Dear Salvatore,
Great to have you up here and thanks so much for taking the time to respond precisely
On this we really completely agree, apropriation and new aesthetics are crucial to the change in perception preliminary to any social change.
I really was heartfully companion to “la cura” when it happened, as I felt it was a unique experience much more than a metaphor I understood it as a transformation of the paradigm of our relation not only to data, but also to scientific organisation, bringing a holistic approach to disease.
My point of critic comes from the fact that I do not think this unique experience can be reproduced as is in our current social organisation; neither in the media environment (as you say for privacy reasons) or behind the closed doors of the artworld (because it does not work as a metaphor, it has to be experienced).
In order to follow up on la cura, I believe that we need to continue with its spirit and continue making holistic and critical interventions in as many contexts as we can, engaging different lines of thought
transversally out of the global data collection and keeping alternative networks alive.
This is what we mean by third technoscape
The danger of presenting things that way, is that the datafication discourse says the same thing they always need more data and want to aggregate more information transversally etc… But how to discriminate between what you should measure or not, is there any objectivity in data correlation. I think the most important things of this world cannot be measured and it wish it stays that way.
This is indeed really speaking to me also
