Over the past few weeks I DL: Within society, technology is one measure of our success or progress. But simultaneously the technology market is a major driving force in global markets, which perpetuate cycles of consumption, plus environmental and social degradation. Your art work incorporates very advanced technologies and as such seems to critique this scenario whilst supporting it at the same time. Do you feel that an element of hypocrisy exists in your work, or any art work for that matter, which attempts critique upon its support base?

DE: Yes there is, but at the same time - I feel akin to artists like Mark Pauline, Natalie Jeremijenko, etc. Take away all the artists working with technology - what's left? Technology used for oppressive economic systems, guided missiles, etc. Of course there is science and medicine and industrial uses for technology that are socially responsible, but I feel that art balances the irresponsible uses and provides a 'social negative feedback' into our social structures. But yeah, I feel some hypocrisy time to time. I did when I used to paint too - all of those toxic chemicals, and even worse, the toxic paint that was scraped off my palette into the studio trash can. I guess in the long run, you just hope for a message that can propagate enough awareness to offset these cycles of consumption.

DL: You see your work as providing negative feedback to the technology market, but based upon the pace with which this market grows and advances, do you see your art work as having a relatively short life span relevant only to the time frame of its is production? Or how do you see it functioning once the technologies from which it is constructed become obsolete or at least no longer cutting edge?

DE: I suppose they will be short lived, but overall, I think works that question authority/control/manipulation are timeless. But everything inevitably passes from current vitality, into historical marker (if the signal is powerful and important enough).

DL: You mentioned the need to "start paying attention to other values besides economics," and that our problem is that of "awareness." Here I agree that technology is not the problem and that it offers society an efficiency. Within the sustainability discourse topics are thought of as having multiple stake holders, these can be ecosystems, the business community, a specific species, or a community that inhabits an area... and so on. Do you see SWAMP's s supply of negative feedback as representing these other stake holders, besides the business community, and their interests in the technology market?

DE: That is a great question, with which a work in progress provides an answer to. Spore 2.07 is a follow up to Spore 1.1. Here, the negotiated territory between technology, environment and organism is directed towards the benefit of non-human life-forms. I don' t know how much scientifically documentable evidence will result, but on a conceptual level, the redirection of 802.11 signals (provided for the convenience of Starbucks customers - a marketing lure) will enable the release of essential nutrients (water and sugar) for other organisms to feed upon. Its basically a question of weather the newer 'invisible' elements in the environment, such as wireless/television and radio signals, can be (if they aren't already) a part of a new set of conditions for generating unknown biological results.

Throughout the process of this interview, technology mediated our communication. The interview was a dialogue conducted and constructed through e-mail exchange. The very structure of e-mail allowed Easterly and I to communicate over a great distance, but simultaneously restricted the amount of personal interaction between the two of us. As the interviewer, I was never confronted by his voice. I never experienced Easterly's emotions, sentiments or ideas carried by his words. His voice remains unknown to my senses other than through his typed responses. The type of flow and spontaneous change of direction that occurs in personal conversation was limited by our e-mail interview. Each of us was given time to respond, and hence had more time for more considerational endeavours proposed. This is much different than the spontaneity of response in a direct contact-real time situation, as such I would send out a batch of questions and then later receive a batch of responses. I am not denying that there is a flow to our digital conversation, I am simply pointing out that technology has influenced the way and form of our conversation.

I agree with Douglas Easterly/SWAMP's view that technology itself is not "evil" or the problem. That technology by itself does not create environmental and social degradation. It is rather the way in which technology has become so ubiquitous in everyday life that it is infrequently placed under scrutiny or seldom challenged. This becomes integral when viewing SWAMP's works. Does the viewer become absorbed in the awe and hype of the advanced technologies used in the production of their works or is the viewer aware of the critique that is present? SWAMP's ability to provide effective negative feedback to the present systems of society and society itself, depends upon the viewers ability to decode these critiques and not become wrapped up in the technology that comprises their work.

Footnotes:
7 SWAMP, Studies of Work Atmosphers and Mass Production, April 4th, 2005, "Equipped with a small wifi detection board, solar panel, water, sugar and electrically controlled valve, all encased in a latex cast body, Spore 2.0 will be installed near a 'wifi hotspot' in an urban setting. Its main purpose is to act as a transmission, converting a 'wifi hotspot' into a veritable Fertile Crescent. Wifi signal strength will determine the actuation of a miniature valve, creating dispersment intervals of a sugar-water solution onto the architecture upon which Spore 2.0 is mounted. Redirecting the planned utility function of wireless internet access through feeding of microorganisms creates a nice symmetry: humans, protozoans, fungi and perhaps a stray cat - all consume together from the same trough."