4.2.2 Self-sufficient approach:
DIY method
A large group of artists is engaged in questioning and raising awareness about technology and science’s effects in a larger context, as a form of cultural activism. This does not always coincide with solving the problems, but the artists’ attempts to raise awareness often result in intentional collisions with scientists, industry or technology developers. A considerable number of artists raise awareness through the process of intervention, or cultural activism (Arns, 2.2.4.1.). This critical attitude often questions the existing power structures, and has strong references to art movements of the 20st century such as the Situationists International and the Dadaist movement (Critical Art Ensemble 2.2.4.1.).
The space acquired by artists to question or critique technology and its effects on society is not always the most suitable ground for collaboration. Moreover, in collaborating teams, the artist’s autonomy could be at risk (Critical Art Ensemble 2.2.4.1.). Intended collisions and cultural activism show parallels with the independent artist who chooses to acquire technical skills through self-education or through becoming part of the software and hacker culture. This engagement with technical communities is motivated by the search for ideological independence. Artists working with this approach often acquire technical skills themselves to secure their independence. In the latter case, this might refer to both ideological as well as financial independence. The like-minded independent activists from different backgrounds meet in the struggle against the existing power structures and political issues to build alternative organisation and collaboration forms that are often inspired by hacker culture. Here a growing group of media artists who work in multiple professions, combine their artistic skills with software development. These artists usually do not have the ambition to become a formally recognised engineer. In the cultural activist’s practice, a total blur of disciplines is observed, as the majority of DIY artists undertake action to obtain programming or technical skills. For some parts of their work, they call in experts to solve a specific problem. Their work migrates into a disciplinary void where they work together with their peers from a range of backgrounds on subversive software to destabilise or cause collisions with traditional software and hardware engineering. In addition to artists who have morphed themselves into technicians there is a growing group of engineers who morph themselves into self-taught (or DIY) artists (Media Knitting 3.3.1.).
This attitude is different from problem solving in that it is mainly focussed on cultural activism, not so much on software development or technical innovation. An increasing number of multi-professionals, mostly engineers who also work as artist, follow the DIY approach as self-sufficient artists. Given that the DIY engineer-artist has acquired programming skills, it is a small step to the FLOSS (Free, Libre Open Source Software) philosophy where they can ‘borrow’ the software and adjust it according to one’s own needs. This same attitude is observed with independent producers and activists as an act against the proprietary software mechanism. Moreover, several empowerment issues and critique towards the power structures are shared topics in this context of the FLOSS ideology and the cultural activist’s mission.
Another type of intentional collision is caused by different objectives and attitudes towards technological innovation among technologists and artists. An important difference here between most formal scientific research and the DIY artists’ approach is the artists’ tendency to re-appropriate technology for very different purposes, or to engage in experiments dealing with technological anomalies (Naimark, Post and Mulder 2.2.4.1.). In this intentional collision approach, some similarity with ‘Wild Thinking’ or the unconventional artistic way of thinking is present. The intentional collision also refers to artistic practice in the 20th and 21st centuries, where electronic artists work as independent producers or cultural activists for radio, television and theatre. In these ‘independent’ practices, artists often have their own personal heuristic ‘collision method’ in place, without it being clearly defined (Feyerabend, Haring 2.2.4.2.). Intentional collisions are associated, as a method, to the critical practice as defined by Stephen Wilson (Wilson 2.2.1.). The intentional collisions are part of the confronting motives (2.2.4.), and these are rooted in art practice and currently mainly expressed in cultural activism and art-hacker practice. This approach dissociates itself from the standard approach or style that might be adopted by the domain of social science, or social work. Although its intention is socially engaged, it is usually channelled as cultural activism in independent (non-institutionalised) situations. The analytical deconstruction approach is common for this type of artwork, where artists become familiar with the technology, and use it for commenting on the technology and its related social factors (Wilson 2.2.1.). The intentional collisions work according to a heuristic artistic approach where technology is repurposed, and the investigation of the imperfection of technology indicates other uses or new areas for artistic and social technology.
