Michel de Certeau,
The Practice of
Everyday Life (1980)
Loopholes are the quintessence of usership-instantiated
tactics since they offer ways into systems without physically
damaging them. Literally, or least historically, ‘loopholes’
were the narrow vertical windows found in castle walls. The
defenders of the castle on the inside referred to them as ‘arrow slits,’ using them to launch arrows against assailants,
who, on the other hand, referred to them as loopholes – the
only anchor point for the loop on their climbing rope, and
hence the only ready means of gaining entry without breaching or destroying the wall or gate. Thus a loophole in a law - or
customary use, institutional convention and so on – often contravenes the intent of the law without technically breaking it.
Users have an inherent knack – call it the cognitive privilege
of usership – for finding ambiguities in a system which can
be used to circumvent its implied or explicitly stated intent.
Loopholes are sought out and used strategically and creatively
by users, including artists, in all manner of circumstances, including taxation, security, elections, politics, different levels of
the legal system and civil liberties.
Artists as users are in a way particularly well equipped to exploit such grey zones inasmuch as one of the reflexes of artistic
competence is ‘détournement’ – never responding forthrightly
to expectations, nor refusing to engage, but rather countering
obliquely. Art itself, like the space of autonomy within which
mainstream practices operate, is often used as a foil to avoid
the legal consequences that would apply to the same action if
it were not ‘art’ or carried out in art’s name. Usership-driven
art uses loopholes both in the mainstream art system and
beyond to circumvent any number of overcodes. The highly
paradoxical instrumentalisation of artistic autonomy is one
widely practiced example.
More consequential forms of loopholing invariably occur in
sectors of society where legal norms have failed to keep pace
with social need – including migration, mores, ownership
issues and various fields of expert privilege – as expressed
through the actual usership of available legal instruments.
These slackspaces of normative action (sometimes called legal voids) emerge quickly but are swiftly shut down, making
loopholing a particularly dynamic mode of under-the-radar
operation. Users of such practices know from experience and
observation that while it is both fun and possible to outfox the
authorities for a while, once the loophole has come to light,
their window of opportunity is already closing and it’s time to
Q: According to Deleuze’s famed formulation, an assemblage is “a multiplicity which is made up of many heterogenous terms and which establishes liaisons, relations between them.” There are various approaches to assemblage theory, but how do you use it in this project?
A: One of the reasons why we say to people that we cannot provide solutions is precisely because we are not part of that assemblage in an ongoing way. All we can do is inject something into the assemblage and see how it responds. This is the key theoretical position which we try to explain to people: you can’t import something and think it can be applied anywhere; assemblages are far more complex than that. In the context of the project, assemblages are an analytical tool to understand the monsoon as an interconnnected system, rather than a series of elements that are outside what we’re studying. For instance, we are working around a particular water body in Chennai which we treat as an assemblage of practices and imaginative that has a history and is constantly transforming. We are approaching research as a series of case studies, and each of these becomes an assemblage out of which we can understand wider systems. The monsoon itself is an assemblage of multiple kinds of planetary systems—it’s not a thing, but a network of systems.”
"(Guy) Debord was concerned with the increased spectacularisation of everyday life, and the ways in which our lives are increasingly shaped by commodification and mediation. The things we encounter in everyday life in spectacular societies are almost always a proxy for some deeper reality of which we are unaware, and our alienation from that deeper reality reduces our agency and quality of life."
"The way we think of the world is shaped by the tools at our disposal. As the historians of sciene Albert van Helden and Thomas Hankins put it in 1994, 'Because instruments determine what can be done, they also determine to some extent what can be thought.' These instruments include the entire sociopolitical framework that supports scientific investigation, from government funding, academic institutions, and the journal industry, to the construction of technologies and software that vest unparalleled economic power and exclusive knowledge in Silicon Valley and its subsidiaries."
"Those building the chips determined the architecture of the machine, all the way to the end consumer"
Lynch is able to treat the net as a simulacrum because he thinks knowing is something we do in our heads. We build up to meaning by starting with sensation. But the net, in his view, is sensation without a real referent. It is a representation of a representation. It is therefore too bad that he dismisses Andy Clark and David Chalmer’s “extended mind” idea by saying, “it might be right but we don’t have to go that far” because the mind is already extended, by which Lynch means that we rely on the testimony of others to justify our beliefs. But the extended mind concept says something more: we think with tools. The physicist cannot think about a problem without using a white board. An accountant needs a calculator. The philosopher needs books and writing materials and perhaps a fire and a glass of sherry. We think with tools. We think out in the world, not in inner representations of the world. And now we have new tools for thought. These tools include not just search engines, but everything from web pages to complex multi-modal networks of experts and amateurs. That is where thinking and knowing is now happening.