Redacting reality: Art exhibition about what the government doesn't want us to know
By Michael Lithgow, May 23, 2008 Comments (3)
How can a democracy work if the citizens don't know what the government is up to? Access to Information - the little rules that manage the sticky territory between what the government thinks we need to know and what the government is actually up to - is all about organizing the public imagination. It's an intellectual game of hide-an-seek. The government hides and we seek, and it begs questions about the foundations of trust in democratic systems of governance.
For Reasons of State takes this tricky bit if state business on directly. The exhibition, which opened on May 16 at The Kitchen, explores government secrecy and censorship. Installations involve a myriad of information technologies - surveillance video, voice mail, 16 mm film, photography. From Ed Halter's review at Rhizome.org:
Ben Rubin's Dark Source (2005) offers a bank of microfiche readers displaying copies of documents that appear to be nothing but hand-scrawled bars. During a 2002 security snafu, Rubin was able to acquire the software code for Diebold's controversial voting machines, but then blacked out each line--in accordance with corporate trade secret laws-- before exhibiting it. Rubin's self-imposed censorship mirrors Jenny Holzer's Redaction Paintings (2006) mounted nearby, comprised of enlargements of classified US government documents released via the Freedom of Information Act, still containing large swathes of darkness ... Lin + Lam's Unidentified Vietnam (2003-Present) series recreates a sloppy card catalog from the Library of Congress's collection of hundreds of propaganda films produced with the help of the American government for use in South Vietnam, while Mark Lombardi's Neil Bush, Silverado, MDC, Walters and Good c. 1979-90 (2nd Version) (1996) serves as an example of the late artist's obsessive sketches of conspiracy-style flow charts linking together powerful individuals, government bodies and corporations in tightly-bounded nests of sometimes inscrutable interconnections.
As art expands its territories of investigation, we can begin to see new ways of coming to terms with the social and political complexity of the times. Art can interrogate the ways and means of power -- the political institutions, political reasoning, political moralities -- and transform them into accessible, visual stories and experiences.
A congressional investigation is one thing - say, a 4000 page type-written manuscript documenting some abuse of authority - an art exhibition is another. If a grade school class can be amused for a short time while rummaging around in the uncertain dustbin of what is, what should be and what is not a state secret (as compared to how they might respond to a 4000 page report), I say more artists into the fray.
The transformation of what government is and does into public art is long overdue.
Hey, great timing on your post! I saw it literally five minutes before I left for NYC to see my brother and his fiancee.
By far the most interesting part was being able to see footage from a predator drone. Granted this was older footage (circa 1993 I think) but the lack of image quality was really quite shocking. During the course of the video an operator flew over a desert landscape in Afghanastan, targeted a jeep, used infrared to count the number of occupants, identified one of the occupants as a high profile target, and then subsequently blew the enter jeep sky high. Watching the video I couldn't even see the jeep -- never-mind identify a specific individual inside of it.
Two of the other pieces were broken while I was there (the one with the actual film projector, and the audio based piece). Hopefully they get them back up and running soon.
My biggest criticism of the show was that none of the pieces directly addressed current events (addressing pertinent themes is great, but that should only be the beginning). The other issue I had is that it seemed like many of the pieces attempted to remain neutral/apolitical. Objectivity in art (or anything else for that matter) is completely impossible. Much better to take a strong stand and advocate for your beliefs.
Just my two cents,
~ Paolo Unger Dvorchik
There is a panel discussion at the Kitchen this Saturday in conjunction with this show:
Saturday, May 31 - 5 pm
See Something, Say Something: Strategies of Counter-Surveillance
The Whitney Independent Study Program at THE KITCHEN
with Karen Beckman, Peter Galison, Thomas Y. Levin, and Lin + Lam
moderated by Yates McKee
In conjunction with the exhibition For Reasons of State, guest curators Angelique Campens, Erica Cooke, and Steven Lam will hold a panel discussion on the impact of governmental and corporate secrecy on life in our contemporary society and its manifestations in visual culture. The phrase “See Something, Say Something,” spreads the logic that citizens will benefit from policing each other. This panel, however, extends accountability beyond the gaze of the citizen-spy to also include the state. Who is responsible for withholding and distributing information? What type of information becomes de/classified? How can we take (more) control of our public access to knowledge?
I agree that the themes weren't as contemporary as perhaps they could have been, but I didn't get the same sense of apolitical... ness. Granted they weren't extreme either way, but I still believe the message is there and clear.
Post new comment