Bill Fontana Questions, Goetz

Q for Bill Fontana:
This question deals with some of the terminology in your writing—specifically, the terms you use to describe discrete moments of sound. Sometimes in your writings, sound becomes mere vibration, sometimes it is referred to as a “sounding,” sometimes it is ambient, raw or “original,” and sometimes it is musical, art. Without necessarily making a hard and fast distinction, could you speak a bit about your notion of the difference between terms like “acoustic vibration,” “sound,” a “sounding,” and “music”? When, or under what circumstances does one become another, how does a listener’s attention figure into these shifts in sound (does the listener have agency)?

I ask this question because there are moments when I think that to clarify the terms a bit would help with passages like the one I quote below, where many different terms are used to describe sound at different moments, and the movement from term to term seems a little fast:

“Two types of vibrational phenomena will take place in these bells [at the Kolumba Museum]. Resonant frequencies within the air cavities of each bell will be excited by ambient sound. This air cavity will also act as a filter, redefining the harmonic shape of the urban ambiance according to the physical structure of each bell. The metal structure of the bells will also produce minute vibrations that can be heard by accelerometers that are attached to the metal surfaces of the bell. These vibrations within the bell metal are very musical, and are metallic echoes and pitch transformations of the original sounds. The simultaneous hearing of the air cavity with an acoustic microphone, and the metal vibrations with the accelerometer will reveal a magical acoustic world within the timeless silence of these old bells” (Resoundings, 4).

Moreover, at times, you implicitly impute the quality of being musical to a natural setting, while at other times you say that it is a musical mindset which results in hearing music there: talking about the Kirribilli Wharf, you say that “it was the first time that a conceptual analysis of a natural musical process resulted in a live recording that was as genuinely musical as music.” (Resoundings 2) To be as genuinely musical as music implies that what is heard/recorded is not itself musical, whereas, just above, this same element is described as a “natural musical process.” Is the ambient noise musical before being recorded and structured by your recording devices? Or is it simultaneously music as well as raw, ambient sound-vibrations?


Q for class:
Does Fontana’s work celebrate ambient sounds or assault them? In some projects, he installs speakers in quiet art spaces (not that these places lack ambient sound), but in other projects he takes “sensitive microphones” and mixes sound from one place which is then output to “loudspeakers” and broadcast over distinct sounds in other places which already have very pronounced ambient sounds (see the “Sound Island” project at the Arc de Triomphe) thus transforming the “sound-identity” that a space already has, giving it a new “sound-identity,” sometimes to the extent that the original sound-identity (which even silent spaces have) is totally destroyed. Furthermore, does there appear to be a trend in Fontana’s work with respect to which types of identities he is more apt to speak-over, and which types of sounds he prefers to broadcast over the loudspeakers? Does Fontana adequately grapple in his writing with the political implications of these decisions? What are the political dimensions of his project?

Bill Fontana

Question for Bill Fontana:

Many of Fontana's sound sculptures take on a very personal meaning for me: I grew up near Cologne, lived in Berlin and London for a while, and now I live in San Francisco. When I saw that many of his projects involved these cities, I got really excited. For me it is less of an artistic experience when I listen to those recordings, but rather a nostalgic one. It doesn't bring the "listening point" to me (the "reception point"), but it transports me to the "listening point." I wonder if this is something that Fontana takes into consideration. It seems like he wants to change the public's perception of the "reception point" - both visual and aural; but do his sculptures change the public's perception of the "listening point" as well? Will spectators think of Paris and its traffic when they go to Normandy and hear the waves?

Question for class:

Fontana starts off his essay "The Environment as a Musical Resource" with a quote by Henry Cowell: "music goes on all the time around us and is made audible by a musician" This reminds me of some earlier posts that mentioned other composers and how they see Fontana's work. Using this quote in conjunction with the title "environment as musical resource," Fontana emphasizes the musical aspect of his work. However, my question is, does his audience really experience these pieces as music, or are they just interesting sounds to them, that they would usually not pay much attention to.
Another quote I like starts off the Cologne San Francisco Bridge Project. John Cage is quoted this time: "Wherever we are, what we hear is mostly noise. When we ignore it it disturbs us, when we listen to it, we find it fascinating." I would be interested in hearing what other people in class think about this. Stephanie mentioned Fontana's "musical state of mind" - it seems like "a musical state of mind," or just an open mind for that matter, is the important ingredient to find all noise/sound fascinating.

questions for Fontana from Stephanie

What is the sound that I am hearing? It is all the possible ways there are to hear it.

I like this. It implies the possibility of recording a sound using microphones which constantly change their volume, speed, position in the ‘sound field,’ or other characteristic in order to move through different possible ways of hearing the sound...

For Fontana:
-Your work is concerned with the re-contextualization of sound, i.e. taking sound from the context of its origin and inserting it into another. This implies a distinction between ‘sound from here’ and ‘sound from elsewhere.’ Meanwhile, your general public engages in the re-contextualization of sound on an increasingly regular basis, via cell phones, iPods, etc. What are the implications of this increased engagement in sound re-contextualization for your work? Has it inspired you to make different choices about what/how to re-contextualize? Do you think the younger members of your general public – specifically those who have grown up regularly engaging in the re-contextualization of sound – will continue to make this distinction between ‘sound from here’ and ‘sound from elsewhere’? Or do you think they will conceive of all sound they hear at the same time as ‘sound from here,’ and that this distinction will lose meaning?

-If ‘music is everywhere’ and hearing it requires only a ‘musical state of mind,’ then what distinguishes music from all other sound? (Or is the difference just a matter of state of mind?) Rather, do you consider it worthwhile distinguish between music and other sound? If so, according to which criteria do you make this distinction? If not, and all sound is (or has the potential to be) music, then what distinctions do you make – e.g. between sounds that are more/less musical, between music that you like vs. don't, between different types of music – and according to which criteria do you make them? I admire your approach for expanding the range of what can be designated as music and what can solicit listening, but if all distinctions are collapsed, we are left with one ingredient: sausage.

-Is an intention of your work to cultivate within your public a more musical state of mind? Do you feel that your work succeeds in doing so?

-You observe that “by carefully placing naturally occurring environmental sounds in a space where they normally do not belong, [the] perceptual masking technique is defeated and people are confronted with sounds they cannot ignore” (Rudi, p. 98). How could this phenomenon be used/abused? E.g. could sound re-contextualization be used to improve listening in educational settings?

For class:
-Someone in the last class described the lunar eclipse as a “visual event.” Is anything purely a visual event? Similarly, considering Fontana efforts to hide the sight of the sound (loudspeakers) in his Anhalter Bahnhof piece, is anything purely an aural event? Do events conform to human senses or do they transcend them, manifesting themselves via human senses yet existing in between/at the intersection of/beyond them? This is more of a metaphysical question, but it implicates our understanding of Fontana’s mission to transform and deconstruct the visual and the aural (Fontana, p. 2). I don’t doubt the usefulness of the visual-aural distinction, but it may be fruitful to elaborate our conception of it.

-Is there a contradiction between Fontana’s claim that ‘music is everywhere’ and hearing it requires only a ‘musical state of mind,’ and his concession that for ambient “sound recordings to be as aesthetically meaningful as musical composition, [they require] some radical solutions” (Fontana, p. 1)? What are the implications of these radical solutions for Fontana’s understanding of the role of technology in his artwork?

-Fontana claims that his Sound Island, in which live sounds from the Normandy coast were transmitted to a sound system on the face of the Arc de Triomphe, “completely altered one’s relationship to the iconic monument” (Rudi, p. 100). Without having read reviews of this work, I shamelessly wonder: do you think his audience experienced this? In the age of iPods, do you think his work is as transformative for his public as he conceives of it to be?

Questions for Bill Fontana

Question for Bill Fontana:

With your sound sculptures, you often talk about the "site-specific qualities of the reception point." So far you have worked with the properties of pre-existing architectural structures to determine placement of microphones and other technologies. Rather than working within these sites (bound by any limitations they may create), have you ever considered designing your own sculpture site in order to influence the acoustic data and create a completely new acoustic identity?

Question for the Class:

Can you imagine one of Bill's sound sculptures being installed here at Berkeley? With his motivations and methodology in mind, how do you think he would either a) change the acoustic identity or b) influence the acoustic memory of somewhere on campus?

Fontana Questions

For Fontana:
Your work clearly plays on the interface between the industrial and the natural. How would you characterize the nature of this interaction? Is it a dialectical collision of opposing forces which you hope will yield a new synthesis? Is it a yin/yang dichotomy of interconnected opposites? Or is it simply the re-contextualization of one sphere meeting another? As a follow up, why do you think hearing is the best of the five senses to experience this interface?


For the Class:
In the Joran Rudi interview Fontana describes his relationship with other minimalist composers like John Cage and Luigi Russolo by stating that his work "replaced the concert space and its fixed intervals of listening time with the perpetual and indeterminate listening time of a sound sculpture in a public space." While I wouldn't question Fontana's credentials as an artist, would we still consider him a composer in the more traditional sense of the word? Put differently, given that his sound sculptures depend upon recorded ambient sounds, mic placement, and spatial reconstruction in a given space would we still call them music? Beautiful, certainly, but do terms like composer and music still make sense with this work or is it radical enough that it requires different terminology?

Thoughts on Fontana: Music as a Listener's Construction/The Whole World as Musical

I missed class due to illness on Monday, but here a few initial thoughts that I'd written out for myself on Fontana and some of the questions/comments posted earlier. Sorry I missed out on discussion!
- Jen

--------------------------------
Fontana's approach to sound and its relationship to music is closely connected to John Cage, who (beginning in the 50's) began to create pieces whose explicit subject was the recontextualization of everyday sounds as music. The most famous of these is "4'33", in which a pianist takes the stage, opens the piano lid, and sits in silence for four minutes and thirty-three seconds. The sound of the audience *is* the piece. Other uses of everyday sound include the musique concrete tradition of electronic music making, such as pieces like Pierre Henry's "Variations On A Door and a Sigh", in which everyday sounds are taken and treated compositionally the way traditional musical ideas (like a melody, or a harmonic idea) might be. The idea, then, of everyday sound as music is one with a long and widespread tradition, which has been interpreted by composers in this century and the last in a variety of ways. Fontana is more allied with the Cage-like approach of the world being musical, of expanding the boundaries of musical experience into the outside world, as opposed to the tradition of musique concrete bringing outside sounds into the traditional musical experiences of recordings, concert halls, etc.

The idea has profound ramifications for how these composers view what music is: who makes it, what it means to listen, and what makes a piece a piece. The point of music (assuming we can talk in those terms, which is a whole other issue...) is not to use purely "sounds that make people feel good" (as someone suggested) any more than it is the point of visual art is to paint "pretty" pictures. But I believe that, from Cage's and Fontana's standpoint, music is a series of relationships between sonic ideas in time, and those relationships are formed by the attentive listener. To them, sound is simply vibrations in the air, and music as we understand it is constructed, created, by the spectator/listener/audience. Fontana speaks of the act of listening as an inherently musical state, and by this I believe he means a certain kind of heightened attention, sensitivity, and appreciation for the sounds around them. He would, for instance, experience traffic as a beautiful sound, even if it is not traditionally considered pretty in the manner of soothing ambient tapes, etc. This idea of real, attentive listening, as a mental state that is an integral part of constructing music, is also important to artists like Pauline Oliveros. (It's one that's an important part of music of other cultures as well, such as the mbira music of Central Africa. An mbira might repeat a single, short musical line over and over again. However, the listener is not meant to enjoy that repetition so much as mentally construct new melodies while listening, using some of those notes as the components. The "real" music, therefore, is a listener's construction, a series of relationships between sonic events created independently by each listener.) In all these scenarios, the listener is far from a passive consumer of the art. The listener creates their own experience--in other words, they are a sort of co-composer.

Where Fontana differs in an interesting way, I feel, is that it seems like he's particularly interested in superimposing sense of place by moving the sonic landscape of one place into another physical space. Whereas, for Cage or Oliveros, it would be enough in a piece to listen intently to the place where they are, technology's role in Fontana's work seems to be to dissolve the need for particular physical surroundings to create a sense of that particular space. The effect of multi-channel recording and diffusion over an array of speakers would be to mimic the physical sense of the sound as closely to the original as possible. As he mentions, he would never process his recorded sounds with effects like compression or reverb, which would distort the sense of the original space (make it seem like it was larger or more resonant or less open than it was, etc.). There's an almost journalistic accuracy that seems important to him that I find interesting.

That accuracy is particularly interesting given the poetic terms in which he thinks of his sonic spaces. His interest in the history and the future of the physical space, for instance: connecting events like Normandy, or referencing generations of pigeons. His soundscapes, while extremely accurate and literal in a way, are also deeply concerned with the passage of time within that space, and all the events that resonate within it. He seems to interpret his pieces as excerpts in the ongoing "piece" that is the soundscape of that place. I found that very compelling and lovely.

Fontana Questions from Brooke

for class:
To what degree is Fontana's work classifiable as "new media"? Are digital technologies integral to the work at a conceptual level, or is the current work a direct extension of his early work, and only digital because new sound technologies are digital? Could classifying his work as "new media" rely on or name a broader concordance between materialist experimentation in the 60's/70's and current art using new media formats?

for him:
Repeating the question above, but picking up on some good comments in our discussion, I'd like to know what Fontana sees as his relationship to "new media," especially as instantiated, very practically, by way he makes documentation of his work available online. Since the "sculptural" dimensions are lost in this format, could there be a better way to translate or figure his work for the internet?

Questions: Paglen (late post)

Question for the class:

One of the reoccurring themes of Trevor Paglen’s work is its focus on secrecy. His chapter on Groom Lake brought into question the intentions behind keeping secrets, both on the government and individual level. Should an individual be held accountable for their actions if they don’t necessarily know what they are doing and why they are doing it? (For example: “…when a remote crew…learned that they had inadvertently participated in the capture of Saddam Hussein.”)

Question for Paglen:

Much of your work brings into question the actions of the government, military, CIA, etc. Making judgments about whether or not these actions are “right” or “wrong” seems very subjective. It also seems like the intentions of the government and of these agencies are not always clear to the individuals working for them. Given your presentation and the nature of your work it is clear that you are convinced that what is being done at places like Area 51 is “wrong.” I was wondering how you think that the individuals involved feel about what they are doing? Have you been able to assess how much information they are given and how much is kept secret?

Fontana

Question for the class:

There seems to be a disconnect between how Fontana describes his work and how I would imagine an audience to respond to it. He writes:

“My purpose in installing LANDSCAPE SOUNDINGS (with its live sounds from the Au) in the public space of the Maria Theresien Platz is not intended to be a romantic return to nature. It is intended to be a radical transformation of the acoustic meaning of this public space.”

“Sound sculptures placed on the exterior of a building take on the visual aspects of the architecture and the urban landscape in which they are placed and create a perceptual tension between what you see and what you hear. Sound sculptures placed inside of a Museum, with no apparent visual element, create a new tension.”

He describes his work as “radical” and says that it creates “perceptual tension.” I don’t see how this is accomplished, and am not convinced that his work is doing this. Projecting traffic noise into a park would create more tension. I agree that much of what we hear inevitably turns into background noise, but I also think that most people can appreciate the distant sound of a foghorn and would prefer hearing the sound of nature over the noise that traffic creates. Additionally, I think that by translocating sound, you take away a lot of why seeing and hearing Niagara Falls is so incredible. I’m sure it creates an interesting “aural” atmosphere, but I would probably rather be at Niagara Falls. Does anyone see his work as creating “perceptual tension”?


Question for Fontana:

Our senses are often what we use to orient ourselves in our environment, and they can often trigger different parts of our memory. In Entfernte Zuge, you talk about your interest in “acoustic memory” which you created by bringing the sound of a present day train station to a bombed-out train station of the past. In this case, the transported sound seems to carry more meaning because of the similar characteristics of the two locations and truly creates a type of “bridge”. In some of your other pieces the two locations do not share as many obvious characteristics. In instances where this is the case (i.e. Vertical Water), you say that doing so creates a “perceptual tension.” Could you describe what you mean by this?

Bill Fontana

For the class,

In some of his projects, Fontana uses some sounds which people feel better when they hear them (For Example; hearing sound of birds in a national park especially in the middle of spring or winter, sound of waves in a place far from the sea or sound of falls and sound of underwater wave patterns). All they are ok, but it is quite hard to understand the effect of sound created by car wheels, by the oscillationg steel grids or the noise in a busy train station. I mean they don't make people feel better. What can be the purpose of these projects.


For Fontana,

What do people feel when they hear sound of car wheels on a bridge or sound of announcements on a busy train station. This sounds can irritate some people, did you hear something negative about your art before.

Questions for Bill Fontana

For the class:

Bill Fontana has been working with large-scale sound installations in the past several decades. He's been trying to prove that "...the world is musical at any given moment, if one has a musical point of view...". Does this mean that actually human should have explored the world much more? However, somehow our sensing limitations kind of stop us from digging the world deeper. Trevor Paglen's new discoveries also point out our sensing limitations in terms of visibility. So how should we sense the world with our eyes, ears ...?

For Bill Fontana:
"...the world is musical at any given moment, if one has a musical point of view...". However, I guess not everyone in the world can realize that with their current knowledge. When Bill Fontana worked on his sound sculptures, how did people look at him or his work? And what about other musicians? What do they think of his work from a professional point of view?

questions for T.Paglen

For the class:
Paglen attempts to tie together the lawless western frontier and Area 51 as examples of black sites. How valid is this comparison, given that the frontier was characterized by a lack of law while modern black sites such as Area 51 represent the utmost rule of law. While both were situations in which the free flow of information was restricted, in the former this was due to lack of authority (leading to lack of infrastructure and mass communication), and in the latter an excess of authoritarianism.

For Paglen:
Do you feel that modern black sites such as Area 51 deserve their obfuscation? That is to say, do you find any legitimacy to the belief that governments (or groups) need to keep certain information private?

Questions for Trevor Paglen

Question for Paglen:
Self-directed, self-determined communities of curious hobbyists seem to have played an important role in exposing some of the phenomena you document. Are these Internet-based groups a new kind of community, in your opinion, or is the Internet simply a new medium for a type of recreational investigation that has always gone on?

Question for the class:
Paglen's work seems concerned with investigations into an area of knowledge that lies somewhere between fact and myth, and the limits of our ability to gain insight into that world. In the Groom Lake reading, to what extent do you think the history of Groom Lake and Paglen's own eyewitness accounts contribute to that ambiguity? Is Paglen presenting himself as a reliable witness? To what extent, if at all, does Paglen alter our understanding of the site through his narration?

Paglen-discussion questions

For the class:

Trevor Paglen discussion brought up many new facts. His work and works kinda unveiled "black" sites in the US. During his special visits towards "black" sites, he used high technologies to find very deep information. In terms of new media, what is the new media during his discoveries?

For Trevor Paglen:

Usually before a person does anything, he'll have some expectations. So what were his expectations before he made so many long and adventurous visits to many secret sites? What kind of unexpected difficulties had he foreseen, from the natural conditions, technological limitation or the government?

Trevor Paglen September 17, 2007

Questions for Trevor Paglen

How do you feel about this "nowhere" or "black site" at Groom Lake as an "indistinct" government space and the potential for other "black sites" or an "elsewhere"?

Could these CIA rendition flights become a "nowhere" if they establish
"temporary permanence" with the endless United States war on terror?

Other than high resolution photography, what emergent forms of new media could shine the light on this "black world" of secret sites, projects, and budgets for the public to recognize?


Questions for the class

How did Paglen artistically approach the question of these state secrets and black sites while maintaining an objective investigation within his work?

What forms of new media could Paglen use for his artistic and investigative work?

Re: Trevor Paglen

Question(s) for Trevor:

How are you and your work perceived within the community of amateur geographers observing black sites? Do you think your position as an artist and academic lends legitimacy to their work, or have you met resistance to your appropriation of their pastime? Does the community appreciate or disparage your focus on the aesthetic and activist dimensions of what they're doing? And how do their perceptions of your work differ (or not) from their perception of the general pop cultural hype that surrounds these site?

Questions(s) for the class:

Networked communications technologies are often portrayed as forces for openness and transparency. Stewart Brand's famous slogan "information wants to be free" is a typical expression of the belief that falling costs of and increasing access to information technologies are creating a world in which anything can be "reverse engineered" and made known. Accompanying this is a belief that "knowledge is power," i.e. that communicative communities can bring about social change simply by exchanging the right kinds of information. Paglen's work seems to pose a number of problems for these beliefs. Even if communities of amateur geographers and activists who study black sites can, as A. C. Thompson asserts, "penetrate and figure out what they're doing," isn't this information rather impotent in the face of the powers the government reserves for itself (to produce nowheres and to kill at will)? How can we reconcile the role information technologies have played in helping to "produce, test, and reproduce secrecy," with the widespread belief that computers have been transformed "from organizational control machines into individual freedom machines"?

Paglen Questions 9/17

Trevor Paglen's work brings to many questions to the forefront, specifically what it means to interact with and examine the hidden places all around us. Although he is primarily interested in directly unavailable locations (black sites), there are many such instances of personal "black sites" in everyday life. Some are blocked from us by simple ignorance, while many others remain unseen due to status, privilege, and the overbearing hierarchy of modern life. I went to see Paglen's work at the Yuerba Buena Center of the Arts, and I was immediately struck by the simple boundary of ticket admission, and concurrently, the interesting separate rules that apply to museum space, I paid for the privilege of seeing the work, but was still not allowed to take it with me as cameras were definitely not allowed.

For the class:

How does Paglen's work reflect on what I've discussed above, most places in society are circumscribed by an insider/outsider dialectic, this blog, and university in general both function to mildly exclude some elements of modern society, not everyone is welcome to post here, nor is everyone able to experience higher education. Paglen's work represents what may be the most isolated and unknowable geography in the world, but I believe the ideas and themes he generates through his work could be used to address myriad locations in the world, whether real or virtual. Do you agree? Or is there a reason that government circumscribed space is inherently different?

For Paglen:

At the Yuerba Buena exhibit, there were three works on the San Pablo Islands (a "secret" Navy installation). All three photographs were taken from a distance of nearly 60 miles, as such all three panels simply showed dark space, there was no hint of anything in the distance because distance was even difficult to discern, the panels being mostly or completely black. I was wondering how the rules of engagement differ for the various locations you have studied, the naval base seemed to be even more isolated than Groomlake, the vastness of the ocean providing more cover and a larger projection of nowhere than would be possible on land. What was your intention in the work? It seemed to illustrate more clearly than anything else the true nature of the negative spaces you study, the photographs did not show any forms, but were just as powerful with their absence. The knowledge that something unapproachable, something hidden, was actually deep in the distance highlighted how truly unreachable the base was, and portrayed the concept of "nowhere" very vividly. Was there any attempt to actually show the base, and these photographs represent a frustration with the unattainable or did you already know there was not a viable way to photograph this particular location?

Questions for discussion

One question that i wish to ask is about the mode of representation that he wishes to use. Why the tool of photography alone? Is it an effective way of communicating the extreme secrecy of th operations that are carried out by the CIA and how could one go on represent these lost spaces?

The other question is about the spaces of secrecy that Trevor speaks about in our surroundings. I was wondering if we could talke the analogy further to the spaces of secrecy that we encounter in our everyday life as Michel Foucault? The spaces that we miss or are hidden from our view like the penitentiary, the jailhouse, rehabilitation centers and if we really push it even the gated communities of the rich and elite.

Paglen-Discussion Questions

Paglen states that Area 51 “has, in fact, become a cliché” (239). Of what significance is it to the enactment of serious investigative research that one’s object of study is “in fact” a cliché? What does it mean to seriously study a cliché (if that’s something Paglen even does)?
(for the class): What tone should a scholar strike in order to be taken seriously when studying something which has become somewhat of a hackneyed symbol for government secrecy? How does Paglen strategically deal with the trite popular appropriations of this Air Force operating facility in the article we read on Groom Lake?

Paglen says that Groom Lake’s is a “landscape produced through secrecy and compartmentalization” (239). What is the organizational benefit (in terms of secrecy) that derives from bureaucratic compartmentalization? How has this approach to managing a large group of workers spread to other government bodies since the Manhattan Project? Where does this organizational strategy find its origins, historically?

On Secrecy: Paglen describes high-scale governmental secrecy as “a tradition that was so ingrained that it was not questioned,” noting that the initial reason for secrecy (to thwart Nazi spies) has been long-outlived by the mindset of secrecy rationalized therein (240). In essence, this space of secrecy was created as an “in-between space” which existed outside of the laws of the land, but which was ultimately supported by the powers of that land in order to serve and protect the very laws it transcended. Is it safe to say that for Paglen, a space of secrecy comes to signify many other things: lawlessness, a lack of accountability, a government lying to the public it serves, the threat of murder, and weapons of mass destruction? Later in the article Paglen gestures beyond the explanation of permanent secrecy via ingrained tradition: “[Groom Lake] is a space where the temporary has become permanent, where an exception to the rule became the rule itself” (242) suggesting that beyond tradition, there is something of crucial benefit (to our nation or to nationhood in general) in holding onto a space which is simultaneously bolstered by the powers of the state but not burdened with any of its laws or constitutional guarantees. Scholars have made the case that the Nazi soldiers were able to commit their many atrocities under the cover of a similar state of exception, a “permanently temporary” suspension of the protections of law as a result of some perceived outside threat. Is this a military strategy innovated in part by Hitler’s regime in the second world war and copied by the US military, or did the strategy already firmly exist in our nation in the other “black-world”: frontier space? Was the frontier space truly a temporary state of exception, or did the suspension of laws continue in certain ways from there? (Paglen hints at the “smooth and almost effortless transition” from the “black-world” of the frontier to the “black-world” of sites like Groom Lake). Regarding the second article, how are similar spaces today acting in a permanent state of exception, such as an overseas US Navy Base like the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base? How might current debates about uncovering overseas torture and the importance of military secrecy be aided by a history like the one Paglen presents in his chapter?

Paper trails, the Internet, and democracy

Here are two question "bundles." I could rephrase aspects of either to be directed at Trevor. It may depend on what he actually talks about on Monday (hopefully, he'll make me think of completely different questions).

Groom Lake - One Hit Wonder?
Did anyone else find the descriptions of the easy-to-find paper trail of the CIA rendition flights at complete odds with the descriptions of the impossible-to-find paper trail of Groom Lake? Is Groom Lake the only "nowhere"? What tactics are the CIA and other government organizations going to take to try to prevent people like Paglen from doing what he describes? For how much longer can we expect FAA rules about the CIA to filing flight plans be in effect? Regardless, would this inhibit further research or make the already easy-to-find paper trails of the rendition flights that much more obvious to future amateur sleuths?

"Democracy" -- How and when helpful?
It seems that one could argue that new media in the hands of the masses could be said to "democratize" the search for information or just act, in practice, as aiding and abetting the secret holders by making it relatively easy to obscure reality (even unintentionally). How do we tell the difference in different situations? What conceptual and theoretical tools can we use to argue that people's hypotheses and theories about places like Area 51, popular culture, are not contributing to guarding its secrecy rather helping expose it? To what situations can we apply these tools?

And, here's a "fun" one with no real answer: Which is more damaging to our natural security, the fact that the CIA is involved in these rendition flights or the fact that they leave the fairly large and obvious footprints that AC Thompson describes?

Paglen Questions

Questions for Paglen: Given that much of the infrastructure you document and describe came into being as a result of the Manhattan Project and the Cold War, what changes would you say that you have observed since 9/11 and the retooling of the CIA and DHS to fight the 'War on Terror' ? Furthermore, has your work taken on a particular urgency given the potential that it has to expose potential human rights abuses by the government (as you do in Torture Taxi)?

Question for the Class: Playing devil's advocate to Paglen's work might lead one to wonder whether certain things regarding national security should remain invisible, and therefore secret. Though few would be in favor of allowing the government to act without any oversight, would we be comfortable with everyone knowing everything? Where should the line be drawn between what's public and what's private?

Questions for Trevor Paglen

Question for Trevor Paglen:

Much of your work involves noticing and piecing together missing or inconsistent information. But, with your Symbology work, how were you able to draw meaning from the emblems since, as you say, they represent that which must not be represented? I read that you believe a dragon refers to a codename for infrared satellites and that sigma stands for the number zero which represents stealth capability. How did you make these inferences and come to these conclusions?

Question for the Class:

A.C. Thompson (journalist and co-author of Torture Taxi) wrote an article in the SF Bay Guardian - http://www.sfbg.com/39/31/cover_spying_on_the_government.html - about joining Paglen on one of his expeditions to Area 51. Thompson quoted part of the e-mail from Paglen, saying:

"Let me be clear about this," wrote Trevor Paglen, the 30-year-old geographer leading the trek. "The trip will not be easy. It might not even be that fun, depending on your attitude, how well-prepared you are, and what you consider fun. The weather is unpredictable - it could be really hot or really cold, or (most likely) both... If you are not in reasonable shape, or are without proper equipment, you will die. Seriously."

Consider that e-mail together with Paglen's Groom Lake passage we read, detailing what it is like to visit such a place where "normal rules of society don't apply" and where "armed camouflaged men in unmarked trucks have the right to kill you to prevent you from entering"...What is the allure of these black sites (and the black world), the allure of not just the unknown but the purposely hidden? Would you accompany Paglen on such an expedition, even with such imminent danger possible, why or why not?

Trevor Paglen - questions

Questions for Trevor Paglen:
What is the government and the public's reaction to his artwork? Does the government try to stop him? Do activists try to cooperate with him? Is the reaction to a book like "Torture Taxi" different than the reaction to a piece/installation at a museum?

Question for class:
I am still trying to figure out where Paglen is coming from and where he is going with his artwork. I don't have a specific question for class, but I would like to discuss what people get out of his artwork. Are people intrigued, motivated to get politically active, scared, mad, and/or do they wonder "what does this have to do with art?"

I will go see the exhibit at the YBCA tomorrow, and hopefully get a better grasp on what he is about.
Also, the Remnants of California project looks VERY interesting.
Dannie

Questions for Trevor Paglen

Question for Trevor Paglen:

Do you consider your work purely an academic study of Top Secret government agencies, or do you pursue you work with the intent of instigating change (i.e. a more transparent government)?

Question for the class:

I think there is a difference in the two projects we have looked at. One involves groups of people gathering verifiable data to track the movements and possible misconduct of agencies we know exist. His other project involves fuzzy photographs of "secret" agency bases that are associated with conspiracy theories, dubious alien encounters, etc. How do these affiliations affect the acceptance and reputation of Trevor's work?