour time.’ This
puts cooperation in a state of exception. It’s not the rule, not the everyday life
condition; it’s rare, uncertain and always on the verge of being dissolved. For
Virno the difference between labour time and non-labour time falls short.
This is exactly why there is so much uncertainty (and curiosity) about collabo-
ration. In what act, work, gesture, idea, are no traces of collaboration
included? The distinction between collaboration and non-collaboration
becomes more and more difficult to make. The opposition of the lonesome
genius and the multi-disciplinary team sounds like an odd lifestyle choice
and is not relevant.
What is at stake is the way in which negotiations take place inside each par-
ticular ‘credit’ economy. Which traces remain visible of a collaboration? Can
terms of ownership be (re)negotiated further along the line or have forms of
ownership and division of labour been fixed at day one? How many ‘defeated
collaborations’ can one bear? Humans may once have been ‘social animals’
but that doesn’t mean they act like ants. There is enough herd mentality and
this makes it hard, even impossible to promote collaboration as a virtue. Yet,
both wisdom and knowledge have blocked the road back to the land of
Zarathustra. It is not society that keeps us away from individuation. The
main issue is the method of evaluation. Do we look back in anger once the
group has fallen apart?

14 Geert Lovink

It is hard to distinguish between the necessity to work in groups, for instance
to produce large and complex artworks, conferences, festivals, protests or
publications, and the desire to overcome isolation when you do individual
work. For many of the new media artworks, collaboration is an absolute must
because the individual artist simply does not have all the skills to do the
visuals, 3D, sound, editing, and performance and manage the whole process
in terms of human resources and finance. A question here would be one of
‘economy of acknowledgement’ (which is a whole topic in itself...) and
whether works are produced under the name of a single video artist (let’s say
Bill Viola) or, more in accordance with reality, a group name. The film indus-
try must have a whole history about the composition of the credits, and the
battles that were fought in order to get included. The word ‘collaboration’
reminds me of anonymous early renaissance painting workshops and the
way ‘individuals’ emerged out of that studio system. That is considered as a
process of enlightenment. Yet, in our times, individuals working together in
a group are regarded as something unique.25

Over the years I have noticed how curious people are about the internal
group dynamics. Collaboration provokes voyeurism, because friction within
the group is taken for granted. According to the prejudice, working together
is difficult and has to end in a drama. For over fifteen years a few friends and
me produced ‘extramural theory’ under the group name Adilkno (or Bilwet in
Dutch/German), the Foundation for the Advancement of Illegal Knowl-
edge.26 Adilkno explicitly wrote about collaboration in the sense of a ‘third
mind’, which is inherently different from the individual mindsets. Out of the
Adilkno experience grew an intensive four years collaboration with Pit
Schultz during the mid-nineties, the golden age of ‘net criticism’, when we
built up the Nettime project. These days 99 per cent of my collaborations are

25 - Relate this to what Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri write in (2004) about
collaboration: ‘We are more intelligent together than any one of us is alone. Open source,
collaborative programming does not lead to confusion and wasted energy. It actually works.
One approach to understanding the democracy of the multitude, then, is an open-source
society, that is, a society whose source code is revealed so that we all can work collaboratively
to solve its bugs and create new, better social programs’ ( , Penguin Press 2004, p.
340).
26 - The online archive of Adilkno, with texts in Dutch, English and German, can be found at
http://thing.desk.nl/bilwet.


virtual. Working in real life is a luxury and big fun. Collaborating with a
group in your own town is unique, as is continuing to do so. However, the
more computer networks are being utilized, the less likely it will be that you
will find people to collaborate with in your vicinity.
The more work is done online, the more important it is to understand the
techno-social architectures of the tools we use. Think for instance about the
gender-machine aspect, that is, the productive power relationships of male-
male, male-female and female-female collaborations. Two German media
theorists, Friedrich Kittler and Klaus Theweleit, have written about this.
During the eighties Theweleit worked in the same department as Friedrich
Kittler, in Freiburg. Their work on gender, media and collaboration has strik-
ing similarities. Both Theweleit and Kittler stress the importance of the
(Deleuzian) productive element of the male-female-machine triangle. This
can also be a male-medium-male connection or a female-medium-female
one, but obviously, in male dominated heterosexual societies, the male-
female-machine one is the dominant one. Theweleit looks into the oppres-
sive aspect, in which males ‘sacrifice’ female bodies as their medium in order
to create ‘high culture’ of eternal meaning.
We could ask ourselves if such gender stories are still out there. If I think
about the Internet and the computer it is the bachelor’s machine that I think
of, not the male genius author who is dictating his work to his secretary/lover
– but I might be wrong there. Was the shift from the typewriter to PC-based
word processing that crucial in this respect? Perhaps we need a cultural
history of the present that could describe the gender condition of online
text/knowledge production. Despite the fact that half of the Internet users are
female, geeks/programmers remain predominantly male.
Collaboration, and in particular free cooperation, sounds somewhat idealis-
tic. Would it perhaps be intended for people that are bored with themselves,
handicapped with ‘lesser capacities’? Humans are social animals, in the end.
We have to remain techno-realists in this respect. Let’s not dig too deep into
a cynical reading of the topic. Another approach would be to investigate the
rise of the cultural economy and the way in which creative industries force
people to collaborate in teams. Economic innovation in networks is one of
the principle conditions of the multitude, after all. So much in new media,
computer engineering but also architecture and design is teamwork that it is
actually astonishing to see how poorly developed the general understanding
of this topic is.

16 Geert Lovink

The fight for the recognition of group work in sectors such as literature, the
visual arts and academia will probably never be won. Institutions dislike
working with amorphous social structures because no one seems to be
accountable. Here we need to make the distinction between organized net-
works (see below) and the networked organization. It is quite easy to network
organizations and to start a collaboration between institutions. The real chal-
lenge is the transformation of the ‘organized network’ model, the truly
virtual communities out there not interfacing directly with the real world. It’s
that interface between the real and virtual world that determines the type of
collaboration. It is hard, and exhausting to collaborate online without having
meetings ‘in real life’. Online work can be really ineffective, and slow. One
needs to have patience to succeed. Some still believe that we are ‘communi-
cating with the speed of light’ but that’s not at all the case if you work on a
more complicated project with a group that is dispersed around the globe.
Collaboration gets particularly interesting when informal networks reach a
critical mass, go beyond the initial stage of excitement and transform into
something completely different. It’s a marvellous, mysterious moment when
small and dispersed groups converge into a larger social movement and
cause an event (as Alain Badiou calls it). But that’s exceptional. Individual
collaborations do not aim to create historical events.27
In the case of the World Social Forum, Indymedia and the 2003 anti-war pro-
tests it is interesting to see how these movements have a hard time dealing
with ‘scalability’. It is extremely hard for decentralized autonomous organiza-
tions, so used to fragmentation, to scale up and build large size sustainable
structures. For hyper-individuals like us, historical events have become much
like carnival (as Bahktin described it). Making history is experienced as a
festive interruption of the everyday. This makes it so hard to see such large
events as an experience that can be passed on.

3. Dawn of the organized Networks
At first glance the concept of ‘organized networks’ appears oxymoronic. In
technical terms, all networks are organized. There are founders, administra-
tors, moderators and active members who all take up roles. Think back to the
early work on cybernetics and the ‘second order’ cybernetics of Bateson and

27 - This is a classic 20th century approach, in which political-aesthetics is framed within a
larger, metaphysical process of history making.


others. Networks consist of mobile relations whose arrangement at any par-
ticular time is shaped by the ‘constitutive outside’ of feedback or noise. The
order of networks is made up of a continuum of relations governed by inter-
ests, passions, affects and pragmatic necessities of different actors. The
network of relations is never static, yet is not to be mistaken for some kind of
perpetual fluidity. Ephemerality is not a condition to celebrate for those
wishing to function as political agents.
The theory of organized networks is to be read as a proposal, a draft, a
concept in the process of becoming that needs active steering through dis-
agreement and collective elaboration.28 What it doesn’t require is instant
deconstruction. Everyone can do that. Needless to say, organized networks
have existed for centuries. Their history can and will be written, but that
doesn’t bring us much further. The networks we are talking about here are
specific in that they are situated within technical media. They can be charac-
terized by their advanced irrelevance and invisibility for old media and p-in-p
(people in power). General network theory might be useful for enlighten-
ment purposes, but that doesn’t answer the issues that new media based
social networks face. Does it satisfy to know that molecules and DNA pat-
terns also network?
Truism today: there are no networks outside of society. Like all human-
techno entities, they are infected by power. Networks are ideal Foucault
machines: they undermine power as they produce it. Their diagram of power
may operate on a range of scales, traversing intra-local networks and overlap-
ping with trans-national insurgencies. No matter how harmless they seem,
networks bring on differences. Foucault’s dictum: power produces. Translate
this to organized networks and you get the force of invention. Indeed, trans-
lation is the condition of invention. Mediology, as defined by Régis Debray,29
is the practice of invention within the socio-technical system of networks. As
a collaborative method of immanent critique, mediology assembles a multi-
tude of components upon a network of relations as they coalesce around situ-
ated problems and unleashed passions. In this sense, the network constantly

28 - See the discussion on the Fibreculture mailing list about list governance, censorship and
organized networks in November/December 2004: www.fibreculture.org, go to: list archive.
29 - Régis Debray (1996). Media Manifestos: on the Technological Transmission of Cultural
Forms. London & NY: Verso.

18 Geert Lovink

escapes attempts of command and control. Such is the entropic variability of
networks.
Network users do not see their circle of peers as a sect. Ties are loose, up to
the point of breaking up. Thus the ontology of the user, in so many ways,
mirrors the logic of capital. Indeed, the ‘user’ is the identity par excellence of
capital that seeks to extract itself from rigid systems of regulation and
control. The user increasingly has become a term corresponding with the au-
to-configuration of self-invention. Some would say the user is just a con-
sumer: silent and satisfied, until hell breaks lose. The user is the identity of
control by other means. In this respect, the ‘user’ is the empty vessel await-
ing the spectral allure of digital commodity cultures and their promise of
‘mobility’ and ‘openness’. Let us harbour no fantasies: sociality is intimately
bound within the dynamic array of technics exerted by the force of capital.
Networks are everywhere. The challenge for the foreseeable future is to
create new openings, new possibilities, new temporalities and spaces within
which life may assert its insistence on an ethico-aesthetic existence.
Organized networks should be read as a proposal, aimed to replace the prob-
lematic term ‘virtual community’.30 It should put the internal power rela-
tions within networks on the agenda and break with the invisible workings
that made out the consensus era. Organized networks are ‘clouds’ of social
relationships in which disengagement is pushed to the limit. Community is
an idealistic construct and suggests bonding and harmony, which often is
simply not there. The same could be said of the post-9/11 call for ‘trust’. Net-
works thrive on diversity and conflict (the notworking), not on unity, and this
is what community theorists were unable to reflect upon. For them disagree-
ment equals a disruption of the ‘constructive’ flow of dialogue. It takes an
effort to reflect on distrust as a productive principle. Indifference between
networks is a main reason not to get organized, so this aspect has to be taken
seriously. Interaction and involvement are idealistic constructs.
Passivity rules. Browsing, watching, reading, waiting, thinking, deleting,
chatting, skipping and surfing are the default condition of online life. Total
involvement implies madness to the highest degree. What characterizes net-
works is a shared sense of a potentiality that does not have to be realized.

30 - See also the introduction and conclusion of Geert Lovink (2003). .
Rotterdam: V2/NAi. The theory of organized networks should be read as a follow up of this
book.


Millions of replies from all to all would cause every network, no matter what
architecture, to implode. Within every network there is a long time of inter-
passivity, interrupted by outbursts of interactivity. Networks foster, and
reproduce, loose relationships – and it’s better to face this fact straight into
the eye. They are hedonistic machines of promiscuous contacts. Networked
multitudes create temporary and voluntary forms of collaboration that tran-
scend, but not necessary disrupt the Age of Disengagement.
The concept of organized networks is useful to enlist for strategic purposes.
After a decade of ‘tactical media’, the time has come to scale up the opera-
tions of radical media practices. We should all well and truly have emerged
from the retro-fantasy of the benevolent welfare state. Networks will never be
rewarded and ‘embedded’ in well-funded structures. Just as the modernist
avant-garde saw itself punctuating the fringes of society, so too have tactical
media taken comfort in the idea of targeted micro-interventions. Tactical
media too often assume to reproduce the curious spatio-temporal dynamic
and structural logic of the modern state and industrial capital: difference and
renewal from the peripheries. But there’s a paradox at work here. Disruptive
as their actions may often be, tactical media corroborate the temporal mode
of post-Fordist capital: short-termism.
It is retro-garde that tactical media in a post-Fordist era continue to operate
in terms of ephemerality and the logic of ‘tactics’. Since the punctuated
attack model is the dominant condition, tactical media have an affinity with
that which they seek to oppose. This is why tactical media are treated with a
kind of benign tolerance. There is a neurotic tendency to disappear. Anything
that solidifies is lost in the system. The ideal is to be little more than a tempo-
rary glitch, a brief instance of noise or interference. Tactical media set them-
selves up for exploitation in the same manner that ‘modders’ do in the game
industry: they both dispense with their knowledge of loop holes in the system
for free. They point out the problem, and then run away. Capital is delighted,
and thanks the tactical media outfit or nerd-modder for the home improve-
ment.
But make no mistake, the emergence of organized networks amount to an
articulation of info-war. This battle currently revolves around the theme of
‘sustainability’; neo-liberal governments and institutions wish to extricate
themselves from responsibility to annoying constituencies. Organized net-
works are required to invent models of sustainability that go beyond the

20 Geert Lovink

latest Plan of Action update, which is only then inserted into paper shredders
of member states and ‘citizen friendly’ businesses.
Organized networks compete with established institutions in terms of brand-
ing and identity building, but primarily as sites of knowledge production and
concept development. These days, most bricks and mortal institutions can
only subtract value from networks. They are not merely unwilling but in fact
incapable of giving anything back. This is where the real potential of virtual
networks lies. Virtual networks are not yet represented in negotiations over
budgets, grants, investments and job hiring. At best they are seen as sources
of inspiration amongst peers.
The organized network is a ‘hybrid’ formation: part tactical media, part insti-
tutional formation. There are benefits to be obtained from both these lin-
eages. The clear distinction of the organized network is that its institutional
logic is internal to the socio-technical dimensions of the media of communi-
cation. This means there is no universal formula for how an organized
network might invent its conditions of existence. There will be no ‘interna-
tionalism’ for networks. While we have outlined the background condition of
neo-liberalism as integral to the emergence of organized networks, it also has
to be said that just as uneven modernities created vastly different social and
national experiences and formations, from the East to the West, from the
North to the South, so too does capital in its neo-liberal phase manifest itself
in a plurality of ways. The diversity of conditions attached to free-trade agree-
ments is just one example of the multiple forms of capital. From the point of
analysis, the understanding of capital is always going to vary according to the
range of inputs one defines as constituting the action of capital.
Eventually organized networks will be mirrored against the networked orga-
nization. But we’re not there yet. There will not be an easy synthesis.
Roughly speaking, one can witness a ‘convergence’ between the informality
of virtual networks and the formality of institutions. This process, however,
is anything but harmonious. Clashes between networks and organizations
are occurring before our very own eyes. Debris spreads in every possible
direction, depending on the locality. The networked multitude, one could say,
is constituted – and crushed – as a part of this process. It is naive to believe
that, under the current circumstances, networks will win this battle (if you
want to put it in those terms). This is precisely why networks need their own
form of organization. In this process they will have to deal with the following
three aspects: accountability, sustainability and scalability.


Let’s start with the question if who and if networks represent and what form
of internal democracy they envision. Formal networks have members but
most online initiatives don’t. Let’s face it. Networks disintegrate traditional
forms of representation. This is what makes the question ‘Did blogs affect
the 2004 US-election?’ so irrelevant. The blogosphere, at best, influenced a
hand-full of TV and newspaper editors. Instead of spreading the word, the
Net has questioned authority – any authority – and therefore was not useful
to push this or that candidate up the rating-scale of electoral appeal. Net-
works that thrive higher up will fail. No matter what you think of Derrida,
networks do deconstruct society. It is deep linkage that matters, not some
symbolic coup d’état. If there is an aim, it would be to parallel hegemony,
which can only be achieved if underlying premises are constantly put under
scrutiny by the initiators of the next techno-social wave of innovations.
The rise of ‘community informatics’31 as a field of research and project build-
ing could be seen as an exemplary platform that could deal with the issues
treated here. For all the interest community informatics has in building pro-
jects ‘from below’, a substantial amount of research within this field is
directed toward ‘e-democracy’ issues. It is time to abandon the illusion that
the myths of representational democracy might somehow be transferred and
realised within networked settings. That is not going to happen. After all, the
people benefiting from such endeavours as the World Summit of the Infor-
mation Society (WSIS) are, for the most part, those on the speaking and
funding circuits, not people who are supposedly represented in such a
process. Networks call for a new logics of politics, not just based on a hand-
picked collection of NGOs that have identified themselves as ‘global civil
society’.
Networks are not institutions of representative democracy, despite the fre-
quency with which they are expected to model themselves on such failed
institutions. Instead, there is a search for ‘post-democratic’ models of deci-
sion making that avoid classic models of representation and related identity
policies. The emerging theme of non-representative democracies places an
emphasis on process over its after-effect, consensus. Certainly, there’s some-
thing attractive in process-oriented forms of governance. But ultimately the

31 - One of the many crossovers between computer science and humanities, as proposed by
Michael Gurstein and others. Some of their texts can be found at
www.netzwissenschaft.de/sem/pool.htm.

22 Geert Lovink

process model is about as sustainable as an earthworks sculpture burrowed
into a patch of dirt called the 1970s. Process is fine as far as it integrates a
plurality of forces into the network. But the primary questions remain:
Where does it go? How long does it last? Why do it in the first place? But
also: Who is speaking? And: Why bother? A focus on the vital forces that con-
stitute socio-technical life is thus required. Herein lie the variability and
wildcards of organized networks. The persistence of dispute and disagree-
ment can be taken as a given. Rational consensus models of democracy have
proven, in their failure, that such underlying conditions of social-political life
cannot be eradicated.
Organized networks will increasingly be concerned with their own
sustainability. Networks are not hypes. They may look temporary but are
here to stay. Individual clusters might die off sooner rather than later but
there is a Will to Contextualize that is hard to suppress. Links may be dead at
some point but that’s not the end of the data itself. Nonetheless networks are
extremely fragile. This all may sound obvious, but let’s not forget that prag-
matism is built upon the passions, joys and thrills of invention. Something
will be invented to bridge time and this something we might call the orga-
nized network. Time has come for cautious planning. There is a self-destruc-
tive tendency of networks faced with the challenge of organization. Orga-
nized networks have to feel confident about defining their value systems in
ways meaningful and relevant to the internal operations of their socio-techni-
cal complex. That’s actually not so difficult. The danger is that of
ghettoization. The trick is to work out a collaborative value system able to
deal with issues such as funding, internal power plays and the demand for
‘accountability’ and ‘transparency’ as they scale up their operations.

Let’s get monetary. Organized networks first and foremost have to keep their
virtual house in order. It is of strategic importance to use a non-profit pro-
vider (ISP) and have backups made, or even run a mirror in another country.
Also, it is wise not to make use of commercial services such as
Yahoo!Groups, Hotmail, Geocities or Google as they are unreliable and
suffer from regular security breaches. Be aware of costs for the domain
names, e-mail addresses, storage and bandwidth, even if they are relatively
small. Often conflicts arise because passwords and ownership of the domain
name are in the hands of one person that is leaving the group in a conflict
situation. This can literally mean the end of the project.


Networks are never hundred per cent virtual and always connected at some
point with the monetary economy. This is where the story of organized net-
works starts. Perhaps incorporation is necessary. If you do not want to bother
the network with legal matters, keep in mind what the costs of not going
there will be. Funding for online activities, meetings, editorial work, coding,
design, research or publications can of course be channelled through allied
institutions. Remember that the more online activities you unfold, the more
likely it is that you will have to pay for a network administrator. The inward
looking free software world only uses its paradise-like voluntary work rules
for its own coding projects. Keep in mind that cultural, artistic and activist
projects do not fall under this category, no matter how politically correct they
might be. The same counts for content editors and web designers. Ideally,
online projects are high on communitarian spirits and are able to access the
necessary skills. But the further we leave behind the moment of initiation,
the more likely it will be that work will have to be paid. Organized networks
have to face this economic reality or find themselves marginalized, no matter
how advanced their dialogues and network use might be. Talk about the rise
of ‘immaterial labour’ and ‘precarious work’ is useful, but could run out of
steam, as it remains incapable of making the jump from speculative reflec-
tion to a political program that will outline how networks can be funded over
time.

Let’s end with the perhaps least investigated aspect of scalability. Why is it so
difficult for networks to scale up? There seems to be an immanent tendency
to split up in a thousand micro conversations. This also counts for the ‘social
software’ blogs like Orkut, Friendster and LinkIn, in which millions from all
over the globe participate. For the time being it is only the geeky Slashdot
that manages to centralize conversations amongst the tens of thousands of
its online users. Electronic mailing lists do not seem to get above a few thou-
sand before the conversation actually slows down, heavily moderated as it is.
The ideal size for an in-depth, open discussion still seems to be somewhere
between 50 and 500 participants. What does this mean for the networked
multitudes? The question would be: to what extend is this all a software
issue? Could the necessary protocols being written up by women? Can we
image very large-scale conversations that do not only make sense but also
have an impact? What network cultures can transform large institutions?

24 Geert Lovink

Acknowledgements

Needless to say, this text is a product of numerous (online) collaborations.
Besides mailing lists such as Nettime, Fibreculture, Rohrpost, Oekonux,
Incommunicado and Spectre, and the now defunct collaborative weblog
Discordia, I have to mention my intensive exchanges with Trebor Scholz (on
free cooperation) and Ned Rossiter, with whom I am working on organized
networks. Soenke Zehle and Florian Schneider have also been there as valu-
able dialogue partners. I would like to thank Emilie Randoe for our ongoing
conversations and Sabine Niederer at the Institute of Network Cultures for
her comments and editorial support. I dedicate this work to my beloved
Linda Wallace and our son Kazimir, with whom I live this turbulent, inspir-
ing life.


Literature

Castells, M. (1996). . Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Debray, R. (1996). Media Manifestos: on the Technological Transmission of Cultural Forms.
London and New York: Verso.
Florida, R. (2002). . New York: Basic Books.
Hardt, M. & Negri, A. (2000). . Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
Hardt, M. & Negri, A. (2004). . New York:
The Penguin Press.
Hoffer, E. (1951). . New York: Harper and Row.
Lovink, G. (2002). . Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Lovink, G. (2003). . Rotterdam: V2/NAi.
Manovich, L. (2001). . Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Shaviro, S. (2003). . Minnesota:
University of Minnesota Press.
Terranova, T. (2004). . London/Ann Arbor: Pluto Press.
Virno, P. (2004). . Cambridge (Mass.): Semiotexte.
Yudice, G. (2003). . Durham and London: Duke University Press.

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0212/msg00057.html
http://thing.desk.nl/bilwet
www.aoir.org.
www.fibreculture.org, go to: list archive.
www.freecooperation.org
www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
www.nettime.org
www.networkcultures.org
www.netzwissenschaft.de/sem/pool.htm

26 Geert Lovink

Principes van de netwerkcultuur

De vraag die in deze Openbare Les centraal staat is hoe internetcultuur een
duurzame grondslag gegeven kan worden, aan gene zijde van hype en
speculatie. De toekomst is immers aangebroken en het tijdperk van de inlei-
dingen ligt achter ons. Nu de ‘nieuwe media’ algemeen verspreid zijn, gaat
het niet langer om de vraag hoe deze cultuurtechnieken werken, maar om
wat ermee gedaan kan worden, en wie het voor het zeggen heeft binnen de
netwerkarchitectuur. Dit roept belangrijke vragen op, zoals: Wie heeft toe-
gang tot welke kennis? Hoe wordt er omgegaan met conflict? Wat is de in-
vloed van gebruikers? Wat betekent de opkomst van niet-westerse landen
zoals India, China en Brazilië voor de internetcultuur in het algemeen? Kan
de claim dat cultuur en creativiteit de rol overnemen van de computer-
ingenieurs wel waargemaakt worden en wat is de economische grondslag
van deze ‘creatieve industrie’?
Wordt het networking, of notworking?


Biography Geert Lovink

Dr. Geert Lovink (1959, Amsterdam), media theorist, net critic and activist,
studied political science at the University of Amsterdam (MA), and holds a
PhD at the University of Melbourne. Besides his lectureship at IAM (since
January 2004), he works as a senior researcher at the University of Amster-
dam, Media & Culture.
Geert Lovink is a member of Adilkno, the Foundation for the Advancement
of Illegal Knowledge, a free association of media-related intellectuals estab-
lished in 1983 (Agentur Bilwet in German). From Adilkno the following
books appeared: Empire of Images (1985), Cracking the Movement (1990) on
the squatter movement and the media, Listen or Die (1992) on free radio, the
collected theoretical work The Media Archive (1992 – translated into German,
English, Croatian and Slovenian), the collection of essays The Datadandy
(1994 – in German) and the book/CD Electronic Solitude (1997). Most of the
early texts of Lovink and Adilkno in Dutch, German and English can be
found at http://thing.desk.nl/bilwet. Geert Lovink’s recent online text archive
is: www.laudanum.net/geert.
Geert Lovink is a former editor of the media art magazine Mediamatic (1989-
94) and has been teaching and lecturing media theory throughout Central
and Eastern Europe. He is a co-founder of the Amsterdam-based free com-
munity network ‘Digital City’ (www.dds.nl) and the support campaign for
independent media in South-East Europe Press Now www.dds.nl/pressnow.
He was the co-organizer of conferences such as Wetware (1991), Next Five
Minutes 1-3 (93-96-99) www.n5m.org, Metaforum 1-3 (Budapest 94-96)
www.mrf.hu, Ars Electronica (Linz, 1996/98) www.aec.at and Interface 3
(Hamburg 95). In 1995, together with Pit Schultz, he founded the interna-
tional ‘nettime’ circle www.nettime.org which is both a mailing list (in
English, Dutch, French, Spanish/Portuguese, Romanian and Chinese), a
series of meetings and publications such as zkp 1-4, ‘Netzkritik’ (ID-Archiv,
1997, in German) and ‘Readme!’ (Autonomedia, 1998). From 1996-1999
Lovink was based at De Waag, the Society for Old and New Media
(www.waag.org) where he was responsible for public research. Since 1996,
once a year Lovink has been coordinating a project and teaching at the IMI
mediaschool in Osaka/Japan (www.iminet.ac.jp). A series of temporary
media labs was started in 1997 at the arts exhibition Documenta X in
Kassel/Germany called Hybrid Workspace (for archive see

28 Geert Lovink

www.medialounge.net) which continued in Manchester (1998) and Helsinki,
in the contemporary arts museum Kiasma (http://temp.kiasma.fi).
A conference he organized was Tulipomania Dotcom conference, which took
place in Amsterdam, June 2000, focusing on a critique of the New Economy
www.balie.nl/tulipomania. In early 2001 he co-founded
www.fibreculture.org, a forum for Australian Internet research and culture
which has its first publication out, launched at the first fibreculture meeting
in Melbourne (December 2001). Since 2000 Lovink is a consultant/editor to
the exchange program of Waag Society (Amsterdam) and Sarai New Media
Centre (Delhi). He co-organized Dark Markets on new media and democracy
in times of crisis (Vienna, October 2002, http://darkmarkets.t0.or.at/) and
Crisis Media, Uncertain States of Reportage (Delhi, March 2003,
www.sarai.net/events/crisis_media/crisis_media.htm).
Three books document Lovinks collaboration with the Dutch designer Mieke
Gerritzen which he co-edited: Everyone is a Designer (BIS, 2000), Catalogue of
Strategies (Gingko Press, 2001) and Mobile Minded (BIS, 2002). Together
with Mieke Gerritzen he co-founded the Browserday events
(www.browserday.com), a competition for new media design students in
1998. In 2002 The MIT Press published two of his titles: Dark Fiber, a collec-
tion of essays on Internet culture (translated into Italian, Spanish, Roma-
nian, German and Japanese) and Uncanny Networks, collected interviews
with media theorists and artists. V2 in Rotterdam published his most recent
study on Internet culture, My First Recession, in September 2003.


HvA Publicaties is an imprint of Amsterdam University Press
This edition is established under the auspices of the Hogeschool
van Amsterdam.

cover illustration
Milou Hermus, Amsterdam

graphic design
Marise Knegtmans, Amsterdam
lay out
JAPES, Amsterdam

isbn
90 5629 380 x

© HvA Publicaties, Amsterdam, 2005

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright
reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in
or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or
by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright
owner and the author of the book.

Lovink, Not Working Dutch Article

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Lovink, Not Working Dutch Article (20)

Lovink, Not Working Dutch Article