[-empyre-] Is data ever neutral? Forward from Brett Stalbaum

[Christina McPhee <christina112@earthlink.net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Stalbaum, Brett" <Brett.Stalbaum@sjeccd.cc.ca.us>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:34:02 -0700
To: <melinda@unsw.edu.au>, <christina112@earthlink.net>
Subject: [-empyre-] is data ever neutral?

Hi Christina and Melinda,
 
My normal email server is down today. Could you post my response to
Melinda's post,  [-empyre-] is data ever neutral?
 
Thanks,
Brett
 
I guess the question is regarding the type of neutrality we talking about.
That technologies such as valves, pipes, guns, lighting, airplanes,
computers, the internet, relational database management systems, and GPS
express, encourage or dictate ideological cultural functions through their
discrete design or application is inarguable. I agree that deconstructing
the text inherent in a technology, tracing its genealogy, and analyzing the
ethics of its culturally dominant uses are important kinds of work. But is
this work best performed by artists as their primary endeavor? There are
entire organizations dedicated to the work of influencing the ethical and
moral aspects of technology; (not only theorists and scholars). The ACLU,
EFF, and their lobbyists and lawyers come to mind. Have artists really been
productive in terms of influencing how technology is implemented culturally?
Do works that emerge from the productive meme that some of us assume, (the
artist as someone who reveals ideologies through their artworks;
deconstructing; helping an audience 'see' in a different way), produce as
much cultural mediation as an EFF lawsuit? Or does the meme more often lead
to pedagogical art works?

 

For example, most of us know we are under surveillance, many people
understand the role that database plays in this and the implications. It is
in fact is quite a large political issue (speaking of the United States),
that crosses the left/right political dimension (what remains of this
dimension...). Not to mention that as an artist I prefer to be surveilled
most of the time anyway. I'm glad someone is watching, even if it is the
machine;-) Yet there continues to be a stream of artists projects whose
essential message is that we are being surveilled, often hinting at the
cultural, ethical and moral dilemmas involved. I will never complain about
artists chiming in on such issues in this manner, but I question whether it
is the most important or effective meme for artists to work under.

 

So I guess I should better define what I mean by the 'neutrality' of
technology; a neutrality of possible applications or uses (looking to the
future), and not merely an enumeration of complaints about the past and
present, (or a revealing analysis of these.) Again, starting with an
understanding of the latter is of course a professional obligation. Teri
says in her opening statement that "explicit critiques of the military
origins and uses of GPS have remained at the margins of my practice ­
acknowledged".  I believe that this is the best position from which to base
new work in the general GIS area.  I see the minimal role of the artist here
as someone who explores possible uses of technology that may provide
alternatives, and hopefully also a more significant role for artists as
parts of groups (or groups consisting of artists in their entirety), who
actually develop technologies that promote open, transparent, and democratic
use.

 

Here is a GIS project that I feel fits the later model:

http://www.gpster.net/gipss.html

 

The neutrality of data is another issue, not really congruous with the
neutrality of 'technology'. Data is not neutral. I will follow up on that
issue in another post.


------ End of Forwarded Message