fix links

content/shard/latentimage.md

@@ -21,6 +21,6 @@ perceived gestalt changes entirely.
 How to provoke that shift in perception, that re-organization of the archive?
 This is the role of art, as Alva Noe argues.
 
-1. ![Cristobal Sciutto: " Ideas are not objects"](https://cristobal.space/writing/ideas)
+1. [Cristobal Sciutto: " Ideas are not objects"](https://cristobal.space/writing/ideas)
 2. ![](bib:03752270-ca9b-4647-ac83-938c5d55ee22)
 3. ![](bib:99a194e9-5499-4027-9719-4a558dcf85e9)

content/shard/maintenance.md

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ The easier to port, the more resilient software becomes. Sometimes porting
 becomes impossible, and then software dies. This is what happened to Adobe
 Flash, until it was ported to the internet browser (flash.pm).  Choosing a
 simple abstraction on top of hardware, despite being inefficient is often worth
-it. This is the approach taken by ![100 rabbits with Uxn](https://100r.co/site/uxn_design.html). They write:
+it. This is the approach taken by [100 rabbits with Uxn](https://100r.co/site/uxn_design.html). They write:
 
 "As it stands today, modern software is built with extreme short-sightedness,
 designed to be run on disposable electronics and near impossible to maintain.

content/shard/underground.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
++++
+title = "Underground"
+glassblowers = ["felixstalder.md"]
++++
+
+For much of the second half of the 20th century, radical culture in the
+West was organized as “underground”.  Small, self-organized units,
+(publishers, venues for performances, distribution mechanism, shops,
+cinemas, bars etc.) that allowed for the production, circulation, and
+reception of cultural forms and ways of living separate from hegemonic
+culture. The underground was often self-consciously exclusionary,
+meaning there was no desire to grow, be open to, or include, everyone.
+Rather, it was by the people who wanted to for the people who needed it.
+The prohibitive economies of physical production and distribution
+contributed to confining underground culture to small niches. There was
+also an ethos around this, favoring freedom and community over reach,
+and moving to larger scales (e.g., major record labels, big production
+budgets, commercial galleries) was often regarded as “selling out”.
+There is a certain overlap between “underground” and “avant-garde”, but
+whereas the former indicated self-styled rejection of the “mainstream”,
+the latter implied a linear progression in which the mainstream would
+eventually catch up.
+
+In the 1990s, both of these terms lost currency and were replaced with
+the promise of “global reach” enabled by the internet and the low/no
+costs of production and distribution. This inspired new aspirations of
+openness and inclusivity, and exclusion was no longer seen as a
+necessary precondition of experimentation, but as an elitist stance. It
+turned out, the economics of global communication were also prohibitive,
+but this time not on the level of costs for production/distribution, but
+on the level of protocols and infrastructures for interconnectivity. The
+price of leaving the self-marginalization of the old underground
+paradigm as the subsumption under hegemonic communication protocols. For
+a while, this seemed like a fair trade-off.  As demands for
+profitability of the providers of protocols increased, the trade-off
+become worse → enshittification.
+
+As the global infrastructures of mass self-communication are declining,
+and the search for alternatives has become stronger, the tension between
+the logic of the underground and that of global interconnectivity is
+re-articulated. An example is the debate over whether to include
+(federate with) Fediverse nodes runs by large, social media corporations
+(e.g., Meta’s Threads). The question seems to be: is there a way of
+combining some aspects of each paradigm?
+