[Reader-list] We Are the Data We Swirl In
raqs
raqs at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in
Fri Dec 21 01:38:29 IST 2001
Dear Readers
This is a text on Net.Culture that we have written and would like to share
with others on the Reader List. A shorter version of this text is due to
appear soon in the Art India magazine.
we look forward to responses to this text.
Cheers
Raqs Media Collective, New Delhi
___________________________________________________________________
WE ARE THE DATA WE SWIRL IN
Raqs Media Collective
(Jeebesh Bagchi, Monica Narula & Shudhabrata Sengupta)
We are all algorithms. We are repeated instances of attempts to configure
meanings in a world densely packed with signals and messages. We are
transmitters and receivers of data, couriers of images, vectors of
information. We carry within us the databases of our lives.
The streets of our cities, and the pathways of our daily lives are jammed
with traffic. The skies we live under are criss-crossed with cables, the
ground beneath our feet is a cobweb of mud, rocks and optical fibre. Traffic
and data traffic, wires and wirelessness, codes and codecs, define the way we
are and will be from now on, at least for the foreseeable future. We live,
work and play with data. Data is the mine and we are the miners, we are
workers, thieves, masters, priests, rebels and exiles of data. We hack, we
hoe and hope with data. We are the data we swirl in.
This condition of our lives, this shifting contour of the nature of everyday
networked existence that is the mundane reality of a twenty-first century
urban space, suggests that we make communication, data itself, a subject and
criterion of cultural practice. Net.Culture, the body of cultural forms and
interventions that emerges out of computer and Internet mediated
communications technologies is a recognition of this condition as a fact of
life, labour, and creativity.
Net.Culture works with the assumption that all images, sound, text and
signals can be reduced to elementary and modular forms of data (within
computer based systems, to binary code: zeroes and ones). This means that
different fragments of data can join or enter each other to form new clusters
of different levels of complexity. A data cluster can take the form of a
chinese box (with fragments inside fragments), or be rhizomic (nodes
connecting to nodes to form a chain), or be arranged in loops and labyrinths.
Net.Culture locates itself in the public domain, where creativity is not
hemmed in by proprietorial protocols; primarily because it walks new pathways
on the world wide web into existence. From their very inception, the web and
html (hypertext markup language) which is the lattice that threads the web,
were attempts at the creation of a digital commons: a space that is unbounded
in political terms, in the sense that it respects no borders, and in
economic-cultural terms, in that html remains the kind of language that no
one can own, that anyone is free to use, download and modify to their own
purposes. Just as traditional common lands were maintained in common usage by
walking on them, the digital commons of net culture are maintained by
insisting that the terrain of digital cultural content be open for walking
in by the cybernaut.
This open nature of the Internet engenders an array of challenges to the
notions of copyright and intellectual property. After all, if a data cluster
is always amenable to access and reiteration, in combination with new
material, then the notion of the integrity and identity of a data cluster,
say a work of art or a text (and correspondingly of its authors), is itself
laid open to question.
The most significant challenges to intellectual property have come from the
free software movement, and hacker subcultures within net culture. Stephen
Levy, in the 'Hackers Ethic' (1984), puts the claims of this challenge
succintly when he says, "All information must be free...access to computers,
and to anything that might teach you something about the way the world works,
must be unlimited and total."
The advocates of "free software" insist that software must not only be open
to access, use, distribution and replication outside the regimes of control
and ownership, but that it must always also be open to modification. In some
cases, authorship is maintained even as the work itself is open to general
usage and enjoyment, while in others, authorship becomes a collaborative and
dispersed enterprise.
The arguments against intellectual property which began in software culture,
have now begun to make themselves felt in a broad spectrum of cultural and
intellectual practices - so much so that we are now witnessing concerted
campaigns to "free/open" science, art, law, publishing, social science and
music from propreitorial control. If the recent controversies over the
shared peer to peer distribution of music by networked communities of fans is
any indication, then it seems that the global apparatus of the culture
industry is quite nervous about the way in which entire communities of users
might begin re-writing the rules of cultural production and consumption to
their advantage.
Finally, Net.Culture gives us the possibility of rejuvenating older forms of
cultural practice by emancipating them from autarchic control. How might this
happen? Simply, as a result of the possibilities that suddenly become open
when we combine the dispersed, non-located nature of the Internet. The ease,
for example, with which it allows for the downloading of free sound editing
software to make sound works that can then be broadcast on Internet radio, or
by using freely available publishing software to make cheap broadsheets and
publications.
This makes for constellations of intermedia or hybrid media practices, in
which print, radio and other older media forms combine with the Internet to
make for a powerful and horizontally linked democratic culture of networked
communication. Anyone can enter this network of cultural production from the
street by going into the nearest cybercafe. One doesn't have to see oneself
as an artist, or as a writer, or as a critic to make a dynamic contribution
to Net.Culture. One simply logs in, and becomes a participant in online
communities where there are few canons as yet, and the attempt to inscribe
rules is constantly held open to question.
In this sense, Net.Culture is truly net(worked) culture. It could be said
that net (worked)culture was born when the first carrier pigeon took to the
sky. When the first "runner" packed his bag full of messages in nineteenth
century India and the first postage stamp was licked, or the first crackle in
a radio broadcast was heard.
The Internet itself is only the latest instance of a practice of the
networked transmission of images, in which the distinction between receivers,
and transmitters, viewers and users, artist and audience becomes difficult to
sustain. Net.Culture then becomes simply that arena, that very public domain,
where signals meet and multiply.
Any practice with images, sounds, signs, and texts that addresses the fact of
networked transmission of symbols using media technologies (including minor
media like radio, telephony, postage, signage, graffiti and public address
systems) can then be seen as a work of net(worked) culture
Net.Culture cannot live in galleries, or academies or in markets alone. It
will have to sneak into the terminals of twenty three million people (who are
likely to be online by 2003 in Indian cities) if it is to be Net.Culture.
Multiply that by ten if you take in cybercafes, with millions if you take in
streets that become adorned with signs that are printouts from websites - a
form of graffiti that moves easily between pixels and paper.
Today, we need a mode of cultural practice that can enlarge our sensory,
intellectual and emotional horizons in order to make space for acts of
reflection on our lives as data-bodies. As fluid and floating clusters of
information and meaning. We need a sensory context in which we can examine
how we are reflected and multiplied in the compound eye of the apparatus of
signs and information that surrounds us and streams through us. Net.Culture
suggests that this act of reflection can be undertaken. We may all be
algorithms, but we are not intractable ones.
More information about the reader-list
mailing list