Interview with Geert Lovink by Jan-Peter Wulf
For the German trend newsletter Node (May 21, 2008)
URL: http://www.viacombrandsolutions.de/de/research/nodes/index.html
Node: Your term “zero comments” hints at the phenomenon that, besides the A-list blogs like the Huffington Post, most blogging is simply noise, not read at all, let alone commented. So, is blogging a self-referential thing, then? Do you think we have arrived in the age of pure “data”, production of signs without reference, without meaning, as Baudrillard put it? You mentioned somewhere that “the course of humankind is bound for irrelevance.”
Geert Lovink: For individual bloggers their postings are of course meaningful. And if they provide links to news events, friends and other websites these blogs are not ‘monades’ (an object lacking any link to the outside world) and do contain a number of self-made references. Most bloggers would not have a problem with the term self-referential as they are personal and not ambitious. Blogs are a way to organize your own online presence. It is electronic existentialism. It says: he, people, I exist. They are identity machines. More and more blogs are being integrated into social networking sites like Facebook, StudiVZ, Skyrock, Orkut, Hyves and Bebo (depending on what country you live in). In the end, a blog is nothing more than a homepage with some personal data on it. The group that intensely blogs is tiny and the group that can make a living of it is even smaller. Popular blogs often report about the tech world itself and the turbulent world of A-bloggers and their constant opinion flows.
It is true that the centralized media of the 20th century such as film, print and television for the first time face a competition from strictly personal platforms that do not claim to be relevant for everyone. The main technical reason for this is the ‘recordability’ of ordinary conversations. There is an abundance of digital storage capacity that enables us to record any situation. We do not only post pictures online but even map our social life. We write diaries of our holidays and keep track what our pets are doing. There are traces of every phone call we make, every website we visit. On a technical level our everyday communication is colliding with the broadcasting media that, through YouTube, also enters the Internet. The multiple way in which music accompanies our lives is a good example. Music no longer comes to us only through radio wave, or live, but we carry entire record collections around with us in our pockets, download a few more songs and podcasts, and then share those with our friends. This multi-directional behavior slowly undermines centralized meaning production, and common experiences. And perhaps this is where the sentiment you raised in your question comes from. There is an anxiety amongst those in power, the 68 baby boomers, that the Internet generation, can longer be steered and guided because of permanent multiplicity of experiences and impression they are under. Of course, the ‘Dumbest Generation’ has a different take on this.
N: Do you think that blogging, as we observe it nowadays, is a temporary media phenomenon, fading away sooner or later, such as cyberspace used to or the soon-to-be deserted Second Life? What’s next?
GL: The fact that the blog population, and their related RSS-feeds, particularly on a global level, still grow, tells us something about the apparent need for such easy-to-use self-publishing software. The demand for this will, most certainly, not fade away. The question is rather whether the next generation of online applications will be called blogs. Most certainly not. It’s an ugly word anyway. If we have to believe trend watchers already in 2005 blogs had past their due-by date. As Nicolas Carr describes in his book The Big Switch, we will see a spectacular growth of server farms. The future of online publishing will happen inside these data centres. This means no longer decentralized hosting and consequently less choices in terms of interface design. The increased concentration of Internet infrastructure also means the concentration in power in few hands. The predictable surveillance of our everyday life by Google , in close collaboration with police and secret services, might trigger a backlash against big players in the social media market. A growing group will turn their backs to networked communication altogether, while another group will work on independent alternatives. However, we should take into a account that the vast majority of users will simply not have the economic means, creativity and imagination to escape the controlled commercial environments. If you’re trying to survive in Asia, where most of new Internet users are living, and work hard to improve the living standard of you and your family, cheap communication is essential. The global working class will be the main victim of these centralized digital services—and that of course includes free blog sites.
N: Norbert Bolz claims that current blogging approaches or imitates a new form of broadcasting: If you’re a very big blog, you necessarily have to act like a broadcaster since you have an audience and you simply cannot reply to every comment or remark given to your “messages”. So, will the concept of broadcasting survive in the end, since you doubt that the top-down concept is “really on its way out”?
GL: Bolz is right, but this only counts for a handful of so-called A-list bloggers. They are indeed ‘broadcasting’ into the blogosphere. This is even more demanding compared to the busy life of a television or film celebrity as the bloggers also has to manage the responses to the postings. Even famous bloggers are out if they stop replying to the input of their readership. To Norbert Bolz I would say that is not important to answer each and every comment. What counts is the visible evidence that you are online, out there, responding to blog postings you just read and track the relevant news sites. Much like traditional media, what counts is time management. The best bloggers respond in real-time to news and events. The kick of blogging as a lifestyle is the 24/7 feeling of constant input and feedback. Thousands instantaneously read your blog entry. It’s most certainly addictive–and makes you to forget how little money you actually earn for all this online fame.
N: There still are economically strong broadcasting systems. The current media debate in Germany asks whether public broadcasting should be limited in extending into the web in order to fulfil the “Bildungsauftrag”. Can there be such thing as public broadcasting within the new media, does it even have to – or is this debate irrelevant since traditional meaning or information production is facing its decline?
GL: Each and every culture and nation will answer this question in a different way, depending on the tradition of the national media systems and how they emerged throughout the 20th century. Internet is not some media reset button, nor a superior standard that will persevere. Instead of a victory or a smooth convergence we are seeing a variety of economic and political battles, leading to a patchwork of use. Even the ‘cross media’ notion might be to idealistic. What we still see is a lot of parallel use of radio and television, print, Internet and mobile phones.
In the mid 1990s in Holland we tried to define the Internet as a whole as a public space. We did this through projects like xs4all and the Digital City. What artists, activists and cultural institutions, public libraries and universities did online was a form of public broadcasting. We never accepted the radio and television networks monopoly claim on the term public. I understand that there’s a lot at stake in Germany as public broadcasters such as ZDF and ARD have huge archives, and high budgets. They are very close to the ruling political class. They also have a terrible lawyer mentality in that they can only think in legalistic terms, as if the police is waiting outside, ready to close them down if you do not obey this or that constitutional rule. The idea that they can also shape future public space is completely alien to them. However, the steady decrease of their audiences will bring them on their knees. At the moment they still look powerful but over time all these issues and anxieties, including copyright, will become irrelevant. The question will not be: TV against Internet but, for instance, the quality of public education—regardless if the pupils of the future will, or will not have access to the TV archives in Mainz. It is a useless to say that the Internet will be the winner and that the arrogant television bosses are the ones that will lose out. Instead of thinking in terms of (institutional) rivalry it might be more interesting to re-invent what ‘public’ could mean for us and so to do trails in which experiment with the different designs of public (cyber)space that are possible. What is freedom of speech in the age of islamophobia? Should all archives be digitized? What are the specific needs in schools?
N: The Dutch broadcasting system is one of the most peculiar ones in the world, based upon units like TROS, VARA or NCRV representing the biggest political, religious or other social groups. How do they deal with the media change and how do they expand to now media such as the internet?
GL: The Dutch broadcasting system is indeed exceptional but I can’t say that it is something to be proud of. Quality has gone down. The relevance within society has gone down, in particular amongst the youth. It is becoming a rarity that people discuss together what they saw last night on television (with the exception of the over 65s, perhaps). The fast growing retirees have time on their hands and they seem to the last steady group that TV marketers can rely on. Yes, there is more experimentation in Dutch radio and TV, compared to Germany. There are in fact many attempts. On the level of opening up archives a lot is happening. Then there are the re-skilling programs to get film and television makers familiar with the interactive online possibilities. And there is a website where you can watch the television program you missed last night (http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/). However, the overall situation is not all that different compared to Germany. The famous television belong to international production companies, there are all sorts of copyright troubles if you put old television documentaries online (think music). And let’s not forget the fibre optic capacity problem. The use of online video has risen dramatically over the past years and will further explode. Public or not, Dutch or German, that is a very real limitation.
N: If one searches the German web for the discussion of media studies/media theory and the web 2.0 phenomenon, results are rather poor. In another interview, you mentioned that the technological development is literally running away from media theory production. So is the entire discipline missing a crucial turn? And even more: will it ever be able to generate tools that might help understanding ongoing media processes and dealing with them in terms of ‘media competence’?
GL: Let’s not create some German Problem here. Germany is a rich high tech country with a dense (cyber)infrastructure. Let me say this. I love Berlin, the German language and the people. I am pro-German, in a country where German bashing over the past decades has reached ridiculous levels—up to the point complete idiocy. I despise this ignorant behavior and publicly apologize for it. Luckily, through the Cool Berlin factor, things are finally changing amongst young people. Nonetheless, the Dutch knowledge of German remains dramatically low. None of my masters students can read a word of German, even though there is a great interest what this ‘German media theory’ is all about. So, this is how I would approach your question. How can German theory, philosophy and literature, one of the greatest in the world, remain rich and critical and full of Eigensinn, while opening itself up to the globalized world? It is important to remain uncontemporary and off-track. I would never advice German thinkers or artists to merely adapt to this or that international standard. That’s not the point and will not work either. In the 1920s it was possible for Germany to be on top, to be in the midst of international networks, while still having a rich culture. What we see now is provincialism and a lack of courage. Most scholars and artists are simply too afraid to deal with the copyright repercussions if they put their own work online. There is also a lack of economic incentive. To put it bluntly: much like in the 1990s the intelligentsia still earns too much money. There is no real need for them to go online and creatively deal with the situation out there. Life is fine as it is, so why bother? And because I am not an evangelist, and do not have sell a product, I believe it’s useless to convince well educated people what the advantage of Internet could. Of course it’s a lost opportunity, in particular for the younger generations. They use email and surf a bit for the necessary information. That’s enough. Because changes don’t come fast in Germany this situation is not likely to improve.
N: You also describe some sort of isolation of current German media theory, lagging behind since it avoids dealing with media in terms of using them for “publishing” apart from genuine academic text production. There´s a funny MIT professor named Walter Lewin who is “giving” courses on YouTube, whilst German media theorists hardly have their books translated into foreign languages. You wonder why leading media philosophers do not have their own blogs but stick with publishing in printed form. So what should media studies and theorists do in order not to fall behind?
GL: As I already said, I do not think in those terms. The world can learn an awful lot of these German philosophers. I deeply respect them, in particular when it comes to their historical knowledge and deep conceptual understanding of the issues. This is what we great miss, here in the Netherlands, but also in most Anglo-Saxon countries, where media is merely seen as a field of practical skill-based knowledge that expires in a few years. What indeed lacks is an anti-bureaucratic attitude amongst German thinkers. They will immediately start to talk about some weird legal problem why they can’t do this or that online. A dissident mentality is completely absent in this realm, and that from critical people that I would never qualify as reactionary or even conformist. Let’s leave it here: it’s a different culture and over time it’s not very relevant either. What the world needs is English translations of all these brilliant German media theory/philosophy that exists. What Germany needs is a translation fund, not focussed on the classics but on contemporary publications that can act swiftly so that German texts will be taken into account again in the fast-changing international discourse.
We all know that the current culture of stagnation is terrible. Just think of the absurd legal procedures that 1968 rebel-millionaire Jan Philipp Reemtsma started in 2002 against Sebastian Luetgert, the founder of textz.com, for putting a few Adorno texts online (http://textz.com/adorno/open_letter.txt). Apart from the question if Reemtsma’s copyright were still valid, these invaluable text belong in the public domain! Ironically it will now be up to Google to parts of the legacy of the Frankfurt School available online, through their Book Search program, in which they are planning to scan all books of the world—and profit from the adds as we look at them. It is so sad that most members of the German intelligentsia do not see the urgency to act here and instead make the lives of each other as hard as possible through a crippling competition over dwindling educational resources. Again, for younger generations this is different, but we all have to witness how, in particular, young scholar, are conforming to odd, ancient rules in order to get a publication or a job here and there. The way out here would not be to convince Friedrich Kittler to put his lectures on YouTube (he’s retiring anyway). Instead, it would be much more interesting to open source and free software initiatives happening so that both students and professors are empowered to rule over their own tools and decide for themselves where and how they disseminate their ideas.