[-empyre-] Re: empyre digest, Vol 1 #129

[Jun-Ann Lam <jaxal@netspace.net.au>]

>This is a big conundrum for me, as something that I feel that is very
>important is engagement with the audience - making that connection.
>However, I question this idea of targeting those 'outside the art world' as
>somehow 'unconverted'.  There are projects I'm involved with that speak to a
>very broad audience, but those are very large, collaborative endeavors.
>
>In talking to Zheng Ga at Parsons, the idea of engagement came up, and then
>I heard him question the idea of being pedantic so that we 'can speak to the
>audience', and that artists should express what they want to express on
>their terms.

I think there's a fine line between artistic integrity and self-indulgence.

Navigating that line is a personal dilemna. For some, it isn't even an issue.

------------------

>Another ideological flag I tend to wave a little is that of technological
>anti-determinism.  One of my favorite anecdotes is having seen Jeff Shaw's
>$250,000 motion platform at ZKM used for the purpose of transmitting a
>telepresent toy train ride in 3D.  To this end, I went home and rigged up a
>head mounted display to a high speed radio-control car-mounted television
>transmitter for maybe $300.  And I'll tell you, that installation is a hell
>of a lot more exciting, visceral, and doesn't require the the 6 Octanes.

I agree. So much media art is serviced by the premise " I can therefore I
will". What about the shoulda question?

The only form of PDA art I can see myself making, not that I am considering
it, is the sort that spams those bloody lawyers, et al to oblivion, short
text messages of horrifying statistics of terrible disasters occurred as a
result of their handiwork. Something like that. Angry and simple art does
wonders.

In this case, my target audience would be PDA users only, not the wider
population.

-----------------

>Well, it's fallen off the map in the Bush Agenda.  He doesn't give a damn if
>there's a divide or not.

He only gives a damn about the War on terror which I coin War of Terror.
And what about the overturning of all the temporary legislation on
conservation Clinton introduced. It's like little boy schoolyard
competitiveness. Because Clinton did it, I'll withdraw it. The state of
California's forests are appalling. Bush will see to it that Californians
will all drop off truckloads at a time from respiratory disease. LA smog
travels up and down the coast killing all in sight.

And OIL! Ahh the firm friend of the Bushes.

-------------------------------------------------------------

>Well, that's the argument of the sort that pan space programs until we 'fix
>the problems down here', which is impossible.  Somewhere, someone will be
>killing another, someone will starve, and some injustice will be happening
>to someone.  Simple as that.  There must be a balance, and what is required
>is a critical engagement with the global climate, both literally and
>figratively.  Earth sciences/astrophysics can be of great use if used
>properly.

Tell that to the HIV/AIDS sufferers in Africa, in Nepal. Tell that to the
child sold into prostitution by their parents. Tell that to women in
Athens, yes Greece, who can only get connected to a LAND phone if their
husbands or exes endorse it, bad luck if your ex-husband is a wife beating
slug, and tell that to women in Japan who must still ask husbands to stand
guarantor if they want to open a simple savings bank account. Tell that to
the cold and hungry people in Louisiana.

Why can't technology stand still whilst we are still trying to feed the
starving? What morality or standard dictates that technology is a priority?

>And therein lies the rub.  The use of information, resources, and technology
>for the greatest good to all, and not just to humans.

Let's not kid ourselves, us sitting pretty in our comfy heated homes typing
on computers and proselytising.

--------------------------------------

>  A couple of examples for Jun-Ann.
>  1. I read about how the Grameen Bank in India and Bangladesh gives micro
>loans to very poor people (mostly women) to buy cheap cellular phones in
>unwired villages.  The phone owners are then trained to run a sort of
>local phone service where other villagers can pay or barter to use the
>phone to call relatives, friends or commercial contacts.

How about cheap loans to buy grain that isn't genetically modified by
Monsanto so that farmers can then use the seeds to regrow their crops.
Instead, they are encouraged to buy into the McDonalds desire Inc to own a
mobile phone to chat to friends. Yes loans to mostly women, because they
will sit and talk for hours? How sexist is that? Bangladeshi sexist.

Did you know that there is a real health problem arising from arsenic
occurring in Bangladesh water wells?

And what of their floods? How about some solid money spent on
infrastructure to save lives?

In this instance, I say f**k the phone. Use a pigeon.

>  2. I read that in Shenzhen a few years ago it was very popular for
>people to own very cheap phones that did not use real cellular technology.
>The phones used micro cells that are only about 20-40m in radius.  So
>people with these phones tend to crowd around large building entrances or
>public squares where there's one of these cells.

Therein lies the plug. "Popular". It's pretty useless if you can't phone
out beyond that radius. It defeats the purpose of phone technology. Why not
buy a walkie talkie instead? And that's a one off cost.

It's easy to quote these instances but they are far more enlightening if
seen from the larger context of agendas and Govt policy and intent.

JA