[Nettime-bold] (no subject)

[integer@www.god-emil.dk]

open source - lo.tekk mob akz!on \ neu + !mproved fasc!zm

l!nux - lo.tekk rez!kld zkaled dev!az!on ov 01 korporat agregat 

komputer - lo.tekk 01 shortkut 2 m9nd akt!v!t!

human@architexturez.com - rough ezt!maz!e - perfa bubl gum m2 ape

d!zolvd kem!klz = bathe dze env!ronmnt



eusocial.com -> superb source for male fascist antibodies.




                                          pre.konssept!Øn  
                                                meeTz ver!f1kat!Øn.     



-

Netochka Nezvanova
f3.MASCHIN3NKUNST
@www.eusocial.com
17.hzV.tRL.478
                                                    e
                                                    |
                                                     |  +----------
                                                    |  |     <   
                                   \\----------------+  |  n2t      
                                                       |       >
                                                       e



> the following is an inaugural essay for the perspectives section of
> the newly redesigned http://www.architexturez.com website, which
> will launch sometime in the next few weeks. if you're interested
> in writing about the natural and built environment, actual and-or
> virtual, please contact me at human@architexturez.com. thanks. bc
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>open-source architecture                                6/7/2000
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>the computer industry has borrowed terminology from the discipline of
>architecture to describe structural and conceptual workings of electronic
>computational machines and its designers: computer architecture and
>software architects.
>
>now, what if architecture borrowed popular terminology from the discipline
>of computer science..?
>
>the idea has its genesis in the comparison between a computer
>microprocessor and a city, where, looking down upon the microcosm of a
>microchip, one sees a city plan with its interrelating streets, buildings,
>and infrastructure.
>
>but this paradigmatic model stops inside the heart of every computer. it
>remains invisible to the computer using community at large because it is
>locked-away from most, and thus this conceptual connection remains
>mysterious.
>
>but what if architecture were instead more like the computer itself, where
>the desktop of each computer is a city-state of sorts, with each software
>program being its own architecture, each software file its own building...
>
>this viewpoint borrows from Rudolf Arnheim's idea of architecture as an
>interface. [1]  in this case, the computer interface becomes an
>architectural interface, and the software program becomes an architectural
>program, of function, aesthetics, and structure.
>
> each software program can then be seen as a building with its own specific
>architecture, and the operating system as an amalgamation of different
>buildings and architectures in a city plan, and more- as different
>computers are internetworked, they become a mirror of the plan of a local
>and global state, connected via an infrastructure of servers, routers, and
>hubs...
>
>in effect, then, by reciprocally borrowing some terminology from the field
>of computer popular culture, such as interface and programming, architects
>can begin "seeing" the discipline of architecture anew, from a different
>perspective, in relation to the ubiquitous computer.
>
>ultimately, doing so necessitates we analyze the computer operating system,
>the meta-software which orchestrates the running of other softwares on a
>machine, as a determinant of the possible programs or architectures that
>can be designed and built in a computer-based environment.
>
>there are at least two choices of operating systems (OS) that exist today:
>proprietary and open-source. these two different models are represented by
>the Microsoft OS and the Linux OS, respectively.
>
>Microsoft is appealing an anti-trust ruling for alleged monopoly power over
>80 percent of computer desktop operating systems in the world. Microsoft is
>accused of inflating software prices and illegally quashing competition and
>innovation from outsiders.
>
>it is ironic, then, that Bill Gates, who is speculated to become the
>world's first trillionaire given enough time, has stepped down as Chief
>Executive Officer and added the position of Chief Software Architect to his
>title, in addition to being the Chairman of Microsoft.
>
>what do these metaphors mean?
>
>of course, a comparison can be made between Microsoft Chairman and a
>well-known Chairman and founder of the Communist party. and surely has been
>made before that Microsoft acts like a pseudo-Communist state, tightly
>controlling the development of software for the Microsoft OS, so much so
>that the system becomes corrupt from the top-down, with every bit of power
>and wealth going back to the state, or in this case Microsoft as state,
>leaving the individual a servant of the state and not vice-versa.
>
>further, if one is going to "develop" software programs that run under the
>Microsoft OS then, one needs to be in collusion with the ideals and
>ideology of the Microsoft way of seeing. the licensing of Microsoft's
>proprietary source-code to software developers is under a type of total
>control. this concentrates the wealth generated from the platform, so much
>so that Bill Gate's is the world's richest person given a good day on the
>stock market, with a net worth of around 80 billion U.S. dollars, more than
>many countries.
>
>the economic, social, and political nature of Microsoft's proprietary
>computer code, a type of intellectual property, can then be seen as a type
>of communist governance of the state of the computer, where the flag of
>Windows represents the spread of both an ideology and an empire replete
>with programming bugs, protected markets, dumping, and corrupt
>institutions; a type of legalized pyramid scheme.
>
>but that's the old conceptual model, what about architecture- what does it
>mean that Microsoft metaphor has now changed from CEO to Chief Software
>Architect?
>
>Bill Gates decision to work on the future development of Microsoft software
>products as Chief Software Architect refers most directly to the definition
>of an architect as a master builder... and this ultimately relates directly
>to the "development" of the real estate of the computer screen, as it is
>governed by the Microsoft OS.
>
>each software program developed for the Microsoft OS can then be seen as a
>kind of building with its own architecture. and all building development is
>directed by the Microsoft estate. the proprietary OS is the totalized
>master plan.
>
>to be a part of the building process, a licensed "developer" must follow
>the rules and regulations set forth by Microsoft. the computer desktop then
>becomes a visible city, populated by software programs (architectures) and
>their files (buildings) which compose the Microsoft city-state, all of
>which are designed to work together in a completely planned development.
>this makes for a company town on a scope never seen before in history, with
>inhabitants in the hundreds of millions.
>
>the Internet was supposed to change all of this. but instead, the planned
>development of the Microsoft OS continued through its proprietary system of
>order and control also known as the Internet Explorer browser. Microsoft's
>empire keeps growing exponentially, even to this day, industrializing and
>privatizing computer real estate all around the world.
>
>what has changed is that the predominant Microsoft OS ceased being Windows,
>and instead became the Internet Explorer web browser. Internet Explorer
>pushed Microsoft's way of seeing the web into 70+ percent of the Internet
>browser market, defeating its rival Netscape (and others) by giving away,
>or dumping, their proprietary software to capture the majority rule of the
>marketplace.
>
>populated Internet markets began to become homogenized by e-commerce and
>commercialization, with Microsoft leading the way, transforming everything
>in its strategic path. whole industries were taken on, and soon Microsoft
>began diversifying in everything from entertainment and real estate to
>banking and car sales on and off the Internet, in addition to forging ahead
>with its usual computer hardware and software alliances.
>
>this diversification of Microsoft into industries other than computers
>signals the switch from a product-centered OS, Windows, to a services-based
>software program that acts like the OS of the Internet, Internet Explorer
>(IE).
>
>this new software architecture enables the user to access any site in the
>world accessible on the Internet, made by Microsoft or not, but does not
>appear to threaten the monopoly Microsoft has with its indebted users. this
>is because Microsoft's new strategy remains within the context of the
>privatized computer desktop (city-state) created by the Microsoft OS, the
>Internet Explorer browser only extends the reach of this private estate.
>
>Bill Gates, the Chief Software Architect of Microsoft, is a master builder
>who has designed and realized a proprietary state of total architecture.
>
>there seems to be little stopping Microsoft's expansion of the wall it
>builds around its electronic empire under the Windows flag.
>
>and many people are defensive about questioning this successive business
>model,
>but some are not-
>
>the surprise challenger to the hegemony of the Microsoft OS is grassroots
>computer operating system- the Linux OS.
>
>instead of a private organization of total control from the top-down, the
>Linux OS is the ongoing result of a collective of thousands of computer
>programmers working from the bottom-up.
>
>and unlike Microsoft's heavily guarded proprietary source code, the
>computer code for the Linux OS is open-source, meaning that it is publicly
>available to programmers who want to develop the software architecture in
>order to optimize its performance or extend its different tasks.
>
>not only is the software of the Linux OS theoretically less buggy, but the
>wealth of its development is being spread out beyond the workers, to
>potentially include the computer using community, as it promises to bring
>down the price of computers to new lows, making the possibility of a
>mass-market affordable Internet appliance a probability.
>
>in a sense, the Linux OS is equivalent to the democratic development of the
>real estate of the computer, as it represents equal rights for programmers
>and wide-ranging freedoms of individual and collective development.
>additionally,
>because it is open-source and ruled by no one in particular and everyone
>all at once, there is a communal sense that the intellectual property of
>the Linux OS is public property, and a shared endeavor.
>
>the spirit of innovation in the computer industry has in part been freed
>with the Linux OS, as hardware vendors and software programmers are finally
>given a viable mass-market option to the Microsoft model of development.
>software programs are daily being ported over to the open plan of the Linux
>OS, with many of Microsoft's traditional allies crossing over the line.
>
>this shift signals a strategic movement in the mass marketplace of
>computers and ideas, away from the proprietary model of development, and
>towards an open-source software architecture.
>
>but what does this have to do with architecture, besides some mixed and
>muddled metaphors?
>
>there are several parallels to be drawn between proprietary and open-source
>development, and the reigning institution of architectural thought.
>
>like the Microsoft OS, architectural ideas and ideologies are often
>proprietary, belonging to a tradition of hierarchical, privatized, and
>elitist states of mind that then become schools of thought, upon which
>people pay to  become "educated" or indoctrinated in this insular
>marketplace of ideas.
>
>although there are a plurality of architectural "developers," they all
>continue to develop the same old institution of architecture, over and over
>again, waving the flag of revolutionary rhetoric, while entrenched in the
>ways of prevailing political, economic, and social system of operation.
>
>students, professors, architects, critics, developers, and clients are
>given little option of another model of architectural thought besides that
>of the established state of the profession, centuries old.
>
>other "issues" which question the current economic, social, or political
>system of operation are considered outside the "programmatic" and
>ideological functions of the discipline of architecture as it operates
>day-to-day. and thus the institution remains as it is, as it has been
>handed down to its willing disciples, a privatized architectural source
>code.
>
>this traditional way of seeing architecture ignores realities outside of
>its walled boundaries, and establishes a privatized state of architectural
>mind.
>
>global warming, energy inefficiency, pollution, waste, homelessness- these
>are not within the domain of Architecture, so says the silent majority,
>heading the calls of a vocal minority of architectural ideologues
>subjectively determining what is and what is not Architecture from atop the
>global pyramid scheme.
>
>everybody becomes an accomplice to this state of mind, because there is no
>other choice for development...
>
>that is primarily because the architectural "debate" is an protected
>market, created to sell architectural stars and world class architectural
>monuments to the masses, along with coffee table books and luxury goods
>designed by the elite name brand architects. this diversification of
>merchandising only fuels the "development" of certain kinds of
>architecture, in the books, in the schools, in the cities, in the minds,
>and with enough time and representation a movement or style is created and
>sustained by which others can emulate their way up the ladder of
>architectural fame. those with a different world view are told to conform
>or to leave the profession.
>
>this model of development which protects the power and prestige of a few
>architectural monopolists can potentially be changed, given the
>opportunity...
>
>the crux of the problem centers around the proprietary role of
>architectural ways of seeing in the realm of architectural discourse,
>manifesting itself within a privatized architectural source code for all
>new development.
>
>the architectural institutions- be they universities, organizations, or
>critics- insulate the architectural discourse from dissent, while
>legitimating those ideas that support their own systems of operation, with
>total authority.
>
>the powerful inhabitants of the architectural pantheon are thus protected
>from having to answer basic questions regarding mission critical economic,
>social, and political realities because such musings are deemed outside the
>rules of the oligarchic game of the architecture.
>
>the Internet has changed all of this. new avenues for architectural
>ideation have formed outside of the traditional institutions of
>architecture. new, more democratic forums for architectural discourse, such
>as the Design-List for art and architecture, are leading the way to a new,
>public model of architectural thought, and architectural development in
>general. [2]
>
>the next step, mirroring the transformation of the computer industry by the
>Linux OS, requires opening up the  architectural discourse to all
>architectural "programmers" who hack and crack the open-source
>architectural code.
>
>this new model of architectural development no longer bases itself on
>private property, be it a building or a text, guarded and copyrighted.
>
>instead, open-source architecture is founded on the public, democratic, and
>collaborative research and development of architecture by a collective of
>hundreds of internetworked individuals- lay people, students, professors,
>administrators, architects, developers, researchers, theorists, and
>critics- so as to address the pressing issues the discipline needs to
>address, or else face its own existential extinction.
>
>this new way of seeing is actually an old way, in that architects have a
>tradition of freely copying what is best in a design and bringing it
>forward in time, again and again, mutated and altered, but utilized and
>optimized.
>
> like its software equivalent, the newly incarnated open-source
>architecture would fulfill the need for a democratic grassroots
>architecture, empowering the individual and community, while having the
>architectural state serve the people and not the other way around.
>
>a soft revolution, open-source architecture is still potently able to
>compete and survive while facing and fighting the protected markets of
>proprietary intellectuals, monopoly power, staid institutions, and elitist
>ideologies...
>
>let one thousand open-source architectural programmers bloom for each and
>every entrenched architectural statesmen, acting as the checks and balances
>of the
>architectural operating system-- away with the elitism, perception
>management, and proprietary ideology of the reigning architectural
>establishment!
>
>the new order of development has arrived, and it is open-source. with it
>comes a renewed freedom in the marketplace of ideas-- the intellectual
>bubble economy of the master builders and their emulators will finally
>burst!
>
>it is time for the disciples of architecture to innovate, evolve, and mutate-
>to wrestle control of our public destiny away from the private
>architectural pirates of civilization... [3]
>
>doing so requires institutions of architecture democratize their systems of
>operation- to level the elitist hierarchies of power by declaring
>architectural programmers equals of one another, working on common and
>public goals in our rapidly developing civilization.
>
>now is the time to realize an open-source architecture as the destiny of
>the collective of individual architectural programmers, publicly hacking
>and cracking the architectural code, within the multidisciplinary
>internetwork.
>
>an economic, social, and political architecture will surely follow...
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [1] Rudolf Arnheim, The Dynamics of Architectural Form
> [2] Design-L: http://jya.com/design-l.htm
> [3] Buckminster Fuller, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ===========================================================
> a r c h i t e x t u r e z : an online mob akz!on



_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold