Nina’s objects first.

Two Tails

The companion species of Science and Technology Studies are proliferating. Here are two extracts – two tails of STS at this conference. The lion, appearing as a symbol of the Netherlands via the Rotterdam coat of arms, is reduced to a long stuffed tail. It is no longer threatening ‘Stronger Through Struggle’ – the motto of the Rotterdam lion – but rather has been reduced to being one end of a strange fabric entity made of only tails. Instead of a body, attached on the other end is a mass of fake coyote tail. In recognition of Donna Haraway’s formulation of ‘nature as coyote’, the coyote would surely appear on any coat of arms for 4S. Yet the coyote is most prized by hunters for its tail, shown as trophies and used to decorate hats. Here both tails are expanded, faked in synthetics, constructed so that they might almost function as cushions, or maybe allow a tug of war. They could perhaps be the remnants of a sewing class, now brought to be the new trophies for someone attempting to ‘act with’ STS metaphors.

My paper was on the role of mess in the making of WiFi.

The STS of visual representations in science, law and engineering clearly illustrate the sociological value of images and the practices that surround them. In these contexts, graphs, photos and sketches are seen as pivotal in understanding how practitioners construct knowledge, collaborate, reach consensus, recruit new members and do work. In essence, their persuasive power stems from the transformation of mess that occurs behind-the-scenes (raw materials, repetitive experiments and alternative interpretations) into finely honed, ordered, compatible and comparable visual accounts. The result is designed to omit the uncertainties and contingencies of everyday practice. Drawing on ethnographic observation and participation in a volunteer community wireless group in Australia I consider the visual methods members employ in the design of a wireless fidelity (WiFi) network. Specifically I focus on how they retain elements of multiplicity and unpredictability and show how they make WiFi because of uncertainty and ambiguity, not in spite of it. From this position I argue that mess is not a consequence of this fragile technology or the elastic nature of the volunteer community but a deliberate practice and core strength of the group, critical to how they innovate.

I happened across this on the weekend out the front of Tate Modern. It is part of their UBS Openings: The Long Weekend.

Nuts!

Friday 6 June | Room 137a, Richard Hoggart Building

Speakers:
Jane Bennett | Political Science, Johns Hopkins University
Matthew Fuller | Centre for Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths
Javier Lezaun | James Martin Institute, Oxford University
David Oswell | Sociology, Goldsmiths
Albena Yaneva | Architecture, Manchester University
Claire Waterton | Sociology, Lancaster University
Sarah Whatmore | Geography, Oxford University
Brian Wynne | Sociology, Lancaster University

Discussants:
Andrew Barry | Geography, Oxford University
Gail Davies | Geography, UCL
Kate Nash | Sociology, Goldsmiths

This one-day workshop will bring together social researchers and theorists who bring an interest in publicity and citizenship to the study of material and physical practices.

In fields like science and technology studies, it has long been acknowledged that non-human entities play an important role in the (un)making of social connections. However, everyday dealings with things, technologies, and nature are also increasingly recognized, and explicitly formatted, as occasions for ethical and political involvement. In engaging with these developments, authors in political theory, sociology and geography have begun to explore whether and how everyday practices may be understood as sites for the organisation of publics by socio-material means. This workshop aims to further explore this ‘object’ or material turn in the study of publics and citizenship. It is meant to provide a space for more detailed consideration of the kinds of practices, events and devices that this turn brings into view, from flood management to the art of sowing seeds. Within this context, the workshop will also engage broader conceptual questions about the type of politics, morality or ethics that a socio-material perspective on the public opens up. Thus, it will consider the implications of attempts to bring ‘democracy’ within the realm of embodied experience, including for the types of agency that are enabled and disabled by the repositioning of citizenship, and public involvement, as relations of material and physical entanglement.

Nina is exhibiting piece of work at Lewisham Arthouse with fellow fine art students from Goldsmiths in an group exhibition. Go see it. It’s good. It closes soon.

[btw - the dog isn't part of the work but it was interesting to see the extra attraction of Nina's work to small children and dogs who wanted to stamp on it or eat it - it is made of icing, eggs, ash and glitter - which added an further layer of fragility and temporality to it].

UNHOMELY
Dates: 14 – 25 May 2008
Private View: Wednesday 14 May, 7-9pm

Aliceson Carter, Dorothea Magonet, Victoria Scott, Nina Wakeford

Despite the proliferation of virtual worlds, and the simulated realities of computer games, the home, and the capacity to be settled or at ease in a place of one’s own choosing, remains one of the most culturally important experiences of our time. In a period of migration and constant mobility, the home appears to provide a respite from the global forces as well as the local stresses that intrude on our intimate, private spaces. And yet the starting point of the four artists in this show is the need to reconsider experiences that, even though they make emerge from our domestic experiences, are distinctly unhomely.

Beginning with the literal translation of Freud’s concept of ‘Das Unheimliche’ as ‘The Unhomely’ the work in this show begins to comment on the lack of coherence of the contemporary home, either as a literal architectural space, or as a symbolic realm of promise and disappointment.

Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman has written of the ‘vicious bacteria of domesticity’, a phrase which recalls the capacity of the home to be colonised by destructive forces. The phrase might well suggest that the only way to respond would be an equally ferocious cleansing. Yet the artists in this show use a range of strategies to explore the energies and experiences of the contemporary unhomely, including a restaging of the mundane domestic object or process, or an overlooked emotional experience. The work also questions the boundaries of the home, as work looks to architectures beyond the four walls of the conventional structure.

By acknowledging the contradictions within contemporary formations of the domestic, the show is far from a sullen treatise on the unhomely. New narratives are explored, and new emotional horizons suggested.
All four artists are currently studying fine art at Goldsmiths.

… just a note to comment how much I enjoyed the two days of presentations – nicely alphabetically grouped in headings such as ‘Event’, ‘Experiment’, ‘Panic’, ‘Performance’. It was great to see speakers from such different disciplines come together – including cultural studies, (visual) art, sociology, anthropology and design. What seemed to me more like a mini conference then a workshop, took us through a rather unusual and exciting mix of presentation formats – from theoretical thought-excursions (Mariam Fraser, Luciana Parisi) to visual indulgences into old film footage (Rachel Moore), online curiosities (Goetz Bachmann), photography (Jennifer Bajorek, Vikki Bell), beautiful objects (Bill Gaver) and some excellent performances (Jackie Orr)…

“Contemporary social theory proposes that the social world is changing in complex ways. The nature and significance of such changes are widely disputed. This workshop is not intended to contribute directly to debates ‘for’ or ‘against’ the existence of the changes to the social world identified in theories of, for example, risk, globalisation, information and complexity. Instead, the workshop aims to explore a series of orientation devices by which researchers may be attuned to the empirical study of change. The devices include: event, archive, sound, panic, experiment, performance, network, pattern, probe, profile, list, anecdote, and population.

The term device is important here: it has multiple meanings, including an object, a method and a bomb (Cambridge University Dictionary). To describe an event, an archive or a biography as a device is thus to make explicit how the object and method of social research are linked to each other and with what potentially explosive effects. And the aim of the workshop will be to describe the possibilities and implications of selected devices for the conduct of social research without separating out method from object and in doing so, to act as a series of small bombs in the sociological imagination.

This is not to claim these devices are new; on the contrary, devices such as the experiment, the archive and the population have long and complex histories. Nor is there intended to be any necessary privileging of either quantitative or qualitative approaches. Network analysis, for example, may and does make use of both. Furthermore many of these terms have been developed across disciplines in the humanities and the social sciences and sometimes the natural sciences. An exploration of interdisciplinarity will thus be an essential part of the workshop.

While the devices are not new, the hope of the workshop is that the devices chosen for discussion have a particular relevance in relation to the investigation of the contemporary social world. The aim is to explore how these devices enable the happening of the social – that is, its ongoingness, relationality, sensuousness and multi-dimensionality – to be investigated.”

01/11/07
Without a moment to really take in the fresh icy air and bare winter trees, I am drawn into a trail of encounters and interesting conversations at medialab (TAIK).

Chris Hales, usually based in London, is my guide for the day. He is currently replacing Teijo Pellinen’s teaching sessions at medialab, both interactive cinema/TV experimenters. Teijo was part of the US touring F2F exhibition in 2000 with the first ever interactive TV show to be broadcasted on national Finnish TV. He is still based at YLE (Finlands’ national TV) developing new projects.

I finally get introduced to media artist/ curator (ISEA 2004)/ researcher Tapio Mäkelä (key person in shaping new media art policy in Finland) and agree to meet next week at the famous m-bar, which he himself initiated in 1998. I then meet Mikko Lindholm, with pram and kid, who together with Perttu Hämäläinen and Ari Nykanen runs and created animaatiokone and their widely shown interactive embodied gaming experience ‘kick ass kong-fu’ (created with support from Helsinki University of Technology, Graduate School in Computer Science and Engineering and Nokia Foundation – a triangle new media artists often find themselves working within, that Goetz, Nina and I spoke a lot about after our initial research phase in spring). Based within Medialab, Crucible Studio, developing projects around digital narratives, drama and interactive storytelling, also operate within a similar triangle: Universities, private technology/media companies and EU/governmental funding, bringing together engineers, artists and designers. The studio is often mentioned for having produced interactive TV show ‘Accidental Lovers’ in 2003 (presented at several international conferences on technology/media/design).

04/11/07

Tallinn, Estonia: Ville Hyvönen shows us around Kulturfarbik, a derelict building to be turned into a cultural centre.

A little overwhelming, this visit turns out to be a non-stop ‘being in the field’ with hardly any time to reflect at all. The weekend I spend with Pixelache delegation in Tallinn, meeting with Estonian media initiators/ activists/ festival producers. Juha Huuskonen, Ville Hyvönen and Nathalie Aubert from Pixelache don’t cease to surprise me with their many activities and involvement in a number of different media festivals, events and programmes. I look forward to spending a bit more time with them in march for the preparations of Pixelache festival.

05/11/07
A first but long awaited meeting with Heidi Tikka becomes my first insight into the upcoming exhibition at Forumbox Gallery, where Heidi will be showing new work alongside Tuomo Tammenpää and Hanna Haaslahti.

It is a privilege to see the very first stages in the production of her piece. An initial and rather simplified description would be: ‘illogical’ garments (oddly re-seamed leather jackets) with wearable CCTV circuits embedded into them.

We spend the evening talking about her work, past projects and her thoughts about this upcoming exhibition. I decide to come back for the set up and develop a few ideas for some form of ‘audience feedback’. The next day I have another great evening with Tuomo (interactive designer and new media artist), at the Pixelache University event ‘dorkbot’, talking about work and the world. Closer to a critical designer then an ‘exhibiting new media artist’, Tuomo sees his work geared towards the context of everyday life, not the gallery environment. Thoughts on relevance of such work and the failing of technologies within new media art leaves me truly excited about the potential crossovers within new media art/design. For the exhibition at Forumbox he is working on ‘electrical toys gone wrong’ (again it seems, some form of rebellion against a predictable logic…)

07/11/07
Before my flight back to London, a last minute very interesting conversation with Perttu Rastas – a key figure in the collection, distribution (AV-arkki) and curation of early Finnish video and media art, based first as a curator now as head of media archive at Kiasma Art Museum – leaves me in a thoughtful state, with notes in form of big questions, not answers: … will, and if so, how can art institutions such as Kiasma play a role within new media art in the future? how can they be ‘appropriate’ facilitators? hosts? collectors? (what kind of) new media art is in fact ‘collectible’? (Hanna Haaslahti’s interactive installation ‘White Square’ was bought into their archive in 2003, her piece which she will also be showing at Forumbox ‘Time experiment’ has been bought and is on display at Nokia Mobile Zone in Oulu) what and how does the work ‘fit’ into gallery or museum spaces? does it ‘work’? ….

Perttu kindly shows me around the fascinating underground archive, digital lab and small library.

After a preliminary visit only two weeks ago – which had been packed full with interviews and events – this visit is much more channeled and concentrated. I spend my days within the walls of the gallery, trying to juggle between being a visual researcher: documenting sounds and images; that of the classic ethnographer: noting down observations, asking questions and recording conversations; trying to come up with a concept to creatively find a way of capturing visitors’ feedback, while, above all, wanting to be a helping hand in the setting up of the exhibition.

An intense period filled with physical construction, potential hick ups, delicate situations and some long winding crucial decision-making process stretches over three whole days. I spend the first two days recording, thinking carefully about relevance, discovering interesting moments, capturing dialogue (if not in Finnish..) between the three artists , between both Heidi and Hanna and their technical collaborators, and between the artists and their work that slowly takes shape within the huge space. It feels like a constant ebb and flow. All three have times of thinking, starring, observing, building and tweaking (the most significant of all it seems – working with unstable, complex and unpredictable technologies…)

Heidi – Hanna – Tuomo

29/11/07
The day of the opening I spend setting up a corner by the entrance to the gallery with a few ‘tools’ I brought with me. Despite initial doubt on part of the gallery director Tanja Saarto – saying that visitors (Finns) might be too reserved or shy to engage – the response, to her own surprise, is rather good. Visitors (in total probably about one hundred) are invited to take a disposable camera (to capture their own details of interest) and maps (to be marked with colour coded impressions/experiences, in response to the individual pieces in the gallery) as they explore the space.

A brief conversation with Tanja Saarto gives me the impression that the opening is definitely a success. She is surprised at how many people within the art scene are positively intrigued and complementary towards this fairly new adventure for the gallery into new media art. I myself am so involved in visually capturing the atmosphere of the opening and engaging with visitors gathering around the ‘feedback corner’, that I miss the opportunity to speak to a seemingly important art critic – whom I later briefly see curiously wondering around Tuomo’s piece with a pen and paper.

The opening happens to coincide with the opening of another New Media exhibition at MUU gallery of Andy Best & Merja Puustinen’s work. Both parties strangely end up in the same restaurant a few blocks down for dinner, which I guess is not surprising considering the after all rather small New Media Art scene in Helsinki.

(During dinner, someone pulls out his Nokia phone – a rather old model - to show us the noise level in the restaurant – what a great but strange thing to be able to measure, making sure you don’t spend too much time sound-polluting your ears)

I meet Andy Best the next day at the gallery, adjusting, repairing and ‘tweaking’ his robots. We spend a few hours talking about the theoretical context of their installation and the way both, him and his partner Merja, are managing to juggle between producing new work, teaching and the family. Merja seems to be the one mainly involved in the funding side of things, so I later find out that this exhibition is supported by AVEK (one of the main funding bodies of New Media Art in Finland – whose funds curiously mostly originate from a special tax deriving from blank videos/DVD’s ) and the Finnish Arts Council.

1/12/07
I take part in Tuomo’s workshop organized by Pixelache University at FORUMBOX Gallery. Well prepared and patient, Tuomo shows a group of 6 how to mount and weld a simple ‘electronic music circuit board’ (the gallery attendants probably called them ‘noise tools’). With great enthusiasm I manage to make one myself, only to drop out once it comes to the final tweaking – making sure it actually keeps on working..

As I start taking down my bits in the gallery, looking through some of the ‘experience maps’, I see that a lot of dots marked ‘sad’ have ended up at Tuomo’s installation on the map. Only then do I notice a little sign next to two or three of his toys reading ‘they did not survive’. It reminds me of our initial conversation about whether, or what kind of media art ‘works’ in a gallery space, and what happens if not. Openly declaring a failure with this little sign seems to perfectly communicate the risk and instability involved in using complex technology in this context – but this then being ‘sad’ – not frustrating.

Frustration seems to undermine some of the thoughts Heidi has about her installation when I speak to her briefly that afternoon. The ideal scenario in terms of visitors’ engagement with the two wearable jackets (sewn in CCTV cameras and screens are placed in relation to each other) is for several people to be present at the same time, or of course for her to be there in person. The atmosphere at the opening encouraged a form of interaction with the piece that maybe is impossible to achieve outside some kind of ‘event’ structure? Audience instead of visitor? Does it need a different kind of public scenario? The question of context, audience and interactivity hovers above me as I sadly say goodbye to Helsinki the next day.

Many thanks to Shadey and Seabird for giving me permission to use these pictures of them ‘doing wireless’ on the cover of Mel and Gerard’s new book.