webwork 5
US Department of Art & Technology
by Randall M. PACKER (United States), 2001
US Department of Art & Technology was founded by Randall M. Packer in 2001 when he created a virtual government agency to examine the role of the artist in society and politics. The US DAT staff (a complete list of staff, offices and bureaus available on their website) studies and reenacts the facade of government. They utilize historic and contemporary speeches and manifestos, the peculiar aesthetic of governmental publications and functions, and the organizational structure of institutions as inspiration and fodder for press releases, performances, interventions, and exhibitions.
Packer has a background in sociology and music composition, and moved to Washington, D.C. in 2000 to teach at the American University (he is now at the Maryland Institute College of Art). In his words: "US DAT is a form of 'performance art' that dissolves the border between the virtual and physical realms of galleries, Web sites, press releases, live performance, etc. It is intended to reach people viscerally in its use of fantasy and satire, which I believe, has been effective in drawing a large audience into thinking about complex issues that might otherwise be inaccessible." (from the Empyre discussion list, October, 2004). In his press releases, US DAT Secretary Packer mines recent official speeches and radical texts to spin fictive scenarios eerily similar to the real thing. Packer has succeeded in mirroring the impenetrable and exclusive language used by corporate and government publicity. Recent offshoots of the US DAT project include: The Experimental Party DisInformation Center, an immersive media installation subverting Republican propaganda; the Media Deconstruction Kit), a real-time system that alters broadcast media; and the Homeland Insecurity Advisory System.
In the months leading up to the 2004 presidential election in the U.S., the US DAT were particularly productive. As described by Packer, "The Experimental Party DisInformation Center, installed at LUXE gallery right in the heart of the 57th St. gallery district in NYC during the Republican Convention . . . . we had everyone from students to activists to . . . Republicans, etc. going through the gallery. Around 5,000 people in two weeks. There was one group of students from a New School sociology class . . . The Professor said the show had 'opened the eyes' of her students to the current political climate and the use of propaganda by the Republicans."
Political art has evolved rapidly in the information age. While murals, comics, film, graffiti, and ad hoc performances have all served political interest, in the early nineties emerging modes of technological art merged with political motive. Artists left representational means behind in favor of inserting themselves and their practice into the public discourse. Tactical artists, including RTMark and the Critical Art Ensemble in the U.S., insist on co-opting the aesthetic and the tools of institutions such as national and local governments, multi-national corporations, research labs, and the press. They infiltrate these systems, tweaking their image and language in order to question and undermine the perceived ethical, political, and legal standing of public entities. Artists proved adept at leveraging the Internet to gain exposure, and invading at least the surface of large-scale institutions.
Perhaps the superficiality effects a commentary. As Umberto Eco argues in an essay from the collection Five Moral Pieces, similarities between fascism and late capitalism surface through the promotion of an inarguable aesthetic, a powerful and unifying vision1. At any rate, given the gravity of the political moment, their carefully fabricated image appears more somber than farcical. In a sense, the US DAT is an act of repatriation. As in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11, the artist seeks to reclaim patriotism and the right to free speech. But do the language and methods of tactical artists alienate a potentially wider audience? Is it even possible to critique a system through appropriation, subterfuge, and satire, when the system itself constitutes an elaborately constructed image? In particular when the system embraces an image of clumsy humility, complementing its careful and consistent handling of political image.
From the tradition of artists who have actively addressed the public domain, it is relevant to consider the psychogeographic practice of the Situationist International group, whose détournements attempted to reconnect art with life. Through directives, performances, and proclamations, the SI sought to change the way the public relates to public space. The spirit of the SI is evident in tactical art, with their focus on the manipulation of public perception. Artist Ricardo Dominguez advocates "porousness", or reflexive responsiveness, as a necessary ingredient in artworks operating in the critical space between public institutions and the public. Digital Zapatismo was a project Dominguez developed in 1998 with the Critical Art Ensemble to increase awareness of the low intensity war in Chiapas, Mexico. Its main tool was FloodNet, custom software developed to conduct virtual sit-ins on Mexican and US government servers. It was included in The Disturbance Developer Kit, subsequently released as freeware. This kit was inspired by official response to and public dialogue about CAE actions, and by requests by a number of groups who later used the software to conduct their own virtual sit-ins. It marked a (momentary) shift on the part of the collective from provocateur to software developer. Here, action and theatre evolved as distinct and complementary tools through the influence of willing and unwilling participants.
Is tactical art a way to rethink governance and public, or is it a way to exploit existing public discourse for its audience and adrenaline? Tactical art is defined by its mode of operation and the nature of its targets as much as by its particular goals. Perhaps the pervasive and ubiquitous infrastructures associated with large-scale institutions can only be countered by equally overt gestures. The bluff is key. Bluffing allows one to create and maintain a faux front, and bluffing posits information as the focus of tactical actions. In his recent book The Vatican to Vegas: The History of Special Effects, Norman Klein states: "There is collective adrenaline in agitprop . . . as long as the players understand the difference between action and theatre."2
Notes
1 : From Five Moral Pieces, 1997, by Umberto Eco. Translation by Harcourt books, 2001. Eco's examples are: neglect of the weak (children, elderly, and the ill); prevalence of sound bites (as opposed to in-depth reporting and analysis) in the popular news; an emphasis on images as an arbiter of behavior, fixation on new technologies, and mass military mobilization. 
2 : Norman Klein (2004) The Vatican to Vegas. The History of Special Effects, New Press, 2004, 320 pages.
Naomi Spellman
top
 back
|
