> ><mailto:departmentofspaceandlandreclamation-request@;lists.riseup.net> > >List-Archive: > ><http://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/departmentofspaceandlandreclamation> > >Subject: [departmentofspaceandlandreclamation] A Virtual World is > >Possible:From Tactical Media to Digital > > Multitudes > > > >A Virtual World is Possible:From Tactical Media to Digital Multitudes > >By Geert Lovink and Florian Schneider > > > >I. > > > >We start with the current strategy debates of the so-called > >"anti-globalisation movement", the biggest emerging political force for > >decades. In Part II we will look into strategies of critical new media > >culture in the post-speculative phase after dotcommania. Four phases of the > >global movement are becoming visible, all of which have distinct political, > >artistic and aesthetic qualities. > > > >1. The 90s and tactical media activism > > > >The term 'tactical media' arose in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin > >Wall as a renaissance of media activism, blending old school political work > >and artists' engagement with new technologies. The early nineties saw a > >growing awareness of gender issues, exponential growth of media industries > >and the increasing availability of cheap do-it-yourself equipment creating a > >new sense of self-awareness amongst activists, programmers, theorists, > >curators and artists. Media were no longer seen as merely tools for the > >Struggle, but experienced as virtual environments whose parameters were > >permanently 'under construction'. This was the golden age of tactical media, > >open to issues of aesthetics and experimentation with alternative forms of > >story telling. However, these liberating techno practices did not > >immediately translate into visible social movements. Rather, they symbolized > >the celebration of media freedom, in itself a great political goal. The > >media used - from video, CD-ROM, cassettes, zines and flyers to music styles > >such as rap and techno - varied widely, as did the content. A commonly > >shared feeling was that politically motivated activities, be they art or > >research or advocacy work, were no longer part of a politically correct > >ghetto and could intervene in 'pop culture' without necessarily having to > >compromise with the 'system.' With everything up for negotiation, new > >coalitions could be formed. The current movements worldwide cannot be > >understood outside of the diverse and often very personal for digital > >freedom of expression. > > > >2. 99-01: The period of big mobilizations > > > >By the end of the nineties the post-modern 'time without movements' had come > >to pass. The organized discontent against neo-liberalism, global warming > >policies, labour exploitation and numerous other issues converged. Equipped > >with networks and arguments, backed up by decades of research, a hybrid > >movement - wrongly labelled by mainstream media as 'anti-globalisation' - > >gained momentum. One of the particular features of this movement lies in its > >apparent inability and unwillingness to answer the question that is typical > >of any kind of movement on the rise or any generation on the move: what's to > >be done? There was and there is no answer, no alternative - either strategic > >or tactical - to the existing world order, to the dominant mode of > >globalisation. > > > >And maybe this is the most important and liberating conclusion: there is no > >way back to the twentieth century, the protective nation state and the > >gruesome tragedies of the 'left.' It has been good to remember - but equally > >good to throw off - the past. The question 'what's to be done' should not be > >read as an attempt to re-introduce some form of Leninist principles. The > >issues of strategy, organization and democracy belong to all times. We > >neither want to bring back old policies through the backdoor, nor do we > >think that this urgent question can be dismissed by invoking crimes > >committed under the banner of Lenin, however justified such arguments are. > >When Slavoj Zizek looks in the mirror he may see Father Lenin, but that's > >not the case for everyone. It is possible to wake up from the nightmare of > >the past history of communism and (still) pose the question: what's to be > >done? Can a 'multitude' of interests and backgrounds ask that question, or > >is the only agenda that defined by the summit calendar of world leaders and > >the business elite? > > > >Nevertheless, the movement has been growing rapidly. At first sight it > >appears to use a pretty boring and very traditional medium: the > >mass-mobilization of tens of thousands in the streets of Seattle, hundreds > >of thousands in the streets of Genoa. And yet, tactical media networks > >played an important role in it's coming into being. From now on pluriformity > >of issues and identities was a given reality. Difference is here to stay and > >no longer needs to legitimize itself against higher authorities such as the > >Party, the Union or the Media. Compared to previous decades this is its > >biggest gain. The 'multitudes' are not a dream or some theoretical construct > >but a reality. > > > >If there is a strategy, it is not contradiction but complementary existence. > >Despite theoretical deliberations, there is no contradiction between the > >street and cyberspace. The one fuels the other. Protests against the WTO, > >neo-liberal EU policies, and party conventions are all staged in front of > >the gathered world press. Indymedia crops up as a parasite of the mainstream > >media. Instead of having to beg for attention, protests take place under the > >eyes of the world media during summits of politicians and business leaders, > >seeking direct confrontation. Alternatively, symbolic sites are chosen such > >as border regions (East-West Europe, USA-Mexico) or refugee detention > >centres (Frankfurt airport, the centralized Eurocop database in Strasbourg, > >the Woomera detention centre in the Australian desert). Rather than just > >objecting to it, the global entitlement of the movement adds to the ruling > >mode of globalisation a new layer of globalisation from below. > > > >3. Confusion and resignation after 9-11 > > > >At first glance, the future of the movement is a confusing and irritating > >one. Old-leftist grand vistas, explaining US imperialism and its aggressive > >unilateralist foreign policy, provided by Chomsky, Pilger and other baby > >boomers are consumed with interest but no longer give the bigger picture. In > >a polycentric world conspiracy theories can only provide temporary comfort > >for the confused. No moralist condemnation of capitalism is necessary as > >facts and events speak for themselves. People are driven to the street by > >the situation, not by an analysis (neither ours nor the one from Hardt & > >Negri). The few remaining leftists can no longer provide the movement with > >an ideology, as it works perfectly without one. "We don't need your > >revolution." Even the social movements of the 70s and 80s, locked up in > >their NGO structures, have a hard time keeping up. New social formations are > >taking possession of the streets and media spaces, without feeling the need > >of representation by some higher authority, not even the heterogenous > >committees gathering in Porto Alegre. > > > >So far this movement has been bound in clearly defined time/space > >coordinates. It still takes months to mobilize multitudes and organize the > >logistics, from buses and planes, camping grounds and hostels, to > >independent media centres. This movement is anything but spontaneous (and > >does not even claim to be so). The people that travel hundreds or thousands > >of miles to attend protest rallies are driven by real concerns, not by some > >romantic notion of socialism. The worn-out question: "reform or revolution?" > >sounds more like blackmail to provoke the politically correct answer. > > > >The contradiction between selfishness and altruism is also a false one. > >State-sponsored corporate globalisation affects everyone. International > >bodies such as the WTO, the Kyoto Agreement on global warming, or the > >privatisation of the energy sector are no longer abstract news items, dealt > >with by bureaucrats and (NGO) lobbyists. This political insight has been the > >major quantum leap of recent times. Is this then the Last International? No. > >There is no way back to the nation state, to traditional concepts of > >liberation, the logic of transgression and transcendence, exclusion and > >inclusion. Struggles are no longer projected onto a distant Other that begs > >for our moral support and money. We have finally arrived in the > >post-solidarity age. As a consequence, national liberation movements have > >been replaced by a by a new analysis of power, which is simultaneously > >incredibly abstract, symbolic and virtual, whilst terribly concrete, > >detailed and intimate. > > > >4. Present challenge: liquidate the regressive third period of marginal > >moral protest > > > >Luckily September 11 has had no immediate impact on the movement. The choice > >between Bush and Bin Laden was irrelevant. Both agendas were rejected as > >devastating fundamentalisms. The all too obvious question: "whose terror is > >worse?" was carefully avoided as it leads away from the pressing emergencies > >of everyday life: the struggle for a living wage, decent public transport, > >health care, water, etc. As both social democracy and really existing > >socialism depended heavily on the nation state a return to the 20thcentury > >sounds as disastrous as all the catastrophes it produced. The concept of a > >digital multitude is fundamentally different and based entirely on openness. > >Over the last few years the creative struggles of the multitudes have > >produced outputs on many different layers: the dialectics of open sources, > >open borders, open knowledge. Yet the deep penetration of the concepts of > >openness and freedom into the principle of struggle is by no means a > >compromise to the cynical and greedy neo-liberal class. Progressive > >movements have always dealt with a radical democratisation of the rules of > >access, decision-making and the sharing of gained capacities. Usually it > >started from an illegal or illegitimate common ground. Within the bounds of > >the analogue world it led to all sorts of cooperatives and self-organized > >enterprises, whose specific notions of justice were based on efforts to > >circumvent the brutal regime of the market and on different ways of dealing > >with the scarcity of material resources. > > > >We're not simply seeking proper equality on a digital level. We're in the > >midst of a process that constitutes the totality of a revolutionary being, > >as global as it is digital. We have to develop ways of reading the raw data > >of the movements and struggles and ways to make their experimental knowledge > >legible; to encode and decode the algorithms of its singularity, > >nonconformity and non-confoundability; to invent, refresh and update the > >narratives and images of a truly global connectivity; to open the source > >code of all the circulating knowledge and install a virtual world. > > > >Bringing these efforts down to the level of production challenges new forms > >of subjectivity, which almost necessarily leads to the conclusion that > >everyone is an expert. The superflux of human resources and the brilliance > >of everyday experience get dramatically lost in the 'academification' of > >radical left theory. Rather the new ethical-aesthetic paradigm lives on in > >the pragmatic consciousness of affective labour, in the nerdish attitude of > >a digital working class, in the omnipresence of migrant struggles as well as > >many other border-crossing experiences, in deep notions of friendship within > >networked environments as well as the 'real' world. > > > >II. > > > >Let's now look at strategies for Internet art & activism. Critical new media > >culture faces a tough climate of budget cuts in the cultural sector and a > >growing hostility and indifference towards new media. But hasn't power > >shifted to cyberspace, as Critical Art Ensemble once claimed? Not so if we > >look at the countless street marches around the world. > > > >The Seattle movement against corporate globalisation appears to have gained > >momentum - both on the street and online. But can we really speak of a > >synergy between street protests and online 'hacktivism'? No. But what they > >have in common is their (temporal) conceptual stage. Both real and virtual > >protests risk getting stuck at the level of a global 'demo design,' no > >longer grounded in actual topics and local situations. This means the > >movement never gets out of beta. At first glance, reconciling the virtual > >and the real seems to be an attractive rhetorical act. Radical pragmatists > >have often emphasized the embodiment of online networks in real-life > >society, dispensing with the real/virtual contradiction. Net activism, like > >the Internet itself, is always hybrid, a blend of old and new, haunted by > >geography, gender, race and other political factors. There is no pure > >disembodied zone of global communication, as the 90s cyber-mythology > >claimed. > > > >Equations such as street plus cyberspace, art meets science, and > >'techno-culture'are all interesting interdisciplinary approaches but are > >proving 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 and > >challenge the powers that be. In a conservative climate, the claim to > >'embody the future' becomes a weak and empty gesture. > > > >On the other hand, the call of many artists and activists to return to "real > >life" does not provide us with a solution to how alternative new media > >models can be raised to the level of mass (pop) culture. Yes, street > >demonstrations raise solidarity levels and lift us up from the daily > >solitude of 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 comes > >after the demo version" of both new media and the movements? > > > >This isn't the heady 60s. The negative, pure and modernist level of the > >"conceptual" has hit the hard wall of demo design as Peter Lunenfeld > >described it in his book 'Snap to Grid'. The question becomes: how to jump > >beyond the prototype? What comes after the siege of yet another summit of > >CEOs and their politicians? How long can a movement grow and stay 'virtual'? > >Or in IT terms, what comes after demo design, after the countless PowerPoint > >presentations, broadband trials and Flash animations? Will Linux ever break > >out of the geek ghetto? The feel-good factor of the open, ever growing crowd > >(Elias Canetti) will wear out; demo fatigue will set in. We could ask: does > >your Utopia version have a use-by date? > > > >Rather than making up yet another concept it is time to ask the question of > >how software, interfaces and alternative standards can be installed in > >society. Ideas may take the shape of a virus, but society can hit back with > >even more successful immunization programs: appropriation, repression and > >neglect. We face 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. Designing a successful > >cultural virus and getting millions of hits on your weblog will not bring > >you beyond the level of a short-lived 'spectacle'. Culture jammers are no > >longer outlaws but should be seen as experts in guerrilla communication > > > >Today's movements are in danger of getting stuck in 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: it might pay off, it might turn out to be worthless. 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 we call > >here for a rigorous synthesis of social movements with technology. Instead > >of taking the "the future is now" position derived from cyber-punk, 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 rise and subsequent fall of dot-com, it might be the > >importance of marketing. The eyeballs of the dotcom attention economy proved > >worthless. > > > >This is a terrain is of truly taboo knowledge. Dot-coms invested their > >entire venture capital in (old media) advertisement. Their belief that > >media-generated attention would automatically draw users in and turn them > >into customers was unfounded. The same could be said of activist sites. > >Information "forms" us. But new consciousness results less and less in > >measurable action. Activists are only starting to understand the impact of > >this paradigm. What if information merely circles around in its own parallel > >world? What's to be done if the street demonstration becomes part of the > >Spectacle? > > > >The increasing tensions and polarizations described here force us to > >question the limits of new media discourse. In the age of realtime global > >events Ezra Pound's definition of art as the antenna of the human race shows > >its passive, responsive nature. Art no longer initiates. One can be happy if > >it responds to contemporary conflicts at all and the new media arts sector > >is no exception. New media arts must be reconciled with its condition as a > >special effect of the hard and software developed years ago. > > > >Critical new media practices have been slow to respond to both the rise and > >fall of dotcommania. In the speculative heydays of new media culture (the > >early-mid 90s, before the rise of the World Wide Web), theorists and artists > >jumped eagerly on not yet existing and inaccessible technologies such as > >virtual reality. Cyberspace generated a rich collection of mythologies; > >issues of embodiment and identity were fiercely debated. Only five years > >later, while Internet stocks were going through the roof, little was left of > >the initial excitement in intellectual and artistic circles. Experimental > >techno culture missed out on the funny money. Recently there has been a > >steady stagnation of new media cultures, both in terms of concepts and > >funding. With millions of new users flocking onto the Net, the arts can no > >longer keep up and withdraw into their own little world of festivals, > >mailing lists and workshops. > > > >Whereas new media arts institutions, begging for goodwill, still portray > >artists as working at the forefront of technological developments, the > >reality is a different one. Multi-disciplinary goodwill is at an all time > >low. At best, the artist's new media products are 'demo design' as described > >by Lunenfeld. Often it does not even reach that level. New media arts, as > >defined by its few institutions rarely reach audiences outside of its own > >electronic arts subculture. The heroic fight for the establishment of a > >self-referential 'new media arts system' through a frantic differentiation > >of works, concepts and traditions, might be called a dead-end street. The > >acceptance of new media by leading museums and collectors will simply not > >happen. Why wait a few decades anyway? Why exhibit net art in white cubes? > >The majority of the new media organizations such as ZKM, the Ars Electronica > >Centre, ISEA, ICC or ACMI are hopeless in their techno innocence, being > >neither critical nor radically utopian in their approach. Hence, the new > >media arts sector, despite its steady growth, is getting increasingly > >isolated, incapable of addressing the issues of today's globalised world, > >dominated by (the war against) terror. Let's face it, technology is no > >longer 'new,' the markets are down and out and no one wants know about it > >anymore. Its little wonder the contemporary (visual) arts world is > >continuing its decade-old boycott of (interactive) new media works in > >galleries, biennales and shows like Documenta XI. > > > >A critical reassessment of the role of arts and culture within today's > >network society seems necessary. Let's go beyond the 'tactical' intentions > >of the players involved. The artist-engineer, tinkering on alternative > >human-machine interfaces, social software or digital aesthetics has > >effectively been operating in a self-imposed vacuum. Science and business > >have successfully ignored the creative community. Worse still, artists have > >been actively sidelined in the name of 'usability', pushed by a backlash > >movement against web design led by the IT-guru Jakob Nielsen. The revolt > >against usability is about to happen. Lawrence Lessig argues that Internet > >innovation is in danger. The younger generation is turning its back onon new > >media arts questions and if involved at all, operate as anti-corporate > >activists. After the dotcom crash the Internet has rapidly lost its > >imaginative attraction. File swapping and cell phones can only temporarily > >fill up the vacuum; the once so glamorous gadgets are becoming part of > >everyday life. This long-term tendency, now accelerating, seriously > >undermines future claims of new media. > > > >Another issue concerns generations. With video and expensive interactive > >installations being the domain of the '68 baby boomers, the generation of > >'89 has embraced the free Internet. But the Net turned out to be a trap for > >them. Whereas assets, positions and power remain in the hands of the ageing > >baby boomers, the gamble on the rise of new media did not pay off. After > >venture capital has melted away, there is still no sustainable revenue > >system in place for the Internet. The slow working educational bureaucracies > >have not yet grasped the new media malaise. Universities are still in the > >process of establishing new media departments. But that will come to a halt > >at some point. The fifty-something tenured chairs and vice-chancellors must > >feel good about their persistent sabotage. What's so new about new media > >anyway? Technology was hype after all, promoted by the criminals of Enron > >and WorldCom. It is sufficient for students to do a bit of email and web > >surfing, safeguarded within a filtered, controlled intranet. In the face of > >this rising techno-cynicism we urgently need to analyse the ideology of the > >greedy 90s and its techno-libertarianism. If we don't disassociate new media > >quickly from the previous decade, the isolation of the new media sector will > >sooner or later result in its death. Let's transform the new media buzz into > >something more interesting altogether - before others do it for us > > --
------------------------------------------------- a m b i t : networking media arts in scotland post: [EMAIL PROTECTED] archive: http://www.mediascot.org/ambit info: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and write "info ambit" in the message body -------------------------------------------------
