Open question and call for discussion: The announcement of CellByte 2000 at ASU’s Institute for Studies in the Arts, (and other internet performances, Chameleons 3, string) has prompted me to post this. As one who has worked at the institute I am of course supportive of the work that is done there, as well I respect all of the artists involved in CellBytes 2000 and the other performances listed. However, that being said, the description of CellBytes brings up some issues that I have been mulling over regarding performance and "the body". The language used in describing CellBytes is quite similar to the language used to describe many contemporary media-based performance, that is to say it speaks of "the body" as if bodies are neutral, un-coded, have no ethnicity or other markings. It is a language that is vague, vaguely suggestive of political issues, yet unspecified. It is a kind of rhetoric that seems to be a shorthand for something unspoken. Further the term "performance" is also used without acknowledgement of its attendant issues; performance is a practice which is not without its politics. Yet no where do I find in the description of CellBytes, any language that tells me about the politics of the participants, the institution, or the work. Of course I will log on to see the work, yet I am curious about the language I have encountered on the site to this point, because, I consider that to be a crucial part of the work as well. I have been thinking about issues surrounding contemporary practices of web based and new media work and would like to make the following statement in the hope of generating discussion on the issues I have addressed. A claim among numerous theorists is that the web minimizes difference, elides gender, ethnicity and race. "Invisibility" is, in the rhetoric surrounding the web, seen to be a positive force, i.e. race, etc. is neutralized as is disability, gender, etc. While this may seem to be a liberating factor in web activity, it seems to me to be a step backward in regard to the politics of feminism, gender studies, etc. To mask one’s identity is to attempt to pass, freely giving power over to the hegemonic culture. In a sense to elide difference on the web is to actively participate in one’s own assimilation into whiteness. I use the term "whiteness" to mean not only non-ethnic, but also as a description of a space that is politically white, (read empty/absent) and "pure" in its negative context. The claim that the web is a somehow neutral space is (in my opinion)delusional; it is a space that is undeniably privileged, where politics be they racial, gender-based or otherwise are not liberated but oppressed. Certainly one can’t exercise bias based on the above if one can’t "see" one’s antagonist. However, even reducing web communication to its text only form, difference is still present, as difference is always present in language of any sort. Obfuscating difference by applying electronic whiteface does not level the playing field; it merely allows one to operate on a playing field that remains skewed. In other words, de-politicizing the web does not neutralize or democratize the space, it perpetuates cultural norms as one "passes" in cyberspace. As I have been thinking a great deal about identity lately, I am interested in what I perceive to be a fetishizing of cyber-identity. While the web allows one the privilege of masking identity, it also allows one the privilege of asserting identity. E.g., I am a male Jew in cyber/virtual space as I am a male Jew in "real" space. My maleness as does my Jewishness contain issues that are not entirely resolved within contemporary culture. If I mask those identities in cyber-space, or attempt to assimilate by positioning myself as a formalist, or simply do not address identity, then what becomes of my politics? Web based work continues to be, in my opinion, a largely formalist, apolitical milieu and raises numerous questions in that regard. Foremost is "the performance of what? A performing body, be it in cyberspace or otherwise is always in the process of performing its identity at least. So if identity is as such is backgrounded and technology is foregrounded then what are we witness to? The performance of what? So, while I am supportive of experimentation and research of any kind, including its application to the digital domain, my concern is that while the rhetoric surrounding cyber-culture codes it as progressive, it seems to be that it is largely regressive politically. Additionally the language surrounding web-work and its product are tediously generic. Of the three latest announcements for on-line performances, all of them describe themselves as "simultaneous live (possibly interactive)performance in different geographical locations", or a variation thereof. In other words, the makers are telling us what it is but not how it is or why it is, or how is this work different than and progressive from any other similarly described web-work? These of course are my opinions, but I am interested in beginning a thread about the issues raised. Douglas Rosenberg rosend@education.wisc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/28/01 CST