In response to Doug's comments: It seems to me that although the popular image of the Web is as a "depersonaliser" that "whitefaces" us (in Doug's rather apt terminology), much of how we use the Internet is actually to do with the most basic side of our natures and our emotions. There is a freedom that comes with the feeling that we have abandoned our identifiable selves. The lack of a publishing house in association with the Web means that anyone can post information about their interests and fetishes. Communication in general has increased markedly for most people I know since they have acquired email addresses. The solipsistic nature of the Internet has developed precisely because one can be so honest with oneself about what one wishes to see, to find. The social pressures are eradicated because nobody else can see what we find. Within the privacy of the internet one can be oneself and communicate with others whilst apparently hiding behind that "white face". Early Internet-based works like M@ggie's Love Bytes didn't concentrate on the depersonalisation element so strongly. M@ggie's Love Bytes stressed the human element, beginning as a communications experiment. Amanda Steggell developed M@ggie's character by meeting people online and talking with them. She took that influence on into the performance. It seems to me that digital artists have become caught up in the depersonalisation element that is the marketable side of digital culture. They are moving away from the application side, which is to do with people's private lives and loves. I have every respect for this type of work, and enjoy much of it, but by dealing with disassociation of the body, we are only dealing with half the story. For me it is the communication that is central, in art and on the Internet. All the best, Sita dance-tech@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu writes: >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