Re: [-empyre-] Re: empyre Digest, Vol 29, Issue 9
I have also been lurking and appreciating the discussion this month
as my solo+collective work has turned towards examining the new
geographies of insecurity in the US. Re: ISEA & locative media, I
posted this message to the IDC list after attending ISEA for the
first time last summer and being somewhat confounded by the ISEA
interpretation of "Interactive City". It sparked some interesting
dialogues and conversations thereafter.
On Apr 13, 2007, at 9:36 AM, brooke singer wrote:
My criticism of "locative media" stems from the fact that what I
see is a
lot of art work playing up or into the newness of the technologies
fact many are not that new at all, just newly available for
consumers. I am
responding to the use of GPS/GIS/mobility to celebrate participation,
many-to-many communication, place-ness and the fusing of art into the
everyday -- which, yes!, are things to celebrate. But these are
ends -- where is the purpose rather than to demonstration that it
done? OK, well maybe the purpose is to have some fun, but for me
just not enough when participation and speaking out/across divides
so, very, very desperately needed--so to see that potential used,
away rather, is incredibly disappointing and frustrating! Art in my
should (yes, should) transform/re-imagine/alter my assumptions and
don't see that over and over again or -- even worse -- when the end
of work by artists/designers/architects reinforces the agendas of
companies or government surveillance platforms, then I am worried.
On 4/13/07 12:19 AM, "Alan Sondheim" <email@example.com> wrote:
This is probably poorly phrased - what I meant was, if one uses
I'm uncertain as to whether or not I entirely followed your meaning
in this statement:
" To use the technology as entertainment doesn't negate the other
uses, or do injustice to their injustices. In other words, does all
art have to reflect its political-sociological- militarist-etc.
Would you mind expanding upon this a bit more - thanks -
for infotainment, this doesn't mean that a. the militarism goes
away or b.
that others might well take a different, politicized stance,
technology. And if someone uses the tech for entertainment, this
injustice, i.e. necessarily unethical position in relation to the
tice of the originary moment or use. The second sentence questions
art must necessarily 'be political' in a conscious sense
art embodies politics, etc.) - whether politics must be addressed.
think not; I fear any 'should' or 'must' or 'have to' in relation
which is one of the (inauthentically to be sure) 'free' fields
- in the sense that hopefully one does what one wants, with
one wants. I remember arguments about Second Life - how can you
pate in such a corporate/controlled environment? - but for me, it's
useful, I'm not naive about the software-economic parameters
within the 'space' I can do work I literally couldn't do otherwise,
neither in real life nor through video/audio files/documentation.
Again, hope this makes some sort of sense.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and