Some comments inspired by drew’s article “Locative Dystopia’, dealing with
control and surveillance related to mobile wireless. Was this essay posted
to this particular list at some point? In response to beryl’s request i.e.
continued postings, it is definitely a gem. And I agree that this list
should keep going!

Regarding surveillance and mobile wireless, here is something frightening
to me: asking my 19-year-old students about pervasiveness of surveillance,
I am bewildered at their complete lack of concern. I try to put it into
perspective – for myself. Surveillance is a fixture these kids have grown
up with. And here, the discretionary use of surveillance  and of gathered
information, and the increasing transparency  of surveillance
technologies, allows it to be implemented in inoffensive, subtle or
undetectable ways.  It will be interesting to see how as the dissipation
of visible control  are replaced by  these new  inobtrustive  methods,
whether  in China for example  people  will become  similarly 
unconcerned. Political apathy bred at both ends of the spectrum.

Specifically this portion of drew’s essay gave me a lot to think about:

“While locative media rarely interrogates its own embeddedness and
complicity, even its utopianism is in many ways the most radical gesture,
highlighting how positioning technologies can be enabling, and providing
an alternative to voices critical of surveillance which risk spreading
paranoia and so acquiescence.”

The turning point here is when hackers turn their attention to the
hardware  and transmission streams that make up embedded systems.  NetArt,
a radical  and welcome counterpoint to webart, instigated by hackers  and
their  disregard or contempt for the control mechanism. It is exciting to
imagine  hacking  a system that has both remote and immediate components.
The DeNiro character in Gilliam’s Brazil comes to mind, the vigilante  who
scales buildings to quickly  reengineer  the function of the  sewage
system, turning it against perpetrators of the System. Friends of mine,
artists, speculate that Bush, our dear leader, is fed his speaking lines
via wireless audio transmission, evidenced by the long illogical  pauses
between lines,  and by the look of bewilderment he wears while speaking in
public.  Anyway, the  prospect  of replacing his scripted lines with
something more creative is tantalizing, more so than hacking the
Whitehouse website (although that was good!).

We can thank hackers and NetArt practitioners, radical in their use of
medium and radical in attempts to directly affect power structure, for
their efforts. But, as for effectiveness, in the bigger scheme of things,
it is the  aesthetic of cynicsm they helped spawn – unwittingly maybe –
that prevailed and not any lasting or organized efforts for reform. What
happened to denial of service attacks, replacing official pages with
altered versions, etc.? These days, that would be like carrying a
boxcutter onto a plane – one could no longer claim it was an innocent
prank.

In the 1970’s/80’s, conceptual artists  claimed to take on systems of
control in a context (the galery space) that couldn’t genuinedly  promote 
or engage this goal. Their actions were safe inside this limited context
even as kicking at the walls. Another example, same timeframe: the tactics
of feminist artists were coopted by male art stars intent on positioning
themselves outside the box, while, again, functioning inside it. In all
these instances criticality, irony, self-relfection – whether individual
or on a larger scale – have become tropes in artists’ toolbox, without the
realization of the ostensible goal, or even any intent to do so. The bulk
of artists are more than willing to digest and regurgitate ideas in
palatable or superficially engaging forms. It is only the construct  that
can be consumed,  not an ideology or agenda, in a consumer society.

The point is, for artists at least, there is a very good reason right now
to resist creating works that are critical without a very good reason to
do so, and that is the risk that criticality for now at least all too
easily becomes surface ornament, an easy way to equate a work with
intelligence, hipness, or awareness. I think my allergy to this kind of
positioning has a lot to do with the environment I am in.

One thing locative media has going for it, it stands  for now completely
outside  the jurisdiction  of art world politics, and  exploits  existing
or developing  infrastructures  and protocols. It is decentralized,
unclassifiable, and has no intrinsic value – although reading the dialogue
floating around some of these lists makes it clear that “value” is being
actively constructed. But unlike contemporary art, locative media
practitioners  are  in a position to do what contemporary art never could
– directly  employ and affect the system of control with which it is
complicit, in a way that is grounded in the here and now unlike internet.

One more comment from drew’s essay, on utopianism in locative media
operating as a radical element, in that it emphasizes the enabling
capability of the medium. I agree and would add that for me, the optimism
itself is radical! There is a lot to be optimistic about. In locative
media, one does not  have to design interpretations of the work – our
public helps to shape and interpret.  One is not obligated to formulate
and uphold a genre, as mobile technologies preempt  creation of an
immersive  predetermined  construct. One does not pursue  traditional
venues  because  the world– not the museum–is the stage. One does not
structure the interface - the interface rather is the urbanscape, or the
topography. Right now, possibilities afforded by mobile  technologies 
have  so much to teach the artist/engineer and the public. I think this
notion of opening ourselves up to inquiry and keeping ourselves open is a
valuable and important endeavor, and that includes in how we frame and
promote this type of work.

naomi