Write about the connections between the two texts. For example, in what ways is it a protest to “unearth” infrastructure? What is being unearthed by the electronics projects?
To reveal something that is typically hidden is exposing that which lives in the dark, bringing it to light. I can imagine that this exposure could be viewed as protest – as Networks of New York unearths or exposes the symbols of the mysterious and magical internet. In the same way, the Disobedient Electronics could be viewed as protest as the mechanical objects are not behaving, performing as intended, but are taking on a secondary purpose designed to cause disruption. Networks of New York exposes the mysterious objects and text that are integral parts of the urban infrastructure. Disobedient Electronics exposes many ongoing social and cultural issues. Human protest gives voice through action, just as the object gives voice to the issue.
Networks of New York has illuminated infrastructure as something that only gets noticed when it’s not working. Infrastructure is “hidden in plain sight,” and Networks of New York provides the code that uncloaks the mystery. The “land marks” provide “landmarks” or keys to help the viewer “learn how to see and live within a world full of large, complicated systems.” Disobedient Electronics unearths concern over environmental issues, privacy and surveillance, equality, women’s rights, power, and most importantly, safety.
For me, the most obvious connection between the texts is education. Networks of New York provides education to help better understand invisible infrastructure. I could assume the intent of Burrington is to expose mass-communication infrastructure so that we might use it as an object or tool; not unlike the objects created in Disobedient Electronics that are used as tools to help educate, inform, and illuminate the previously mentioned cultural issues. All projects included with both Disobedient Electronics and Networks of New York focus on increased awareness. After reading Networks of New York, I’ve noticed more “land marks” and find myself interested in their potential function. Especially as it relates to mass transit. Mass transit is the only time humans spend a prolonged period underground, not unlike some of the most notable invisible infrastructure. Since reading Disobedient Electronics, I’ve become more focused on the remediation of objects, designed to communicate valuable content. Both educational, both purposeful, and Disobedient Electronics as definitely, most enjoyable.
Several the Disobedient Electronics works are artists’ statements. Pick one and find other critical pieces of writing about it that are not by the artist and reflect on the intention and reception of that piece.
Barbie Liberation Organization
The Barbie Liberation Organization (BLO), sponsored by RTMark, are a group of artists and activists made famous through creative hacking, otherwise known as “culture jamming.” The BLO attempted to challenge gender stereotypes in American culture by performing “surgery” on G.I. Joe and Barbie dolls, swapping voice boxes. Barbie would state, “Vengeance is mine” while G.I. Joe would excitedly share, “The beach is the place for summer.”
In turn, this project also became a comment on the media and popular culture. The BLO was rumored to have changed 300-500 dolls that were returned within the original packing to the shelves of stores. This number was likely much smaller, but after receiving notoriety, the project numbers ballooned, just like their success. This type of “guerilla” project that involved commerce was referred to as “shopgiving”. It was created in response to Mattel’s release of the speaking Barbie who noted “Math class is tough.”
The manipulation of a child’s toy received mixed reviews. In fact, in a high-profile media interview (A Current Affair), Joanne Oppenheim refers to the B.L.O.’s prank as “a sort of terrorist act directed against children.” Parents were described as “horrified” by the “bleached-blonde she-man.” Oppenheim said, “It’s a cheap shot, and it’s unfair to the kids.” However, not all reviews were negative. Some consumers saw the irony and appreciated the humorous approach of the artists and activist.
Lauded as “cultural crusaders”, BLO’s project was successful because it disrupted culture. In this type of “protest” project, no one was harmed yet children and adults across the U.S. experienced increased awareness of gender, perception and cultural influence on our society. BLO’s mediation of the message occurred at an important time in our social and cultural development. Their work encouraged children and adults to reconsider societal norms, stereotypes and gender roles, suggesting the need for openness and consideration.
https://www.refinery29.com/2014/11/78406/barbie-liberation-organization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie_Liberation_Organization
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/31/us/while-barbie-talks-tough-g-i-joe-goes-shopping.html
What do you think about this type of work (across both readings) as art? What do you think about it as a form of protest or action?
In comparison across both readings, I am more apt to consider Disobedient Electrics as “art” over the Networks of New York. I’m unsure if this is directly influenced the title of the later, “An Illustrated Field Guide to Internet Infrastructure.” I do know that Burrington is your friend/acquaintance and she has spent time at DU, so I am discouraged from saying anything negative about her work. To that end, in one of my earlier responses, I note the “land marks” from Networks of New York could be considered “landmarks” and that could in-turn be viewed as “art.” However, “art” is formally defined as a diverse range of human activities intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. I also believe there is often “intent” in artworks, and when I look at the diagrams and pavement markers from Networks of New York, I can’t resolve in my mind that there was intent by the workman to create “art.” When they were laying the lines for mass-communication infrastructure (internet, cable, telephone), I doubt the designers and planners would consider the installation process as “art.” Networks of New York sees the beauty in the unseen, which is quite poetic and beautiful. However, I do not see these drawings or the collection of the drawings as “art.” It becomes more of a manual that assists with a greater understanding of infrastructure, perhaps “educational” more-so than “art.”
The projects included in Disobedient Electronics seem to focus on important social issues and relevant cultural topics. I consider the creation and execution of these devices to be “art” as they have taken something mechanical, commonplace and often practical, and transformed it into activist, giving it emotional power. This type of “protest” or action against social issues uses the mechanical as visual to increase consideration of the topic/focus of the artwork. The artist has transformed the object as tool, helping the viewer visualize the purpose and appreciate technology as aid or assistant to the cause. I consider Disobedient Electronics to come from a perspective of “protest,” and Networks of New York of subtle “action.” Perhaps that is the ultimate difference. Disobedient Electronics are more overt and controversial in their approach, whereas Networks of New York is more passive, allowing the viewer to draw their own conclusions about the collection of illustrated infrastructure.