RE: [-empyre-] psychogeographies - opening statement

[Brett Stalbaum <beestal@cadre.sjsu.edu>]

I wish I had time this AM to give a more organized answer to Jim Andrew's
valid question. There was a reason I indicated that I am not sure in my
previous post. I'm a technological realist. I most often fall on the side
of technology being neutral, and prefer to hold people responsible for how
technology is used or abused.  I don't feel, at least very acutely, the
(supposed) taint that some feel adheres to technology just because it was
developed by the military. I am not convinced that the armed vision that
Crandall correctly identifies is necessarily self-fulfilling because of
its origins. The internet, electronic computation, database, GPS, maps all
of these have civilian uses that are important and good making. Alan
Turing may have been the single person most responsible for the allied
victory in WWII, an accomplishment that I certainly celebrate. Our
asses were saved from the Nazi's by a gay genius. History is rarely
more beautiful than that.

Further, I don't deny that the military has an important role to play in
liberal democratic societies, as long as the influence of the military in
democratic decision making is properly depoliticized. (Although in my
country, the relation between the military and business/government is way
too cozy. That is another conversation.) To shorten my thoughts on this, I
appreciate meteorology, recognize the strong relation between a map and a
satellite photo, and recognize (even celebrate) that GIS related
technologies are a ubiquitous part of daily life. What is it like to live
with these technologies and our embeddedness in them? How does GIS change
the act of taking a hike, or our aesthetic appreciation of the landscape?
How does GIS change narrative? Or how can it? Or how should it?

So can software art deconstruct the war machine? I don't believe so, at
least in the direct and powerful sense (or feeling) that post-modernist
thought often intensely or intoxicatingly assumes. We are artists. We are
not that powerful. (I'm interested in hubristic pursuits for artists, but
not quixotic ones.) But do artists have a stake in the use, development,
and ultimately an influence on the cultural manifestations of military
derived technologies? Again, I am not sure, but I hope so, because I have
a lot of faith in artists...


On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jim Andrews wrote:

> Well said, Brett.
>
> On the Eu-gene list concerned with generative art, Rob Myers said, in response to my question
> 'how can software art deconstruct the war machines?' that:
>
> "Computing and computer graphics have been driven by the military and have been trickle-down-ed
> through the military-industrial-entertainment complex to regiment postindustrial society.
> Computer art is the aestheticization of oppression, a self-delusional liberal sales pitch for
> smart bombs.
>
> Deconstructing the war machines with software art is like protesting against debt by buying a
> slogan t-shirt with a credit card. Irony can be dusted off here without too much eye-rolling,
> though, and an implosion (LINUX) or closure (Dilbert) could be effective."
>
> So let me put the question to you, if I may: how can software art deconstruct the war machines?
>
> ja
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: empyre-bounces@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > [mailto:empyre-bounces@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au]On Behalf Of Brett
> > Stalbaum
> > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 2:48 AM
> > To: soft_skinned_space
> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] psychogeographies - opening statement
> >
> >
> > Regarding the "neutral" representation of the weather, I am reminded of
> > Crandall's statement "Where the terrestrial image has an object, the
> > aerial image has a target." (Anything that Moves: Armed Vision)
> > "[T] he projectile-gaze captures its object, freezes it, holds it in a tracking
> > mode, intercourses it, obliterates it, couches it in a mechanism of
> > protection." Would I be stretching the case to note that Teri's
> > observation about something as initially innocuous as the visualizations
> > given in a (battlefield) weather report can be connected to the "projectile
> > gaze" in such way that we could reasonably say that such images are
> > representations bound to a "tracking mode... obliterate[ing]... couch[ed]
> > in a mechanism of protection"; or perhaps even a visual proxy for
> > US/British/Australian foreign policy? I am not sure.
> >
> > But I had a telling experience the other day. I don't own a television, so
> > my interface to this war's media is mostly through radio and news sites on
> > the web. But I did actually experience the same "battlefield weather
> > reports" that Teri refers to, but instead of in my home, it was embedded
> > in a multi-media enabled gasoline pump, pumping both petrol into my truck,
> > and the latest war analysis by Wolf Blitzer (followed by the battlefield
> > weather), into myself. That we can see CNN reporting the war on a video
> > screen in our gas pumps is yet another example of why it is so hard to be
> > an artist today, especially if you work ironically. I was struck by the
> > notion that the pump would make a great installation in a gallery space,
> > as a readymade.
> >
> > But I live in the United States, which is rapidly becoming an irony-free
> > zone.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>