"Prince was technology" and a "hacker" says NYT. cc @dgolumbia @dalecarrico pic.twitter.com/AWfCFOoMCO
— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) April 23, 2016
@yashalevine @dgolumbia One last bid to own him. Will fail as the others did.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) April 23, 2016
1 All culture is prosthetic, all prostheses are culture.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) April 23, 2016
2 Hence, the *discourse of technology* selectively attributing the technological term to some but not all artifice does more specific work.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) April 23, 2016
3 Usually we describe only that artifice as "technology" which mobilizes fantasies of agency, promises of omnipotence, threats of impotence.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) April 23, 2016
4 Or we mobilize "technology" to adjudicate familiar from unfamiliar, or more urgently to naturalize and hence de-politicize the customary.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) April 23, 2016
5 Our reactionary tech discourse peddles stasis as accelerating change, status quo amplification as disruption, accumulation as innovation.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) April 23, 2016
6 The NYT bid to re-write Prince's radical creativity via the tired sociopathic lens of tech innovation and disruption is all too familiar.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) April 23, 2016
7 The last time the industrial eye of power tried that shit he wrote "slave" on his face for the cameras, declared his name unpronouncable.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) April 23, 2016
8 "Where is my love life? Where can it be? There must be something wrong with the machinery. Until I find the righteous 1 Computer blue."
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) April 23, 2016
@yashalevine @dgolumbia @dalecarrico we are starting to use the word "hack" the way Smurfs say "smurf"
— Olivier Jutel (@OJutel) April 23, 2016
@OJutel @yashalevine @dgolumbia Especially hacks.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) April 23, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment