Re: [-empyre-] re-delineations

[Jordan Williams <jordan@cartocorpus.com>]

But, saying that new media art practice might not be able to be
transgressive politically because it uses a form that is employed by,
implicated in capitalism is akin to saying that words cannot be used to
transgress. After all, words/writing as a form are the tools par excellence
of capitalism - the coding mechanism found in the law for example. This
seems to me to be as problematic as saying that all new media is necessarily
transgressive because it is 'rhizomatic'.

How does one artistically transgress without representing - and how does one
represent without using some form - the body, writing, new media, the canvas
- that has not been born out of or appropriated by capitalism?

I think Debord would appropriate new media as he appropriated architecture,
cartography and film in order to resist and transgress, while at the same
time decrying instances of new media which were oppressive.

Jordan


On 9/4/05 7:45 AM, "Patrick Simons" <patricksimons@gloriousninth.com> wrote:

> Phew
> Well I suppose I overstated the extent to which critical engagement is the
> poor loser in the dialogue between art and life and Christiane et al are
> surely right to question the simplistic nature of my case....
> BUT
> Ryan's got it right surely when he points out the correlation between the
> focus and perceived solutions for the IT sector (perhaps the military
> industrial complex locates it more accurately) are very very close.
> 
> The growth of Sci-Art funding, the use of media art as spectacle, the
> attempts to commodify net art, to develop models of consumption of open
> ended, networked art is institutionally driven (I suggest) and unless this
> process of incorporation is resisted then I think the fine balance between
> making work with and about high end capitalisation falls into becoming a
> patsy for the technocrats.
> 
> I wonder what Guy Debord would have made of the situation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on 4/8/05 5:43, ryan griffis at grifray@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>