In his inaugural lecture, Falk Hübner sets an ambitious goal for artistic connective practices to have “clear values, and an agenda of learning, positive change, and sustainability” (Hübner, 2022, p. 26). I wish to propose that this might include a new form of aesthetic literacy revolving around procedure.
The concept of literacy has evolved since the 1950’s beyond merely reading and writing, to the ability to find, interpret, and produce meaning within a semiotic system. Game Studies scholar Ian Bogost expanded the concept of ‘procedural literacy’ beyond its original definition of understanding computer code to “the ability to reconfigure basic concepts and rules to understand and solve problems” (Bogost, 2010, p. 233), and notes that this can be done through the act of play itself. Nguyen further suggests that because agential artforms record specific prescriptions, rules, and goals, they contribute to a ‘library of agencies’ or even ‘library of socialities’ that are:
“a particularly useful tool for the collaborative social enterprise of enhancing our autonomy, together. They are a way to harness the inventiveness of great numbers of people, and to make the development of our agencies into a collaborative and social project” (2020, p. 98)
I would add that a literacy derived from time spent exploring new forms of agency in the ‘magic circle’ requires the ability to immerse and operate within an illusory environment while simultaneously using it as a tool for insight about larger societal issues. Practically, this would mean developing criticality about where procedures point to transferrable truths, and where artists and designers have chosen to alter them (and to what effect this has been done).
This sort of literacy becomes more urgent as we consider some of the connective procedures that confront us in day-to-day life. Just as there are many examples of participation that do not follow the values espoused by the participatory artistic community, there are also many attempts to co-opt ‘connection’ as a tool for profit. One prominent example is Facebook. In 2018, Andrew Hunter, the head of Facebook Australia, gave an interview about a new feature on the platform that would allow people to connect with each other in a more meaningful way. He states, “One of the ways people connect is by sharing news. Observing, comprehending and discussing a common set of stories each day helps us understand the world” (Mediaweek, 2018). He goes on to say that this especially applies to the ability to comment on news items that appeal to peoples’ values and identities.
Hunter was referring to a pilot program that would allow big news agencies to add breaking news tags in order to gain prominence in users’ news feeds. And while stating that the motivation for this was ‘connecting people’, he later went on to reveal the core values behind this move were purely profit, and consisted of allowing Australian publishers to monetize their content, helping them to create long term value through the Facebook audience, and extending their TV and website sponsorships to the platform (Mediaweek, 2018).
Mere seconds in a Facebook news comment thread will likely dissuade anyone from the notion that it is ‘connecting people in a meaningful way.’ This is also easily discovered by a casual analysis of Facebook’s procedures. There is no incentive for listening nor is there a moderator to ensure respectful exchange. Instead, the number of ‘reactions’ (both positive and negative) plays a large role in determining what is made visible to users, thereby incentivizing emotionally charged content and responses to that content. Additionally, a quick visit to the side menu offers users the choice to block content with which they disagree, cutting off the possibility of actual exchange. I use this example not to target Facebook specifically, but rather to emphasize the importance of procedures and core values in connective practices.
This brings me back to Hübner’s inaugural lecture, and the assertion that within the concept of ‘connectivity’ is an “urgency for shared understanding” (Hübner, 2022, p. 26). Indeed, what Hübner and his team have done in their initial definition of ‘artistic connective practices’ has already staked a new claim on the term ‘connectivity’, wresting it back from its increasingly neoliberal applications. Hübner and his team deliberately place normative qualifications like respect, mutual benefit, and equal footing within ‘artistic connectivity’, extending beyond the mere fact of connection in order to emphasize the importance of the act of connection, including how the procedures of an artistic piece express societal values. This is why expanded literacy in the area of aesthetic procedure will be beneficial when discussing what constitutes an ‘artistic connective practice’.
