Sorry this is very rough…
On the one hand, we are enthusiast about a culture that is about collaboration, exchange, mutual motions. We find that machines and digital networks are wonderful beings and contexts that allow for interconnections, other perceptions, other understanding of our environment, esthetics, politics. On the other, we realise that the networks and the digital environment didn't happen by mere chance. They carry with them a long history of discipline, surveillance, rationalisation, productivism and are backed by powerful actors to support the development of pan-capitalism.
We need to face both sides of the problem simultaneously. Because the digital networks are vectors of inequalities, exploitation, surveillance, profiling, they allow us to better understand how they operate and to better understand the word we live in. And because they carry their particular potential for transformation, they give us the means to experiment with changes and alternatives pragmatically in this very world, Ici-Même. Tools uncontaminated by the economy, the military ideologies wouldn't have any practical grip on the world of Disney and Microsoft.
In the various themes that are dear to us, we feel the same tension: an urge to critically understand what a tool, a topology, an image, a protocol carries with it, and, at the same time, an urge to unleash the transformative power that resides in this very tool, topology, image, protocol, etc. To let oneself be transformed.
De taal die sluipenderwijs ons leven is binnengeslopen via computercode en software beïnvloedt ons dagelijks leven. Wanneer we onze opstartschermen goed lezen, worden we toegesproken met woorden die stammen uit games en de defensie-industrie, aangevuld met puberale woordgrapjes. Kill all? End application? Virus found! We vragen ons af of de taal die software spreekt, ook 'queer'-zaken kan weerspiegelen, of dat ze enkel uitdrukking kan geven aan patriarchaal dictatorschap. We proberen de conservatieve tienerhumor van (te) jeugdige programmeurs om te buigen zonder moralistisch te worden, en fantaseren over een toekomst waarin we niet meer dreigen te worden ingesponnen in de beklemmende familie-retoriek die grote software-producenten ons voorschotelen.
In a digitized society we leave traces everywhere which are already converted in zeroes and ones, already waiting to be repurposed. All activities are timestamped and logged ready to be mined, interpreted, correlated. The question of representation that was at the center of many political struggles has mutated. If we had at least an intuitive understanding of what an image that represents us may do to us, we can't really say the same about what is done with our clicks, our queries, the frequencies of our connections, the products we pay by Delhaize card, etc. Indeed, the records of our actions, of our presence, are dormant, waiting to resurface. They can be compared and extrapolated. Designed as datasets, they can be combined so that even partial elements can find new meaning when matched against more coherent ones. As we had to learn how to handle the production/reading of images, we need to crack open the dynamics of the mEtrix.
This doesn't mean we have to go hiding. We need maps. They are the necessary means for us to re-correlate ourselves. We need maps. Maps to read maps:
Een kaart maakt een locatie of plaats begrijpelijk. Maar de manier waarop gegevens werden verzameld, geselecteerd en gerepresenteerd is lang niet altijd even inzichtelijk, laat staan terug te lezen in de kaart zelf. Hoe komen vereenvoudigingen en statistieken tot stand? Hoe kunnen we dit proces van datavergaring en -verwerking inzetten als overdrachtelijk medium? Wie stuurt? wie volgt? Wie brengt in kaart, wie gebruikt de kaart, wie bezit de kaart?
Maps to re-orient ourselves with unstable and queer metrics:
Kunnen we anderssoortige gebieden analyseren en schematiseren, en tegelijkertijd het medium cartografie opnieuw uitvinden? Hoe breng je feministische, post-koloniale, hybride ruimtes in kaart die instabiel zijn, zich transformeren en voortdurend bewegen? Hoe representeer je spanningsgebieden, verschillen in beleving en opvatting, politieke en sociale dimensies? Hoe kunnen we complexiteit overzichtelijk maken en uitdrukken zonder te vereenvoudigen?
We have to battle to keep the context in which they make sense and be able to discriminate when they are exploited to other means. Re-correlation politics mean to find find ways to agree and disagree, decide collectively which units of measure, which processes and frameworks will surround the productions of the metrics and their interpretation.
We need fictions to do away with pre-encoded fictions.
Fictions to read fictions. ie Yoogle a game to read the web 2.0
Fictions that lead to act differently because they allow for another story than the one encoded in the device.ie Samedis, a server outside of productivism.
To let oneself be transformed. Als ons geheugen het risico loopt te crashen omwille van een teveel aan informatie en copyright-controle, kunnen we dan misschien onze lichaamstaal en stemmen gebruiken als remedie om te herinneren? Kunnen we van computers het vermogen overnemen om onszelf te ontwikkelen, door te leren van hoe iets gebruikt wordt en waar het fout gaat? Kunnen we nieuwe manieren uitvinden waarop we van mens tot mens informatie, geheugen en spirit uitwisselen? Kunnen computers leren van ons belichaamd en doorleefd geheugen? Kunnen we hun protocollen en voorschriften voeden vanuit ons complex begrip van gender, ras en geografie?
Working questions:
How can we have a culture of sharing when visibility becomes problematic? How can we base ourselves on unstable, non-universal, shallow protocols and still be able to find ways to exchange? Which new ways of indirect navigations do we need to build in our tools and our designs? Are dialects, slangs, provisionary languages the natural way of preserving opacity in the culture of sharing?