|__Protocole :8__| 05/06/2002

SÉMINAIRE <WALTER BENJAMIN/CYBERMÉDIAS> 2002

De : Trebor Scholz <treborscholz@earthlink.net>
À : Lilian Schneiter ESAV Geneva <l.schneiter@dplanet.ch>
Date : Jeudi, 30 mai 2002 18:46
Objet : And yet another text
Will come out in Afterimage...
Conversation with Geert Lovink and Josephine Bosma

For "Voiceover" by Trebor Scholz
In Genoa, Prague, Seattle and Melbourne thousands of demonstrators put their
bodies on the line: Laughing and breathing the tear gas, sweating and
shouting. Rethinking traditional models of protest these massive gatherings
had undoubtedly political promise. True, some web-based (h)acktivist actions
had practical results. I will give some examples shortly. But still, I
wonder if retreating entirely to a digital resistance in the way I
understand Critical Art Ensemble’s writings, can in fact bring about change
of the social realities we live in. Should we withdraw from the public
sphere (proper) into the trenches online, encrypt our emails, stick around
and gather in digital hideaways?
I think that it needs real bodies in the street to achieve political impact.
As gestures digital resistance is important but its actual potential for
broad based change is very limited. What are the specific locations in
culture where interventions using new technologies have clear promise for
visible deconstruction of hegemonic structures?
Which role will the “real” public sphere play in future social struggles?
Over the past few years, artists, designers, musicians, scientists,
activists and programmers created free spaces in the media contesting
commercial interests, supporting social movements. How can new media tools
be used beyond the street demonstration, how can they be integrated into
social movements in an empowering way? As an example Andreas Broeckman,
together with Susanne Jaschko, centered this year’s Transmediale, the
international media arts festival Berlin, around mailing lists as the most
important resources for information. They also focused on radio stations
such as the media activist network Indymedia (http://www.indymedia.org),
both providing new global information spaces. Indymedia, for example, uses
an especially developed so called blog software that allows visitors to
their websites to post reports of news events that matters to them directly
to the site. Including more than just the news that is fit to print the
reports are still edited but nevertheless give way to democratic
participation in reporting.
Then there are the online strikes of NO ONE IS ILLEGAL, a broad-based German
pro-immigration alliance (http://www.deportation-alliance.com/) that forced
the German airline LUFTHANSA to stop making business from deportations and
severely tarnished the company’s e-commerce image. Nevertheless, it did not
take long to find new airlines to carry out these deportations.
The bureau of inverse technology, BIT (http://bureauIT.org) developed the
toy crowd invigilator that used a hobby rocket and wireless micro video to
document crowd and police formations. While smoothly descending on a
parachute from the height of 300 feet video data were transmitted which were
streamable to a website. The rocket was used in the context of the
demonstrations at the World Economic Forum in New York earlier this year.
BIT (http://www.eng.yale.edu/streetweapons) also developed other similar
devices that are all deeply impressive in their
high-tech-Robin-Hood-approach but that also do not go beyond the artistic
gesture and somewhat remain in the realm of the aesthetic.
In the summer 1981 in the magazine OCTOBER Yvonne Rainer wrote “Looking
Myself in the Mouth,” a text that critically registered different roles
inhabited by artists: The artist as exemplarily sufferer, as self-absorbed
individualist, as innovator, as transgressor, as visionary and as misfit.
About twenty years later we may add the role of the curator, and that as
organizer and facilitator of demonstrations in the service of political
theatre.
Artists supporting the actions of the alternative globalization movement
bring their technical skills, theoretical knowledge and imaginative powers
to the table of democracy.
Another example that goes much more in the direction of specific empowerment
beyond the gesture is the Insular Technologies System
(http://www.insular.net/), a project launched by a consortium of independent
media organizations. It just started the pilot phase of a high frequency
radio network that will provide portable low cost autonomous, and encrypted
short wave radio units “to promote the communication between independent
cultural, media and social initiatives, non-governmental organizations and
individuals.”
In Venice, Italy the community radio Sherwood (http://www.sherwood.it/)
collaborated with Melting Pot Europe (http://meltingpot.org) broadcasting
communication from, with and for immigrants. “The project created a public
consultation service on immigration law, the relationship between
immigrants, job opportunities and local activities.”
It is these art activist new media initiatives that become most challenging
when they relate technologies to street demonstrations or the community
center. Projects like Radio Sherwood, and the Insular Technologies System
promise actual application in the everyday.
It takes artists who leave the banality of the museum, who are not silent in
the face of social injustice and an undemocratic globalization process
dictated by multinationals. This process needs the artist as much as the
programmer, designer, musician, scientist and activist as choreographers of
a joyful political theatre, online and off, crossing back and forth between
aesthetics and politics to create a civil society.
+++++++++++++
Beyond the Conceptual Wall
In Response to Trebor Scholz
By Geert Lovink
Has power shifted to cyberspace, as Critical Arts Ensemble once claimed? Not
so if we look at the countless street marches around the world. The Seattle
movement against corporate globalization appears to have gained
momentum—both on the street and on the Net. But can we really speak of a
synergy between street protests and online ‘hacktivism’? No, but what both
have in common is their conceptual stage. Both real and virtual protests are
in danger of getting stuck at the level of ‘demo design.’
At first glance, reconciling the virtual and the real seems to be an
attractive rhetorical act. Radical pragmatists like me have often emphasized
the embodiment of online networks in real-life society, proving the
inadequacy of the real versus virtual contradiction. Net activism, like the
Internet itself, is always hybrid, a blend of the old and new, haunted by
geography, gender, race and other political instances. There is no pure
disembodied zone of global communication, as the 90s cyber mythology
claimed.
However, such a critical position tends not to raise worrisome questions.
Equations such as street plus cyberspace, art meet science,
techno-culture—all interesting interdisciplinary approaches with have proved
to have little effect beyond the symbolic level of dialogue and discourse.
The fact is that established disciplines are in a defensive mode. The ‘new’
movements and media are not yet mature enough to question the powers to be
and lacks sufficient leverage at the negotiating table. The claim to ‘embody
the future’ in a conservative climate like is becoming a weak and empty
gesture.
On the other hand, the call of activists and artists to return to “real
life” does not provide us with a solution to how alternative new media
models can be lifted to the level of mass (pop) culture. Yes, street
demonstrations raise solidarity levels and lift us up from the daily
solitude of communicating through largely one-way media interfaces. Despite
September 11 and its right-wing political fallout, social movements
worldwide are gaining importance and visibility. We should however ask the
question what could come after the “demo version” of both new media and
movements.
This isn’t the heady 60s or 70s. The “conceptual” emphasis has hit the hard
wall of demo design as Peter Lunenfeld described it in his book ‘Snap to
Grid’. The question then becomes how to jump beyond the prototype? What
comes after the besiege of yet another summit of CEOs and their politicians?
How long can a movement stay virtual? Or to put it in technical terms, what
comes after demo design, after the countless PointPoint presentations and
Flash animations? The feel-good factor of being an open, ever growing crowd
(Elias Canetti) will sooner or later wear out when demo fatigue sets in.
There is an endless stream of inspiring new utopias, proposed software and
interfaces, all nicely presented and full of imagination. However, may of
them lack patient workers who are going to further research and implement
them. Therefore, rather then making up yet another concept it is time to ask
the question of how software, interfaces and alternative standards can be
installed in society. It may no longer be sufficient to ‘wear’ a successful
subversive attitude. In this post-Darwinist society even the good memes can
die along the way. Ideas may take the shape of a virus, but society may hit
back with even more successful immunization programs: appropriation,
repression and neglect
What we face is a scalability crisis. Most movements and initiatives find
themselves in a trap. The strategy of becoming “minor” (Guattari) is no
longer a positive choice but the default option. It is no big deal to create
autopoietic systems but is there an exit build it? Designing a successful
cultural virus and getting millions of hits on your weblog will not bring
you beyond the level the level of short lived ‘spectacle’. Culture jammers
are no longer outlaws but should be seen as sophisticated experts in
communication guerilla.
Despite growing concerns over global warning, racism, poverty and corporate
globalization, today’s movements are in danger of getting stuck in a
self-satisfying protest mode. With access to the political process
effectively blocked, further mediation seems the only available option.
However, gaining more and more “brand value” in terms of global awareness
may turn out to be like overvalued stocks. One day they might pay off, but
meanwhile they are pretty worthless. Truth in this context is reduced to a
retro effect, only valid after the crash. The pride of “We have always told
you so” is boosting the moral of minority multitudes, but at the same time
it delegates legitimate fights to the level of official “Truth and
Reconciliation Commissions,” often parliamentary or Congressional—after the
damage is done.
Instead of arguing for “reconciliation” between the real and virtual I would
call for a rigorous involvement and implementation of social movements into
technology. Instead of taking the cyberpunk derived “the future is now”
position, a lot could be gained from a radical re-assessment of the techno
revolutions of the last 10-15 years. For instance, if artists and activists
can learn anything from the dot-com rise and subsequent fall it might be the
importance of marketing. The attention economy of the dotcom eyeballs proved
worthless. This is a terrain of true taboo knowledge. Dot-coms invested
their entire venture capital in (old media) advertisement. Their belief that
media-generated attention would automatically draw users to their sites and
turn them into customers did not work. The same could be said of activist
sites. Information “forms” us. But new consciousness is less and less
resulting in measurable action. Activists are only starting to understand
the impact of this paradigm. What is to be done if information merely
circles around in its own parallel world? What is to be done if the street
demonstration becomes part of the Spectacle and its event culture?
There is a crying need for mediators, capable of implementing alternative
concepts into a wide range of sector. The open source and free software
movement could feature as an example. Despite recent releases of the Mozilla
1.0 browser and OpenOffice (an alternative to Microsoft Office), open source
and free software remain locked up within geek culture. How to create a user
base beyond your own circles? What the new media and IT sector needs is a
global summit, comparable to Porto Alegre where the so-called
anti-globalization movement has its annual gathering, aimed at bringing all
the exciting alternative technologies out of the geek ghetto. It all comes
back to this same old question: how to mingle the virtual with the real?
++++++++++
Fading realities and real dreams
Josephine Bosma
We are hovering between a virtual and real existence all the time. Our
perception of our own realities can differ in feasibility, yet every
perception has its value. On line realities, like every reality that is
entangled with the space of electronic media, are just as meaningful as
they are fallible. If one wants to judge them, one has to decide on what
purposes they should or could serve. This is where the hybridism of all
cultures in media space stops. This is where art, politics and commerce
start to separate. Activism on line can serve many purposes at the same
time. Judging it from one position only (for example politics or art)
merely shows the position of the observer.
The protests against globalization bring people of many cultures and
backgrounds together. Among them are artists and activists. What these
protests show is that political issues do live amongst all people. These
protests happen outside the purely political realm of practical decision
making. Both the street and the on line representation of anti
globalization messages are part of the reality politicians have to deal
with. All together these messages have one meaning, which basically is:
"Global politics should be more democratic". Separately these messages
have all kinds of meanings. This is where one can get easily confused.
On line activism as it is described by Trebor Scholtz is not just about
making political changes. It is also about sharing knowledge and ideas
with one's social network. It is also about contemplation. The art works
that Trebor describes are statements as well as tools as well as poetic
presentations of ideas. Some work better in one area, some better in
others. All in all they are interesting, but they cannot be presented
without judgment, which is what Geert Lovink shows. To present them as
if they are part of a real alternative for the dominant global politics
would be slightly naïve.
The fact that we now (or should I say more pessimistically: for the
moment) have a space where many can leave a message or where one can
create a channel for many messages does not mean that all of these have
the same impact or can be given the same meaning. The meaning of on line
realities is influenced by two things. 1. All meaning in media spaces is
dependent on the 'laws' of each separate and all connected media spaces.
2. Meaning is always dependent on its cultural environment. The latter
is quite common knowledge. It is the first we should be concerned about,
as it is one which is easily forgotten or underestimated. If you want to
create new meaning, if you want to provoke changes beyond your inner
circle you should develop a media strategy that reaches there. If it is
not possible to do so for some reason your work is not useless, but it
then works on the level of inspiration at most. This is one reason to
make good art works with a message btw. The art world is an excellent
channel for new cultures, no matter how aestheticized and out of place
they might seem there.
For the moment it might seem as if on line activism is really breaking
through in the headlines of major news providers in mass media. The
question is however whether it is really the message the activists want
to send out that is coming across or whether it is something else.
German environment activists reach the evening news because they use the
internet. Floodnet reached the news mostly because it did something very
unusual with the internet. It would probably not be far from the truth
to say that even the technological strategies of the important Serbian
radio station B92 were bigger headlines then the content this critical
station sent out. It is the novelty of the situation within the new
media that is more interesting then the message of the activist. To be
truly effective one needs to use tricks to get attention, just like it
always was. If the element of surprise wanes, there is no more novelty
to report on.
To use the internet (and wireless networks too) for real change
activists might want to look at the most popular features on it. These
are porn, chat, email plus mp3, software and video exchanges. There is
no revolution without the people. Also the 'simple' desires of everyday
people have political angles. Freedom of speech, sexual revolutions,
ending poverty and abuse, software development, equal opportunities:
when you look for the right entry point it should be possible to connect
to the hordes who exchange music files or chat daily. It will not make
changes overnight, but it could help limit the rights of a few
privileged companies and countries in the globalization process.

#Print :pdF