Sweeny GhostsMachinic 2017
Sweeny GhostsMachinic 2017
Sweeny GhostsMachinic 2017
Sweeny
Source: Visual Arts Research , Vol. 43, No. 1 (Summer 2017), pp. 50-56
Published by: University of Illinois Press
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/visuartsrese.43.1.0050?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Visual Arts Research
This paper outlines a number of ways in which contemporary life is influenced by net-
worked digital technologies. The author specifically looks to examples from video games
and social media to inquire about aspects of contemporary art educational practices
that might benefit from further analysis in these areas. The notion of the machinic will
be used to expand beyond literal and determinist descriptions of digital technologies in
art educational practices, drawing upon the work of Deleuze and Guattari.
cycle. If one is “born digital,” then it follows that one must “die digital.” What
happens when one dies within networks that are ephemeral as well as tangible?
And what of the creative process? When a work of art is born digital, might this
represent the death of tradition? When information lives on longer than physical
materials, then what happens to the digital work of art?
Art educators might be most concerned with the changes that accompany
the use of digital media in the classroom, the studio, and the marketplace. Previ-
ously I have written about three fundamental shifts that involve the digital, and
which should concern art educators who are involved in discussions of digital
media, originality, and creativity (Sweeny, 2004). In writing about an “aesthetics
of cloning,” I invoked shifts in these three concepts, in order to explore pos-
sibilities for art educational practices that recognize the unique characteristics
of digital media and the cloned image. When these examples are discussed, it
is crucial to acknowledge the rhetorical application of the term “death.” For
example, Roland Barthes (1964) is not talking about the cessation of life in the
biological sense. He is using the term to refer to the shift that had occurred in
the “new literature” movement, which broke from previous traditions of autho-
rial guidance. Similarly, Walter Benjamin (1969) is describing those changes that
resulted from the mechanical reproduction—the destruction of aura—and not
the death of art.
The phrase “born digital” should be thought of in a similar way, as a rhetori-
cal flourish and not a literal reference. Although, if one were to interpret it literal-
ly, we might then address the fact that 1.6% of all babies born in the United States
are born digital, as a result of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) (http://
www.cdc.gov/art/artdata/index.html). When one further reflects upon the use of
digital technologies in the process of childbirth—from fertility tracking to embryo
scans, not to mention in vitro Doppler sound scanning devices and Baby Einstein
sound systems—it is clear that many are born digital in a direct manner.
Contemporary life in the 21st century is influenced, inflected, and, some
might argue, infected by the digital. Sociologist Manuel Castells suggests that we
live in a “Network Society” that crosses cultures and continents, binding us to-
gether as it enables some and constrains others (Castells, 1996). Digital networks
have influenced fields such as international commerce (Dibbell, 2007), banking
(Wallace, 2011), and law (Benkler, 2005), along with basic communication, which
includes artistic production and distribution.
It also follows that if one is born digital and lives digital, then one must “die
digital.” It is estimated that as of 2012, over 30 million Facebook pages have been
maintained to memorialize the user who has passed (Kaleem, 2012). It is also stan-
dard procedure to include specific instructions for your digital life once you have
passed on. A “digital will” outlines who can have access to your files and social
media sites, and what you wish to have happen to these ever-increasing presences
(Desmarais, 2014). Not even death is free from the influence of the digital.
The field of art education has surely been impacted by this influence. Much
has been written on the potential for incorporating digital media into art educa-
tional practices, from hypertext (Keifer-Boyd, 1997) to video games (Parks, 2008),
to computer coding (Knochel & Patton, 2015). Inevitably, when new media is
introduced, there is a shift in what had previously been typical or traditional. This
has also been discussed, though perhaps to a lesser degree, in regard to media areas
such as drawing and painting (Shin, 2010) and art forms such as self-portraiture
(Amaris, 2010). As new technologies are invented and introduced, the traditional
boundaries of art education are blurred further and further.
These small-scale shifts that accumulate over time result in an art education
that is transformed, which some might see as a cycle of death and rebirth. For
example, during the U.S. Industrial Revolution, the teaching of art in the public
schools was dramatically augmented by the use of color lithography, most clearly
seen in the textbooks of Louis Prang (Stankiewicz, 2001). This was a technological
shift that allowed full-color reproductions to be distributed on a scale previously
unimaginable, and at a price that made the shift quite profitable. This process of
reproduction was later accompanied, and eventually replaced, by the large-scale
prints made available by companies such as Crystal and Prismac. Now, a vast
number of art educators have full color reproductions accessible at the touch of a
button, made available through the Internet, and displayed through digital projec-
tors and computer screens, tablets, and phones. What is not yet understood is how
this shift has influenced the teaching of art, beyond the obvious direct savings to
be found in the art budget. When a centralized model of reproduction, tied to
limited forms of representation and cultural bias (Desai, 2000) leads to a distrib-
uted model where much is accessible by many, what is the result?
In general, these shifts toward the digital relate less to specific media pro-
cesses and technologies, and more to what I have referred to as “digital visual cul-
ture” (Sweeny, 2004). I have used this term to talk about possibilities for culturally
relevant and socially responsible diagrams for educational practices in a digital age.
I have also employed this term in order to describe complex ways in which digital
media influences visuality at many levels and scales. Contemporary digital media
as related to digital visual culture offers art educators the opportunity to rethink
traditions within the field, develop new strategies of production and critique, and
to make fruitful connections with other fields. At a moment when public educa-
tion is coming under fire, it is relevant to look to technological models that are
collaborative, dynamic, and socially engaged. This process will inevitably push
art education further from the traditional center that many find comfortable.
As I have argued, this decentering can be productive; in the creative and critical
acknowledgment of digital visual culture, art educators can face the haunting pres-
ence of the unacknowledged, the unnamed, and the traces of previous technolo-
gies that influence and inhabit the field. In looking to the flickering phantasmic
remnants of past practices, art educators might find opportunities to rethink retro-
grade practices and restrictive ontologies, through a digital visual hauntology.
When individuals begin to identify with digital technologies, many respond with
confusion or disdain. In a recent Pew survey conducted with the Girl Scouts, 92% of
girls aged 14–17 said they would give up all social network friends to keep their best
friend (Salamond, 2011). This of course, means that 8% said they would give up their
best friend for social media friends, a figure that I find to be quite substantial.
These mediated linkages are unnatural, antisocial, and inhuman. However,
as Deleuze and Guattari (1983) suggest, contemporary life under capitalism is com-
posed of such intersections, to the point where identifying the unique individual is
a challenge. The model of the wasp/orchid discussed in Anti-Oedipus is particularly
instructive as the union between organisms is biological, social, and visual.
The orchid deterritorializes by forming an image, a tracing of a wasp; but the
wasp reterritorializes on that image. . . . Wasp and orchid form a rhizome (De-
leuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 11).
This ghostly image of the wasp is a reminder that the relationship between organ-
isms is not a simple binary. Just as the wasp couples with the orchid in the search
for food, the orchid relies upon the wasp to propagate. They are tied together in
overlapping networks of exchange. In a similar manner, the relationship between
an individual and a technology is equally mutually dependent. Just as images are
broken apart and transmitted through networks, to be later reassembled, the indi-
vidual in a digital visual culture is fragmented and flickering. Identity is visualized
as a series of interconnected nodes that, while they have hubs that form centers,
refuse to congeal into a centralized network. The schizophrenic to which Deleuze
and Guattari (1983) refer might be seen in the 8% of Facebook teens who say they
would trade a best friend for a network of Facebook friends. It might be seen in
the “addicted” youth in South Korea who have to find an alternate fix for their
Internet addiction after 12 p.m. It might be seen in the gamer who fails to see the
difference between the real and the virtual, or, more precisely, in the nongamer
who sees this as a problem.
In art education, the schizophrenic has been held up as a model for creativ-
ity and artistic genius (Derby, 2011). The distancing between objective reality and
subjective interpretation is furthered in the use of digital technology, which has
generally been resisted as a legitimate medium due to the distance between the
hand of the artist and the product that appears on screen or in printout. This is a
distance that might not exist for young people who are “born digital,” who grow
up swiping the screen of an iPod, who reach the mirror stage through the reflec-
tion found in a laptop. This is a distance that speaks to a technological nostalgia
that haunts the field. It speaks to the ghost in the machinic.
If art educators acknowledge the ghosts in the machinic—the ways in which
nostalgia for a better time and for previous technologies influences all art and its
References
Amaris, L. (2010). Fragmented self-portraits: How the historical avant-garde foretold online
identity construction. In R. Sweeny (Ed.), Inter/actions/inter/sections: Art education in a digi-
tal visual culture (pp. 123–128). Reston, VA: NAEA.
Barthes, R. (1978). Death of the author. In Image, music, text (pp. 142–148). New York, NY: Hill
and Wang.
Benjamin, W. (1969). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In Hannah Arendt
(Ed.), Illuminations: Essays and reflections (pp. 217–251). New York: Schocken.
Benkler, Y. (2005). The wealth of networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden: Blackwell.
Derby, J. (2011). Disability studies and art education. Studies in Art Education, 52(2), 94–111.
Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. (R. Hurley, M.
Seem, and H. Lane, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Desai, D. (2000). Imaging difference: The politics of representation in multicultural art education.
Studies in Art Education, 41(2), 114–129.
Desmarais, K. (2014, August 25). Manage what happens to your online accounts after you die.
Retrieved from http://www.techlicious.com/how-to/how-to-manage-your-online
-accounts-after-you-die/
Dibbell, J. (2007, June 17). The life of the Chinese gold farmer. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/magazine/17lootfarmers-t.html
Fisher, M. (2012). What is hauntology? Film Quarterly, 66(1), 16–24.
Kaleem, J. (2012, January 6). Death on Facebook now common as ‘dead profiles’ create vast vir-
tual cemetery. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07/death
-facebook-dead-profiles_n_2245397.html
Kiefer-Boyd, K. (1997). Interactive hyperdocuments: Implications for art criticism in a postmod-
ern era. In J. Hutchens & M. Suggs (Eds.), Art education: Content and practice in a postmod-
ern era (pp. 122–131). Reston, VA: NAEA.
Knochel, A., & Patton, R. (2015). If art education then critical digital making: Computational think-
ing and creative code. Studies in Art Education, 57(1), 21–38.
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2010). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Parks, N. (2008). Video games as reconstructionist sites of learning in art education. Studies in
Art Education, 49(3), 235–250.
Salamond, K. (2011). Trends in teen communication and social media use: What’s really going on
here? Retrieved from www.girlscouts.org
Shin, R. (2010). Four digital media art practices: Moving beyond drawing and painting on the
computer. In R. Sweeny (Ed.), Inter/actions/inter/sections: Art education in a digital visual
culture (pp. 41–50). Reston, VA: NAEA.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (2001). Roots of art education practice. New York, NY: Davis.
Sweeny, R. (2004). Lines of sight in the “network society”: Simulation, art education, and a digital
visual culture. Studies in Art Education, 46(1), 74–87.
Sweeny, R. (2005). Three funerals and a wedding: Art education, digital images, and an aesthetics
of cloning. Visual Arts Research, 31(61), 26–37.
Tavin, K. (2003). Wrestling with angels, searching for ghosts: Toward a critical pedagogy of visual
culture. Studies in Art Education, 44(3), 197–213.
Wallace, B. (2011, November 23). The rise and fall of bitcoin. Wired. Retrieved from https://
www.wired.com/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/