Variant issue 31    www.variant.org.uk    variantmag@btinternet.com    back to issue list


Variant, issue 31, Spring 2008

Contents

Express Yourself!
Anna Dezeuze

Miraculous Mass-communication: Radioballet by LIGNA
Exercises on Adhocracy discussion

Radical Popular?
Stefan Szczelkun

Faceless: Chasing the Data Shadow
Manu Luksch & Mukul Patel

CSI: The Big Sleazy
Tom Jennings

Back to the Future of the Creative City:
An Archaeological Approach to Amsterdam’s Creative Redevelopment

Merijn Oudenampsen

Reclaiming the Economy
Owen Logan

Lenin Reloaded... and engaged in friendly fire?
Benjamin Franks

Resisting New Labour’s ‘hard labour’
Work and ‘Wreckers’ in the Welfare Industry
Alex Law & Gerry Mooney

Of bread and caviar
Colin Gavaghan

Front cover by Hrafnhildur (Rafla) Halldˆ„rsdˆ„ttir
www.myspace.com/hrafnhildur_rafle_rafla

Artist's Page by Stuart Murray www.stuartmurray.co.uk
supported by www.glasgowinternational.org

 


_________________________________________________

Express Yourself!
Anna Dezeuze


The Guerilla Art Kit
Keri Smith
New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 2007ISBN 1568986882website: http://www.kerismith.com
Learning to Love You MoreHarrell Fletcher and Miranda July
New York, Prestel, 2007ISBN 3791337335website: http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com

If love and war are indeed opposites, then The Guerilla Art Kit by Keri Smith and Learning to Love You More by Harrell Fletcher and Miranda July appear to be two very distinct projects. While the former privileges medium over message, by providing techniques inspired by street and protest art to disrupt everyday spaces and routines, the latter encourages participants to share their personal experiences by performing a number of fixed, content-driven ‘assignments’ documented on the project’s website as well as the new book. Both projects share, however, two crucial characteristics: a focus on small interventions within the fabric of everyday life and an emphasis on self-expression – The Guerilla Art Kit’s principal objective, it turns out, is to help you “get your message out in the world.” Keri Smith actually refers to the Learning to Love You More (LTLYM) website in her Guerilla Art Kit, and one of her proposed ‘exercises’ – to “make a poster of your day” – is very similar to LTLYM assignment 10 (“make a flyer of your day”), as both involve summarizing one’s day and posting photocopies of the poster/flier in public spaces. In another ‘exercise’ proposed by Smith, readers are invited to write encouraging fortune-cookie-style messages on small paper slips, and “drop them randomly” wherever they go, while LTLYM assignment 63 gives instructions for making an “encouraging banner” including a positive thought or affirmation. “You are a star,” Smith suggests as an example of a “hidden fortune”; “You are incomparable,” were the words chosen by Skye Gilkerson from Minneapolis, Minnesota, for her (his?) realization of the LTLYM banner. If distributing a poster of your day involves sharing snapshots of your personal life with strangers, and making encouraging banners or hidden fortunes is about spreading positive thoughts in the world, another concern running through both projects focuses on ways “to beautify or recreate a space that is soulless or without character” (to use Smith’s words). LTLYM’s suggestion, in assignment 15, to “hang a windchime in a parking lot” is a good example of this ‘beautifying’ agenda. Smith’s step-by-step guide to how to make ‘seed bombs’ aims at the same result as LTLYM assignment 36, which encourages readers to “grow a garden in an expected spot.” In addition to gardening, both Keri Smith and the LTLYM authors tend to encourage the use of old-fashioned crafts – whether collage or drawing, stencils or papier maché, crochet or knitting.
Of course, as it will have now become clear, the main reason why both projects are not so different after all is that Smith’s ‘guerilla art’ bears no real connection to any political intervention, whether anarchist or situationist. Even if ‘beautifying’ the environment is only one of the three aims of guerilla art stated by Smith – the others involve the slightly more promising, if equally vague, “challenging the status quo” and “interacting” with the environment and other people – Keri Smith can be more appropriately described as a Martha Stewart on pot than any guerilla activist. All trace of violence has been excised from her definition of guerilla art as “any anonymous work […] installed, performed, or attached in public or private spaces with the distinct purpose of affecting the world in a creative or thought-provoking way.” In her essay in the Learning to Love You More book, art historian Julia Bryan-Wilson rightly points out that the project does not claim any ‘grandiose’ political goals of social protest or community building; LTLYM’s claims are indeed nothing but ‘modest,’ as are those embodied by Smith’s guerilla art. ‘Modest’ however, does not mean non-existent, and it is the specific brand of politics at stake here that seems most relevant to contemporary forms of art and activism concerned above all with what Rebecca Gordon Nesbitt has aptly called “micro-attempts at change.”1 And, since over five thousand contributors have sent their reports to the LTLYM website, and ten thousand readers a day (according to Princeton Architectural Press) visit Smith’s weblog, the two projects themselves are as good barometers of current social trends as any other book, website or artwork around.
The projects are premised on a general sense that some vital connections have been lost in our societies. For Miranda July, we have lost touch with our feelings and our spirituality – a project such as LTLYM tries to satisfy “our desire to feel more”2 through “joyful” and “profound experiences” leading to a rediscovery of ourselves, and our relations to other people. For Keri Smith, we have become disconnected from our environment because we are constantly bombarded by an overwhelming mass of information. Guerilla art, according to her, can “reawaken a sense of connection of the environment” (whether urban landscapes, the natural world, or a local community) “by pointing out something I might not have seen, by adding a new image to the world that is unexpected, or by presenting an alternative point of view.” Both projects, then, use exercises or assignments to help us ‘reawaken,’ or re-‘learn’ these connections within the spaces of everyday life, rather than in an explicitly political realm of social activism. Many LTLYM assignments sound like psychotherapy exercises, and Smith’s ‘how to’ book points to the convergence between self-help and do-it-yourself manuals. Both are responding to a need for directions, a craving for community, for direct connections in a fragmented and uncertain world.
Small satisfactions, it seems, can nevertheless still be found within this melancholy context: the pleasure in following instructions (the LTLYM assignments are compared to recipes, exercise classes or singing along to someone else’s song), the “wonderful feeling of elation” in anticipating the future discovery of a guerilla art object. These momentary losses of self-consciousness by voluntarily submitting to someone else’s orders, or by focusing on making someone else happy secretly certainly seem risk-free (Smith discourages any major infringement of the law.) One is reminded of the little tricks invented by the eponymous heroine of the French film Amélie (2001), who spends most of her time contriving to bring happiness, anonymously, to people around her. As in Amélie, the emphasis on tiny pleasures and minute acts, which can bring “a beautiful human touch” to our everyday lives (in Bryan-Wilson’s words3), can slip into a problematic cuteness and sentimentality. Keri Smith’s exercises and LTLYM assignments fall into this trap because they often infantilise their readers. Smith finds it necessary to warn readers that the new blades of ‘x-acto’ knives “are very sharp.” “Go slowly,” she advises. The instructions in LTLYM are usually very detailed, advising on the form and content of the assignment, including “don’ts” as well as dos, and offering reassurances and general thoughts about the objective of the task. Moreover, LTLYM knowingly invites regressions into childhood and adolescence, whether by inviting participants to “make a child’s outfit in an adult size” or to “reread” their “favorite book from fifth grade.” Meanwhile, Smith encourages us to “make ‘friends’” by pasting cut-out eyes onto inanimate objects in public spaces, and to create “miniature environments” complete with cork figurines and landscapes made out of paper clips, spools, shells and buttons. Add some instructions for making potato prints (in the ‘stamp’ section), and you have enough activities to keep a bunch of five-year olds busy on a rainy afternoon.
“We are living in a golden age of self expression.”4 The press release for The Guerilla Art Kit underlines its relation to the explosion of blogs and ‘social networking sites’ such as YouTube and MySpace, which are also obvious points of comparison for the web-based LTLYM. For Smith, such ‘independent media’ provide “a way for people to take power back” in a context dominated by “a growing mistrust in corporate media” and a sense of impotence in the face of “a system that seems to be dominated by corruption and money.” Guerilla art is more than a reaction to the present American context, however: “the need” for people “to share and express themselves in a public way” can, apparently, be traced as far back as prehistoric cave painting. (I like the image of a cave painter indignantly rejecting the invitation to exhibit in a white cube gallery because this wouldn’t allow her to express herself ‘in a public way’). “The Guerilla Art Kit is,” we are told, “about leaving your mark,” in order to remind the world, as the Adbusters blog (cited by Smith) puts it, that “the human spirit is alive here.” LTLYM encourages a similar form of mark-making through the creation of objects and stories. The ongoing flux of confiding and confessing invited by the more personal assignments (from explaining the significance of a scar or a special outfit to recording an argument, spending time with a dying person or writing down a phone conversation you would like to have) inevitably sets up a voyeurist/exhibitionist dynamic reminiscent of US talk shows. (The LTLYM book even includes the ‘real life’ story of long lost siblings reunited through the website.) In this sense, LTLYM is even more closely related to another web project – the hugely popular PostSecret, which invites contributors to send in their secrets anonymously. (With its 180,000 contributions and over one hundred million website hits since 2004, as well as a series of bestselling anthologies, Frank Warren’s PostSecret has in fact been a far more visible social phenomenon than either LTLYM or Keri Smith’s books and blog.5) Like PostSecret, the stories in LTLYM make for compulsive reading, exploiting the same mechanisms at the root of Tracey Emin’s success, in order to present for our pleasure the neuroses not of one tormented individual, but of a whole society. Indeed, one of the reports for assignment 14 – “write your life story in less than a day” – was singled out by July and Fletcher for an award, and described by them as “The Great American Story” (complete with dysfunctional family, alcohol abuse, homelessness, mental illness, and, of course, a happy end).
In drawing a composite portrait of America, LTLYM acts as a counterpart to Jeremy Deller and Allan Kane’s Britain-based Folk Archive, which similarly operates as both a website and a range of changing exhibitions in different locations.6 The Folk Archive documents existing rituals and objects, rather than encouraging people to make their own contributions, but Deller and Kane would no doubt agree with Fletcher and July’s claim that they are recording “the frequently wild, sometimes hilarious, and quietly stunning creative lives of a few people living on earth right now.” The fact that Deller and Kane would never express themselves in this way should not only be attributed to good old British reserve: their difficulties in articulating the aims of their project stem largely from the awkward power relations implied by their ambivalent roles as ‘outsiders’ recording popular pastimes. July and Fletcher avoid this pitfall by resolutely placing themselves on the same level as their contributors. Anyone who has watched July’s award-winning feature film You and Me and Everyone We Know (2005) can vouch for her sincerity: in it, she stars as a young artist whose sensibility and activities clearly display significant features of the LTLYM aesthetics. While July and Fletcher do not adopt Deller and Kane’s problematically superior position, the infantilizing and sentimentalizing drives in LTLYM can nevertheless be considered as forms of manipulation. This is why, I think, the ‘cuteness’ factor of this project, like that of The Guerilla Art Kit, leaves me uneasy: their cheerful and friendly format seem to encourage an eager submission to orders and instructions which may not be as empowering as they even ‘modestly’ claim. The concept of the gift mobilized by both projects has become a leitmotif of critical discussions of contemporary art, and most critics agree with Marcel Mauss that the logic of the gift involves reciprocal relations which establish forms of obligations as much as pure generosity.7 The democratic operation and the sincerity of LTLYM have the merit of making these relations more transparent: both parties, it seems, are getting something out of this exchange, although what this ‘something’ is, remains somewhat elusive. Behind its pretty design and upbeat rhetoric, The Guerilla Art Kit is, in contrast, as vacuous as Keri Smith’s own weblog, which, like most blogs, contributes to the mass of useless information that led us to ‘tune out’ in the first place. Why should I be interested in what kind of tea Ms Smith drank yesterday? How can “knitted ornaments hung from trees” change the world? Keri Smith provides answers to neither question, and leaves us wondering how Princeton Architectural Press came up with the notion that “The Guerilla Art Kit shows how small acts can start a revolution.” LTLYM is certainly more effective in demonstrating that the ‘human spirit’ (to refer the Adbusters’ quote again) has not yet been entirely crushed – but is staying alive enough? I am still left wondering what kind of revolution will come out of our “golden age of self expression.”

Notes
1. Rebecca Gordon Nesbitt, ‘The Reality of my Desires,’ Variant, 30, Winter 2007, p. 4.
2. Julia Bryan-Wilson, ‘Some Kind of Grace: an Interview with Miranda July,’ Camera Obscura, vol. 55, no. 1, p. 196.
3. Ibid, p. 182.
4. http://www.papress.com/bookpage.tpl?cart=1200332724697&isbn=1568986882(accessed on January 21, 2008).
5. Cf. http://postsecret.blogspot.com
6. Cf. http://www.mini-host.org/folkarchive/
7. Marcel Mauss (2001) The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies (London: Routledge)

 back to top


_________________________________________________

Miraculous Mass-communication
Radioballet by LIGNA



“The performance-, theatre- and radio-art group LIGNA (formed 1997) consists of the media theorists and radio artists Ole Frahm, Michael Hüners and Torsten Michaelsen, who work in the FSK (Free Broadcaster Combine), a non-commercial, local radio in Hamburg. LIGNA repeatedly design experimental situations which aim for the transgression of the conventional application of radio technology and the re-actualisation of its inherent, but forgotten or ignored potentials.The action Radioballet took place in the main station of Hamburg and one year later in Leipzig. Both spaces had been recently privatised and subject to control by surveillance cameras and security guards. People who beg, sit on the floor, and express ‘inadequate behaviour’ are usually expelled from these spaces. The Radioballet brought back these excluded gestures. Several hundred people followed the invitation to spread around with small radio devices in their pockets. The participants could act where they wanted: on the platforms, stairs or escalators or in the shopping mall. The ‘ballet’ was synchronised by the instructions that participants received through portable radios: sit down, stand up, hold your hand in a begging motion, turn around, dance and wave good-bye to the departing train of the revolution... The Radioballet was not conceived as a demonstration or assembly (that could have been forbidden by the police) but rather as a ‘Zerstreuung’, a german term that could be translated as dispersion, distraction or distribution. Like ghostly remnants, the excluded gestures haunted and disturbed the surveyed public space during the 90 minutes of the performance and opened it up for uncanny and uncontrollable situation. If the medium of radio is sometimes blamed for the depopulation of the public sphere and keeping its listeners in their homes, LIGNA turned radio reception into a public event.”Jelena Vesic (curator and writer based in Belgrade)

The following discussion, led by Jelena, considers the impact of the networked performance Radioballet and the ethics of collective action, not least with the absence of material and reciprocal relationships limiting expressions of solidarity. It was recorded 14/07/07 with the participants Rael Artel, Anna azar, Karol Sienkiewicz, Margus Tamm, Airi Triisberg and Andreas Trossek, in the workshop on ‘Collectives, Actions, Re-enactments’ held as part of the ‘Exercises on Adhocracy’ camp in Parnu, Estonia.

Jelena Vesi: The Radioballet actions by LIGNA not only had a performative value, I think they are also interesting in relation to the question: “Why are our demonstrations so boring today?”, which was posed earlier this week by Anna and Karol from Sekcja magazine. I would argue that this action was definitely not “boring”, but very much inventive, and not only as an aesthetic invention of, for example, collective performance, but also as an invention of a tool which makes the process of demonstrating effective in the places where demonstrations are actually not allowed. The tool was to bridge the space between gathering and scattering, and the main question was how – if the people are scattered – the action can be co-ordinated, and how collectivity can be established? The police and security people were very confused because they could not find the source of this action, the center of coordination.
Anna azar: What this action showed are the gaps in the law. They were assuming that this kind of behaviour would be forbidden but it wasn’t. Actually, I would like to emphasise something else – it was the creation of a community that enabled the administration of individuals. What they did was act together but in a totally atomised way, without too much emotional effort to create a sense of community.
Karol Sienkiewicz: I did not like the fact instructions were transmitted from above, broadcast from above. These people were behaving without expressing their own opinions, somebody else took advantage of their bodies and they had nothing against that.
Jelena: I think you cannot say that, because they accepted it. All these people were willing to protest against the privatisation of public space. Otherwise it would not be possible to demonstrate at all, unless one invents another mechanism to interconnect the scattered groups of people.
Karol: But for what purpose was the radio? The radio is just a gadget, one could organise the same kind of performance by making an agreement that everybody will go to the public space at a certain time and perform certain gestures – make a salto in the air or lay on the floor, etc. For what purpose is the radio? Is it the kind of hope that maybe somebody is listening to the same waves at that moment and will join the action?
Jelena: No-no-no. As far as I know, there is quite a strong activist scene in Hamburg which is really well interconnected from the inside. They were the ones who wanted to do something, who wanted to express their opinion about the gentrification and privatisation of public space. Radioballet was something that was not imposed but discussed and elaborated before the very action was performed. Those people listen to independent radio stations because they offer quite different programs than commercial radio. Also, these radio stations are sometimes developing really interesting participatory programs and mechanisms through which the public or the listeners can immediately contribute to the program. For example, they organise thematic evenings together with their listeners, etc. The entire action was collectively discussed beforehand. It was definitely not the case that somebody came over and said: “Hey people, I want you to produce an aesthetic action for me…” Of course, there was the person, the voice which symbolically co-ordinated the action through the radio, but this is not a crucial fact for me – I think that in this case radio was used collectively as a tool which helped the group of people to express a certain political opinion.
Karol: But these people didn’t know in advance what gesture they were going to do next before they were told to.
Jelena: Maybe they didn’t really know the exact order of the gestures or all the formal details, but for me it is much more important that they were all aware of the idea behind the gestures performed during Radioballet, and that the idea of such an action had been collectively discussed and accepted. Of course, why this aesthetisation and synchronisation is necessary is that if they would perform these ‘prohibited gestures’ separately, it could much more easily happen that some of them would be arrested. In this case, and with the use of radio as the tool for co-ordination and synchronisation, the police and security people were confused. They couldn’t figure out where the source of this action was located.
Airi Triisberg: I think the image of homogeneity is really important here. This is how they actually experiment the extent of what is possible and what is not. Creating the image of homogeneity is what basically manifests this action as a demonstration.
Karol: I agree that these kinds of actions make demonstrations more attractive and maybe it was our mistake that we posed this question [“Why are our demonstrations so boring today?”] in the title of our workshop – actually there were two important things that we wanted to stress in our presentation. One was that our demonstrations are boring, but even more important was that our demonstrations do not provide this kind of platform for individuals to communicate and express their opinions, which can indeed be very different. In this kind of action everybody is behaving in the same way. I know that they all agree with the main aim of the demonstration. But for me, it is not something that I would like to participate in because I would have the feeling that somebody is violating my personal freedom.
We can of course say that this action shows what the limits and borders are of public space. But we can also say that this action shows how easy it is to convince people to behave in a strange way in public space.
Jelena: The Radioballet was more of an experiment. I disagree with the opinion that it expressed some kind of totalitarian ideological model which stands in the way of individual freedom. I think that you universalise things too much. Even on the surface of the representation, on the perceptual level, we can see that the performers did not act as a ‘trained army’, but that everybody moved spontaneously, or individualistically if you like, each one of them danced in a different way, moved their hand in different way and so on. I mean, they had a clear goal: They managed to demonstrate in a place where demonstrations are prohibited. This is not so easy to achieve, in my opinion. I mean, they invented something like a new technique for demonstrating in public space.
Andreas Trossek: Yet they managed to organise the whole action without any security guys getting involved.
Karol: So actually it was not successful. They did not manage to demonstrate anything.
Jelena: Radioballet was not meant to be a demonstration which would stand for a certain goal until that goal was fulfilled. This was more of an experiment in re-inventing the process of demonstration. I see it as laboratory: Let’s try something and see if it works, let’s see if we can transgress the given rules, or not? So, your claim that the action would have been much more successful if the security guards had got involved demonstrates your preference to see violence in the process of demonstrating, which, in my opinion overlaps with the desires of professional news reporters from BBC, CNN and so on...
Airi: What we are actually addressing here is the question of collectivity. And, of course, every collective action needs some consensus.
Jelena: Yes. We could even say that it was an experiment in how to practice collectivity. This was an experiment. I disagree with the interpretation that something was imposed from above. Quite the opposite, it was exactly about participation, and the performers of the action could hardly be seen as passive in any sense...
Margus Tamm: But why do you think this was a political act at all? There are many different city-space games that look quite similar – treasure hunting, flash mobs or some war games. For example, midnight London is full of people running and acting in strange ways. People communicate over the internet, make up some rules and you get this very bizarre picture in the city space at night when small groups of people are hunting for some ‘treasure’, or gather at a certain time in the supermarket, lie down for five minutes and then just disperse again. What is the difference between those games and the Radioballet action?
Jelena: One of the goals in this case was to express disagreement with the policies of gentrification and privatisation of public spaces and consequently with the imposed ‘politics of security’ against the presumable ‘war against terrorism’. The goal was also to experiment with the use of radio and the possibilities of collective action. Of course, people who participated there had different desires – some of them were probably interested in different applications of radio technology, some of them maybe came just for fun – but I guess what I just listed here was something they all had in common.
Karol: The question is, was this demonstration readable for other people who were not listening to the radio and just happened to be in the train station because they were travelling? What are the conclusions of this action? Is it something that should be implemented on a larger scale or not?
Jelena: Well, their claim, as well as my claim, is that this action was non-representationalist. It was an experiment. Therefore, the actionists didn’t mobilise classic or professional mechanisms of publicity. So, whether it was readable for the other people or not we cannot clearly diagnose. Of course, many people noticed that something strange happened there. I don’t know if it is necessary to back up this statement. What the conclusions would be? Hmmm ... the conclusion could be that if people are not allowed to gather in certain places then they can invent other ways of communication in order to perform collective action. Regarding the issue of effectivity ... I don’t know what to say ... we can come to the point where we can clearly conclude that demonstrations today are not producing a rupture in political space and that they are more-and-more becoming accepted and well situated in the neo-liberal, democratic policy of freedom of speech ... in public space as well. Radioballet was not designed that way. It was an artistic action with a certain political meaning. I am sure that there were people who did not understand it, but there will always be people who do not understand.
Rael Artel: I would rather see this action as an appearance of a particular dispersed community which only through this get-together actually gets conscious of how many they are. This reminds me of a similar type of radio action that happened in Detroit in the 1970s. It was one of the first radio stations broadcasting for the Black community. There was one part of a radio program called the Midnight Funk Association hosetd by DJ Mojo who each night at midnight would tell his listeners to switch on their lights1, so that people would find out how many of their neighbours were listening to the same station. Moreover, the fact that you are listening to the same radio can also mean that you are sharing a common taste for music, as well some political views, etc.
Jelena: I can also make a parallel with an action which was for me completely meaningless in comparison to the Radioballet, although it also had a certain aesthetic-pleasurable value comparable to Radioballet. During Miloevi’s government, the citizens of Belgrade used to go to their balconies and drum on pots at the very moment the national news started on TV. I was boycotting this action because I knew that it was supported by the democratic neo-liberal forces who wanted to come into power. As I was against this political solution, I did not play along. But somehow the action had a strong aesthetic aspect, some kind of excitement and pleasure in this newly established moment of collectivity. This aesthetic aspect also reproduced a wish of belonging and I have to say that I was tempted somehow, but still I resisted this temptation.
Karol: In the 1980s in Poland, during the Solidarity movement, there was an illegal Solidarity Television. It was not a separate TV-channel – in fact, there were only two channels in Poland at the time. They hacked the broadcasting system of the official channels and sometimes people would see a text appearing on their TV-screens: “This is Solidarity TV broadcasting…” And everybody who was against the prevailing order was asked to turn off their lights, for example. Of course, it is an action that happened in a different context, this kind of strategy would probably not be suitable for the liberal state that we live in. Back then, it was something that gave people some energy or encouragement – thanks to that they knew that they were not the only ones who were against the system. I was very young back then, of course, and I don’t remember it personally.
Jelena: For me, it is very similar to the events in 1999 in Belgrade, and the drumming on the pots. In Serbia this energy and encouragement was also important, because the Miloevi government had forged the results of the elections. Drumming on the pots was a symbolic act of showing that this government was not legitimate, to demonstrate how many people were against it.
Karol: Radio waves were the site of political struggle in the communist block as well. There was this radio Free Europe that was broadcast from Munich. Many people in Poland were listening to it.
Anna: I want to show something that is a little bit connected to the Radioballet and a little bit to the Polish 1980s. It is an artwork made by Piotr Uklaski a few weeks ago, titled Solidarno. This is the logo of the Solidarity movement formed by the soldiers of the Polish army. It would be impossible to organise such an action in such a short period of time with any other group of people except the army. They are used to discipline and to obeying orders. Apparently, some media figure had enough influence to convince the generals to give permission to use the soldiers. Of course, every single soldier was happy to participate, which was shown in a short feature film that accompanied this piece. What I find problematic here is the kind of soft oppression of the individual that is needed and used in an artwork in order to address the topic of solidarity.
Jelena: This is an image similar to the what we call Slet in the Serbian language, which is a collective performance that used to be organised on special occasions in the former Yugoslavia, during the socialist era. For example, the government would organise something like that for Tito’s birthday. A huge mass of people would participate forming different patterns with their bodies, performing live images... Young members of the Yugoslav Peoples Army were always the best – simply perfect and the most precise – and it was always considered to be the most virtuous element of the Slet, the prime time moment.
Anna: Yes, but it applies a very totalitarian way of using people. That was a dissonance in this Radioballet.
Rael: I understand what you mean. Susan Sontag explains this issue in one of her essays entitled Fascinating Fascism where she writes about the Triumph des Willens by Leni Riefenstahl.2 Sontag describes the way of taking power over the masses by making them do exactly the same thing at the same time, so that the individual becomes just a small unit of the mass moved by a führer sitting at the top of that power structure.
Jelena: Oh, but we cannot universalise visual representation that way. It reminds me to the discourse of equalisation of Communism and Fascism on the basis of superficial aesthetic appearance that we often meet in the post-socialist artistic, art historian and theoretical discourses.
I think it is very important to be aware of what the statement is, what the political background is. Collective celebration of the birthday of the leader is quite a different political act than the interventionist critique of the neo-liberal political position which is realised through the format of collective action. We cannot observe those things through a universalist depoliticised view. In the case of Radioballet, participatory collective form is quite obvious. All those people wanted to participate and their participation was voluntary and at the same time political. They are self-organised demonstrators who wanted to join a certain action and who also initiated this action. This action addressed a quite clear political statement that we already discussed.
Airi: This discussion reminds me of another I participated in at United Nations Plaza recently. Hito Steyerl was elaborating on the same kind of problem in the framework of the topic, why do conferences usually fail. There she emphasised the kind of paradox that in order to create a really democratic discussion you actually have to behave in a very authoritarian way. You have to limit the access in a way, to establish some rules, to set the discourse so that a fruitful discussion could emerge at all. Because public discussions that are really open for everybody tend to be rather unproductive.
Jelena: Yes, that’s interesting, but that’s another thing. Here, in this discussion, I’m afraid we are faced with the consequences of post-socialist discourse in Eastern Europe and its stereotypical fear of so-called ‘totalitarianism’. For me, this political subjectivation is very symptomatic, and I am sad it is happening here and now among the people who live under obviously predominant capitalist circumstances. I consider the idea of ‘natural’ democracy to be very naïve as well, as the simple opposition to democracy and totalitarianism. I would describe this discourse as ideological, and for me its source is clearly neo-liberal.

Translocal Express: Jubilee Edition, Tallinn, Feb 21–23 2008, is a three-day workshop-seminar addressing the growing tendencies of nationalism on the Eastern borders of ‘new Europe’. Taking place in the close proximity of the celebration of the 90th anniversary of the Republic of Estonia, it will gather a number of artists, writers and curators in order to search for alternative ways to think about society in the ‘era of global democracy’. The seminar is organised in collaboration with Van Abbemuseum as a parallel project to Be(com)Ing Dutch.
www.publicpreparation.org
http://becomingdutch.com

Notes
1. According to Wikipedia, the words of DJ Mojo are best remembered as: “Will the members of the Midnight Funk Association please rise. Please go to your porch light and turn it on for the next hour to show us your solidarity. If you’re in your car please honk your horn and flash your lights, wherever you are. If you’re in bed, get ready to dance on your back, in Technicolor...”
2. ‘Fascinating Fascism’, Under the Sign of Saturn (New York, 1980), 73-105, Susan Sontag


 back to top
_________________________________________________

Radical Popular?
Stefan Szczelkun


Subversion: the definitive history of underground cinema
Duncan Reekie
ISBN: 978-1-905674-21-3
www.wallflowerpress.co.uk

This book is badly titled – in the sense that the title does not give much clue as to its much wider significance. But maybe this is how it sneaked through some of the publishing industry’s gate-keepers. It is not just about underground film and is a defense of popular culture more broadly. What this book does more powerfully than any I’ve read is to hack through the weedy and tangled field that is the study of popular culture and come up with a radical reclaiming of the term. However, in the course of making a new case for the vitality and innovation of the popular as a category it also sets about the category of Art, which the establishment sets above popular culture as a means to devalue it. But, again, it’s not so much about artwork as about the discourses and theories which prop up the systemic ideology.
“Cultural theory has become for the British state a crucial bureaucracy for the negotiation and maintenance of the border between the art and the popular. The function of theory is to convert the incoherent, chaotic, vulgar collective and popular into an authorised, academic and legitimate culture. This is not simply a textual strategy, it is an educational process since state education is the institution developed by the bourgeoisie to convert the illegitimate popular culture of studious working class youth into art...” (p167)
As a working class artist / thinker I have been waylaid, confused and thwarted throughout my life by trying to read about popular culture – something I grew up immersed in. Subversion does an excellent job of going through all the books that I either turned away from perplexed, went to sleep reading or couldn’t see the point of. It outlines the key landmarks of this material and summarily gives a voice to, and explains, the multiple intuitive turn-offs I experienced. Subversion is essential reading for anyone like me.
I had found a path through some of this tedious stuff in conversation with Howard Slater, Graham Harwood and others in the ‘80s, and self-published my own conclusions in the early ‘90s with Working Press. However, there was much that I just didn’t have the energy or time to approach. Reekie has filled many gaps for me in a way that is forthright, concise and incisive. He has certainly done a lot of reading to expose middle class aspirational leadership in the mechanisms and rituals of cultural legitimation. Often masquerading as Socialist or Marxist, the line that is missing from these tracts is that ‘the revolution’ will be televised and managed by the middle class and their wannabee allies and turned into a charade.
The book may be easy for reviewers to dismiss just because it is so wide ranging. A large part of it is a critical and selective literature review of a mass of secondary material, much of which is known to cultural studies academics. But the discourse is both re-assembled and given pragmatic orientation by Reekie’s experiences of working as an experimental filmmaker. There are also areas that are based on original new research, like the chapter that draws an outline history of the burgeoning amateur film scene in the UK from the ‘30s to the ‘60s. This is derived from the magazines that were a regular part of the British amateur film scene. The close relationships between amateur filmmaking and the underground are, according to Reekie, about “alternativity and experimentalism.” (p112) It is astounding to realise that this amateur movement, at its height in the ‘60s, was the “the most successful integrated autonomous film movement in British Cinema history.” (p115)
Reekie comments that the most convincing evidence of the autonomy of the amateur movement is its very obscurity within film history. This is true of many other art forms: the very fact of not being observed by state cadres contains the frustration and pain of not having the recognition one’s effort deserves, but it is also a liberation from having one’s life funneled into a meaningless careerist path or being extracted from one’s organic community. As Reekie argues, “the ruling culture of the bourgeoisie [...] represses, appropriates and enervates all radical projects designed to democratise and liberate cultural production.” (p123)
Reekie roots the history of underground cinema here in the class blurring history of 19th century bohemian cabaret. As the technology of movies burst onto the urbanised market places in the early 20th century, film was, for a while, a ‘cinema of attractions’, a visual spectacle.
“As cinema superceded popular theatre and music hall, so it became the crucial site of the border conflict between the popular and bourgeois art, the inevitable target of bourgeois licensing, sedation, gentrification and appropriation. This conflict has two discrete fronts: the first was an initiative within the nascent film industry which was stimulated and guided by state intervention; the second was a movement which sought to appropriate cinema for autonomous art.” (p72)
The story of the underground is then woven through Dada cabaret to the British underground in the late ‘60s, itself the progeny of the US beat/hippie film scene. Here, attention is put onto the London Filmmakers Co-op (LFMC) which was modeled on Jonas Mekas’s earlier Film Maker’s Co-op, with its ‘no selection’ policy. Reekie traces how the early counter cultural approach gives way to a split between underground film and a banal, abstract but heavily theorised structuralist film. The latter becomes dominant as the LFMC became mired in state subsidy and institutionalised within British academia:
“The demand for cinematic purity is not the trajectory of modernist abstraction or the drive for medium specificity, it is the demand of an autonomous art cinema which will correct an historical aberration: popular cinema. The aberration is that a dynamic creative culture could emerge from outside the legitimate sphere of bourgeois art.” (p78)

The critical stuff
There are gaps one could point to. The popular culture that Reekie refers to is a particular construction defined at the end of the book by 16 characteristics. These characteristics are not used to analyse the radical components of popular culture, although predictably they bring Bakhtin’s concept of ‘carnival’ into a contemporary context of underground and counter culture. But a complex 16-part definition of the radical popular does seem to be put in as an afterthought and it would have been better in the introduction. Of course that may have imposed a more unwieldy frame on the book.
No doubt for strategic reasons he backs off from being critical of poplar culture. His focus is on attacking the miserable, fake, dishonest and nepotistic aspects of state ‘experimental’ culture and positioning underground cinema as part of a ‘radical popular’ tradition. It might be unreasonable to also expect a critique of popular culture as a whole. He is after all coming from a background of growing up imbued with popular moving image culture and he doesn’t take on the Adornian critique of mass culture and popular film culture. Even cult genres are clearly impregnated and driven by capitalist interests. Big bourgeois capitalism took control of the early film industry by using its long established literary arm. A control that was sealed as talkies technology wrenched film from its basis in purely visual communication and inserted the script as central to the rituals of cinematic conception.1
The commercial popular is inevitably guided by the interests of the system and big money with inevitable alienation effects. Reekie does not bother to make a distinction between the commercial context of such capital intensive productions and the micro economies that he invests a good deal of hope in. The music hall provides ample illustration of what happens as big business moves into carnivalesque popular culture, but this invasion of economic interests does not surface in Subversion. I can see why he did not want to get mired in economistic arguments, but, for me, it does leave a certain weakness in the book’s critique.
There is another relevant discourse that he does not engage. The establishment was embarrassingly late in accommodating popular culture into its batteries of aesthetic defenses. When Richard Shusterman first appears of the pages of the redoubtable British Journal of Aesthetics with his ‘Form and Funk: the aesthetic challenge of popular art’ in July 1991, his contribution made the rest of the articles look like they are out of the ark. Shusterman did an intelligent job of ignoring and throwing off the fusty old attitudes to the popular. In spite of this, he never really takes his critique onto grounds that threaten anything but the most decrepit defenders of ‘good taste’. Those were the people already left behind by the contemporary art scene’s embracing of, first pop art, then ‘bad taste’, and then (turning full circle for many) kitsch itself. Reekie does not wrangle with this discourse in defense of popular culture which meanders from Herbert Gans in 1974 to Shusterman in the ‘90s.2
But to give him credit, Reekie doesn’t shy from the main point, which is that on no account must the idea that culture is renewed and created outside of the bourgeois realm be allowed to gain currency. The idea that the bourgeoisie are the font of the highest forms of creativity is essential to justify their superiority. The result of such an ideology is that a whole institutional framework is brought into existence which controls and extends culture, and which is fundamentally resistant to cultural democracy.

My own story
I have to admit that one reason I was so fascinated with this book was that its later narrative touches my own life directly. Reekie’s research belies and often explains my own experience as an aspiring member of the audience. It helps me unpack the sense of both excitement and exclusion that I felt. By offering a personal account of a period that Reekie covers I want to point to the bias in my reading and hopefully add something to his critique.
I had been part of the regional Arts Workshop movement of the late ‘60s after being inspired as a visitor to Jim Hayne’s seminal Arts Lab in Drury Lane, London. After a period dropping out in Wales in the mid ‘70s I had returned to London in time for the punk explosion. I was an avid, if occasional, audience member at the Musicians Co-op and the Film-makers Co-op which were adjacent to each other in old warehouses in Gloucester Avenue, Camden, North London.
Ten years before, I had been impressed by Andy Warhol’s long almost motionless movies which were shown late-night at the Arts Lab, and I think it may have been at the LFMC that I saw Michael Snow’s Wavelength, an hour long zoom across a room. I had been doing a sort of Zen Buddhist meditation with the Thai master Chou Kuhn Damasobutsi and I treated Wavelength as a kind of challenge to give attention to the minutiae of change.
But even with this sympathetic but naïve mind-set, I found the later ‘Structuralist’ films, especially of Peter Gidal, very hard to take. It was these films and the accompanying theory that came to dominate British experimental film and, as Reekie so eloquently argues, stifle the lower class, pop orientated underground. I struggled to engage with these works and came to think that I was perhaps not intellectually adequate for this refined level of aesthetic experience! But it takes Reekie’s analysis to expose just how, what I felt was my ‘problem’, was in fact a mechanism of class oppression, with which the Co-op structuralists were engaged in undermining my value system. Of course, my internalised classism, coming from an aspirational family, would also have played a part. I found other structuralist films like Malcolm Le Grice’s looping horses, and another US film where a boat constantly came down a stream, bearable and even enjoyable as they had rhythm and lurid colours which I could find hypnotic, especially if stoned. So appreciation here again for the wrong reasons! They are still running forever in a corner of my mind...
It is interesting to reflect that I found the other avant-garde scene which Reekie dubs ‘Counter Cinema’, which was associated with Peter Wollen and the BFI axis, even less accessible. Just the fact the LFMC was called a Co-op and had evolved out of the old Art Lab through the agency of David Curtis encouraged me to seek knowledge there. Nonetheless, the overall experience of the later Co-op was always rather cold. I was friends with a few people like Annabel Nicholson, more due to me frequenting X6 dance space, another collective artists’ initiative of the time in Butlers Wharf near Tower Bridge. I found myself more at home there.
Fifteen or so years later I was looking for an MA to give myself academic credentials to back up my part-time work at London Guildhall Communications department. I was teaching in University without a proper degree having dropped out of Architecture. I also wanted to learn the digital media skills I needed to take my book publishing activity into the digital era. When I joined the ‘Time Base Media: with electronic imaging’ course it was run by A.L. Rees with Malcolm Le Grice as the external examiner. Le Grice is the author of ‘Experimental Cinema in the Digital Age’ (2001) and AL Rees is the author of ‘A History of Experimental Film & Video’ (1999), a history Reekie effectively shreds, calling it “the subjective account of a participant in a closed system of reciprocal justification.” (p8)
The MA tutors looked down their noses at my interest in editing a video of my self-build co-op erecting our houses in Kennington. The footage was shot by my then 13 year old son Lech and was not a form of video art that they recognised. Nor did I want to mash up the material in that direction. They didn’t try to stop me but just politely ignored my efforts to get this footage substantially presented. The same level of enthusiasm greeted my dissertation on ‘The epistemonical status of working class culture’ which was a minor effort in the same area as Reekie’s more erudite and coherent argument. However Subversion helps me understand and even ‘read’ the quality of attention I received and the historical forces that were mediating it.
Later, I attended the Royal College of Art and was supervised by A.L. Rees for my doctoral study of cultural collectives with a focus on Exploding Cinema. I felt alienated from the RCA which was proudly elitist and made no distinction between excellence and elitism. Although it housed me for whatever motives, no-one asked me to present or teach and I was nervous when I wanted to meet up with other research students. Although grateful for a bursary from Tomato, paying my fees for two years, that eminent design group took no interest in my work. A.L. was affable and very nice to be around as a supervisor, but I felt he was afraid of the power the RCA. He had come to the RCA on the possibility that he might become head of a revived film department. The post did not materialise and he was left in limbo as ‘Reader’. He never went to an Exploding Cinema show and I got to feel I was acting as his agent. I was never invited along to in-crowd socials and generally I felt was being kept at arms length. I’m not suggesting any of this was conspiratorial – just the way class exclusion works.
I’m not sure why fate looped me up in these networks. Possibly because I was pushing hard for Knowledge-with-a-big-K, as well as access to cultural power, and so I was bound to come in contact with the border guards. Reading Reekie’s critique I see more clearly what forces were in play and just how easy it is to drown out the carnival spirit of a common fella when in fact that fellow is not only alone but is psychically overshadowed in the portals of the great and good. I once wrote an appeal in the RCA in-house newsletter for any working class artists to meet. The article was received with almighty silence. It is easy to come to the conclusion that you are wrong-headed, foolhardy or out of time. On the other hand, now I can appreciate my own brazenness and perhaps a radical insensitivity.
Through the work I took up on completing my PhD I met Patrick Russel at the BFI. He was one of a new generation to take key posts and bring in expertise on amateur and counter culture films missing among the old guard. Only now is it ok for the BFI national archive to collect amateur film from the lower classes and radical films about the lower classes, like those of Cinema Action, which had been almost absent. The interesting dissertation that Russell had written for his MA on a local amateur film scene seemed to embarrass him and was not published. In fact, little has been published within film literature on Amateur film3 and so Reekie’s outline history of the period is especially significant.
So for me Subversion has allowed me to re-evaluate some of the dead-end streets in my life. The book’s critique is pertinent to any person who has been formed by popular culture and for whatever reason finds him or herself wandering in these alien spaces.

A concluding thought
In the end, the history of the recent resurgence of the British underground, which Exploding Cinema led, is sketchily written. Too few references are made to the scattering of contemporary texts that exist mainly in magazines and programmes. The films of this period, especially those left out of the official canon, need especial attention from archives. Many are on the edge of being lost. My own doctoral thesis listed the films and film-makers shown at Exploding Cinema but I did not have the resources to trace the location of originals or copies that could be archived. Without archiving, the underground of this period will probably exist more as myth and hearsay to future generations. The existing Arts Council/BFI canon will be hard to dislodge.
This book is not really so much about underground cinema as it is about rethinking popular culture, yet it is not about any and all popular culture. It is really searching for a concept of a radical popular culture. But even then it is not so much about radical popular culture as it is about the way art devalues working class culture. In dealing with Art it focuses more on the theories by which art legitimates itself and frames its own importance; the way the state channels cultural experiment and play into forms that are safe for bourgeois power. In this sense Subversion is counter theory coming out of sustained radical praxis.

Notes
1. See: William Uricchio & Roberta E.Pearson’s Reframing Culture Princeton, UP (1993)
2. Gans, Herbert J., Popular and High Culture: an analysis and evaluation of taste, Basic Books, New York (1974)
3. Szczelkun, Stefan. ‘The Value of Home Movies’, Oral History Society Journal, Autumn 2000 (V28 No 2 pp94/98)


 back to top
_________________________________________________

Faceless: Chasing the Data Shadow
Manu Luksch & Mukul Patel


Stranger than fiction
Remote-controlled UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) scan the city for anti-social behaviour. Talking cameras scold people for littering the streets (in children’s voices). Biometric data is extracted from CCTV images to identify pedestrians by their face or gait. A housing project’s surveillance cameras stream images onto the local cable channel, enabling the community to monitor itself.
These are not projections of the science fiction film that this text discusses, but techniques that are used today in Merseyside1, Middlesborough2, Newham and Shoreditch3 in the UK. In terms of both density and sophistication, the UK leads the world in the deployment of surveillance technologies. With an estimated 4.2 million CCTV cameras in place, its inhabitants are the most watched in the world.4 Many London buses have five or more cameras inside, plus several outside, including one recording cars that drive in bus lanes.
But CCTV images of our bodies are only one of many traces of data that we leave in our wake, voluntarily and involuntarily. Vehicles are tracked using Automated Number Plate Recognition systems, our movements revealed via location-aware devices (such as cell phones), the trails of our online activities recorded by Interent Service Providers, our conversations overheard by the international communications surveillance system Echelon, shopping habits monitored through store loyalty cards, individual purchases located using RFID (Radio-frequency identification) tags, and our meal preferences collected as part of PNR (flight passenger) data.5 Our digital selves are many dimensional, alert, unforgetting.
Increasingly, these data traces are arrayed and administered in networked structures of global reach. It is not necessary to posit a totalitarian conspiracy behind this accumulation – data mining is an exigency of both market efficiency and bureaucratic rationality. Much has been written on the surveillance society and the society of control, and it is not the object here to construct a general critique of data collection, retention and analysis. However it should be recognised that, in the name of efficiency and rationality – and, of course, “security” – an ever-increasing amount of data is being shared (also sold, lost and leaked6) between the keepers of such seemingly unconnected records as medical histories, shopping habits, and border crossings. Legal frameworks intended to safeguard a conception of privacy by limiting data transfers to appropriate parties exist. Such laws, and in particular the UK Data Protection Act (DPA, 1998)7, are the subject of investigation of the film Faceless.

From Act to Manifesto
“I wish to apply, under the Data Protection Act, for any and all CCTV images of my person held within your system. I was present at [place] from approximately [time] onwards on [date].” (From the template for subject access requests used for Faceless)
For several years, ambientTV.NET8 conducted a series of exercises to visualise the data traces that we leave behind, to render them into experience and to dramatise them, to watch those who watch us. These experiments, scrutinising the boundary between public and private in post-9/11 daily life, were run under the title The Spy School. In 2002, the Spy School carried out an exercise to test the reach of the UK Data Protection Act as it applies to CCTV image data.
“The Data Protection Act 1998 seeks to strike a balance between the rights of individuals and the sometimes competing interests of those with legitimate reasons for using personal information. The DPA gives individuals certain rights regarding information held about them. It places obligations on those who process information (data controllers) while giving rights to those who are the subject of that data (data subjects). Personal information covers both facts and opinions about the individual.” ( Data Protection Act Factsheet available from the UK Information Commissioners Office, www.ico.gov.uk)
The original DPA (1984) was devised to ‘permit and regulate’ access to computerised personal data such as health and financial records. A later EU directive broadened the scope of data protection and the remit of the DPA (1998) extended to cover, amongst other data, CCTV recordings. In addition to the DPA, CCTV operators ‘must’ comply with other laws related to human rights, privacy, and procedures for criminal investigations, as specified in the CCTV Code of Practice (www.ico.gov.uk).
As the first subject access request letters were successful in delivering CCTV recordings for the Spy School, it then became pertinent to investigate how robust the legal framework was. The Manifesto for CCTV Filmmakers was drawn up, permitting the use only of recordings obtained under the DPA. Art would be used to probe the law.

A legal readymade
“Vague spectres of menace caught on time-coded surveillance cameras justify an entire network of peeping vulture lenses. A web of indifferent watching devices, sweeping every street, every building, to eliminate the possibility of a past tense, the freedom to forget. There can be no highlights, no special moments: a discreet tyranny of now has been established. Real time in its most pedantic form.” (Ian Sinclair: Lights out for the territory, Granta, London, 1998, p. 91)
Faceless is a CCTV science fiction fairy tale set in London, the city with the greatest density of surveillance cameras on earth. The film is made under the constraints of the Manifesto – images are obtained from existing CCTV systems by the director/protagonist exercising her/his rights as a surveilled person under the DPA. Obviously the protagonist has to be present in every frame. To comply with privacy legislation, CCTV operators are obliged to render other people in the recordings unidentifiable – typically by erasing their faces, hence the faceless world depicted in the film. The scenario of Faceless thus derives from the legal properties of CCTV images.
“RealTime orients the life of every citizen. Eating, resting, going to work, getting married – every act is tied to RealTime. And every act leaves a trace of data – a footprint in the snow of noise... (Faceless, 2007)
The film plays in an eerily familiar city, where the reformed RealTime calendar has dispensed with the past and the future, freeing citizens from guilt and regret, anxiety and fear. Without memory or anticipation, faces have become vestigial – the population is literally faceless. Unimaginable happiness abounds – until a woman recovers her face...
There was no traditional shooting script: the plot evolved during the four-year long process of obtaining images. Scenes were planned in particular locations, but the CCTV recordings were not always obtainable, so the story had to be continually rewritten.
Faceless treats the CCTV image as an example of a legal readymade (objet trouvé). The medium, in the sense of raw materials that are transformed into artwork, is not adequately described as simply video or even captured light. More accurately, the medium comprises images that exist contingent on particular social and legal circumstances – essentially, images with a legal superstructure. Faceless interrogates the laws that govern the video surveillance of society and the codes of communication that articulate their operation, and in both its mode of coming into being and its plot, develops a specific critique.

Reclaiming the data body
Through putting the DPA into practice and observing the consequences over a long exposure, close-up, subtle developments of the law were made visible and its strengths and lacunae revealed.
“I can confirm there are no such recordings of yourself from that date, our recording system was not working at that time.” (11/2003)
Many data requests had negative outcomes because either the surveillance camera, or the recorder, or the entire CCTV system in question was not operational. Such a situation constitutes an illegal use of CCTV: the law demands that operators,
“comply with the DPA by making sure [...] equipment works properly.” (CCTV Systems and the Data Protection Act 1998, available from www.ico.gov.uk)
In some instances, the non-functionality of the system was only revealed to its operators when a subject access request was made. In the case below, the CCTV system had been installed two years prior to the request.
“Upon receipt of your letter [...] enclosing the required £10 fee, I have been sourcing a company who would edit these tapes to preserve the privacy of other individuals who had not consented to disclosure. [...] I was informed [...] that all tapes on site were blank. [.. W]hen the engineer was called he confirmed that the machine had not been working since its installation.Unfortunately there is nothing further that can be done regarding the tapes, and I can only apologise for all the inconvenience you have been caused.” (11/2003)
Technical failures on this scale were common. Gross human errors were also readily admitted to:
“As I had advised you in my previous letter, a request was made to remove the tape and for it not to be destroyed. Unhappily this request was not carried out and the tape was wiped according with the standard tape retention policy employed by [deleted]. Please accept my apologies for this and assurance that steps have been taken to ensure a similar mistake does not happen again.” (10/2003)
Some responses, such as the following,were just mysterious (data request made after spending an hour below several cameras installed in a train carriage).
“We have carried out a careful review of all relevant tapes and we confirm that we have no images of you in our control.” (06/2005)
Could such a denial simply be an excuse not to comply with the costly demands of the DPA?
“Many older cameras deliver image quality so poor that faces are unrecognisable. In such cases the operator fails in the obligation to run CCTV for the declared purposes.You will note that yourself and a colleague s faces look quite indistinct in the tape, but the picture you sent to us shows you wearing a similar fur coat, and our main identification had been made through this and your description of the location.” (07/2002)
To release data on the basis of such weak identification compounds the failure.
Much confusion is caused by the obligation to protect the privacy of third parties in the images. Several data controllers claimed that this relieved them of their duty to release images:
“[... W]e are not able to supply you with the images you requested because to do so would involve disclosure of information and images relating to other persons who can be identified from the tape and we are not in a position to obtain their consent to disclosure of the images. Further, it is simply not possible for us to eradicate the other images. I would refer you to section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and in particular Section 7 (4).” (11/2003)
Even though the section referred to states that it is:
“not to be construed as excusing a data controller from communicating so much of the information sought by the request as can be communicated without disclosing the identity of the other individual concerned, whether by the omission of names or other identifying particulars or otherwise.”
Where video is concerned, anonymisation of third parties is an expensive, labour-intensive procedure – one common technique is to occlude each head with a black oval. Data controllers may only charge the statutory maximum of £10 per request, though not all seemed to be aware of this:
“It was our understanding that a charge for production of the tape should be borne by the person making the enquiry, of course we will now be checking into that for clarification. Meanwhile please accept the enclosed video tape with compliments of [deleted], with no charge to yourself.” (07/2002)
Visually provocative and symbolically charged as the occluded heads are, they do not necessarily guarantee anonymity. The erasure of a face may be insufficient if the third party is known to the person requesting images. Only one data controller undeniably (and elegantly) met the demands of third party privacy, by masking everything but the data subject, who was framed in a keyhole. (This was an uncommented second offering; the first tape sent was unprocessed.) One CCTV operator discovered a useful loophole in the DPA:
“I should point out that we reserve the right, in accordance with Section 8(2) of the Data Protection Act, not to provide you with copies of the information requested if to do so would take disproportionate effort.” (12/2004)
What counts as disproportionate effort ? The gold standard was set by an institution whose approach was almost baroque – they delivered hard copies of each of the several hundred relevant frames from the timelapse camera, with third parties heads cut out, apparently with nail scissors.
Two documents had (accidentally?) slipped in between the printouts – one a letter from a junior employee tendering her resignation (was it connected with the beheading job?), and the other an ironic memo:
“And the good news – I enclose the £10 fee to be passed to the branch sundry income account.” (Head of Security, internal communication 09/2003)
From 2004, the process of obtaining images became much more difficult.
“It is clear from your letter that you are aware of the provisions of the Data Protection Act and that being the case I am sure you are aware of the principles in the recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Durant vs. Financial Services Authority. It is my view that the footage you have requested is not personal data and therefore [deleted] will not be releasing to you the footage which you have requested.” (12/2004)
Under Common Law, judgements set precedents. The decision in the case Durant vs. Financial Service Authority (2003) redefined personal data ; since then, simply featuring in raw video data does not give a data subject the right to obtain copies of the recording. Only if something of a biographical nature is revealed does the subject retain the right.
“Having considered the matter carefully,we do not believe that the information we hold has the necessary relevance or proximity to you. Accordingly we do not believe that we are obligated to provide you with a copy pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1988. In particular, we would remark that the video is not biographical of you in any significant way.” (11/2004)
Further, with the introduction of cameras that pan and zoom, being filmed as part of a crowd by a static camera is no longer grounds for a data request.
“[T]he Information Commissioners office have indicated that this would not constitute your personal data as the system has been set up to monitor the area and not one individual.” (09/2005)
As awareness of the importance of data rights grows, so the actual provision of those rights diminishes:
“I draw your attention to CCTV systems and the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) Guidance Note on when the Act applies. Under the guidance notes our CCTV system is no longer covered by the DPA [because] we:
• only have a couple of cameras
• cannot move them remotely
• just record on video whatever the cameras pick up
• only give the recorded images to the police to investigate an incident on our premises” (05/2004)
Data retention periods (which data controllers define themselves) also constitute a hazard to the CCTV filmmaker:
“Thank you for your letter dated 9 November addressed to our Newcastle store, who have passed it to me for reply. Unfortunately, your letter was delayed in the post to me and only received this week. [...] There was nothing on the tapes that you requested that caused the store to retain the tape beyond the normal retention period and therefore CCTV footage from 28 October and 2 November is no longer available.” (12/2004)
Amidst this sorry litany of malfunctioning equipment, erased tapes, lost letters and sheer evasiveness, one CCTV operator did produce reasonable justification for not being able to deliver images:
“We are not in a position to advise whether or not we collected any images of you at [deleted]. The tapes for the requested period at [deleted] had been passed to the police before your request was received in order to assist their investigations into various activities at [deleted] during the carnival.” (10/2003)

In the shadow of the shadow
There is debate about the efficacy, value for money, quality of implementation, political legitimacy, and cultural impact of CCTV systems in the UK. While CCTV has been presented as being vital in solving some high profile cases (e.g. the 1999 London nail bomber, or the 1993 murder of James Bulger), at other times it has been strangely, publicly, impotent (e.g. the 2005 police killing of Jean Charles de Menezes). The prime promulgators of CCTV may have lost some faith: during the 1990s the Home Office spent 78% of it crime prevention budget on installing CCTV, but in 2005, an evaluation report by the same office concluded that, “the CCTV schemes that have been assessed had little overall effect on crime levels.”9
An earlier, 1992, evaluation reported CCTV’s broadly positive public reception due to its assumed effectiveness in crime control, acknowledging “public acceptance is based on limited, and partly inaccurate knowledge of the functions and capabilities of CCTV systems in public places.”10
By the 2005 assesment, support for CCTV still “remained high in the majority of cases” but public support was seen to decrease after implementation by as much as 20%. This “was found not to be the reflection of increased concern about privacy and civil liberties, as this remained at a low rate following the installation of the cameras,” but “that support for CCTV was reduced because the public became more realistic about its capabilities” to lower crime.
Concerns, however, have begun to be voiced about function creep and the rising costs of such systems, prompted, for example, by the disclosure that the cameras policing London’s Congestion Charge remain switched on outside charging hours and that the Metropolitan Police are to have live access to them, having been exempted from parts of the Data Protection Act to do so.11 As such realities of CCTV’s daily operation become more widely known, existing acceptance may be somewhat tempered.
Physical bodies leave data traces: shadows of presence, conversation, movement. Networked databases incorporate these traces into data bodies, whose behaviour and risk are priorities for analysis and commodification, by business and by government. The securing of a data body is supposedly necessary to secure the human body, either preventatively or as a forensic tool. But if the former cannot be assured, as is the case, what grounds are there for trust in the hollow promise of the latter? The all-seeing eye of the panopticon is not complete, yet. Regardless, could its one-way gaze ever assure an enabling conception of security?

There will be a screening of Faceless on Tuesday 6th May at Peacock Visual Art, Aberdeen. For details, see: www.peacockvisualarts.com

Notes
1. Police spy in the sky fuels ‘Big Brother’ fears, Philip Johnston, Telegraph, 23/05/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/22/ndrone22.xml
The Guardian
has reported the MoD rents out an RAF-staffed spy plane for public surveillance, carrying reconasance equipment able to monitor telephone conversations on the ground. It can also be used for automatic number plate recognition: “Cheshire police recently revealed they were using the Islander [aircraft] to identify people speeding, driving when using mobile phones, overtaking on double white lines, or driving erratically.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2181393,00.html
2. ‘Talking’ CCTV scolds offenders, BBC News, 4 April 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6524495.stm
3. If the face fits, you’re nicked, Independent, Nick Huber, Monday, 1 April 2002
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/if-the-face-fits-youre-nicked-656092.html
Also see: “In 2001 the Newham system was linked to a central control room operated by the London Metropolitan Police Force. In April 2001 the existing CCTV system in Birmingham city centre was upgraded to smart CCTV. People are routinely scanned by both systems and have their faces checked against the police databases.” Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility
http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/resources/general/ethicol/Ecv12no1.html
4. A Report on the Surveillance Society. For the Information Commissioner by the Surveillance Studies Network, September 2006, p.19. Available from www.ico.gov.uk
5. ‘e-Borders’ is a £1.2bn passenger-screening programme to be introduced in 2009 and complete by 2014. The single border agency, combining immigration, customs and visa checks, includes a £650m contract with consortia Trusted Borders for a passenger-screening IT system: anyone entering or leaving Britain are to give 53 pieces of information in advance of travel. This information, taken when a travel ticket is bought, will be shared among police, customs, immigration and the security services for at least 24 hours before a journey is due to take place. Ministers are also said to be considering the creation of a list of “disruptive” passengers. Trusted Borders consists of US military contractor Raytheon Systems who will work with Accenture, Detica, Serco, QinetiQ, Steria, Capgemini, and Daon. It is expected to cost travel companies £20million a year compiling the information. These costs will be passed on to customers via ticket prices, and the Government is considering introducing its own charge on travellers to recoup costs. A pilot of the e-borders technology, Project Semaphore, has already screened 29 million passengersSimilarly, Lockheed Martin, the biggest defense contractor in the U.S, that undertakes intelligence work as well as contributing to the Trident programme in the UK, is bidding to run the UK 2011 census. New questions in the 2011 Census will include information about income and place of birth, as well as existing questions about languages spoken in the household and many other personal details. The Canadian Federal Government granted Lockheed Martin a $43.3 million deal to conduct its 2006 census. Public outcry resulted in only civil servants handling the actual data, and a new government task force being set up to monitor privacy during the Census. See:
http://censusalert.org.uk/
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/staticpages/index.php/20060423184107361
6. Sales:“Personal details of all 44 million adults living in Britain could be sold to private companies as part of government attempts to arrest spiralling costs for the new national identity card scheme, set to get the go-ahead this week. [...] ministers have opened talks with private firms to pass on personal details of UK citizens for an initial cost of £750 each.”‘Ministers plan to sell your ID card details to raise cash’, Francis Elliott, Andy McSmith and Sophie Goodchild, Independent, Sunday 26 June 2005
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-plan-to-sell-your-id-card-details-to-raise-cash-496602.htm
lLosses:In January 2008, hundreds of documents with passport photocopies, bank statements and benefit claims details from the Department of Work and Pensions were found on a road near Exeter airport, following their loss from a TNT courier vehicle. There were also documents relating to home loans and mortgage interest, and details of national insurance numbers, addresses and dates of birth.In November 2007, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) posted, unrecorded and unregistered via private courier TNT, computer discs containing personal information on 25 million people from families claiming child benefit, including the bank details of parents and the dates of birth and national insurance numbers of children. The discs were then lost.Also in November, HMRC admitted a CD containing the personal details of thousands of Standard Life pension holders has gone missing, leaving them at heightened risk of identity theft. The CD, which contained data relating to 15,000 Standard Life pensions customers including their names, National Insurance numbers and pension plan reference numbers was lost in transit from the Revenue office in Newcastle to the company’s headquarters in Edinburgh by ‘an external courier’.
Thefts
:In November 2007, MoD acknowledged the theft of a laptop computer containing the personal details of 600,000 Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and RAF recruits and of people who had expressed interest in joining, which contained, among other information, passport, and national insurance numbers and bank details.In October 2007, a laptop holding sensitive information was stolen from the boot of an HMRC car. A staff member had been using the PC for a routine audit of tax information from several investment firms. HMRC refused to comment on how many individuals may be at risk, or how many financial institutions have had their data stolen as well. BBC suggest the computer held data on around 400 customers with high value individual savings accounts (ISAs), at each of five different companies -- including Standard Life and Liontrust. (In May, Standard Life sent around 300 policy documents to the wrong people.)
7. The full text of the DPA (1998) is at www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980029.htm
8. ambientTV.NET : “a crucible led by Manu Luksch and Mukul Patel, conceives and produces interdisciplinary art projects, develops social and technical infrastructure, and promotes network architectures that allow explorations of alternatives to current socio-political and economic practice.”
9. Gill, M. and Spriggs, A.: Assessing the impact of CCTV. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate 2005, pp.60-61www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf
10. www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fcpu35.pdf
11. Surveillance State Function Creep - London Congestion Charge “real-time bulk data” to be automatically handed over to the Metropolitan Police etc.http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2007/07/surveillance_state_function_creep_london_congestion_charge_realtime_bulk_data.html


 back to top
_________________________________________________

CSI: The Big Sleazy
Tom Jennings


James Lee Burke’s The Tin Roof Blowdown (Orion Books, 2007) is the 16th and most successful novel so far in a widely-acclaimed hardboiled crime series featuring Dave Robicheaux – a multiply flawed and emotionally damaged, world-weary but basically decent Sheriff’s Deputy in New Iberia, 125 miles down the Louisiana coast from New Orleans. The book opens with this Vietnam veteran cursed with a recurring dream of that carnage: “Their lives are taken incrementally – by flying shrapnel, by liquid flame on their skin, and by drowning in a river. In effect, they are forced to die three times. A medieval torturer could not have devised a more diabolic fate” (p.2). On waking, he reminds himself that,
“the past is a decaying memory and that I do not have to relive and empower it unless I choose to do so. As a recovering drunk, I know I cannot allow myself the luxury of resenting my government for lying to a whole generation of young men and women who believed they were serving a noble cause ... When I go back to sleep, I once again tell myself I will never again have to witness the wide-scale suffering of innocent civilians, nor the betrayal and abandonment of our countrymen when they need us most.
But that was before Katrina. That was before a storm with greater impact than the bomb blast that struck Hiroshima peeled the face off southern Louisiana. That was before one of the most beautiful cities in the Western hemisphere was killed three times, and not just by the forces of nature” (p.2).
As this excerpt promises, there is much more in this story than typical noir thriller fare. The author’s abiding concern with the struggles of the powerless to handle the larger forces, violence and depravity that confront them while retaining some semblance of dignity and honour has consistently been deployed over five decades to mull over America’s conflicts of race, class, and good and evil, here seen through the deeply ambivalent prism of Cajun working-class masculinity contextualised squarely in the genre traditions handed down through Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett. The first major work of popular fiction dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina1, which devastated New Orleans on 29th August 2005, Blowdown demonstrates both the possibilities and problems of attempting to tell the truth through drama – from a writer who does “not trust people who seek authority and control over other people”2 aiming to force Americans “into an introspection that ... will lead people from dismay to anger” at a continuing tragedy which, he asserts, signposts a dismal likely future for the whole country3. And, we might add, for the globe, as corporate governance, graft and greed negotiate Nero’s course through environmental ruin ...

A Chronicle of Death Foretold
Citing literary inspirations like Faulkner, Hemingway, Orwell and Tennessee Williams, Burke’s prose has always been noted for its emotive supercharge, verging oftentimes on delirium; but also for an elegaic, lyrical elegance in characterising his beloved native Gulf coast, where he still lives for part of the year. These attributes dovetail as Robicheaux bears witness to Katrina: before its landfall, in realist dread watching the telly; afterwards in disbelief, with shades of Blake, Bosch, and Ballard, as he’s seconded to an overwhelmed New Orleans Police Department many of whose personnel went AWOL and/or rogue. In effect, he concludes, “The entire city, within one night, had been reduced to the technological level of the Middle Ages” (p.34). Yet, for days before the hurricane struck, “the governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, has been pleading for help to anyone who will listen. A state emergency official in Metaire has become emotionally undone during a CNN interview ... He states unequivocally that sixty-two thousand people will die if the storm maintains its current category 5 strength and hits New Orleans head-on” (p.23).
This scale of disaster indeed transpired, with Robicheaux summarising the geological backstory:
“a tidal surge ... can turn a levee system into serpentine lines of black sand or level a city, particularly when the city has no natural barriers. The barrier islands off the Louisiana coast have long ago eroded away or been dredged up and heaped on barges and sold for shale parking lots. The petrochemical companies have cut roughly ten thousand miles of channels through the wetlands, allowing saline intrusion to poison and kill freshwater marsh areas from Plaquemines Parish to Sabine Pass. The levees along the Mississippi River shotgun hundreds of tons of mud over the edge of the continental shelf, preventing it from flowing westward along the coastline, where it is needed the most. Louisiana’s wetlands continue to disappear at a rate of forty-seven square miles a year” (p. 28).
Unsurprisingly then:
“The levees burst because they were structurally weak and had only a marginal chance of surviving a category 3 storm, much less one of category 5 strength. Every state emergency official knew this. The Army Corps of Engineers knew this. The National Hurricance Center in Miami knew this.
But apparently the United States Congress and the current administration in Washington, D.C., did not, since they had dramatically cut funding for repair of the levee system only months earlier” (p.32).
Charged with investigating the murders of alleged looters, Robicheaux and fellow officers navigate the institutional vacuum, infrastructural wreckage and social chaos of the stricken city, surveying victims and survivors and striving to differentiate predators from prey among the latter. Many of those unable to leave, especially from the Ninth Ward, took refuge in the Superdome and Convention Center: “The thousands of people who had sought shelter there had been told to bring their own food for five days. Many of them were from the projects or the poorest neighbourhoods in the city and did not own automobiles and had little money or food at the end of the month. Many of them had brought elderly and sick people with them – diabetics, paraplegics, Alzheimer’s patients, and people in need of kidney dialysis” (p.35). Elsewhere:
“From a boat or any other elevated position, as far as the eye could see, New Orleans looked like a Caribbean city that had collapsed beneath the waves ... The linear structure of a neighbourhood could be recognized only by the green smudge of yard trees that cut the waterline and row upon row of rooftops dotted with people who perched on sloped shingles that scalded their hands.
The smell was like none I ever experienced. The water was chocolate-brown, the surface glistening with a blue-green sheen of oil and industrial chemicals. Raw feces and used toilet paper issued from broken sewer lines. The gray, throat-gagging odor of decomposition permeated not only the air but everything we touched. The bodies of dead animals, including deer, rolled in the wake of our rescue boats. And so did those of human beings, sometimes just a shoulder or an arm or the back of a head, suddenly surfacing, then sinking under the froth.
They drowned in attics and on the second floors of their houses. They drowned along the edges of Highway 23 when they tried to drive out of Plaquemines Parish. They drowned in retirement homes and in trees and on car tops while they waved frantically at helicopters flying overhead. They died in hospitals and nursing homes of dehydration and heat exhaustion, and they died because an attending nurse could not continue to operate a hand ventilator for hours upon hours without rest” (p.37).
Then a little later, a preliminary cognitive mapping:
“It wasn’t the individual destruction of the homes in the Lower Ninth Ward that seemed unreal. It was the disconnection of them from their environment that was hard for the eye to accept. They had been lifted from their foundations, twisted from the plumbing that held them to the ground, and redeposited upside down or piled against one another as though they had been dropped from the sky ... The insides of all of them were black-green with sludge and mold, their exteriors spray-painted with code numbers to indicate they had already been searched for bodies.
But every day more bodies were discovered ... Feral dogs prowled the wreckage and so did the few people who were being allowed back into their neighbourhoods” (p.199).
These and countless other vignettes throughout the novel are as powerful and evocative in their own way as Spike Lee’s heartbreaking visual testament, When The Levees Broke, and Greg MacGillivray’s meticulous documentary detailing the ecological significance, Hurricane On The Bayou (both 2006). However, the conventions of crime fiction offer much greater potential for situating such events in a narrative with full cultural, historical and political texture and complexity – most crucially, from perspectives towards the bottom of the social hierarchy rather than according to the agendas of the Great and the Good; Burke himself seeing the genre as “having replaced the sociological novel. We know a society not by its symbols but by its cultural rejects and failures”4. So, progressively immersed in escalating webs of malice, misdeeds and moral compromises spun long before and in Katrina’s aftermath, Blowdown’s unruly welter of unreliable characters tell variegated tales as revealing in their conceits, discrepancies, and silences as in their manifest content.

The Big Sleep of Reasons
Initial scenes mingling mayhem, disorder, suffering, selfless heroism, and cynical opportunism utterly confuse the New Iberia contingent’s senses as they descend into the flooded city, reflected in their contradictory attributions of responsibility for what they see. First, as putative public servants charged with protecting the populace, Robicheaux gives credit where most obviously due – “The United States Coastguard flew nonstop ... They rescued more than thirty-three thousand souls” (p.38) – though soon undercut by his sidekick Clete Purcel’s caustic contrast with the Supreme Commander’s own aerial display: “Did you see that big plane that flew over? ... It was Air Force One. After three days the Shrubster did a flyover. Gee, I feel better now” (p.41). The identification of honourable intent is similarly frustrated by reality on the ground for traumatised survivors and erstwhile saviours alike, with praise for rescue agencies unravelling in recrimination against officialdom, and the ethical superiority of law enforcers over criminals and vigilantes confounded by pervasive inept, corrupt, and lethal practice. Still, incidents of the latter tend to be described on reflex as ‘rumour’, with police reports, however hyperbolic or prejudicial, related as deadpan fact in Robicheaux’s breathless accounts:
“Looters were hitting pharmacies and liquor and jewellery stores first, then working their way down the buffet table. A rogue group of NOPD cops had actually set up a thieves headquarters on the tenth floor of a downtown hotel, storing their loot in the rooms, terrorizing the management, and threatening to kill a reporter who tried to question them. New Orleans cops also drove off with automobiles from the Cadillac agency. Gangbangers had converged on the Garden District and were having a Visigoth holiday, burning homes built before the Civil War, carrying away whatever wasn’t bolted down.
Evacuees in the Superdome and Convention Center tried to walk across the bridge into Jefferson Parish. Most of these people were black, some carrying children in their arms, all of them exhausted, hungry, and dehydrated. They were met by armed police officers who fired shotguns over their heads and allowed none of them to leave Orleans Parish ... An NOPD cop shot a black man with a twelve-gauge through the glass window of his cruiser in front of the Convention Center while hundreds of people watched ... Emergency personnel in rescue boats became afraid of the very people they were supposed to save. Some people airflifted out by the Coast Guard in the Lower Nine said the gunfire was a desperate attempt to signal the boat crews” (pp.38-9).
And the dangerous felony of desperate foraging by the starving sits awkwardly with wanton and organised neglect and execution:
“I saw people eating from plastic packages of mustard and ketchup they had looted from a cafe, dividing what they had amongst themselves ... Some NOPD cops said the personnel at Orleans Parish Prison had blown town and left the inmates to drown. Others said a downtown mob rushed a command center, thinking food and water were being distributed. A deputy panicked and began firing an automatic weapon into the night sky, quickly adding to the widespread conviction that cops were arbitrarily killing innocent people ... We heard rumors that teams of elite troops ... were taking out snipers under a black flag” (p.44).
Given minimal time to make sense of his crime scene data, Robicheaux’s general conclusion resembles that famously reached by hip-hop star Kanye West5, leaving an irksome FBI agent in no doubt about the greater scheme of things: “Hundreds if not thousands of New Orleans residents drowned who didn’t have to. I suspect that’s because some of the guys in Washington you work for couldn’t care less” (p.171). But as the specific murder case he pursues sinks into a moral quagmire linking all social strata – implicating upstanding insurance men, industrialists and clergy alongside petty thieves, Mob bosses, rapists, lone psychopaths and drug dealers – his own sanity, integrity and family come under mortal threat, triggering increasingly excessive violence to keep internal and external demons at bay. Along the way he reflects on the overarching structures and processes that both precipitate and thrive on the greater and lesser tragedies at hand:
“The images I had seen during the seven-day period immediately after the storm would never leave me. Nor could I afford the anger they engendered in me. Nor did I wish to deal with the latent racism in our culture that was already beginning to rear its head. According to the Washington Post, a state legislator had just told a group of lobbyists in Baton Rouge, ‘We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn’t do it, but God did’.” (p.83)6.
By the time Hurricane Rita hit the Gulf coast three weeks afterwards, occasioning further mass evacuations:
“The original sympathy for the evacuees from New Orleans was incurring a strange transformation. Right-wing talk shows abounded with callers viscerally enraged at the fact that evacuees were receiving a onetime two-thousand-dollar payment to help them buy food and find lodging. The old southern nemesis was back, naked and raw and dripping – absolute hatred for the poorest of the poor ... [while a] tidal wave of salt water, mud, dead fish, oil sludge, and organic debris literally effaced the southern rim of Louisiana” (pp.115-116).
And as for the larger reconstruction:
“Clete had said that after Katrina he had heard the sounds of little piggy feet clattering to the trough. I think his image was kind. I think the reality was far worse. The players were much bigger than the homegrown parasites that have sucked the life out of Louisiana for generations. The new bunch was educated and groomed and had global experience in avarice and venality ... Staggering sums of money were given to insider corporations who subcontracted the jobs to small outfits that used only nonunion labor ... It became obvious right after Katrina that the destruction of New Orleans was an ongoing national tragedy and probably an American watershed in the history of political cynicism” (p.148).
As Robicheaux judges later: “The job ahead was Herculean and it was compounded by a level of corporate theft and governmental incompetence and cynicism that probably has no equal outside the Third World. I wasn’t sure New Orleans had a future” (p.196)7. But it certainly has a long, dishonourable past, and Burke excels in excavating the sins of the fathers while retaining a nostalgic faith in potential redemption (with innocence scarcely realistic) in the present.

Crimes and Punishments
As Blowdown’s tortuous, labyrinthine plot proceeds, unlikely leads overlap and loose ends abound. Exasperated at every turn by the refusal of suspects, victims and informants to co-operate with (or even acknowledge) his knight’s errand, Robicheaux explains his embattled bafflement in terms of the simplistic worldviews of others – thus disavowing the contradictions and inadequacies of his own position as lone crusader for truth and justice floundering in the forces of darkness; maintaining self-belief via quintessential petit-bourgeois resentment:
“As Americans we are a peculiar breed. We believe in law and order, but we also believe that real crimes are committed by a separate class of people, one that has nothing to do with our own lives or the world of reasonable behaviour and mutual respect to which we belong. As a consequence, many people, particularly in higher income brackets, think of police officers as suburban maintenance personnel who should be treated politely but whose social importance is one cut above their gardeners.
Ever watch reality cop shows? ... What conclusion does the viewer arrive at? Crimes are committed by shirtless pukes. Slumlords and politicians on a pad get no play” (pp.152-3).
These manic manoeuvres of splitting, denial and projection serve to fully implicate the respectable fractions of society colluding in processes which generate and nourish patterns of foul play, while insulating the untarnished detached self from both the seething mass of ignorance below and venal dissolution above. Though a wholly artificial balance between culpability and blamelessness, this facilitates the pragmatic separation of investigative wheat from chaff, but sedimented as belief-system has a seductive, self-serving clarity requiring Herculean physical and emotional efforts to sustain when the going gets tough – so extreme, indeed, as to virtually obliterate the boundaries between good and bad guys all over again. Nevertheless, an immediate payoff is a clearsighted appreciation of the thoroughgoing dependence of business as usual on class- and race-based contempt and domination in mainstream culture and its legitimising discourses.
History then resolves into a litany of criminal enterprise, with the fallout from Katrina entirely in keeping:
“In Louisiana, as in the rest of the South, the issue was always power. Wealth did not buy it. Wealth came with it. Televangelist preachers and fundamentalist churches sold magic as a way of acquiring it. The measure of one’s success was the degree to which he could exploit his fellow man or reward his friends or punish his enemies ... In our state’s history, a demagogue with holes in his shoes forced Standard Oil to kiss his ring” (p.290).
The latter refers to populist Senator Huey P. Long, gifting, we are told8, the state to the Costello crime family in the 1930s, who duly subcontracted all vice operations in New Orleans to a local Mafia outfit. The police and Mob coexisted comfortably (as elsewhere), running the French Quarter tourist area of the city as a joint franchise where, irrespective of legal niceties, nothing was allowed to interfere with the pleasure business – a “cultural symbiosis” responsible for the locals dubbing the city ‘The Great Whore of Babylon’ and ‘The Big Easy’ as well as Purcel and Robicheaux’s favoured ‘The Big Sleazy’; which, however, progressively broke down after crack cocaine flooded the city in the 1980s before finally drowning in August 2005.
This socio-economic fabric, however, was always co-constituted and crosscut with the legacies of racial segregation, where, in Robicheaux’s otherwise idealised post-Depression youth,
“The majority of people were poor, and for generations the oligarchy that ruled the state exerted every effort to ensure they stayed that way. The Negro was the scapegoat for our problems, the trade unions the agents of northern troublemakers. With the coming of integration every demagogue in the state could not wait to stoke up the fires of racial fear and hatred. Many of their consitituents rose to the occasion” (p. 187)9.
Correspondingly, Burke himself is at pains to emphasise that, “Within New Orleans’ city limits, the population is 70% black. These are mainly hard-working, blue-collar people who have endured every form of adversity over many generations. But another element is ... heavily armed and morally insane. These are people who will rob the victim, then arbitrarily kill him out of sheer meanness”10. Tellingly, this stark dichotomising of a rich, complex Creole culture into sets of Manichean opposites produces one asymmetry – poor whites led astray by external forces; poor Blacks generating monsters from within – which, though never explicitly acknowledged, echoes the official bad faith the author excoriates in responses to Katrina; yet its ramifications dominate his novel’s frantic denouement.
Remember, the police perspective routinely focused on Black criminality as the major problem after the storm hit, even though the bulk of supposedly factual media horror-stories were officially admitted to represent unsubstantiated paranoia. Slavoj Zizek has perceptively remarked that, here, “The official ... discourse is accompanied and sustained by a whole nest of obscene, brutal racist and sexist fantasies, which can only be admitted in a censored form”11 – that is, masquerading as unfortunate truth. For all his enlightened liberal humanism, procedural protocols govern Robicheaux’s working life too, and his default template for understanding and dealing with the black underclass presumes the same lowest common denominator – albeit uneasily displaced onto and attributed to his disreputable partner in crime-fighting:
“For Clete, Bertrand Melancon seemed to personify what he hated most in the clientele he dealt with on a daily basis. They were raised by their grandmothers and didn’t have a clue who their fathers were. They ... thought of sexual roles in terms of prey or predator. They lied instinctively, even when there was no reason to. Trying to find a handle on them was impossible. They were inured to insult, indifferent to their own fate, and devoid of guilt or shame. What bothered Clete most about them was his belief that anyone from their background would probably turn out the same” (p.76).
Nevertheless, Purcel’s job is to locate bail fugitives, and in “any American slum, two enterprises are never torched by urban rioters: the funeral home and the bondsman’s office ... [whose] huge clientele of miscreants was sycophantic by nature and always trying to curry favor from those who had control over their lives” (p.72).
The conflicting characterisations here clearly signal the ‘moral insanity’ of traditional police culture, which dehumanises in advance those attracting its gaze, backed with baleful institutional clout obliging its targets to shape their conduct accordingly. But even choosing respectable conformism as accommodation to systemic injustice generates troubling grey areas – witness erstwhile law-abiding members of the Black community obstinately shielding less savoury relatives or neighbours from the official attention they know as malevolent. Unable to assimilate this phenomenon, Robicheaux instead retreats to an Oakland Baptist minister’s retrograde assertion that the 1960s Black “Panthers did not respect either the church or the traditional ethos of the family” (p.296), and therefore their appeal would not last. This dubious thesis was destined to remain untested, however. For its audacity in flouting sterotypes and collectively eschewing passivity, 1970s Black radicalism was crushed by a merciless police and military onslaught courtesy of the government’s COINTELPRO conspiracy.
To Gary Younge, in a real-life setting far stranger than fiction, Blowdown’s “search for black rapists and looters and their white assailants is a literary version of wasting police time” – where, although “they do not act as archetypes ... the characters must operate within the narrow confines of racial cliché”12. Unfortunately – possibly misled by lofty disdain for its artistic merits – Younge doesn’t realise that Burke is specifically drawing attention to the problems this causes rather than merely reproducing them. That’s why Robicheaux’s favourite passage from Hemingway (in Death in the Afternoon) suggests “that the world’s ills could be corrected by a three-day open season on people. Less heartening is his addendum that the first group he would wipe out would be police officers everywhere” (p.186). Robicheaux thus “has a classic flaw: hubris. The tragic hero takes a fall because of pride ... When Dave acts in a violent fashion it’s almost always in the defense of another. But he knows violence is the last resort of an intelligent person and the first resort of a primitive person, and that everyone is diminished by it, usually the perpetrator the most”13. Acting-out violent fantasy, furthermore, has always been the stock in trade of the hardboiled detective.

The Unsound and the Fury
Private dicks began life as struggling entrepreneurs from blue-collar backgrounds in the utterly corrupt public miasma of the modern city. Unlike the detached aristocratic geniuses previously populating detective fiction, the hardboiled protagonist mucks in and deliberately intensifies the disorder he finds in the hope of shaking out clues. But to survive he has to be as tough and adeptly schooled as his adversaries in the evil they do – the thoroughgoing imbrication of the hero in the conduct for which he seeks to extract accounting or achieve resolution being the constitutive dilemma of hardboiled genres14. Philip Marlowe, Sam Spade and their direct descendants thus handle their contradictory positions with ironic isolation from the decadence around them, maintaining a strict regime of masculinity to bolster immunity from the dangerous seductions of femme fatales15 – a spartan solipsism inevitably eroded, however, with the emerging social structure of consumer capitalism, which offers the seeking of pleasures and blurring of patriarchal boundaries to ordinary folk as well as the idle rich.
Hence new generations of hard-nosed investigators had to relax their masculinist certainties and rigid ego structures in order to convince their clients of professional competence (and their readers, of contemporary relevance). Yet this neo-noir worldliness and flexibility now makes it far harder to resist sinking into the moral degeneracy that they must be so intimate with to contest. As Fred Pfeil shows, the paradoxical outcome is that greater attentiveness to emotional depth and complexity necessitates ever more hysterical levels of violence to differentiate the honourably tough but vulnerable detective from the villain16. And whereas for most representatives of the genre, this,
“sensitivity is both unproblematically positive and narcissistically self-regarding, Robicheaux’s is openly riven by ambivalence, troubled by complicit desires and doubts, and obsessed with its old, unhealable wounds ... explicitly defined by its connective affiliations to and with a continuum of others, from the various white male monsters whose terrible appetites he finds within himself, to the innocent vulnerability of those morally pure women, children, and Blacks he saves and protects”17.
His creator specifies that “Dave’s greatest anger is over the loss of the Cajun culture into which he was born. He’s never been able to accept the fact that it’s gone and won’t be coming back”18. His nostalgic yearning in defence against this fury is then set against fantasies of the purity and unconditional love offered by the isolated nuclear family, but in both cases the reality is infected with exactly the same social diseases and questionable motives that he prefers only to register in those marked irredeemably criminal. Robicheaux originates in a dysfunctional family with a capricious and cruel father and absent promiscuous mother, substituting his disappointment at a broken home with valorisation of the Cajun working class that at least had clear-cut standards to measure its failure. Similarly he idealises his intimate relationships but compulsively endangers them – his saintly second wife was slaughtered by thugs he was pursuing, and in Blowdown his third wife (an ex-nun) and adopted daughter very nearly suffer the same fate. The grotesque white psychopath who poses this most serious threat to Robicheaux (as in most of his novels) then obviously represents an incarnation of the alter-ego that he could so easily have become.
Burke’s evident awareness of all of these pathological dynamics is tempered by his focus on the overarching theme of redemption – sadly understood as an individual spiritual matter rather than a question of social and political dialectic, and therefore verging on vanity as well as pridefulness, where the conquering hero flatters himself on his goodness (and seeks regular reassurance to that effect from his nearest and dearest). Still, the author’s genre craftsmanship is such that the story’s resolution succeeds in tying all the narrative strands together, including Robicheaux’s encouragement (as part of his faltering attempt to transcend the racist mythology he grew up with) of the Black fugitive’s desire to atone for his many sins. Nevertheless, the scale of the central character’s hysterical propensities and the hyperbolic violence he has to be willing to indulge in to end up ‘on the side of the angels’ heralds the self-destructive nature of a quest condemned to endlessly repeat itself so long as collective remedies remain out of reach ... In which case, as an allegory of the contortions of mainstream America avoiding recognition of its deep intrinsic culpability in the tragedy of New Orleans, perhaps The Tin Roof Blowdown is a minor masterpiece after all.

Notes
1. Along with the title story – first appearing in Esquire in March 2006 (and so popular that the magazine reinstated regular short fiction features) – of Burke’s collection Jesus Out To Sea. These have been swiftly followed by several other notable novels in diverse genres, as well as a crude, action-based, Miami Vice-style cop series (K-Ville) from Fox TV.
2. From an interview with Martha Woodroof on US National Public Radio, July 30, 2007 (www.npr.org). In an interview with Skylar Browning, ‘No Regrets’, Missoula Independent Weekly, February 8, 2006 (www.theind.com), he fleshes out this conviction: “George Orwell put it much better than I. He said, ‘A writer writes in order to correct history, to set the record straight.’ By that he meant it’s an obsession. You feel that somehow – and it’s a vanity, of course – that inside you, you have trapped a perfect picture of truth, and you feel compelled every minute of the day to convey it to someone else”. More specifically, “We’ve given over the country to the worst people in it ... In part, it’s because we’ve forgotten the importance of working people. … We’ve given up the high road to the people who have hijacked Christianity ... We’ve allowed people who have no compassion at all for the working classes to pretend successfully that it is they who have Joe Bob and Bubba and Betty Sue’s interests at heart … Anyone who believes that the people running this country today care about the interests of working people has a serious thinking disorder”.
3. Quotation from Burke’s Los Angeles Times op-ed, ‘A City of Saints and Sancho Panza’, September, 2005 (www.jamesleeburke.com). See also interview with Jeff Baker, ‘From Montana’s Heartland: Redemption for New Orleans’, The Oregonian, August 26, 2007 (www.oregonlive.com).
4. Interview with Jeffrey Trachtenberg, Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com). Also, no doubt, audiences for detective stories are rather different from those for current affairs programming, however worthy – see Ken Worpole, Dockers and Detectives: Popular Reading, Popular Writing, Verso 1983, for a pathbreaking account of the class connotations of popular fiction.
5. “George Bush doesn’t care about Black people”, during NBC’s Concert for Hurricane Relief, September 2, 2005, after other unscripted remarks like: “I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black family, it [the media] says, ‘they’re looting’. You see a white family, it says, ‘they’re looking for food’. And, you know, it’s been five days [waiting for federal help] because most of the people are black”.
6. And in his first town hall meeting after Katrina, New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin invited an evangelist pastor to speak first, who called it a “purging and cleansing” of the city – Nagin himself later suggesting that God had taken revenge on America for the Iraq war. Despite Burke’s disgust here, though, his Catholicism also attracts him (and therefore Robicheaux) to equally ecclesiastical imagery; for example: “But the damage in New Orleans was of a kind we associate with apocalyptical images from the Bible” (p.195). For more on such theodicy and mainstream and crackpot godbothering in general, as well as cogent analyses of political and media treatments of the crisis, see Michael Eric Dyson, Come Hell Or High Water: Hurricane Katrina and the Color of Disaster, Basic Civitas Books, 2006 – who also cites the only significant remaining records of life in the drowned zones as being music videos by Southern rappers (and for further reference to their responses to Katrina, see my ‘Rebel Poets Reloaded’, Variant 30, 2007).
7. Robicheaux sees firsthand, and duly notes, the sundry paltry and woefully belated grassroots fruits of Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA; run by Bush crony Michael Brown with no experience in this, or any relevant, field) activity; i.e. granting enormous contracts to notoriously vicious, corrupt corporations like Blackwater, resulting in minimal resources trickling down to relief recipients. Given Blackwater’s record in Iraq, the Third World parallel is doubly ironic even while exposing the general logic of ‘private finance initiatives’.
8. For example: Blowdown, pp.140-1; and ‘A City of Saints and Sancho Panza’, L.A. Times (see note 3).
9. Including very nearly electing ex-KKK Nazi David Duke as state Governor as recently as 1991. For the best review of Blowdown I’ve read anchored in New Orleans nuance, see Robert Maxwell, ‘After the Storm: James Lee Burke Answers Katrina’s Wrath with His Own’, Mobile Press-Register (Alabama), August 5, 2007 (www.press-register.com).
10. L.A. Times, note 3.
11. In ‘The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape: Reality and Fantasy in New Orleans’, In These Times, 20 October, 2005; invoking a parallel with anti-semitism in Nazi Germany where, quite irrespective of any actual misdeeds, “the causes of all social antagonisms were projected onto the ‘Jew’ – an object of perverted love-hatred, a spectral figure of mixed fascination and disgust”.
12. The Guardian, December 1, 2007.
13. Burke, in Trachtenberg, Wall Street Journal, note 4.
14. See, for example, John Cawelti, Adventure, Mystery and Romance: Formula Stories as Art and Popular Culture, Chicago University Press, 1976; David Geherin, The American Private Eye: The Image in Fiction, New York, Vintage, 1985; Yvonne Tasker, Spectacular Bodies: Gender, Genre and the Action Cinema, Routledge, 1993.
15. See Frank Krutnik, In a Lonely Street: Film Noir, Genre, Masculinity, Routledge, 1991; and various contributions to Joan Copjec (ed.), Shades of Noir, Verso, 1993.
16. In ‘Soft Boiled Dicks’, White Guys: Studies in Postmodern Domination and Difference, Verso, 1995.
17. ‘Soft Boiled Dicks’, pp.116-7. Burke’s foregrounding of Robicheaux’s psychic conflicts also contrasts most sharply with the fashionable serial killer subgenre – for example, the Hannibal Lecter series, where class hatred is mystified and dispersed into outlandishly supernatural empathetic con