Steve Dietz on Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:08:46 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Translocations - 2 of 3 |
Translocations: A Conversation – part 2 of 3 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Conversation http://latitudes.walkerart.org/texts/texts.wac?id=295 March 11–22, 2002, Steve Dietz (Minneapolis), Guna Nadarajan (Singapore), Jeebesh Bagchi, Monica Narula, and Shuddhabrata Sengupta of Raqs Media Collective (Delhi), and Yukiko Shikata (Tokyo) engaged in an online conversation that started from the idea of translocations and ranged widely across the terrain of global net art practice and philosophy. Following is an edited version of our conversation. An online exhibition of network-based art from Brazil, China, Croatia, India, Japan, Mexico, Phillipines, Singapore, South Africa, Turkey, and the United States by Danger Museum, entropy8zuper! with Julie Mehretu (launches April 6), Fran Ilich, Takuji KOGO, Andreja Kuluncic (launches May 1, Fatima Lasay, Raqs Media Collective, Re:combo, Warren Sack + Sawad Brooks, Sarai Media Lab, The Thing, Trinity Session, and tsunamii.net (launches March 31). http://translocations.walkerart.org ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: mediachef_translocations <steve.dietz@walkerart.org> Date: Wed Mar 13, 2002 3:57am Subject: Re: from Guna Guna and Yukiko, A lot to chew on here! And thanks, Yukiko, for introducing the notion of imagination. Shuddha has written a quite wonderful piece about his imagination as sparked by community telephones called "Long Distance Conversations.”[15] In my recent "global travels" I had a similar sense of wonder and imagination provoked by the destination board in the Kuala Lumpur airport. I think I could have sat there indefinitely. It also brings to mind one of my standard anecdotes, which is that one of the ways that Claude Shannon, and others, understood his very precise and profoundly transforming mathematical theory of information was as surprise. Information has more value the more surprising it is.[16] Guna, I think you are right to question whether latitudes—geography—introduce another instance of a kind of essentialism. Nevertheless, I remain interested in whether there is a kind of nonessentialist localism that can be recuperated by the notion of translocal in opposition to transglobal. Perhaps it is the notion of hospitality, which Raqs mentioned in relation to Irina Aristarkhova and which is embedded in her new work Virtual Chora.[17] From: Gunalan Nadarajan <gunalan@lasallesia.edu.sg> Date: Tue Mar 12, 2002 9:09pm Subject: RE: translocations Dear Yukiko and the rest, I am thankful for your reference to the notion of latitude-differentiated time zones as it again points to the ways in which cartographies are organizing the spatial-temporal realities of our lived experiences as different. I would like, though, to suggest that sometimes geographies, with reference to the imagined topographies of the net and global networks of commerce, have been promoted as the new signifiers of real spaces or, in cyberculture circles, place. The fact that geographies are as much constructions of spatio-temporal experiences as they are representations of real spaces is carefully circumvented, sometimes by the critique of net space as being not real vis-à-vis that of geographical space. In some sense, then, I am wondering if the reference to latitude being a geographical construct standing in this exhibition as a trope of locatedness is not rather problematic. I would like to raise another issue that has been bothering me for a while now, the phenomenon of the global curator; and Steve, as I indicated to you during your visit here, you seem to be one example of a global curator both by intent, and since I know you will beg to differ, by default. By intent, insofar as you (as does your institution, the Walker Art Center) desire to “curate the world” in a sense. The desire to go beyond one's shores, the aspiration to incorporate other perspectives and products into one's ambit (and thus reflecting global ambitions) is peculiar to the global curator, most concretely embodied in the biennial curators/artistic directors. One may quibble about whether it is really the globe that the global curator desires or whether it is far more humble insofar as they aspire to merely represent a variety of perspectives, not comprehensively but conscientiously. Whatever one decides about these issues, the global curator, reflecting a “will to globality” in curating and organizing art exhibitions, is an important mediator of the global in the art world. What is the role of the global curator in an age of translocations? Does the global curator sometimes embark on the translocations by his/her own travels, stringing together geographically and culturally diverse artists in ways that circumvent the need for others, such as the artists and the audiences, to “translocate”? Or is the global curator a key agent in initiating and sustaining critically nuanced translocational strategies in the art world? From: yukiko shikata <sica@dasein-design.com> Date: Wed Mar 13, 2002 7:12am Subject: RE: translocations dear Guna and the rest, "Latitude" includes attitude, and the attitude comes from each person, so latitudes could be defined as the connected attitudes (perspectives and actions) of an unlimited number of people, each facing local realities and connected globally. "Forms" are generated by space and time, but nobody knows how they become, as each of us sees them from our own perspective. I think the forms coming out of latitudes constitute an info-geography, consisting of dynamic, changing numerical codes, to which we cannot apply the existing notion of physical space. Via the Internet, we face totally different kinds of geography, which are beyond global and local, private and public. Of course there is a tendency toward territorialization (or globalization) of the information sphere, applying the existing material-based regulations to an info-, digital-, network-based entity, and putting this info-geography under the control of governments and corporations. Artists could be "agents for change" (Konrad Becker) to resist such tendencies. At the moment I am co-curating, with Shu Lea Cheang and Armin Medosch, an online exhibition titled Kingdom of Piracy (KOP).[18] Raqs Media Collective is participating with their Global Village Health Manual.[19] Shuddha or Jeebesh or Monica, could one of you talk about the project in relation to translocation or other related topics? With KOP, we are dealing with the piracy issue, trying to promote artistic interventions, as the whole digital-based information “space” is in possible danger of future control by the global economy. Piracy also references issues of deterritorialization and omnipresence. Regarding info-geography, I am also interested in the aspects of memory that can be collected and stored as resources for future use. Raqs is also dealing with this issue in its OPUS project.[20] This is a totally new way of production, and locates works as nodes in an infinitely open-ended progression of possible future productions. Henri Lefebvre wrote in "Production of Spaces" (1973) as follows (sorry for my bad translation from the Japanese): “In the near future, it will become important to seek the new possibility as much as possible and to produce the human space following the model of the collective . . . Here, works are not "created" by a single author, but "produced" by collaborations regarded as the production of the space . . . and the space could be said to be a “public space” . . . This space can be realized by taking the way of the "public domain" or the "commons." Where do those "commons" exist?”[21] We might think of this as a new kind of translocal entity, which is an agent or agency to connect with us and others, and also to connect us with each other (this is also done, for example, by Knowbotic Research’s 10_dencies). From: Steve Dietz <steve.dietz@walkerart.org> Date: Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:31am Subject: RE: translocations Yukiko, Thanks. I think the movement you make from translocal to information commons is important. There is a certain parallelism between global/local, nomadic/fixed, public/private, which is very interesting. From: Raqs Media Collective <raqs@sarai.net> Date: Wed Mar 13, 2002 8:28am Subject: nomadism and routes Dear Steve, Yukiko, and Guna, It is great to see the list really warming up, and all of our postings substantiating one another. Guna has raised a very important point about the "limits of nomadic strategies" because, as he says, "there is a tendency for such strategies not to have a life after their initial interventions and effects." While this is a very necessary caveat to keep in mind, it also presumes that nomadism is seen as being inherently contingent on impermanence. We think, however, that nomadism is not a one-off singular movement from one location to another. It requires regularities, and returns. This is the difference between the nomad and the migrant. The nomad walks the same paths between places, the migrant leaves one place for another. The betweenness of the first movement and the finality of the second departure enclose between them a world of a difference. In fact, this difference may be what we are struggling to define as the distinction between translocality and the hegemonic form of globalization. This is not to say that translocality is antithetical to all forms of the global imaginary, but of that, more later. The paths on which nomads walk need to be maintained over time and across generations. While settlements have witnessed ebbs and flows, cities have been depopulated and repopulated, and so have trade routes. The entire history of Central Asia, and the languages that many of us speak, from Turkey to Bangladesh, bear witness to the obstinate persistence of nomadism across generations. This permanence requires that there be stable institutions of hospitality for practices of nomadism. Hence, sarais. Hence, the settlements that grew with sarais as their nuclei. Nomadism and location have in this instance at least a symbiotic relationship. And the decline of many cities and seemingly permanent settlements in our geographies has to do with the inability of nomads to traverse well-worn paths, because of borders that inhibit movement. The tragic destiny of a city like Kabul, from the early twentieth century right through to the Taliban years and the war in Afghanistan, is, for instance, signatory of what happens to a location when borders close in and nomads, carrying ideas and images and songs and objects from other spaces, are no longer welcome. This is why we stress the importance of hospitality, of permanent refuges for transients, as an essential factor in a new/old cultural ethic. To delve into roots in such spaces is necessarily to discover an intricate matrix of intersecting, chaotic “wills to globality.” This is true, we think, of all our genealogies. Our selfhood, the apex of the myriad identities that constitute our coming into history today, is composed of many silences and acts of forgetting as much as of remembering and assertion. These omissions are the ones that are located exactly at the point where the tendrils of our roots touch the tendrils of the roots of others from whom we may wish to deny inheritances. The deeper we go into our genealogies, our cultures, our practices, and our languages, the more horizontally spread out they become. In this sense, the discovery of one's roots is also a discovery of each of our nomadic inheritances. Each of these nomadic inheritances is an instance of a will to globality. The will to globality need not be seen only in terms of the desire of the local to reach a predetermined global space—to be “in” on what is provisionally constructed as the global space. We argue that it also resides in all our specific, located abilities to imagine ourselves as global subjects, creating global spaces. This means that it is not only the curator who is a global entity. He or she is no more (or less) of a global entity than practitioners and artists. Let us elaborate what we mean. On Sarai’s listserv Reader List, there was a lot of discussion about what happened in New York, in Afghanistan, and in the world in general post-9/11. There was no hesitation on the part of those who live in, say, New Delhi to claim for themselves the global space of New York. There is, at the moment, a serious and violent sectarian crisis engulfing parts of India. And the listserv is just as active. But curiously, although the constituency of the list is global, no one from outside the subcontinent is writing about what is happening in India at the moment. We could surmise that this is because of a phenomenon that we have always maintained is an “asymmetry of ignorance.” We, on the fringes of the global space, know more about the global space than those who are at its core know about us. This is the consequence of the relationship over at least the last two hundred years between centers and peripheries in the cultural universe. But this also paradoxically means that we, at the “local” periphery, can claim the “global” center with far less hesitation. We can be global in a discursive sense, more than someone at the center can be. This is our will to globality. This is what ensures that our locatedness in New Delhi is also the crucial determinant of the nomadism of our concerns and practices. As Florian Schneider of the No Borders Campaign says, succinctly, "What use are borders if we do not cross them?” This has been a long posting, but we would like to leave you with a few fragments from a hypertext work in progress that we are developing called “The Concise Lexicon of/for the Digital Commons.”[22] These fragments are entries that define certain terms, as in a dictionary; we offer you the following three words. Nodes Any structure that is composed of concentrated masses of materials which act as junction points for the branching out of extensible parts of the overall system may be described as nodal. The concentrations or junctions being the nodes. A nodal structure is a rhizomatic structure, it sets down roots (that branch out laterally) as it travels. Here, nodes may also be likened to the intersection points of fractal systems, the precise locations where new fractal iterations arise out of an existing pattern. A work that is internally composed of memes is inherently nodal. Each meme is a junction point or a node for the lateral branching out of the vector of an idea. In a work that is made up of interconnected nodes, the final structure that emerges is that of a web, in which every vector eventually passes through each node at least once on its orbit through the structure of the work. In such a structure it becomes impossible to suppress or kill an idea, once it is set in motion, because its vectors will make it travel quickly through the nodes to other locations within the system, setting off chains of echoes and resonances at each node that trace a path back to the kernel of the idea. These echoes and resonances are rescensions, and each node is ultimately a direct rescension of at least one other node in the system and an indirect rescension of each junction within a whole cluster of other nodes. Nodes, when written, perhaps erroneously, as “no-des” give rise to an intriguing hybrid English/Eastern-Hindi neologism, a companion to the old words des, and par-des. Des (in some eastern dialects of Hindi, spoken by many migrants to Delhi) is simply homeland or native place; par-des suggests exile, and an alien land. “No-des” is that site or way of being, in des or in par-des, where territory and anxieties about belonging don’t go hand in hand. Nodes in a digital domain are No-des. Ubiquity Everywhere-ness. The capacity to be in more than one site. The simple fact of heterogeneous situation, a feature of the way in which clusters of memes, packets of data, orbit and remain extant in several nodal points within a system. The propensity of a meme toward ubiquity increases with every iteration, for once spoken, it always already exists again and elsewhere. It begins to exist and be active (even if dormantly) in the person spoken to as well as in the speaker. Stories, and the kernels of ideas, travel in this way. A rescension, when in orbit, crosses the paths of its variants. The zone where two orbits intersect is usually the site of an active transaction and transfer of meanings. Each rescension carries into its own trajectory memes from its companion. In this way, through the encounters between rescensions, ideas spread, travel, and tend toward ubiquity. That which is everywhere is difficult to censor, that which is everywhere has no lack of allies. To be ubiquitous is to be present and dispersed in “no-des.” Sometimes, ubiquity is the only effective answer to censorship and isolation. Vector The direction in which an object moves, factored by the velocity of its movement. An idea spins and speeds at the same time. The intensity of its movement is an attribute of the propensity it has to connect and touch other ideas. This gives rise to its vector functions. The vector of a meme is always toward other memes, in other words, the tendency of vectors of data is to be as ubiquitous as possible. This means that an image, code, or idea must attract others to enter into relationships that ensure its portability and rapid transfer through different sites and zones. The vectors of different memes, when taken together, form a spinning web of code. From: Gunalan Nadarajan <gunalan@lasallesia.edu.sg> Date: Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:31pm Subject: RE: nomadism and routes Dear Raqs and the rest, Thank you very much for such a thought-provoking response to my point about the transience of nomadic strategies. I do agree with you that my point about nomadic strategies does not adequately take into account the continuities and rhythmic nature of nomadic movements in contradistinction, as you suggest, to those of the migrant. I agree that such “routinizations” do constitute some sort of temporal continuities that can serve well in keeping the effects of nomadic strategies in currency over long periods of time. I am doubtful, however, if such nomadic strategies can continue operating for very long when they are so dependent on "the stable institutions of hospitality" you speak of, especially since such institutions are fast becoming difficult to sustain. Even Web space, often touted as the most hospitable of spaces, is riddled with proprietary claims and regulations that make it almost hostile. How to develop more sarais to provide more "permanent refuges for transients" seems to be of tantamount importance now more than ever. I am not so convinced, however, of your argument that the "discovery of our roots is also a discovery of our nomadic inheritances." While it may well be the case that the tendrils of our roots may spread to touch the roots of others, these discoveries are seldom invited with recognition of commonalities but rather with anxieties about differences. This anxiety to articulate one's difference from some other, as soon as you discover the common roots, seems to result often not from an unwillingness to affirm our nomadic inheritances but from an anxiety to maintain legitimate claims over the inheritances that constitute our present state. Thus a recognition of one's nomadic inheritances does not necessarily lead one toward or reflect one's will to globality, though I am willing to accept that it sometimes does so. I agree with and have very often noted the "asymmetry of ignorance" you mention with reference to the knowledges of the global reflected by the peripheries vis-à-vis centers. I am unsure, however, how one is to go about thinking of the core and the periphery with reference to global space. If the global is a sense of one's being “in” on what has been "provisionally constructed as global space,” then how does one articulate within this imagined space cores and peripheries? What does it mean to be at the core, to be more into and inflected by the global? What is periphery when one participates in the global, as you suggest, by "our abilities to imagine ourselves as global subjects"? I especially enjoyed the way you recolonized the semantics of nodes by etymologically renovating the possibilities for articulating nomadic (dis)positions as nodes. I do think that the notion of nodes, especially in its resonances with ubiquity, is extremely useful in thinking about the translocal as well as in understanding the operations of the global. From: Raqs Media Collective <raqs@sarai.net> Date: Thu Mar 14, 2002 1:08am Subject: RE: nomadism and routes Dear translocators, Expanding on Yukiko's point about info-geography, we must consider, as she has urged us to, whether it is at all necessary to collapse "territoriality" of physical cartography onto the making of the map of new cultural practices. This also ties in with Guna's very salient criticism of our deployment of the metaphors of center and periphery when conceptualizing a global space. We have been struck, ever since Guna's last posting, by the inadequacy of the terms center and periphery as tools to think through translocality. In fact, the notion of a center assumes that there is one globality, while we ourselves have been arguing for alternate global imaginaries. The moment one desires, or admits to, disparate, intersecting, chaotic wills to globality, the notion of a center, and with it of peripheries, loses any meaning. So, we stand humbly corrected on that score. We would take this further to say that it is also time to resurrect, critically examine, and where necessary, celebrate every form of global or translocal cultural practice from all our histories. A model of globality need not be in any one direction. Japan or Korea is as far as England or France from Northern India, and there are high mountains, deserts, and seas in between—yet ideas and codes did persist in traveling. The world of global culture seems at the moment to be skewed in one direction only, and this bias needs to be corrected for us to understand what it might mean to embrace local wills to globality. And further, we need to consider an archaeology of translocality, to construct and complicate stories of rootedness that make it difficult to narrativize the other in terms of hostility alone, that make it possible to integrate in any image of the self and its practices all its inheritances, sedentary as well as nomadic. We agree that this is by no means easy, but we think that it is necessary if we are to map an info-geography that does not recapitulate the borders of the physical world today. Such an info-geography might interact with the boundedness of the physical world in unforeseen ways. Here we would like to come back to what Guna said about the institutions of hospitality that can permit forms of nomadism to flourish. Of course the Web is a highly contested space, and the fragile commons of the digital domain are now in a constant state of siege, because of the way in which regimes of intellectual property (patents, copyright, trademark, etc.) construct enclosures on the field of code, signs, and knowledge. This goes so far as to impose on the maps of our fluid info-geographies the barbed wires of physical borders—of reterritorializing (as Yukiko might say) that which has been at its foundation deterritorialized. This is what happens when, for instance, the regional encryption systems construct territorial limitations on the usage of DVDs. This is a situation that we can either accept or work around and against. The attempt to ensure that a digital commons remains a digital commons is precisely the effort of ensuring that spaces remain hospitable to the flows of cultural nomadism, among many other things. The commons remains such because people continue to travel through it. This is what ensures that it does not become proprietary. This means that there can be no naive belief in the inherent freedom or openness of digital culture, or an innocence as regards what must be done (repeatedly and constantly) in order to keep the commons, common. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Translocations: A Conversation http://latitudes.walkerart.org/texts/texts.wac?id=295 Online Exhibition http://translocations.walkerart.org Part of How Latitudes Become Forms http://latitudes.walkerart.org ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 15. Shuddhabrata Sengupta, “Long Distance Conversations,” at <http://www.sarai.net/compositions/texts/works/longdistance.htm>. 16. Steve Dietz, “Signal or Noise? The Network Museum,” February 16, 2000, <http://www.walkerart.org/gallery9/webwalker/ww_032300.html>. 17. Irina Aristarkhova, “Virtual Chora,” at <http://www.virtualchora.com/>. 18. Kingdom of Piracy, curated by Shu Lea Cheang, Armin Medosch, and Yukiko Shikata, launched online December 9, 2001, at <http://www.adac.com/tw>. The on-site exhibition was held at ArtFuture 2002, March 2002, at Acer Digital Art Center, Taiwan. 19. Raqs Media Collective, with Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, Global Village Health Manual, CD-ROM. See <http://www.sarai.net/compositions/multimedia/multimedia.htm>. 20. See <http://www.sarai.net/opus/>. 21. Henri Lefebvre, La Production de l’espace (Paris: Éditions Anthropos, 1974); author’s translation from the Japanese ed. (Tokyo: Aoki-Shoten Publishers, 2000). 22. The work can be viewed in its current, simply text form at <http://www.sarai.net/compositions/texts/works/lexicon.htm>. Steve Dietz Curator of New Media Walker Art Center http://latitudes.walkerart.org http://www.mnartists.org # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net