fields

Jordan Crandall (xaf@interport.net)
Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:37:28 -0400 (EDT)

This documenta X forum is dedicated to the articulations, perspectives,
and procedures that constitute contemporary technologically-mediated
spaces. One of its most important concerns is the politics of spatial
representation. Since space is accessed through the channels of
visualizing technologies and representational surfaces, what are the
struggles--for voice, materialization, control--registered therein?
Networked space is embroiled in, and constituted as, a struggle for the
setting of the terms. Networks are vastly larger than the Net and
relentlessly material, infused with incorporating forces and practices. I
hope that we will look at contemporary space in terms of its protocols
and contestatory fields and the ways that they are bound up in these
incorporating forces and practices, resisting such distinctions such as
the real and the virtual in order to unpack what they coin.

In terms of "articulations," this forum concerns articulatory practices
that describe, intervene within, and generate spatial constructs, focusing
on modes of signification and their relationship to action, embodiment,
and agential positioning. What spatial actors, including object-
agencies, are involved? It regards space as a practice of figuration, and
figuration as a spatial practice. In concerns the formatting of space
according to diverse protocols, and the languages, agents, and
apparatuses of those protocols.

In terms of "perspective," it concerns the visual faculty necessary to
access such formations, and its embodied forms and orientations. It
concerns new viewing agencies and multiple, situated viewpoints, the
politics of these viewpoints, and the non-reflective identity and
identifying modes that they initiate and register. What is perspective
after space is condensed and imploded? What are the perspectives
embedded in communication enhancements and their market structures,
including cellularity, speed, mobilization, and miniaturization? How or
why do Renaissance visual conventions become normalizing or
naturalizing technologies?

In terms of "procedures," it concerns the significatory, material, and
technical procedures that register and determine space and agency.
This includes procedures of subjectification and objectification and their
apparatus, as well as sites of contestation. It concerns the procedures
that link bodily and machinic rhythms together in new behavioral
patterns and temporalities, often registered in navigation modes. It
concerns the protocols and vehicles through which spaces, codes, and
embodied agents are mobilized, cross-formatted, and co-acclimated.
It therefore concerns the struggles for the setting of access,
organization, and in/habitation terms. It considers the above in terms of
incorporating practices and considers space as the socialization of
pattern. Does space emerge as a contextualizing or "environmenting"
protocol--a knowledge/practice formation that ties together diverse
modalities?

Two key terms that emerge at first are protocols and vehicles. I've had
many discussions with Keller Easterling, Sulan Kolatan, and William
MacDonald regarding them. Protocols might be defined to include
computer formats and settings, social codes and customs, and
structures of agreement, arrangement, and formalization. They initialize,
configure, and normalize space, infusing it with organization and
procedure. Protocols are determined by larger forces as well as local
practices. They are part of a vehicle apparatus. The vehicle could be
defined as the body/machine/image complex and its structures of
orientation, adjustment, and travel. Vehicles are the apparatuses that
join body, signification, and technology in order to convert, transport,
and make their users adequate to spaces and their velocities.