This is probably poorly phrased - what I meant was, if one uses the tech for infotainment, this doesn't mean that a. the militarism goes away or b. that others might well take a different, politicized stance, towards the technology. And if someone uses the tech for entertainment, this isn't an injustice, i.e. necessarily unethical position in relation to the injus- tice of the originary moment or use. The second sentence questions whether art must necessarily 'be political' in a conscious sense (obviously all art embodies politics, etc.) - whether politics must be addressed. And I think not; I fear any 'should' or 'must' or 'have to' in relation to art, which is one of the (inauthentically to be sure) 'free' fields that remain - in the sense that hopefully one does what one wants, with whatever tech one wants. I remember arguments about Second Life - how can you partici-
Dear Alan,
I'm uncertain as to whether or not I entirely followed your meaning in this statement:
" To use the technology as entertainment doesn't negate the other uses, or do injustice to their injustices. In other words, does all art have to reflect its political-sociological- militarist-etc. origins?"
Would you mind expanding upon this a bit more - thanks -
Best,
Chris
Again, hope this makes some sort of sense.
- Alan