[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
INFOWAR: information.
---------------------------------------------------------
ARS ELECTRONICA FESTIVAL 98
INFOWAR. information.macht.krieg
Linz, Austria, september 07 - 12
http://www.aec.at/infowar
---------------------------------------------------------
I've recently begun reading Jeremy Rifkin's <Biotech Century.> In it he
repeatedly raises the concept of transforming genome (human and otherwise)
into information. He then goes on to declare that by becoming information,
the intrinsic value of life is decreased while its utilitarian value
increases.
This has brought me great pause.
I am fascinated and frightened by what he has asserted here-both in terms of
the cultural significance of biotechnology as well as his philosophical axiom
about the nature of information. Perhaps I take too many liberties by
generalizing his assertion into the following: "By becoming information, a
subject's intrinsic value is decreased while its utilitarian value
increases."
I am currently rethinking the term "Infowar." As many have already stated,
the title and term is more sensational than literal-especially coming from an
international arts organization such as ARS E. Is the topic of discussion
and debate really smart bombs, eye-in-the-sky spy satellites, and the
sciences of military propaganda and communication? And isn't isolated
discussion of the "potential of the internet" and other emerging information
technologies becoming a bit tiresome?
In the opening statement Geert Lovink wrote passionately about the immediacy
of losing the internet to already ubiquitous corporate entities. The text
was a call to arms to save (what sounded to me like) a last frontier. If it
is true, even in sensation, that the internet is a "last frontier," there is
something much more going on than preserving the integrity and potential of
one of academia's great creative communication and distribution tools.
That opening text (as well as many others I have read on this list and
elsewhere) could easily be modified. Both the protagonists and antagonists
could be replaced so that it read like a classic scenario of peasant farmers
being plucked off their land by an evil armed military tyranny.
Talk of the internet is often in terms of space, cyberspace. For a while
now, habitation of the internet has been revered as hip and futuristic. But
let's turn this on its head. So instead of rejoicing in the homesteading of
the internet, I ask the following:
What has pushed us-this population of hackers and computer geeks, artists and
musicians, scholars and philosophers-to the outer rim of human existence that
we feel the need to declare the virtual as home? What is going on that we
insist that cyberspace be the one place free of "them." And for that matter,
just who the hell are "they" that we despise so much?
I've read complaints (here and elsewhere) of push technology and the
commercialization of the internet, of that unstoppable juggernaut sometimes
called the "industrial military complex." Many of these complaints aren't
rooted in bitter jealousy as they might be dismissed by some. This goes
beyond a simple case of someone getting rich while the author of such
statements is not.
I see at least three ingredients before me: us (whomever we might be), who
have been called to arms (figuratively so) by Geert to protect the future of
this last frontier and second home; the business sector in all its
manifestations; and standing militaries.
The most interesting threads in this forum thus far have been the ones that
are fueled by emotion. Many of the visionary calls to action which have been
submitted swirl with fear, anxiety, and urgency. The forces they are up
against are sensationalized (perhaps rightly so) into bugbears larger than
life. Be it the police, armies, or multinational corporations. What is it
that we fear? Is there a common thread here? Is it something more than the
threat of physical violence (either real or imagined, depending upon each
case)?
I come back to "Infowar." The term haunts me. In some sense, its seems
timely yet exceptionally cheesy like the title of a comic book plot line with
mutant cyberheros. And yet this term, "infowar," stirs me deep and far off
the mark of that initial interpretation.
By becoming information, a subject's intrinsic value decreases while its
utilitarian value increases.
That comes at it from another angle and hits the same spot, evoking similar
feelings of discomfort and unease.
As a young person trying to make ends meet and function as a productive
artist, I flirt a lot with the industrial corporate world. On occasion,
staff and freelance jobs have placed in a position where I can literally
function as a fly on the wall at top level executive meetings of various
American automotive companies. In the past year and a half, by osmosis, I
have learned a great deal about how industry-at least that particular
industry-functions.
A great deal of what I saw lines up with conversations I have had with a
friend who is currently receiving her Masters of Business at the University
of Michigan. Managerial science is about taking a task, a motion, an action,
a method of production, and finding the means to make it more efficient.
Efficiency. The world beats to the drum of efficiency now. In many
nations-at least here-market economies continue to grow and expand, finding
their way into every profitable nook and cranny of human existence. With
investors functioning as key players in contemporary economics, keeping them
happy by making money for them has become a top priority in any business.
Barring a few exceptions, efficiency has become an essential aspect of a
business entity's survival.
Physical survival is intertwined with our histories of economic survival.
When resources become scarce-whether these resources are space, material, or
energy-competition can and often does become violent. And, not to sound too
basic, sometimes this violence is carried out as a preventative measure by a
community to ensure its own survival.
I'm no anthropologist, but I'm willing to bet that the science of military
ergonomics predates that of industry. An overwhelming majority of
terrestrial human cultures have complex and highly effective cultural
strategies that turn children into warriors. Efficiency and reliability
increase any military's chance of survival. Death is a slightly stronger
motivator and evolutionary force on strategy than financial loss.
One of the most basic strategies for making a military more efficient, more
reliable is to give the individual members a sense of identity that
supercedes their own individual identity. Someone on this list already
stated that nationalism means war. Tribes. Teams. Nations. States.
Unions. Even the Dynamic Duo. Just give the individual something greater
than themselves, something they can die for.
The "need to know" is another basic strategy. Ask any hobby shop military
fanatic-whether its WWII, the Napoleonic wars, or the American Civil War-and
they'll speak with frank reverence for the "bastard battalions" that have
been sacrificed throughout military history. The top brass knew that in all
likelihood those men would die, but for the war to be won, a small battle
(usually a distraction) had to be lost.
Armies have sacrificed the lives of men in the past and will, in all
likelihood, do so in future conflicts and wars.
I think about the stereotype of the recruit torn down in basic training only
to be rebuilt by the military. I think about the accusations that American
militaries would prefer to sweep sexual harassment and racial violence within
their ranks under the carpet. I find myself wondering if the "thin blue
line" also comes in khaki or olive.
Most everything I know about the combat segments of the armed forces flies in
the face of several hundred years of our contemporary, postmodern
understanding the "individual." Aside from the obvious horrors of war, to
me, the most frightening aspect of military life is this loss of
individuality. But lets be honest, though not without faults, modern
militaries are frighteningly efficient and reliable at doing what they are
designed to do. As reliable as a mechanical machine. And this is not in
spite of their "lack of respect" for the "individual," but a rather a direct
result of their approach. For someone involved in the humanities which
champion and depend upon modern notions of the individual, this is
unnerving.
And its not limited just to the military.
I'm certain that there are CEO's in this world that look at military
precision with envy and seek to emulate their efficiency. And why not? If
the task set before you was to reliably make money for your shareholders and
increase your profit margin, wouldn't you too respect military precision?
A subject's intrinsic value decreases while it's utilitarian value increases.
That statement is, in part, about deriving formulae. About a year and a half
ago, while developing a quasi-corporate identity for myself as a fine artist,
I drafted and adopted the slogan;
"Because art should be information..."
I liked it. It sounded like an advertisement. But now I'm not so sure.
The infowar. This is certainly an odd time for creative folk who are not
full time entrepreneurs. If this is an infowar, what is it I am fighting or
fighting for? As has already been stated, this isn't a simple duality of
"good information" vs. "bad information." A few postings have finally raised
the point that there is a difference between information and knowledge. I
would like to add to this that there is also a difference between information
and sensation-though sensation, at times, can be a form of knowing.
In a highly competitive win/lose situation, turning sensation and knowledge
into information (malleable data and formulae) can play a key role in
deciding who comes out ahead. Whoever can micromanage the most efficiently
will win.
Though I find the reactionary term of "infopeace" even cornier than
"infowar," I share its supporters frustration over everything becoming a
win/lose competition. Now that I'm an adult, trying to financially support
my work, and thus a self employed businessman, I think a lot-perhaps too
much-about money. When it comes time to balance the books, I think about the
investment on each piece as well as the (potential) return. In order to
survive in this money-driven world, I too feel pressure to be efficient as a
professional artist-reduce the resistance so less energy/money/time is
required to do the same amount of work.
But we all know that this is not the kind of environment that art (or
scientific inquiry for that matter) thrives in. Curiosity and creativity
meander on their own path, directed by sensation, emotion, and knowledge.
And in spite of the fact that I don't want to become like Hollywood and the
contemporary music industry, my work too has suffered recently, due in large
part (I think) to management and information.
After stating that as life becomes information, its intrinsic value is
decreased while its utilitarian value increases, Jeremy Rifkin then supplies
an anecdote. For example if you see a cat or a dog, you no longer see them
as a cat or a dog but rather the manifestation of a genetic code. And that
manifestation can be changed by simply editing the code.
To me, the "infowar" is a struggle to find a psychological space free from
some of the constraints of information where sensation, knowledge, and
intuition can thrive.
"Because art should be information..."
ha!
Maybe I should have said "Because art lives."
-j.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to the English language version of INFOWAR
To (un)subscribe the English language version send mail to
infowar-en-request@aec.at (message text 'subscribe'/'unsubscribe')
To (un)subscribe the German language version of send mail to
infowar-dt-request@aec.at (message text 'subscribe'/'unsubscribe')
Send contributions to infowar@aec.at
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFOWAR] [subscribe]