When my email server quits because of bad programming my world-wide access is suddenly gone. I end up in an information shadow that the ones that have sent me the messages have no idea of.
All these fantastic information systems function beautifully in theory, but not as elegant in practice. Information systems are different because they are absolute and finite in essence, every bit of data is exactly defined and can be duplicated infinitely without degradation. The problem with these systems is instead man. Humans are to their nature infinitely inexact and infinitely complex -- man is an analog system. There comes a critical point in the interaction between humans and computer systems when they surpass our comprehension and we will perceive them as infinite and relative. These essentially exact and absolute systems become in the hands of humans totally unpredictable and incomprehensible. It is no longer possible for men to design computers because they are too complex -- the computers have to design themselves. Something happens when these systems encounter people -- the faults that one single person creates can be duplicated endlessly. We could be sitting in a telephone queue our whole life or enter our card in the banking machine thousands of times without results. If there was a person at the other end of the line, then the fantastic human ability to adapt and interact in a situation would solve the problem. They would, for example, have changed the form or come running with the message if the phone had been broken...
Humans, in contrast to other species on this planet, have a unique ability to create prostheses for himself. We have made ourselves masters over nature not through a physical advantage but by conquering other species with weapons and prostheses. These prostheses have been everything from the stone that the ancient humans used to kill a bear with to modern cars and tractors. Information technology represents another kind of prosthesis, namely our memory. The last frontier that man has felt weakened in is memory. We can only memorize a certain number of names, telephone numbers or activities at a time. The memory prosthesis apart from physical prosthesis has its vital function in the interaction between people and is not mainly a way of conquering nature. Computer technology or the Information Machine is a grand memory prosthesis. The development of this memory prosthesis started seriously during the cold war with two specific ambitions; to collect information about dissidents and to control weapon systems.
I believe that any system, whether mechanical or information technological has an inner structure (or ideology) that at large determines what can be done, and foremost what will be done, with these systems. This structure has its origin in the history of the specific system. A car for example can be used as a tractor but the system works best on a concrete highway.
The inherited structure in information technology will continue to be most efficient when it comes to memorizing people and controlling weapons. All other uses will only be secondary side effects of these two primary functions. That computers are used for manipulating images is a result of the need for weapon systems to be able to analyze maps and satellite photo -- not a result of people that want to publish with their desktop computer. That a global network makes it possible for us to send messages all over the world is not the result of a need for us to send email, but rather, a result of intelligence and police organizations desire to send personal information files across the globe.
There is, in my opinion, two types of activities that can challenge these systems. One is that computer-literate people devote themselves to breaking into computer systems -- thereby making information available for the public. These "hackers" who, by the way, are illegal, are extremely important to democracy.
The other is a critical cultural activity, where artists and theoreticians analyze and consciously use the systems in ways they where not meant to be used. In my opinion here lies an important possible content for artistic practice.
For a long time art has been looking for a place and a purpose in modern society. I believe that an artistic practice that deals with exposing the hidden message in information technology has become extremely important especially from the point of view of democracy. If art should be a mirror of society then this would be a complex and important task for art making.
Interaction or Inter- reaction -- Interactive media and the problems with simulating human communication.
Interactive media is seldom a source for new kinds of knowledge. In most interactive applications there is no new knowledge created but rather a kind of inter-reaction. One part in the process reacts on stimuli from the other, not so that new knowledge is created, but rather as a reflex or an execution of an order from the application.
The whole idea of this new kind of communication is supposed to be a new way of creating meaning. This is not happening for the simple reason that people are made to communicate with people not with over-simplified computer interfaces where somebody has supplied us with a set of active buttons containing a more or less hidden order -- Click here! Quit! Go to Home page! etc. This is not a new form of communication -- a magazine is more interactive. This is more likely just an organization of information that is fixed and there is nothing we can do about it. These new interactive media promise to involve all our senses and to be a whole new way of learning. By connecting us to a computer based Over-World we will get access to the worlds collective knowledge. Why is it then that the world has not changed? Why is ti that all conflict in the world does not disappear with the growth of Internet? Because knowledge is created not by information but through understanding and through experience. It does not matter how connected we are to all the super-computers in the world if we are not able to create meaning from all the knowledge that is thrust upon us. In this context new computer technology is a part of the problem rather than the solution.
What is it that really differs between interactive media and traditional media?
What can we learn from traditional ways of communicating to make computer systems better?
I think that it is appropriate with an analogy here. A Stradivarius violin in the hands of a virtuoso is a fantastic example of a system that develops with its user In the hands of that user it contains infinitely more information than the designer of the instrument could ever have imagined.
The elegance of this system is that through the interaction between generations of users and developers' hundreds of years of knowledge has enriched from within this fantastic system. This system is also excellent in all the complex networks that a symphony orchestra or a string quartet represents. The system is very easy to support or error-correct because the faults of the system does not have to be determined by an expert, they are totally dependent on what the user thinks is a malfunction and what is not. The hierarchy that is created between the developer and the user of a computer system is in this case of no significance. In this system the user is equally or often even more valid than the developer and issues regarding function and content is expressed in a dialogue between the two.
I think that whatever is revealed in this new fantastic cybernetic room will not be greater than human beings and their collective historical experience. If we are to develop something truly great we need generations of fine tuning and above all human interaction.