Ossewaarde, Marinus und Wessel Reijers (2017): „The illusion of the digital commons: ‘False consciousness’ in online alternative economies“, Organization 24/5, S. 609–628. (paywalled)
From the abstract:
“Digital commons such as Wikipedia, open-source software, and hospitality exchanges are frequently seen as forms of resistance to capitalist modes of production and consumption, as elements of alternative economies. In this article, however, we argue that the digital commons cannot by themselves constitute genuine forms of resistance for they are vulnerable to what we call ‘the illusion of the digital commons’, which leads to a form of ‘false consciousness’.”
This is both an interesting and annoying article. It’s interesting as it details how „sharing“ can be put into the service of profit-driven centralization. It’s annoying because it uses a small number of cases to make sweeping claims that feel more than a little disingenuous.
Continue reading “Commons Are not the Sharing Economy. A comment to Ossewaarde & Reijers (2017)”
There is an argument to be made that the projects we are looking at here, those that generate commons-like resources, could fall under the category of “participatory art”. I think that argument would be mistaken. The reasons why this would be a mistake really point to the core of what makes these projects so interesting.
Continue reading “Participation and the commons (in art)”
In this research note, I try to clarify what I mean when I use the notion of the „commons“ in the context of this research project. The note is intended to further the research group’s shared understanding of the term. But at this point, it’s my personal point of view.
Usually, commons are regarded as complex, comprehensive institutions. De Angelis & Stavrides (2010), for example, differentiate between commons (resources) commoners (people, community) and commoning (ongoing social practices).
For a dictionary entry, I defined commons simply as “resources managed by a community for joint use. ” (Stalder 2017) Continue reading “The notion of the „commons“”
This research note is based on Hess & Ostrom (2007). Not all aspects of their framework are directly relevant to our research, but it’s a very good start for an institutional analysis. Particular cultural and/or aesthetic aspects are not covered by their framework. Continue reading “A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons (KC)”
With Commonist Aesthetics, the editorial team Binna Choi (Casco), Sven Lütticken, Jorinde Seijdel (Open!) introduces “the idea of commonism” – not communism – as a topic that various writers and artists will explore and expand upon in the course of this series. Commonist aesthetics pertain to the world of the senses, or a “residually common world” that is continuously subject to new divisions, new appropriations, and attempts at reclamation and re-imagining…. Full Article at Open!
Articles in this series so far: