[-empyre-] re-delineations

[ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com>]

i think Christiane and James' reminders in the projects that are out  
there is important. there is some great work that is taking technology  
on within a political economic framework.
i do think it's important though to keep this in its avant garde  
context... there may seem to be a good number of publications out there  
that do take a critical look at IT and art, but that number becomes  
marginal in the larger scope of publications that take the form of  
design manuals, technical guides and otherwise celebratory accounts of  
technology. there's a whole other world of "computer art" out there  
that isn't even part of this conversation.
my question comes from a perspective familiar with institutional  
critique and politically oriented conceptual art as well as tactical  
media. i'm wondering how art using IT can also be a criticism of it, in  
a meaningful sense. with the histories of conceptual art and inst.  
crit. pretty accessible now, i think there is firm ground from which to  
ask how these practices' challenges hold up. i'm wondering how art that  
relies on the same mechanisms it is trying to critique presents a  
meaningful challenge to those mechanisms. this seems especially  
relevant to tech-based art, which is utilizing, without question, one  
of the most rapidly developing product markets as a base. there are all  
kinds of concerns here, from labor to environmental justice. at the  
least, i think we could be asking what is driving our need to solve  
problems through technology in the way that we are. how are we even  
arriving at a consensus of what the problems are? my feeling is that  
the problems a lot of IT-based art, even the critical work, seems to  
ask are very similar to the ones the IT industry is -  and the  
solutions are: more technology, more places.
i realize that there are fissures in all of this, and many holes in the  
way i'm framing it, but i think the questions remain pertinent.
i don't buy James' assertion that hacking products necessarily changes  
our relationship to the process of production/distribution/consumption.  
i may run linux on my iPod and use it to record and podcast community  
meetings, but i still bought the iPod, will most likely pay for a new  
battery when the short life span on the current one dies. i'll also use  
it mostly like everyone else, to play music in my own little bubble as  
i move through the city. critical art ensemble (among others) have  
noted that open source and hacking are not intrinsically oppositional  
to capital.
yes, "this is what democracy looks like" made use of the ubiquity of  
digital video equipment to make a political document that could be  
distributed and inform thousands more than were actually there about  
what when on in Seattle and why. but this project, like tactical media  
in general, is just that - "tactical," not strategic. it's not  
questioning the desire for and use of the media involved, it's using  
whatever means are available to deal with something. tactical media is  
all about short term goals, by whatever means sufficient.
in thinking about some of this, i was reminded about the reception of  
Jonah Brucker-Cohen's WiFi Hog by the open wireless community.
http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/2003-August/ 
007437.html
http://locative.net/tcmreader/index.php?secology;brucker-cohen
both the art project and community wireless projects are "critical,"  
both are positioned against the corporate/private model of IT...
again, i'm not really certain where i'm going with this, so i apologize  
for the luddite-sounding rant.
best, ryan