The intermingling of art and technology comes up as a topic quite regularly, both in the global and local art worlds. In Latvia there are a few artistic and emerging media organisations, RIXC and MPlab, to name just a couple, for whom this is the main field of interest, albeit in different ways. From January 2022 we can add a new member to this list, the Riga Technoculture Research Unit (RTRU)[1], ‘[p]art research journal, part art and writing publisher, part hub for developments in emerging media’ that ‘brings an interdisciplinary and technicity-centred approach to the status quo of contemporary art programming’. Run by the Kim? Contemporary Art Centre and co-curated by Elizaveta Shneyderman, who is based in New York, and Zane Onckule from Riga, the project has so far found actualisations both in an online environment and in physicality, with the first season of RTRU culminating in the exhibition ‘Betweenness: Technoculture and the Baltics’ on display at Kim?.
The name of the exhibition is taken from one of the displayed pieces, Oliver Laric’s animated work Betweenness. It perfectly encapsulates some of the keywords and phrases that could frame what the exhibition is about: processuality, flux, change, interconnectedness, posthuman approaches to the relationship between people and nature, and symbiosis. When coupled with the motif of technology, particularly in the sense of how embedded it is in existence and in the contemporary condition, thus partly explaining the term ‘technoculture’, and with a sprinkling of a Baltic context, we can see that the scope of the exhibition is quite large. Likewise, participants explore it in a myriad of ways, genres and media that do not easily allow for general categorisation. The works range from object-based installations (Dzirnieks, Albiņš and Vasiļjeva) and kinetic art (Celms) to a collection of historical posters from the VEF factory, a variation on the capabilities of AI (Ramič), and more. In sum, ‘Betweenness: Technoculture and the Baltics’ is diverse and complex. For the sake of convenience and structure, I will touch on the three notions highlighted in this paragraph, and to an extent alluded to in the name: (1) processuality, (2) technology and technoculture, and (3) the Baltic context.
Exhibition ‘Betweenness: Technoculture and the Baltics’ at Kim?, 2023. Photo: Ansis Starks
Exhibition ‘Betweenness: Technoculture and the Baltics’ at Kim?, 2023. Photo: Ansis Starks
Firstly, although I have my philosophical reservations about the validity of processual ontology as a theory of reality (mainly because I identify with different systems of thought that prioritise objects over events), the position is presented well. For example, the objects made by Evita Vasiļjeva displayed in the first room capture the aesthetic charm of things in a state of betweenness, whereas the creations of Uģis Albiņš further on in the art space show the non-fixed nature of objects and the possibilities of spontaneity in determining their function. Processuality fits well in the conceptual landscape of today, where multiple movements debate and offer new ways to conceptualise the world. There are multiple reasons for this, but I can imagine that one of the explanations why such metaphysical matters resonate on the contemporary art scene as much as they do could be because of ethical and environmental concerns. If we shift our view from substances to processes, and from being to becoming, it has implications not only in the way we understand the world, but also in the way we inhabit and cohabit it.
Secondly, what is technoculture, and how does RTRU understand technology? The obvious answer to the first part of the question is that it is a combination of technology and culture, and, sure enough, the exhibition’s description agrees that the term refers to the interactions between the two, while adding that it also considers the politics of these processes. Moreover, I cannot help but make an analogy with a similar synthesis of notions in contemporary thought, natureculture, as presented by Donna Haraway.[2] Following this thread, the concept of technoculture would also feature a striving to erase a supposed dualism between the two parts of the compound, showing that they are always intertwined. RTRU seems to support this claim by revealing what they call elsewhere[3] their central premise: ‘[A]rt and emerging media don’t pre-exist culture, but rather emerge from it.’ Yet here I wonder what the implicit definition of culture in this premise is, so that culture is not understood as the primary category that encapsulates and gives rise to art and emerging media, as well as the tools to their understanding. Can it even be the other way round? Does RTRU truly think differently than the mainstream?
Be that as it may, one could say that ‘Betweenness’ searches for ways to even conceptualise and talk about technoculture in order to give the notion at least some kind of stable footing. But I feel the only way to make sense of the exhibition is if technology is understood as technoculture in all cases, for I am not sure there is a non-cultural piece of technology. Additionally, technology should be interpreted in a broad sense, so that everything from theatre puppets (Tarwuk) to projections (Kasearu) and holograms (Narkevičius) can be subsumed under the umbrella term. Other than that, it is difficult to delve into the particularities of how every piece of technology here works, and what questions the artworks pose. The descriptions are the main reason for this: for the most part, saturated and complex notions are not even briefly explained or defined, and the texts often reference theories that need prerequisite knowledge in different fields for a non-superficial viewing. I suppose a Heideggerian idea could give some peace of mind: we constantly live with pieces of technology ready-to-hand, and do not really give much thought as to how they work. [4] In other words, although I am not sure this is a great excuse, maybe it does not matter much that the contents of ‘Betweenness’ are difficult to grasp, if that is the nature of many things around us?
Yet there is a further complexity, which I feel reveals a fundamental problem with the exhibition, and, more broadly, with the project of RTRU in general. This brings me to my third point: the Baltic context. As the website states[5]: ‘RTRU emphasises a focus on the particular localities of Riga, Latvia, the Baltics, and New York City, USA, as well as the historical and cultural perspectives immanent to them.’ Nevertheless, a simple empirical constatation presents a problem: the texts in Latvian (artwork descriptions, curatorial notes, website content) are of poor quality.
Exhibition ‘Betweenness: Technoculture and the Baltics’ at Kim?, 2023. Photo: Ansis Starks
If the composition of words just felt awkward at times, and there were some spelling mistakes and odd changes in the sentence order, then, while all of this is true, and a more thorough reading and spellcheck is always necessary, it would not be much of an issue. What I find most troubling is that, firstly, rather important parts of the artwork descriptions are either problematically transformed (for example, Ramič’s referenced research paper is turned into a series of words, thus losing the citation), or disappear completely (like a valuable sentence in Albiņš’ text that highlights the polemic with deconstructivist architecture). And secondly, and most importantly, crucial terms that appear across multiple materials (‘soft technologies’, ‘agency’, ‘disenchantment’, ‘spectacle’, and others) are translated incorrectly and misleadingly. This leads to the concern that artworks and RTRU’s supposedly distinctive position could also be misunderstood, because it seems realistic that most would look for guidance in the texts provided, particularly those in their native tongue.
This could be problematised further if we recall the popular centre-periphery distinction. That is, one could ask what the reason for this cursory translation is. Even if it is an honest mistake, then it still shows that someone was unwilling to invest the time and effort to bother proofreading the text or consult about more precise reproductions of complex notions. Is it because Latvia is a more peripheral region, with a language that does not come close to other linguae francae of art and research, particularly English, where the focus on precision is placed? Sure, it is not easy to apply theoretical frameworks and terminologies to foreign contexts and languages; theories often sound awkward, and it is not always possible to encapsulate the meaning perfectly. But the pretence of RTRU also being a research project only hardens the blow: even if none of this was intentional, it is still disappointing to see what can be read as a disregard for the local context, and a non-awareness of the local research tradition and experts that could give guidance about important terminological nuances.
Exhibition ‘Betweenness: Technoculture and the Baltics’ at Kim?, 2023. Photo: Ansis Starks
I readily admit that it is not all bad: I was happy to see that some passages in the Latvian translation were freed from their terminological complexity and made more understandable, possibly precisely because of the contrasting and not so differentiated research context. ‘Betweenness’ does not necessarily make the following mistake, but it is important not to get arrogant and too struck on saturated terms that make the reader feel confused. Sadly, theory-versed exhibitions sometimes tend to fall into this trap. Exhibition spaces are probably visited by more people than research platforms, and the crowd is also more diverse, which adds an extra level of responsibility for artists and curators. And this begs the question: who is the intended visitor to ‘Betweenness’?
Although the general idea of progress is somewhat disputed nowadays, I hope that the next instalments and works coming from RTRU (which I look forward to with excitement) will ponder this question and be both more accessible theoretically and more mindful of the local context that they themselves consider important. Other than that, good wishes for a new art and research platform are in order. If one of its goals is to put ‘the status quo of contemporary art programming’ up for debate, then it looks as if it has been achieved in this comment as well.
Photo reportage from the exhibition ‘Betweenness: Technoculture and the Baltics’ at Kim?
[2] See: Malone N., Ovenden K. Natureculture // The International Encyclopedia of Primatology. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119179313.wbprim0135
[3] https://www.rtru.org/under-the-hood/curatorial-note
[4] Heidegger differentiates two attitudes towards things in the world: ready-to-hand and present-at-hand. The former is an ordinary interaction with tools and objects due to which they merge with our being and the facts of their existence are withheld in the background. In contrast, the latter attitude is precisely the way in which we encounter objects in their bare facticity.
