October 2017 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Fwd: PAIC_participatory-art // call for proposals
by Michel Bauwens 02 Oct '17

02 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: pETER Purg <peter.purg(a)ung.si> Date: Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:06 PM Subject: PAIC_participatory-art // call for proposals To: info(a)paic-project.eu *Please feel free to respond to and/or forward this >> * >> Open call for proposals in the Participatory Art for Invisible Communities (PAIC <http://www.paic-project.eu>) e-book (TBP October 2018) The international project PAIC <http://www.paic-project.eu> responds to community needs by tailoring artistic methodologies and building capacities of both artists and communities, to establish a platform for exchange and open communication in the field of participatory art. Submissions are invited from several disciplines, including art practice / theory / history / criticism; sociology, psychology, and other relevant fields. Particularly the *interdisciplinary* approach is encouraged. Please send Your abstract to be considered for the* e-book* publication*, responding to one or more of PAIC topics: - Tools and Methods in Participatory Art practices - Communication between artists, mediators and community - Transformative impact of PA - Psychological and/or Sociological aspects of PA - History and/or Criticism of PA - Strategic and Policy-related aspects of PA - Different aspects and concepts of Participation Submissions can include but are not restricted to formats like *research articles, personal accounts, creative works*, (visual) essays, case studies of projects or initiatives, text-embedded (documentary, experimental etc.) videos etc. *Submission Requirements:* Abstracts of 200-400 words are to be sent by November 15, 2017, to info(a)paic-project.eu. The PAIC Committee** will select abstracts for publication in the PAIC e-book. Please note that PAIC does not guarantee that any submitted material will be published in the e-book, as all submissions will need to pass the review of the Committee. All submitting authors will be informed about the decision by December 1, 2017. The abstract submission may also contain (reference to) visual or other media material. Final contributions that shall be composed after a positive selection by the Committee, may have a scope between 400 words (1 page) to 4000 words (10 pages), or an equivalent of visual or other (rich) media material. All submissions must be delivered in Word format (.doc or .docx) and submitted as a single file in an email attachment, to *info(a)paic-project.eu <info(a)paic-project.eu>* by April 15, 2018 hi-quality picture and/or video materials should be made available via web link. In all aspects of textual composition, mediography and formatting, please observe the Chicago Manual of Style www.chicagomanualofstyle.org ****About the e-book* Tentative Chapters of the e-book as foreseen: - Introduction to PA and the PAIC project - Cultural, Social and Psychological implications of PA - Policies and Strategies of PA - PA Histories - PA Theories - Existing theories - The PAIC model - PA Practices - Case studies from around Europe and the world - Case studies of PAIC workshops - Selected topics in PA and the Participation concept - PA in Education - PA in Research - The PA “toolbox” (selected tools and methods) - Lessons learned from PAIC - Conclusions The e-book is to be published in October 2018. It is confirmed to include contributions by highly relevant figures such as *Airan Berg, Annie Abrahams, Daniela Brasil, François Matarasso, Jackie Shaw, Judit Font, Kenneth A. Balfelt, Milena Dragićević Šešić, Paul Collard, Randall Packer* as well as other theorists and practitioners of participatory art. The e-book will be openly accessible and all content will be subject to the Creative Commons ShareAlike 4.0 license ( https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-sa/4.0/). ***Publication Selection* The submissions will be assessed according to their academic and professional quality as well as topical relevance for the e-book publication. *The PAIC Committee consists of members: - Irena Sertić <https://www.linkedin.com/in/irena-sertic-7ba27265/>, MA, Omnimedia, head of PAIC project, editor (Croatia) - Peter Purg <http://vsu.ung.si/peterpurg>, PhD, University of Nova Gorica, scholar and artist (Slovenia) - Kristina Steinbock <http://www.kristinasteinbock.com/>, MFA, Soro Kunstmuseum, artist (Denmark) - Ramon Parramon <https://www.idensitat.net/en/>, PhD, ACVic (Art Center of Vic), curator (Spain) - Milena Dragićević Šešić <http://www.fdu.edu.rs/osoba/dr-milena-dragicevic-sesic/296>, PhD, University of the Arts Belgrade, scholar (Serbia) - Daniela Brasil <http://izk.tugraz.at/people/faculty-staff/assistant-professor-daniela-brasi…>, PhD, Technical University Graz, artist and scholar (Austria) About PAIC project: Participatory Art for Invisible Communities (PAIC) is a project supported by the European Commission, that includes professionals and communities from Croatia, Slovenia, Denmark and Spain. It is based on recognizing and answering community needs through artistic methodologies and strives at building capacities of both communities and artists. The aim is to create a platform for creative exchange and open communication through organized workshops, presentations and local forums, inciting creative and open communication. Art and culture are understood as key unifying factors for social justice and sustainability, connecting community members, artists, creative practitioners and cultural operators. More on www.paic-project.eu. -- -- dr. pETER Purg Akademija umetnosti / School of Arts Univerza v Novi Gorici / University of Nova Goricahttp://au.ung.si/[email protected] -- -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: [Perma-circular horizons] New blog post/ Nouvelle entrée du blog
by Michel Bauwens 02 Oct '17

02 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Christian Arnsperger <christian.arnsperger(a)unil.ch> Date: Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 11:25 PM Subject: [Perma-circular horizons] New blog post/ Nouvelle entrée du blog To: Christian Arnsperger <christian.arnsperger(a)unil.ch> Hello, You will find the latest post on my blog, entitled “Newer Glimpses of Perma-Circular America (Part 4 of 4)", by clicking on the following link: http://arnsperger-perma-circular.com/2017/10/01/newer- glimpses-of-perma-circular-america-part-4-of-4/ Feel free to share it with anyone you think might be interested! Best regards, Christian Arnsperger ******************************************* Bonjour, Vous trouverez la dernière entrée en date de mon blog sous le titre “Newer Glimpses of Perma-Circular America (Part 3 of 4)" en cliquant sur le lien suivant: http://arnsperger-perma-circular.com/2017/10/01/newer- glimpses-of-perma-circular-america-part-4-of-4/ Semtez-vous libres de partager ce lien avec toute personne dont vous pensez qu’elle pourrait être intéressée! Bien cordialement, Christian Arnsperger ******************************************* Prof. Christian Arnsperger Director Institute of Geography and Sustainability Faculty of Geoscience and Environmental Studies University of Lausanne Geopolis building - office 3622 Mouline campus CH - 1015 Lausanne Switzerland E-mail: christian.arnsperger(a)unil.ch Phone: (+ 41) 21 692 43 31 Webpage: http://mesoscaphe.unil.ch/ChArnsperger/en/presentation/ “Perma-Circular Horizons” Blog: arnsperger-perma-circular.com -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Stanford scholars say big ideas are getting harder to find
by Michel Bauwens 01 Oct '17

01 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: albert lundquist <agltucs1(a)gmail.com> SEPTEMBER 14, 2017Stanford scholars say big ideas are getting harder to find Research from Stanford economists finds that productivity has not matched the exponential increases in research development, suggesting the next big idea may be harder to formulate. - Facebook <http://news.stanford.edu/2017/09/14/stanford-scholars-says-big-ideas-gettin…> - Twitter <http://news.stanford.edu/2017/09/14/stanford-scholars-says-big-ideas-gettin…> - Email <?subject=An%20interesting%20article%20from%20Stanford%20News&body=I%20want%20to%20share%20this%20news%20story%20from%20Stanford%20University%20with%20you%3A%20http%3A%2F%2Fstanford.io%2F2xzW2ay> BY MAY WONG Modern-day inventors – even those in the league of Steve Jobs – will have a tough time measuring up to the productivity of the Thomas Edisons of the past. [image: Illustration of woman with new ideas] <https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/stanford.ucomm.newsms.media/wp-content/u…> Stanford economists say tremendous continual increases in research and development will be needed to sustain even today’s low rate of economic growth.(Image credit: Shutterstock) That’s because big ideas are getting harder and harder to find, and innovations have become increasingly massive and costly endeavors, according to new research from economists at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research <http://siepr.stanford.edu/>. As a result, tremendous continual increases in research and development will be needed to sustain even today’s low rate of economic growth. Nicholas Bloom <http://siepr.stanford.edu/scholars/nicholas-bloom>, a SIEPR senior fellow and co-author of a paper <http://www.nber.org/papers/w23782>released this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research, contends that so many game-changing inventions have appeared since World War II that it’s become increasingly difficult to come up with the next big idea. “The thought now of somebody inventing something as revolutionary as the locomotive on their own is inconceivable,” Bloom said. “It’s certainly true if you go back one or two hundred years, like when Edison invented the light bulb,” he said. “It’s a massive piece of technology and one guy basically invented it. But while we think of Steve Jobs and the iPhone, it was a team of dozens of people who created the iPhone.” To better understand the nation’s sluggish economic growth, Bloom and his three co-authors – SIEPR senior fellow Chad Jones <http://siepr.stanford.edu/scholars/chad-jones>, Stanford doctoral candidate Michael Webb, and MIT professor John Van Reenen – examined research productivity at an aggregate national level as well as within three swaths of industry: technology, medical research and agriculture. For another measure, they also analyzed research efforts at publicly traded firms. Their paper follows a common economic concept that economic growth comes from people creating ideas. In other words, when you have more researchers producing more ideas, you get more economic growth. But Bloom and his team find a not-so-rosy imbalance. While research efforts are rising substantially, research productivity – or the ideas being produced per researcher – is declining sharply. So the reason the U.S. economy has even grown at all is because steep increases in research and development have more than offset the decline in research productivity, the study found. Specifically, the number of Americans engaged in R&D has jumped by more than twentyfold since 1930 while their collective productivity has dropped by a factor of 41. “It’s getting harder and harder to make new ideas, and the economy is more or less compensating for that,” Bloom said. “The only way we’ve been able to roughly maintain growth is to throw more and more scientists at it.” The paper spelled it out bluntly in numbers: “The economy has to double its research efforts every 13 years just to maintain the same overall rate of economic growth.” New data, new perspective Bloom initiated this research a year ago, inspired to dig deeper after speaking on a panel at the SIEPR economic summit that discussed “Is the Productivity Slowdown for Real?” <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRSZr0cbHyM> He admits the paper – and its somewhat pessimistic analysis – has dampened his previous, more optimistic stance. “I’ve changed my mind,” Bloom said. “Pretty much all mainstream economists have become rather depressed about productivity growth.” At the 2016 SIEPR Summit, Bloom was more positive about the nation’s productivity, saying its declining rate was only a temporary effect of the financial crisis of 2008. He even caricatured ways of looking at U.S. productivity levels and contended the up-and-down swings between 1950 and 2010 did not necessarily signal a long-running trend of slow productivity growth. A year ago, Bloom recalled, “I thought we were recovering from a huge global recession and we’re about to turn around.” Now, his perspective takes into account new insights that research productivity – one of the underlying components of economic growth – has been clearly dropping for decades. “This paper says productivity growth is slowing down because ideas are getting harder to find,” Bloom said. While the study builds on the earlier work of Jones and others on R&D, the new paper also weaves a tight connection between empirical data on what’s happening in the real world and growth models. The robust finding of declining idea productivity has implications for future economic research, the paper concluded. The standard assumption in growth models has historically been a constant rate of productivity, and “we believe the empirical work we’ve presented speaks clearly against this assumption,” it states. Moore’s Law and beyond Everywhere they looked, the researchers said they found clear evidence of how exponential investments in R&D have masked the decline in productivity. The tech industry’s signature guidepost, Moore’s Law, which marked its 52nd year in April, is a prime example. Introduced in 1965 by Gordon Moore, the co-founder of computer chip giant Intel, the theorem postulates that the density of transistors on an integrated circuit would double roughly every two years, doubling computing power. Moore’s Law has certainly played out – the computing power on a chip today is remarkable compared to even a decade ago – but the study found that the research effort behind the chip innovations rose by a factor of 78 since 1971. Put another way, the number of researchers required today to maintain that innovative pace is more than 75 times larger than the number that was required in the early 1970s. “The constant exponential growth implied by Moore’s Law has been achieved only by a staggering increase in the amount of resources devoted to pushing the frontier forward,” the paper stated. Other industries also exhibited falloffs in idea productivity. For instance, to measure productivity in agriculture, the study’s co-authors used crop yields of corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton and compared them against research expenditures directed at improving yields, including cross-breeding, bioengineering, crop protection and maintenance. The average yields across all four crops roughly doubled between 1960 and 2015. But to achieve those gains, the amount of research expended during that period rose “tremendously” – anywhere from a threefold to a more-than-25-fold increase, depending on the crop and specific research measure. On average, research productivity in agriculture fell by about 4 to 6 percent per year, the study found. A similar pattern of greater input but less output followed in medical research. The study’s authors analyzed R&D spending on new, federally approved drugs against life expectancy rates as a gauge of productivity. They also examined decreases in mortality rates of cancer patients against medical research publications and clinical trials. The empirical findings on breast and heart cancer suggest that at least in some areas, “it may get easier to find new ideas at first before getting harder,” the paper stated. Turning its focus to publicly traded companies, the study found a fraction of firms where research productivity – as measured by growth in sales, market capitalization, employment and revenue-per-worker productivity – grew decade-over-decade since 1980. But overall, more than 85 percent of the firms showed steady, rapid declines in productivity while their spending in R&D rose. The analysis found research productivity for firms fell, on average, about 10 percent per year. It would take 15 times more researchers today than it did 30 years ago to produce the same rate of economic growth. Policy Research: (650) 724-0614, agorlick(a)stanford.edu -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0