Monthly Archives: December 2014
Digital Psychogeography?
Digital Psychogeography?
It’s the holidays. People travel on the holidays. I’ll be traveling during the holidays.
Recently, we made a day trip to London, which, aside from the semi-required visit to a museum, was taken up in large part by meandering throughout town. My brother-in-law is an architect trained, and, taking the advantage of being in a World-class city the likes of The City, he understandably photographed a number of the more famous architectural colossi that accumulate in that place.
We intend to spend either side of New Year’s in Paris, where we will meet with a few of our friends, one of whom is also an architect. I assume that the same affair will play itself out – much like the heaping up of architectonic silt we see coagulating, periodically dredged from the Thames, the Seine has its own piled banks of engineered effluent, ossifying in sedimentary bands. There is an abundance to ogle.
Of course, for those of us not schooled in design, while touring a city, taking the time to view constructions modern and antique, while still an enjoyable experience, we don’t have enough purchase to really come to grips with what it is we see. In anticipation, to make more of the trip – there isn’t really any one thing I have to see, having already done the standard-run of the tourist there – I’ve been reading up on my Situationist literature. Rather than, say, really being set on seeing this exhibit, or that grave, I hope to grab hold of the experience of the city itself. I’ll go, and tour (despite the approbations Debord might heap) alongside the others, but, while they take photographs of instances of built interest, I’ll try to capture something else with the lens.
Reading about the genesis of the dérive, I began to wonder what the analogous experience would be, what the differences are between my life, as a 21st century West Chestertonian, and those of a Parisian in 1950s. Of course, it’s a silly question to ask, the gulf is immense, and yet, in a certain sense, it is easy to encapsulate. What is the primary mode that sets me, one of those most opprobrious Millenials, apart from them, those of the “Lucky Few”?
It is, of course, the fact that we, my colleagues and I, and our younger brothers and sisters, we lead dual lives the likes of which have not been seen before. How many of us, we comparatively affluent, spend the majority of our waking moments focused on the digital? It needn’t even be optically sewn to a screen – how many people, amongst the privileged, don’t possess a device that links them to the internet about them, all day, every day? It changes the way we interact with the world, it changes the way we associate with each other, it redefines our value systems. Standing apart from any other technological differences, any instances of cultural diversion, it is what most separates us from the ranks of our forebears. “Cyberculture” itself is in the midst of coming of age – it has become an “academically worthy” area of study.
So then, what of the drift on cyberspace, what is left for the flâneur of the future present? How does the dérive in the modern experience differ from that of yesteryear?
Unsurprisingly, my initial answer to the question was a negative one. While it is true that more and more of our time, creative and otherwise, is spent on the Web, how could it play the same vital role, how could it possess the same physical presence, as the “real world” of the embodied senses? The paths we blaze online, while they can be novel, and, truly, our experiences at this point are hindered only by lack of imagination and a distaste for application – at the heart of it, the fundaments of the Internet are limited, and policed in a way more thorough than ever the “real world” could be, despite any conception of “net neutrality,” however much of that is left to us in years to come. The building blocks of Web 2.0 are delineated in laws much stricter than those of physics, which can, after all, be fudged if you know what you’re about. No amount of novelty in terms of photons (and, it must be granted, sometimes soundwaves) can compare with the richness of the smells, the tastes, the textures we encounter in life. The dangers, as well.
Look, I’ve covered it before, but it ought to be stated again – I’m no Luddite. The fact that you’re reading this here should be proof enough! No, if we are to survive the coming ecological devastations on the horizon, if ever we are to achieve a life more worth living, if we do get off this singular rock and claim what is owed to us, our cosmic birthright, it will be through technology.
So, no, I’m not ideologically oriented against the online world, I’m not out to run a hatchet job on the possibility of deeper experience simply because I find it distasteful. Quite the contrary. No, what I am worried about is getting over-excited about it. Overstepping ourselves and overselling it, wrapped up in the zeitgeist. Despite the time of year, the Singularity has not come early. While the Internet is a great tool, we should always remember that that is still what it is. It is not a second space. Not yet.
Of course, I did just say that that was my initial answer. My stance, as of now, is a bit more complicated, if not necessarily any more nuanced. I’ve continued to look into the subject, and there do seem to be some fruitful uses of internet-as-tool. People have been able to harness its group-building properties to develop societies for real-world dérives, the most prominent being those of the London Psychogeographical Association and the New York Conflux. Furthermore, there have been tools set up, in part by groups such as the aforementioned, to use the mobile devices we so often have with us engage the physical world in a different way, using GPS to develop routes and the like.
There is also work being done on the knife edge between Spectacle and détournement proper – using the Internet, limits and all, for the kind of work described by the Situationists. This article does a good job at detailing some of the manifestations, in a more in-depth analysis than this post has time for (seriously, read it, it’s worth the while). While I disagree with the cautiously forwarded conclusion, that “if the Situationist International was correct, and the triumph of the spectacle in material space is inevitable, it may be that détournement, derive, and psychogeography in cyberspace—the conjoining of humanity, art, and cosmopolitan space within the completely artificial and algorithmic “space” of virtual reality—may, ironically, be our last means to glimpse the authentic life,” I’ll agree that “Contemporary avant-gardes cannot ignore a technologized space of performance simultaneously more visible and more invisible than any that has gone before.” The Internet is here to stay, and we need to develop the methodology to use the new tool-set appropriately and to our benefit.
Bringing a rather rambling post to a close – I’ll perform a dérive, or several, while in Paris. There will be photos. My route will be determined not by a preset map or set of instructions, but by the whims of my companions and the lay-out of the “sights” in the city. Look for it to come.
Towards a new Authenticity!
On the Recent Question Time
On the Recent Question Time
This was written (almost) immediately on the tail of watching a clip from the recent Question Time, the one that featured Russell Brand and Nigel Farage, inveighing in their particular way on the subject of immigration. Or, more to the form, “Is Britain really Overcrowded?”
There isn’t much to be said about Farage – he’s the leader of a petite bourgeois party, buoyed by populist rhetoric and the idiocy of that subclass. His nascent success has everything to do with Thatcherites realizing, post 2008, that the Tories don’t actually care about shop keepers.
No, what deserves discussion is Brand and his delivery. I’ll grant you, he’s got a solid platform – in the physical sense – on which to stand. He’s a charismatic fellow, with a penchant for prose. What he doesn’t have, seemingly, is the theoretical background on which to deliver. This has been the crux of it from the Paxman interview forward.
I’ll not disagree when it comes to his earnestness – he does seem to genuinely want to help. However, his methods won’t work. I’m not putting this forward as a mere nay-sayer, but rather based on historical proof. The unsystematic approach he endorses, it’s nearly the same thing we saw in the 1960’s – all righteous anger, all slogans and grandstanding, which got us nowhere fast. It’s the same utopianism we saw further back, in the 1800’s, with people like Owen or Saint-Simon. The vision is good, but the system to get us there, the nitty-gritty, the stuff that actually gets shit done, is absent.
It’s the reason why, when confronted as to why he doesn’t stand for government himself, all he could respond with was a gutless “I don’t want to become them.” As much as I might disagree with it, why not some critique of parliamentarism? Why not some description of ossification of standing power, of the way that our government quells lone voices?
Russell Brand is neither the leader, the speaker, we need, nor the one we deserve. I love that he feels motivated to speak out on these issues, more people should. However, to come at complex issues without the necessary facts, without the necessary systematic thinking, only leads to defeat. The position Russell Brand holds does a disservice to his program. Too many people will look to him, and become excited, and yet, their nervous energies, stirred, will dissipate when they realize he has no answers for them beyond the soft peddled aphorisms about collective governance and love.
Because he has no real position to speak from, Brand comes off as bad, as sly, as any careerist hack. You could see it in the discussion – he doesn’t address the actual question because it doesn’t fit with his nebulous talking points. He can’t pin-point these issues, because he doesn’t have the framework to do so. It’s no wonder that some in the audience felt preached at, felt patronized.
If this is all that people see on the scene, if this is the only leader they can point to, they will inevitably become saddened, and bereft of the will to fight. And the situation will worsen. The lack of any rigorous thought on Brand’s part is a liability. He cannot be our mouthpiece. We need someone better.
Look, this isn’t some prostration in front of the educated elite – I’m not coming after Brand because he was born working-class, or because he hasn’t been to some top university. He seems to have been able to sense some of the frustrations of the larger mass of society, without which, no amount of abstruse scholarship will get anywhere. However, having your finger on the pulse is just one part of it. You need to have a way of channeling that emotion, that anger, productively. And, from what I’ve seen, he has yet to find one.