The end of the future. An interview with James Bridle

James Bridle is one of the most attentive observers of the technological drift in which we find ourselves immersed. Beginning with the observation that we are experiencing the greatest transformation of our informative, occupational and relational environment since the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg (circa 1439), Bridle states that the problem of living in the midst of a revolution is that it is impossible to have a long-term vision of what is going on. Our era is a dark period, dominated by the passage from a form of technology that makes the world easier to understand to a mainly digital sphere that sees the web not as a public space, a place for collective and communicative action, but that much more closely resembles a private economy governed by unclear rules.

“An out-of-control economic system that immiserates many and continues to widen the gap between rich and poor; the collapse of political and societal consensus across the globe resulting in increasing nationalisms, social divisions, which existentially threaten us all”, begins Bridle. “Across the sciences and society, in politics and education, in warfare and commerce, new technologies do not merely augment our abilities, but actively shape and direct them, for better and for worse. It is increasingly necessary to be able to think new technologies in different ways, and to be critical of them, in order to meaningfully participate in that shaping and directing. This is the point at which my new book comes in. It is the result of the desire to try and investigate the complexity of new technology”, states the English artist.

Marco Petroni: James, yours is an invitation for awareness and knowledge. What are the strategies to be brought into play?
James Bridle: I am mainly interested in increasing everyone’s literacy in terms of online technologies, and with this process, I aim to highlight how one can create the opportunity for everyone to interact with said technologies and therefore participate in their design and their effects. In order for this to take place, we need to profoundly reform technological education, in order to teach both basic computing skills and the engineering of more complex systems, shifting focus towards the ethics and the consequences of these traditionally “apolitical” disciplines. This process of rethinking also requires a concerted effort to create a population that is much more diversified in its use of technology. Users and students who are diversified from an economic, social and geographic point of view. Only through these forms of participation can we hope to see more balanced and better distributed results. In the book, you stress that your work is for a wide-ranging audience. “The work that needs to be done can be compared to plumbing, but we need to bear in mind the needs of non-plumbers at all stages: the need to understand and the need to live even when we don’t always understand. What is needed is not new technology, but new metaphors” Could you clarify what you mean by new language?
I think there is an enormous opportunity for a new type of design, which instead of trying to render experiences easier for users focuses on rendering their experiences more educational. It is now clear that too often technology renders us passive through processes that are not examined in a critical manner and that tend to escape all opportunities to be questioned. This is the superficial world of overly easy interaction and it is here that the mass-manipulation that we find ourselves immersed in comes into play. I am convinced that we need to work to make technology more inclusive by setting up processes that lead users to make more effort, to better understand systems and to be able to do more, above all to be able to make better choices for their sociability and their relational sphere. This is a new way to see technology.

What is clear from your considerations is that there is growing potential, potential that will not necessarily solve all problems but that will allow other things to take place. In a certain sense, the important work to be done is never “finished”, but is constantly being built, adapting or evolving. Do you agree with this idea of something that is within reach? Above all, what do you do to bring together theory and practice?
I think that both options are valid and should be studied. What I try to do with my work is to activate a systemic rather than determinist way of thinking, in other words to examine how we can view these enormous systems that influence every aspect of our lives, rendering them reasonably meaningful, recognising and highlighting their deep-rooted problems. This is possible though the choice of the tools most suited to generating inclusive and transparent practices - in the choice of technologies that are distributed in a peer-to-peer manner rather than centralised, from example. This attitude also brings wider-ranging political questions into play. Your book seems to express the idea that design is always a political act as it is a performative condition that profoundly concerns choices and possibilities. Have I misunderstood your message?
Not at all, the political sphere has a lot to do with the world of design. If we look at the state of design, we realise how this discipline must be embodied in hybrid, physical and virtual environments in evolving society. This role for design requires new theoretical references and new areas of research that examine the problematic areas of our contemporary world. Designers often lack the necessary understanding, and design schools do not teach their students these themes regarding the complexity of human and social behaviour.

Opening picture: James Bridle, “A Flag for No Nations”, 2016, Ellinikon, Greece. Site-specific installation, branch, mylar blanket. Photo Courtesy the artist / https://booktwo.org/notebook/a-flag-for-no-nations/