For five years, Randall Packer found himself "in the midst of the greatest of all spectacles, the most ostentatious of all theatrical sets, the backdrop for America,"1 Washington DC. Since his move, this composer, artist, scholar, and published writer, has been subverting the political systems in Washington, the "platform upon which the nation's values are celebrated."2 As Assistant Professor of multimedia at the American University, Packer has established international recognition in new media arts. His work, dealing with the infiltration of political systems, is profoundly critical as well as whimsical.

To get a good understanding of Packer's work, it is useful to examine his website, US Department of Art and Technology (US DAT). When comparing US Government websites to Packer's US DAT website, it is immediately apparent that the US DAT does not look like a professionally designed website. A US Department website spear much more graphically succinct than Packers. Take, for example, the homepage of George W. Bush, www.georgewbush.com, or any related government page, and you will see cohesive graphic design, well designed logos, colour schemes and easily readable fonts residing successfully in tandem with the page.

In Packer's "Hacked, Tracked, and now owned by the secretary-at-large" website, in contrast to their official counterpart government sit, offers variable details that denote something is astray. Digital graffiti marks his site followed by inconsistent font changes, an anachronistic image of a skull superimposed over the 'original' US Department of Art and Technologylogo. This appropriated design begins to resemble ad-hoc constructions of computer hackers occupying a website under limited time constraints.

What is Packer trying to do? His fictitious department is his own creation. Are his intentions by offering this site to the public to effect political change, or is he using subversion as his leitmotif as a contemporary artist? On the US DAT, his February 3, 2005 video piece, State of the Union [The Fateful Embrace] depicts slowed video motions as the work titles suggest the Union of Address. However, Packer's version is played with operatic music and accompanying subtitles describe a gentle and compassionate President whereas the video image depicts a dramatic and animated President. The montage of music and titles deify the president in a disturbingly ironic way.

Throughout Packer's site, he utilizes a complication of images and 'real' events to deconstruct and provide his Department of Art and Technology. Is Randall Packer merely appropriating the banner of politics as a lynchpin for more esoteric purposes? Packer has executed a clever appropriation by posing as a fictitious, operated government agency in the US and as such his undercurrents of political bias saturated this site. Perhaps Packer's ideas are best examined in contrast to the words of artist Felix Gonzales-Torres

… aesthetics are politics. They're not even about politics, they are politics. Because when you ask who is defining aesthetics, at that particular point - what social class, what kind of background these people have - you realize quickly again that the most effective ideological construction are the ones that don't look like it. If you say, I'm political, I'm ideological, that is not going to work, because people know where you are coming from. But if you say, "Hi, My name is Bob and this is it," then they say, that's not political. It's invisible and it really works... We don't need a gallery space to find out something we read in the news."3

Felix Gonzales-Torres believed the success of a political artist was relational to reducing the voice of the political penchant to a small whisper whereas Randall Packer uses international exposure to bare his overt political penchant. Packer's work often takes form of political opposition; agitprop complete with legitimate issues concerning many armchair revolutionaries and socially conscious groups. Although Randall Packer, provocateur, anarchistic government guerrilla, succinct social critic, isn't out to make sweeping government reforms, nor is he attempting to woo the masses into revolution. The artist infiltrating his own grounds, using his passion for media and information technology as his modus operandi for exhibition delivery and commentary.

Since political art is controversial, Packer realises his role as a professor isn't without bias. "Everything you teach students is political. Not talking about the Bush regime makes you complicit" after all "If you do not have freedom of expression in academia, where do you have it? Are there any spaces left that allow for it?" 4 Packer solidifies his political stance through his work by placing himself right in the spotlight and the centre of the debate.

Packer believes in the power of "the artist as a medium for dialogue and critique."5 It is when lines of communication become distorted, intentions unclear, that the system of communication becomes ineffective. Packer's work is solidifying communication between groups of socially conscious and politically aware artists. Just examining the "staff" lists of artists-revolutionaries related links on Packer's US DAT website attest to his promotion of artist revolutionaries 'employed' in his department. Could this be the first step in creating a concrete platform of the arts? Is Packer making international connections stronger between media artists worldwide to create a semblance of an assimilated disorder?

Footnotes:
1 Ryan Griffiths, interview with Randall Packer US DEpartment of Art and Technology. Online. Spring 2004
2 Brad Harris & Sue Damen, interview with Randal Packer. Spring 2005
3 Robert Storr, interview with Felix Gonzales-Torres, Entre un Espion. ArtPress, January 1995
4 Trevor Scholz, interview with Randall Packer. The Future of Academic Freedon. Online. March 28, 2005. <http://www.newmediaeducation.org>
5 Brad Harris & Sue Damen