A NYC Traffic cop on a horse reaches down, nearly falling off his mount, struggling to place a bright orange ticket under the windsheild wiper of a car. No one looks.
A Family, seated on a mountain of cardboard loaded into a cart being pulled by a weathered old mare, clops down the streets of Avenida Paulista in São Paulo, Brazil. No one looks.
Today, in India, telecom companies are pushing cell phones in Vegetable stands.
The debate among so many folks is a rather repetitive one. Technology, which really means digital technology, is bad, and ruins individuals and social relations vs. Digital technologies offer new means of personal expression and communication. We know this debate, and most of us agree that we sit somewhere on the spectrum, between the disgruntled user to the gadget/tech enthusiast. And so the story goes, more more more and we accumulate.
Yes’s and No’s of digital facts.
Yes, unbridled technofetishism yeilds absolute homogenaeity.
No, choice does not equal freedom, unless you make the rules of choice.
Yes, Digital technologies save lives and allow people to have access and control of information and power they have never previously weilded.
Yes, Digital technologies accelerate the concentration of power into the hands of a select few, while giving the impression of distributing that very same power.
No, noone knows exactly what to do.
Yes, you are being watched.
Yes, your cell phone records are easily purchased and traded.
No, you probably don’t care.
Yes, your online actions have been tracked and sold many many times over. (No, you can’t do anything about it, except stop using the internet. )
Is it enough to map (photograph/document/accrue data)?
Is proof self evident?
here is a map of the united states empire. Can we engage this physically?
Economically?
Can we engage permanently? Or Are we left with gestures?
It is not enough to map. We need to make. I have been inspired recently by Walid Raad and the Atlas Group. Is it enough to be inspired…?