Art journal Special Issue: “Contemporary Art and the Genetic Code” ed. by Ellen K. Levy, Berta M. Sichel (review)

early 1980scarried out excellent work on information and communications technologies, and related social issues.) The EC is the worldwide representative of the EU and monitors the application of Community law and treaties. It also makes proposals towards new policydetailed in CyberspaceReflections. It is no secret that European governments and financial and business organizations depend on the U.S.A. for country creditworthiness surveys:it is a Wall Street duopoly that informs us in Europe on who is creditworthy around the world-and in cyberspace. The authors are right to report that “unlike with Europe, cyberspace is an accepted concept in the US., and that the societal implications of it are discussed very profoundly.” I cannot but nod in agreement , but also add: not as profound4 as necessary, not as soon as it was possible, and not driven by a vision that doesn’t avoid Social exclusion. What the authors repeatedly are wishing for are appropriate policies “which should aim at designing, setting defaults and frameworks for the future .” Unfortunately, again we are not given examples from the EC’s own activity . I’ll give you one, from a 1994 Brussels meeting (10-11 October), where the assigned study “Euro-ISDN, Social and Societal Impacts”was presented [13. Surprisingly, there was no policy parameter included. I raised the issue and got no satisfactory answer. Nor do the authors provide us with an example of a relevant policy now or in the past. 1’11stick to the long sequence of UNESCO studies in the late 1970s and the UNESCO MacBride report itself . Although at the time it wasn’t called “APolicyfor Cyberspace’’but “A New World Information and Communications Order,”it posited that by today we would not only have our Internet Multiple User Dungeons (MUDS),but we would have vision, too. However, the United States government at the time, seeing the danger of losing control of planetary communications to a United Nations organization with a strong Third World presence, pulled out of UNESCO-taking its funding along with it and thus producing the expected operationalvacuum, of terminal impact on UNESCO itself. Had all of this not happened, the world would be a better place now, if only because at the time there were far fewer complex vested interests than there are today. The authors are right to claim that “cyberspaceis neither a marketplace nor a service area.” But they are wrong in blaming it all on the marketplace. Is it not true that protective systems at best see the future in terms of the present? Of course we want a societyfor people and not for economic indices. But how many state monopolies can repeat this and keep a straight face?An example: I was discussing the case of a major European citywith a representative of the Belgian national telecom operator (now partly deregulated, after failed efforts to act as an oligopoly). “Wedon’t need a Teleport there,”he had insisted, much to my dismay, “but, if a Teleport is to be had, then we will be the ones to do it.” And we must not forget that “social exclusion” is not a new phenomenon, it is only a new term: anyone who has tried to innovate in a protective system has suffered the consequences. Those living in the remote human settlements of the Aegean Polynesia (part of the EU, no less) know it. They were and remain sociallyexcluded, for the lack of an appropriate telecommunications policy. The centralized government attitude could afford to dismiss my 1982 proposal for a “Universityof the Aegean as an Electronic Interconnection .” It was evaluated as possible “for the year 2015,”and the universitywas consequently planned in the traditional form of a university today; it is now making only timid networking efforts. Reflecting on cyberspace, the authors put too much emphasis on technology and too little on physical space and European lifestyles.Wouldn’t current lifestyles have to lead to the invention of telecommunications if they weren’t already in place and lately merging with informatics and broadcasting? And how can we ignore built space and behavior in it, especiallywhen researching virtual space? Can we not sum up our social concerns as whether cyberspace will become a...