#disobedient technology

[introspectiveresearchdiary]

Critical narratives: Research come artwork

Computational Arts Research Week 12

A few interesting ideas and conceptual avenues materialised during the group discussion with some of my peers this week. Within the overarching themes of computational art as critical practice and the concept of disobedient technology emerged a curious semantic duality between the hacker and the maker. I found it interesting to think of these two terms critically and unpack the underlying aspect of those two roles. What about this distinction as a food for thought and further discussion.

Makers fits themselves into the power relations of technology.

Hackers don't fit within these relations and seeks to confront them.  

I argued that the word ‘confront’ is particularly significant in the potential description of the hacker. My belief is that it is this very quality - being prepared for confrontation due to the nature of (re)making / hacking that takes place - that is the major distinguishing factor between the two. While makers are keeping to their respective comfort zones and conforming to the mainstream, hackers are seeking to intervene - critically (and playfully) - with these mainstream frameworks, operating at the margins.

But perhaps even more fascinating is the way these frameworks are structured and intertwined. At this point some particularly curious questions arise: 

What kind of narratives and images are embedded in the technology and in the design of technology?  

Who benefits from it being designed that way? 

Are there consequences? 

How is this choice mattering - becomes material?

I will leave these questions simple pinned here, open to discussion and pondering. A few things are certain even without the need for immediate answers. As an artists / hacker (in the sense of the word I outlined above) we should seek to individuate and unpack the 'hidden' aspects of technology and assert that critical making values the process as much - if not more than - as the final ‘product’. We do not necessarily need to focus on producing something that is better but rather we need to make sure we produce it differently. 

This form of making is also a form of learning. 

And as we make differently, we are also learning differently. 

Critical making is a form of research that produces knowledge.