[-empyre-] Re: empyre digest, Vol 1 #130 - 7 msgs

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

If everyone included consideration of the shoulda question b4 they made
high-brow tech art which could be so much better expressed in a simple
low-tech, perhaps no tech way eg. example of work cited a few days ago, I
forget the name , perhaps we wouldn't have to debate the usefulness and
morality of technology at all. So much of discussion of technology use
occurs within a cocoon of denial. A denial of the reality of hardships and
unfairness. Consideration of personal social responsibility in varying
degrees is necessary in any activity that extends beyond the immediate
person. It is a person's lack of discretionary use of technology which is
reprehensible.

Balance? Isn't the world out of balance right now? If you think that my
views are didactic then you must live in totally blinkered bliss and should
rethink exactly how much of technology, owned and produced by large
multi-nationals are models of democracy and humanity.

My comments with regard to mobile phone networks, et al were directed at
TECHNOLOGY, not art.

And I am glad that you clarified your examples Brendan because they did
come across in your original posting as socially irresponsible phallic tech
orgasmic. I would however like to look at more information about the
Bangladeshi women. I look cynically and suspiciously on the culture which
is extremely sexist, and yet prescribes policies that seemingly liberate.
I'd like to know if the women can get the loans by themselves, if they need
to be married, if there is a cap on age, who has to stand guarantor, what
the interest payments are and whether the bank takes a %profit from
successful schemes and what happens when these loans default? This brings
me back to societal and personal cost of technology, not merely the
monetary aspect. These loans may be for buying seeds but do these seeds
make more seeds which the farmer can use or do they have to use new seeds
bought every season and supplied by Monsanto?

>However, I don't have to justify myself  here; I do it only because I wish
>to.

If justification of a personal view is not necessary at all, it should not
be expressed. Who's didactic now? And what ideology isn't? Including the
notion of humanity. And in the complete absence of any ideology, how do we
make decisions?

>> What morality or standard dictates that technology is a priority?
>Judeo-Christianity and the Enlightenment.

Smart arse responses such as the ones above are unproductive and insulting
to my intellect and sincerity.

But these are issues for another forum and is not for the consideration of
anyone involved in using or making technology.

>> too deeply into analysis of the medium is to stand still and be outmoded.
>> Your laser disc is now collecting dust in the antique store of dead media.

"Outmoded" is a state of desire and eventually results from someone else's
profit or ego agenda. We are only outmoded because there is something newer
out there to use produced by people who don't really care if the newest
model is necessary or affordable as long as they can create a desire to
sell more. We get caught up because as artists, we need recognition, we
need to eat, we need to keep up because that's the whole point of
technology, to keep moving at a pace impossible to keep up with. We are
always playing catch up. Technology hasn't really made useful leaps. No
matter how advanced the features on a phone or computer, they are
essentially the same as they were 30 years ago. They just work faster. With
speed comes benefits and you fall just as fast.

>once the art just stood for itself,  but i think specially in media there is
>this increased need to have to write about or stand up and speak about your
>work within a thoretical framework,  art+thoery =product . perhaps its
>inflation..? perhaps its a reaction to inflation?

When did art ever stand on its own without theories and critics? In its
history and development, art has always been made in conjunction with
theory. Much art (and design) was made, inspired by theory, and in response
to socio-political/industrial movements. But artists never needed to talk
about their work as articulately as they do now. We have to be academics as
well. And accountants who can return a budget to a funding body,
administrative geniuses who can run a department, PR companies who can sell
themselves effectively without selling out, moral gurus who aren't
self-indulgent. It's definitely inflation but also a subsequence of an
increased population of artists who have academic/theoretical backgrounds
whose work occurs at institutions of higher education, of the requisite
academic qualifications in applying for fellowships and residencies. And to
rise above the "banal" status lumped on us by people like art
celebrity/curator Juliana Engberg who unequivocally said that ALL tech art
was banal.

>major trends in media art production..in his six rules towards a new
>internet art posted at rhizome a while ago..
>1. No Flash
>2. No introduction pages
>3. No more art for the sake of error
>4. Images must be unique to the sitemaker
>5. Technology is not a subject; the Internet is not a subject
>6. The work stands alone

Similar in sentiment to the Dogma Manifesto. Cleaning out the pipes once in
a while is a good thing. Aren't we all sick of Flash Art? How boring is
making art that is as stimulating as a hardisk drive? These points do make
sense but I find pt 6 hard to fathom. Nothing stands alone.  And there is
plenty left after this. Or we don't have to follow it at all.

JA

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