User:Artemis gryllaki/Writing & Research Methodologies
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (300 words)
Version 1
WHAT
The “x_Sound” machine is an interactive construction which produces multiple deafening sounds, in relation to the distance between a passer-by and the machine. It consists of a metal frame X-shaped, which supports the mechanism of three gears and a rack, and a wooden frame S-shaped, which carries twelve metal wind chimes. Eight metal rods penetrate axially these two structural frames helping the machine to stand independently. Basic point during the construction of the machine was the reuse of materials, like the gears of a car’s gear box, the drive of a drawer, the wooden surface of a cupboard, metal tubes from wind chimes (musical instrument), a canned box and parts from the metal frame of a table.
HOW
The machine tries to detect whoever is nearby, in order to force them to listen to its annoying harmonies. If the output sound of the machine repels the spectator from coming close, it will remain inactive. An ultrasonic sensor (rangefinder) identifies someone at 60cm distance, thus activating the moving parts of the machine, in order to produce different sounds. There are two motors which activate the machine, a “servo” motor and a “wiper” motor. The first rotates the baquette pounding the drum rhythmically in different speed. The second activates the gears, which force the rack to move back and forth, hitting the metal wind chimes, thus creating melodies.
WHY
The “x_Sound” machine is an assemblage composed of found-objects, which could be considered as “junk”, inspired by the sculptural, yet pointless machines of Jean Tinguely. It creates a game between the spectator and the machine, as a form of action-reaction grounded in the programming environment of Arduino. It has the ambition to redefine the mechanical ingenuity of 20th century’s kinetic art in the contemporary post-digital era. It can be also regarded as a humble attempt to mock the "improvements" of modern technology and the post-digital society.
REMARKS
A natural sense of flow making it comfortable for readers, bo suggested that the description of the music can be more ?dynamic? (that she's very curious about the sound). Unmark "improvement". Use of architectural terms, how to remedy that for people who are not familiar to architectural terms (like axially)?
Version 2
The “x_Sound” machine is an interactive construction which produces multiple deafening sounds, in relation to the distance between a passer-by and the machine. It consists of a metal frame X-shaped, which supports the mechanism of three gears and a rack, and a wooden frame S-shaped, which carries twelve metal wind chimes. Eight metal rods penetrate through the two structural frames helping the machine to stand independently. Basic point during the construction of the machine was the reuse of materials, like the gears of a car’s gear box, the drive of a drawer, the wooden surface of a cupboard, metal tubes from wind chimes (musical instrument), a canned box and parts from the metal frame of a table.
The machine tries to detect whoever is nearby, in order to force them to listen to its annoying harmonies. If the output sound of the machine repels the spectator from coming close it will remain inactive. An ultrasonic sensor (rangefinder) identifies someone at 60cm distance, thus activating the moving parts of the machine, in order to produce different types of sounds. There are two motors which activate the machine, a “servo” motor and a “wiper” motor. The first rotates the baquette pounding the drum rhythmically, making hollow metal staccato sounds performed in various speeds. The second activates the gears, which force the rack to move back and forth, hitting the metal wind chimes, thus creating sharp metallic and clanging sounds that compose playful melodies. This noise symphony is completed by the continuous grinding and clunking noise that comes from the rotational motion of the gears.
The “X_Sound” machine is an assemblage composed of found-objects, which could be considered as “junk”, inspired by the sculptural, yet pointless machines of Jean Tinguely. It creates a game between the spectator and the machine, as a form of action-reaction grounded in the programming environment of Arduino. It has the ambition to redefine the mechanical ingenuity of 20th century’s kinetic art in the contemporary post-digital era. It can be also regarded as a humble attempt to mock the improvements of modern technology and the post-digital society.
THE ENTREPRECARIAT READER
Assembly, Chapter 9: Entrepreneurship of the Multitude
- Author: Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri
- Publisher and date: Oxford University Press, 2017
Abstract:
In chapter 9 of “Assembly”, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri attempt to redefine the meaning of “entrepreneurship”. The “entrepreneurship of the multitude” as proposed by the authors, is capable of forming new social combinations, pointing to autonomous social production and reproduction.
Synopsis In the “Entrepreneurship of the Multitude”, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri perceive language and communication as significant political tools. They argue that neoliberal politicians often distort political “terms and concepts” and separate them from their original historical context, in order to support their arguments. With a focus on political antagonism, Hardt and Negri suggest that we should claim back words that have been diverted and give them our own interpretations, hence forming new alternatives. In chapter 9 of "Assembly", there is an attempt to redefine the meaning of “entrepreneurship”.
The chapter begins with Joseph Schumpeter’s description of the “entrepreneur”, as a person whose special ability is to create “new combinations” among already “existing workers, ideas, technologies, resources and machines”. The construction of these new “machinic assemblages” is a vital aspect of productivity growth. The heroic figure of the capitalist entrepreneur, portrays a “man of action”, who “gets things done” and becomes a role-model for the masses.
However, this perception hides an important part of the entrepreneurial process, which is the labor itself. Under the praised work of the capitalist entrepreneur, lies the constant expropriation of the cooperative power of the multitude. The entrepreneurial function does not belong a manager or a guru. On the contrary, it is accomplished through cooperation. As the main actors of production process, the workers collaborate, while limiting their individuality and thus create social wealth. Under this condition, the maximum human powers can be unveiled.
At this point, Hardt and Negri introduce the novel term of “entrepreneurship of the multitude”. In postmodern global economy, the production process is progressively based in new networks of collaboration and communication, in coordination with contemporary technologies. On these terms, the labor gradually acquires a degree of autonomy in production. Provided that today workers manage their social relationships and make decisions together, in the future they could set goals on their own, and eventually accomplish self-direction.
In regard to the term itself, "entrepreneurship of the multitude" can be tricky and lead to misinterpretation. Hardt and Negri clarify that their approach stands apart from “social entrepreneurship”. They argue that after the collapse of the welfare state, this practice, despite its rhetoric, failed to provide sustainable aid to the weakest parts of society. Instead, it proved harmful to existing solidarity networks of local communities in developing countries, by forcing them to follow the logic of the market.
The “entrepreneurship of the multitude” as proposed by the authors, is capable of forming new social combinations, pointing to autonomous social production and reproduction. Admittedly, people are not naturally oriented to collective self-rule. Nevertheless, Hardt and Negri believe in the power of people’s assembly. Social movements need to connect with labor organizing, and form what is referred as “social unionism”.
In conclusion, the “multitude” has the potential not only to reject the current social system as we know it, but use its entrepreneurial spirit to build novel forms of cooperation. Ultimately, the triumph of private property will be abandoned. In its place, the “autonomous organization of social cooperation” can build the ground where “social wealth is shared in common”.
Glossary
Team: Artemis, Paloma, Pedro, Simon
- Subjectivity: As a philosophical concept, subjectivity has its roots in the writings of Descartes and Kant. Modern discourse on subjectivity is often articulated by understandings of what constitutes an individual, and concepts of the self in relation to one's environment. Broadly speaking, subjectivity concerns the position of a subject as an individual (with consciousness, perspectives, feelings, desires etc.), the subject's agency, or ability to act on objects, and also information that is considered true from the perspective of a subject.
- Self-precarization: Precarization stems from individuals reacting to economic circumstances where there is uncertainty. Isabell Lorey extends the concept to "self-precarization", which she defines as a precarization that is both forced and chosen; giving as an example of one choosing less-creative, precarious jobs in order to fund one's own cultural production within a state-imposed narrative that offers no alternative. In this way, self-precarization is a reaction to the top-down imperative to improve oneself through self-governance.
- Gig-economy: The term is often applied in an economic system where long-term work contracted jobs are not a reality anymore and companies prefer to outsource temporary positions. It has its origins in the 1920's jazz musicians, being slang for a live musical performance, especially one that does not have a certain future or that is temporary. The term gig also derives has a "short" for engagement.
- Platform Capitalism: We can consider it as a digital mediated form of entrepreneurialism. Companies such as Deliveroo, Uber or Glovo, recruite large numbers of workers, outsourcing their job positions through online systems as websites, apps, etc. Workers are self-employed, creating most of the times a fake sense of freedom.
- Social pyramid: Term introduced by Joseph Schumpeter which categorise the society in ranges in an pyramidal structure distinguishing roles of each layer of society and relations between large social groups and headed by entrepreneurs because of their ability to innovate.
- Entreprecariat: This term was born as a mixture between entrepreneurialism and precariat concepts. The entreprecariat is the semi-young enthusiastic creative worker who is forced to reinvent himself as an entrepreneur of the self due to his working conditions are undervalued in a financial, psychological, affective, physiological, temporal or geographical aspect.
- Social Unionism: Social Unionism is the concept of integrating workers, trade unions and the labor movement into broader alliances for social and economic justice. The attempt to connect social movements with labor organising points to the achievement of mutual beneficial goals and the re-appropriation of “the common”.
- Entrepreneurship of the Multitude: This term is suggested by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, as an attempt redefine the concept of "entrepreneurship". The "entrepreneurial spirit" is broadly referred as the special ability of neoliberal managers and gurus to maximize production and create individual profit. In contrast, with this new term the entrepreneurial mindset is claimed back by the multitude, as an inherent feature in social production processes. The goal is in this case is “self-organization and self-governance”, with the intention to build the ground where “social wealth is shared in common”.