“The Committee of Public Safety (Comité de salut public), created in April 1793 by the National Convention and then restructured July 1793, formed the de facto executive government of France during the Reign of Terror (1793-1794), a stage of the French Revolution. Under war conditions and with national survival seemingly at stake, the Jacobins, under Maximilien Robespierre, centralised denunciations, trials, and executions under the supervision of this committee of first nine and later twelve members.

The committee was responsible for thousands of executions, with many high-profile executions at the guillotine, in what was known as the “Reign of Terror”. Frenchmen were executed under the pretext of being a supporter of monarchy or opposing the Revolution. The Committee ceased meeting in 1795. It was set up to organise the defence of France.” (*)

Stockholm, New York, London, etc. 2010.

Boundless mobs of internet-enabled geocitizens cheer, much like the tricoteuses of the French Revolution, as Wikileaks – a sectist Committee of rogue hackers and information apocalyptics, spearheaded by celebrity crypto-rebel Julian Assange, release classified material for public online viewing in an effort to punish the US military for its actions in Afghanistan – with hopes of making the latter withdraw. The release of the stolen documents is justified as to improve transparency in government activities thus leading to reduced corruption, better overall government and stronger democracies.

History, will teach us nothing – is the title of a once performed pop song. Hope as one might that it be not so, the events surrounding the numerous Wikileaks-affairs, unfortunately once again confirm the title rather than dispel it.

But let us return to the The French Revolution for just a moment.

Because it was a bloody, wanton, cruel, unnecessary affair. A painfully clear, object lesson in how badly things can turn out if we strive to change one social system and try to establish a new one while breaking all of the rules at the same time. For some odd reason, it seems that we as human race  need to kill (in a literal sense) whatever was there before to establish something new. There’s some deluded notion that a state has  to go through the Zero Level of Jacobinism, utter treacherous secular fanaticism – to be able to establish a working people’s democracy. We need to commit the worst crimes, to live out all of our taboos, to break anyone and anything in the process. This pattern, this drive, can often be found among the middle classes where there’s an intellectual fashion to propagate the idea that in order to achieve a higher level, we, indeed – need to overthrow all individual rights.

In fact, no one stated it better than the lead slaughterer and mythical figure of the French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre, when he stated that:

“To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is barbarity”

And here’s an interesting parallel. On the surface, there are some striking similarities between the front-men of both aforementioned movements, the French Revolution and what is the debacle of Wikileaks. We cannot be certain that Mr Julian Assange will take any pride in sharing traits with Robespierre, indeed, we cannot be certain he even knew of the man’s existence – but for all intents and purposes – both are, were, very pragmatic. Even relentless, borderline Siberian – and most of all, quite well prepared to manipulate the public in order to achieve personal ends.

But here the kinship between our dubious bureaucrats ends. Because as Robespierre was said to be the incorruptible moralist, displaying an almost uncanny spirit – right up to and including his unfortunate decapitation; his modern counterpart plays the role of liberating, pan-democratic, information-toting hero about as well as a corner lout, leering, mocking the mob that enabled him to rise to power.

The difference between them is in the posture. Robespierre was establishing a framework of morality, even if he in fact was establishing it from that dreaded, horribly zealous, Zero Level. He thoroughly believed that he was an agent for and of the people (even though he displayed terrible selfrighteous traits that in the end – got him executed). He believed that the system of ethics he was setting in place was replacing the old one.

Observing Julian Assange, as he prances through the public relations quagmire that is Modern Global Media – is a tricky task. On the surface, he comes across as a balanced, quiet man. A missionary with a difficult charge. A respected fellow of humanity out on a Quest of Truth and Honour. And indeed. He has captured the hearts and minds of many a citoyen. And until you analyse his cause thoroughly, look at it from a number of perspectives, there’s a ground level attraction there that undeniably calls for an automated blush response of support. People agree simply because they do not find any grounds to disagree, even before they’re obfuscated with the knee jerk political philtre of the Left; that whatever hurts the US, simply must be good business and has to be embraced without asking too many exposing questions.

But as one looks deeper, and even observes Mr Assange personally; ugly things turn up. The flash of anger, quickly subdued. The sneer of the mouth, hastily camouflaged by a smile. And so on. But those are all adventitious – and can be attributed to a man tired of running from the agents of the governments he has angered. What is far worse is that when confronted as to the reasons behind his quest, his response is: Revenge.

Revenge, as anyone standing on decent ethical ground will tell you, is an exceedingly poor motive for action. In almost every case. “Squeeze the bastards”, Mr Assange will sputter in an unguarded moment, deepening the image of himself as rightful crusader of information intelligence.

Revenge, is the key point for analysis of Mr Assange’s actions, and while we shall return to it, it briefly needs to be said that whatever turn the Wikileaks affair will take, few on this planet will ever know the complete truth. Mainly, due to lack of insight. Because truth, is not relative. Truth is absolute. Truth is about counting in all of the right premises and bearing the responsibility for them. And if you have not arrived at truth, then you should restate your premises. If nothing adds up, some of the things you believe; know, even, your premises – are wrong.

In essence, and leaving philosophical arithmetic aside, there is misinformation on both sides of the conflict. A government will absolutely need to be clandestine about some parts of its operation. But as Wikileaks have shown, and contrary to their stated mission goals  – are not above editing material to manipulate the “truth”. This, referring to the video displaying the US operation where a number of people lose their lives.

Certainly, it is an information war going on – that can stress taking sides. And if you happen to be someone, choosing side, or re-evaluating your current position – you might want to ask yourself if you in fact, can handle the truth – and moreover, if you can take a personal responsibility for it. And if the answer to that question is a, truthful, no – then it might well be suggested to look elsewhere for the daily dose of egocentric media salvation.

Helpful phrases such as: “Who would you like to see in charge? And do you really think that war can be avoided even if the information evangelists were to reveal every last single piece of puzzling truth out there?” – might set you on your way towards some enlightenment. However, these are all questions beyond the scope of this brief essay and while certainly being paramount to us on a personal level – these words aim at something else completely.

(Though I strongly suggest that Mr Assange, fellow crusaders and other capricious Company do have a look at Jean Baudrillard’s statement regarding the war on Iraq: “That it doesn’t exist” – and at least try to interpret that through the rotoscopic media lens that they’re very much a part of).

Leaving right’s and wrong’s aside, we can now return to the motive of revenge, that Mr Assange has stated as his credo. Not only should a statement like that ring suspiciously in the ears of the any decent geocitizen, it should be utterly disqualifying were it not for the fact that we live in a time cut off from history, morals and ethics. Julian Assange knows the value of the media and has, up to now, played it well. Though it has for all intents and purposes crippled his organisation, Wikileaks, it is of no apparent concern to him.

Any half-baked terrorist will tell you that the way to a successful act of terror is not to have any targetable leadership. Any number of leaders, or cells rather, should be ready to commit whatever act needs to be done according to the organisation. The invisibility of leaders is what has kept terrorist networks so successfully out of the scope of governments and surveillance. Mr Assange has no need of such hypothesis. Instead, under the very dubious cover story of threats from the US government he has decided to “step forward”, playing the part of media darling to unending crowds of slothful, drooling reporters.

Reporters, that seem to have lost all sense of perspective. Were they still awake and not under fire from the maelstrom of social media citizen-journalism, they should have been able to notice that the last remaining holy grail of the traditional press is… the actual reporting. The ability to send a correspondent to a distant location. The ability to dig for information and put it across, well written and photographed – to the audience. Not as means for revenge, personal ego-time or blog traffic fame. But as a part of The Job.

Alas no. The reporters and media of today seem to be quite content being fed scraps from leaked, nay, stolen (why not call things by their rightful name?) documents that are advertised as war-ending but might well start a bloodshed of their own once the Taliban start to figure things out for themselves. That might, however, take some time – bearing in mind the scale of Taliban ability for reason and analysis. They do however score top marks for persistence. So we might see it happen yet.

Thus, being thoroughly let down by the Media who sponge any source possible, lacking their own merit (some social media shamans as well as a number of ill-advised reporters have even been scribbling contrived models for “the future of journalism” – which might just be the end of both coteries, if we’re lucky enough) – the last gate keeper of ethics would then be the audience itself.

Again, we’re let down rather badly. The Uniform cry of the geocitizen, the daft social media sheep herd, rallies alongside Mr Assange in the quest for “liberating information” – a theme that is as naive as it is improper in itself – and those who are against seem to act simple agents of the opposition, high on disinformation and whatever conspiracy theories are, on an hourly basis, served up by “secret” online forums. There simply seems to be no moderate, balanced, reasonable voice at all. Well, perhaps save this one.

All through this twisted vaudeville, we can imagine Mr Assange to rather find the whole affair pleasant. Propelled to internet famedom and then recently on to becoming the Global Media Mascot of 2010, it is probably a much more enjoyable life than that of the petty hacker and science journalist-nobody in the backwater of Terran consciousness that he used to have. Even if it does entail not really having a home and being fashionably on the run. Who needs a home anyway when you’re playing the part of People’s Hero, Julian Bond?

At least, he was enjoying himself, presumably thoroughly, until two Swedish women recently decided to contact the authorities with rape accusations as People’s Media Liberation Hero presumably rubbed them the wrong way. Or failed to understand the concept of “no more sex, thank you”. A nasty accusation indeed, that would tarnish the reputation of any self proclaimed egotistic PR-maniac, for sure. While said accusations and warrant of arrest were in fact retracted briefly after the matter being publicly reported, the official investigation is still pending a resolve. Needless to say, being an untiring, bold, information crusader clearly is no obstacle if one feels the need to take some time off for casual serial fornication with Swedish females.

Incidentally, when asked to respond to the rape spectacle, Mr Assange is very diligent in protecting his own private life, stating that whatever has taken place is between him and the females involved. How very trite. So, all of the sudden privacy is of the essence, then? Furthermore, confronted as to the identity of the two women – he responds that as they’re not stated by name in the media, he has no clue as to who they are. Which, frankly is not good news. Because either Mr Assange suffers from severe memory loss – or – he’s fornicated with so many a female in the past week that he’s simply discarded the pair.

While we shan’t procrastinate on exactly why two women simultaneously would choose to publicly accuse Mr Assange of that shameful act of rape – or what that, n.b, might tell us of his sexual prowess, mana, and skills of bedroom persuasion – but it does bring a rather interesting idea to mind: What would happen, for instance, if the results from the police investigation and the two girls accounts were publicly “leaked”? What would happen if the true identity of Mr Assange were known? Medical flaws, sexual preferences and toe nail discolouring included? Would it be right? Would it be just? Would it be fair? Would it be beautiful? Would the Mob still cheer happily on? (Of course they would). The first person to start www.julianassangeleaks.com gets a cookie.

Meanwhile, in the Old World, striving for personal motives on the backs of others is very unbecoming to a Hero.

There really is no need to point out any further flaws in Mr Assange’s character or ability to carry himself. Clearly, like any other human being, he enjoys the benefits of being a Media Rock Star. The groupies (albeit partly unwilling ones), the travels – and the fame. And clearly, he is a man desperately out of his depth.

Julian Assange is however – in all essence, not the real culprit.

The Mob and the Media is to blame for this fiasco of human thought. For this sad theatre of human forgetfulness. The former is a guilty of not thinking at all – and the latter for not thinking enough.

The 10th of June, 1794.

Robespierre has supported and helped pass the The Law of 22 Prairial, also known as the loi de la Grande Terreur; letting slip further, sickening, random justice on the people of France. 22 Pririal simplified the judicial process to one of indictment and prosecution. It limited the ability of the accused to defend themselves, broadening the scope of those who might be brought within to scrutiny of revolutionary justice. The penalty for all offences under the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Tribunal was death.

Julian Assange founded Wikileaks to help a similar event take form, some two hundred years later. Passing designless justice, leaping to conclusions and publicly flaying individuals at a whim by way of the Internet.

Robespierre was subsequently executed for his crimes, at the hands of his own peers. What fate awaits Assange, if he continues on the path of the ones that altogether forgot their history?

(*) Quote partly from Wikipedia.

So, for the purpose of readability in this brief article, I will refrain from quoting philosophers, prominent marketing professionals, media gurus, notable PR-people and postmodern academics whos views, theories and joint knowledge I could have deliberately inserted in whatever I am about to present in an effort to further my own opinion. I’ll simply not do it this time and you’re going to have to trust me in not doing so.

Setting the scene

Last week a tragedy occured in central Stockholm. A young boy of a mere thirteen years plunged to his own death while “touristing” in one of the cities many underground canals. He had payed a small amount to another boy who, acting as guide, took the former on a stroll through the forbidden (and forbidding) grounds. In the process something went wrong, the young boy slipped to his death and the older, the guide – simply took off, presumably fearful of facing the consequences (a lead motife it will turn out, as it were in this moral tale). He still hasn’t surfaced to this date and the police have little hope of him ever doing so. The dead boy was somehow found and hauled out of the deep drop. I’m not familiar with the exact details of the scene, but there you go. These are the irreputable facts.

Now – media, being media, quickly caught up with the story and it was indeed front page news for a couple of days. Bereft parents were interviewed while concerned city officials and other major players presented their views on the tragic situation – police waving the forbidding stick and the men in charge of security shaking their heads, calling urban exploration a global problem. You get the idea.

Though, what at first glance looked like a freak accident quickly found another avenue for investigation. The setting, a closed off underground canal of some sort, also happened to be a hotspot for the many Urban Explorers that, as a pasttime and passion – visit places just like this particular site. A swift, but not necessarily fair – connecting of the dots all but blamed the UE-movement for inspiring the boy to head off on this fatal adventure.

Somehow, the reporter covering the story for one the tabloids, presumably after some online research, found an internet forum, 28dagarsenare.se (a reflection and play on the name of the english UE-site, 28dayslater.co.uk), where one of the Swedish authorities on Urban Exploration presides as moderator. Jan Jörnmark has written a number of excellent and hugely entertaining books on the subject and is more or less associated with the phenomenon of UE in Sweden.

Furthermore, his view are held in high regard by both readers and probably a great many practitioners of Urban Exploration. Mr. Jörnmark was interviewed in connection to the event and gave off a concerned and very correct and admirably presented statement. Kudos to him.

Pre-emptive strike opportunity lost

In spite of my many other more urgent interests, I’ve always kept a keen, boyish in truth – I suppose, interest on Urban Exploration and, so naturally, this piece of news immediately caught my eye. I concluded that if Mr. Jörnmark was interviewed, chances are that the forum, mentioned in the article – was more or less being raided by media and public alike.

Being a part of the all-pervasive communications industry, its my day-to-day job to navigate my clients through the murky and dangerous waters of public affairs, media exposure and press management – on and more often then not, offline.

In short, and against better judgement, I decided to openly write down a few suggestions to the management of the forum on how to deal with the media. Simple things like arranging a decent FAQ on how to practice UE safely, pulling together a special page for the press with edited details regarding UE and its practitioners, including some useful facts; and the like. The basic stuff for making the job of understanding easy for hard-pressed journalists. While in no way claiming that my advice is a panaceum for all media ills, or even the one rightful path, I did honestly believe that I pitched in an effort to help the forum out of an ill-boding situation.

Because as far as casual advice goes, it is a fact of our overexposed society that there is no better place to hide than in plain view. If you want to disappear your colors have to blend in. You need to inform the press properly if you want them off your back – and you have to do this in a prearranged pattern that they’re likely to understand the contents of without pressing you further for what might not even be a story. This is not selling out and it is not an invasion in any way. Its an informational hygiene that you either adapt to, or stand the risk of misinterpretation. It is the way the game is played if the game is to be played successfully. A pre-emptive strike, as it were.

The response

Not surprisingly, reactions to my suggestions were rather on the negative side. Some members acknowledged the need to communicate with the media and at least partly concurred, but the response from the majority quickly depreciated into less eloquent and at times even unpleasant personal attacks on me (and not my case) followed by a torrent of denials dismissing the  necessity of communication.

A heated debated followed shorty after, with members adding input in the neighbourhood of: “we’re not responsible for the actions of others, all you need is common sense”, “how can we be blamed for something that happens outside of the forum”, “we’re not an official club, we don’t need a spokesperson”, “let’s turn off the Google indexing so that visitors won’t find us again”, “lets close the forum to the public”, “go f*ck yourself and wave your credentials elsewhere”, “lets forget the whole thing, it will blow over, stay calm”, “this isn’t a problem, we all know how media works”, etc.

In all fairness there were moderating voices but these quickly drowned in the deluge of members sticking their heads in the sand or worse, shooting them off in ignorance.

What then, can be learned from this – aside from acknowledging the fact that dishing out unsolicited public relations-advice on the net is not the best pasttime for communication professionals on extended lunchhour breaks?

I began to think through the turns my simple and straightforwardly put suggestion had sparked and found, what I believe to be nothing less than a subculture on the skids.

Dragging subcultures into the open

Urban Explorers, as a demographic, are an industrious, creative, charmingly rebellious – and usually; utterly irresponsible lot. Incidentally, much like any denizens of just about any internet forum out there. But perhaps in this case, even more dangerously so.

Urban exploring is by no means a new phenomena, and while it is not this articles place to examine it in any scienfic manner (moreover, I promised in the beginning that I would refrain from quoting outside sources) – it can be useful to know that sometime during the industrial age man found enough time to reflect on his past, and indeed, become nostalgic of it. Nostalgia, in its purest form – is a ridiculous, cloying and unworthy pasttime for thinking individuals. It is often worsened yet and preceded by its irrational little sister: sentimentalism – the cheapest of human emotions.

Curiosly, Urban Exploring has dubious roots in para-urban exploring – but without said sentimentalism. Romantics have since the dawn of time reveled in the reminiscing of old ages by means of visiting ruins and other man-made relics – more often than not, situated outside settlements.

It is not until fairly recently that UE has exploded onto the scene as the number of relics have grown exponentially. Abandoned factories, sanatariums, powerplants and other colorful, rusty remnants of a rampant globalisation have for years littered both urban and rural landscapes as the ever-advancing armies of trade and capital changed the parameters of survival faster than society could adapt to them.

Over the years – rusty, decaying buildings have attracted both the casual onlooker as well as the amateur photographer. But there have been those that were not satisfied with a perpetual look on the subject matter: Urban Explorers often probe these old sites and buildings for motives of their own. Why? Well – for one, the sheer joy of it. In this shrinking world where borders fall in onto themselves and any place is reachable (in some manner) with a few clicks, it is refreshing to find a place where few set their foot. A simpler explanation would be that humans like to explore. For joy and for discovery alone. Or perhaps for the sheer, rebellious hell of it. After all, any place with restriced access is as much a provocation to trespass as it is a deterrant against trespassing. Great many of these places are, in spite of often being locked into legal battles, owned by someone or something and not legal grounds for anyone save any (mostly absent) caretakers.

No matter the motive and the pattern of discovery – with the arrival of the internet, urban exploring changed in nature. From a solo, almost boyish adventure, on occasion accompanied by a camera – to a form of sport where the actual discovery goes hand in hand with the documentation of it. A not so unimportant factor in the game of UE-credibility is the attitude and relationship of the discoverer to the object that has been discovered. A “virgin” site, hitherto undiscovered (or at least, documented) is worth a lot more attention from the UE crowd than one that has been visited on numerous occasions. Most practitioners of UE would probably deny the fact if you asked them, but there you go, that’s the game of attitudes. Oft visited sites tend to decay inasmuch as they bear evidence of recent trespasses and their popularity vanes over the time on display.

In time, an entire self-fuelling subculture has spawned around these abandoned, fascinating and often mysterious sites. A subculture like any other, save for one small detail. The whole thing hinges on the fact that publicity, while coveted by our modern explorers – just as fast kills the cat. The more prominent the sites, the faster they drop in popularity.

There are other problems, one of which I’ve already mentioned. Trespassing on these sites is often forbidden by law. While seemingly a small crime, I wonder what sort of complicated stories Urban Explorers tell their insurance companies when they fall through floors in places they should not have been in, incapacitating themselves in the process. One mans personal tragedy becomes anothers financial risk. Or perhaps there are insurances to cover this?

And so we’ve involuntarily arrived at the third factor: safety. Safety, as one can imagine is troublesome at best in these circumstances.

From one aspect, what is dangerous is also interesting and so an intrinsic part of the game, but often the risk just cannot be calculated justly and while there are no official statistics (to my knowledge at least) as to how many of our spirited adventurers actually injure themselves in this cumbersome task of documenting the past – it would be a safe bet to say that it would be quite a few more than had they chosen to cast a glance for afar. Of those personally known to me, all have some sort of painful story to tell in that respect.

The young boy that plunged to his death a few days ago certainly underscores the dangers of urban exploration. Moreover, his death might point to the fact that Urban Exploration has grown itself past the point of the favoured pasttime of a daring few, to the joint responsibility of many. I shall try to explain why.

The fall of  Urban Exploration by way of ignorance

Urban Exploration has become all but an institution. Numerous websites, discussion groups, books, magazine features and all the media coverage your run-of-the-mill cult can carry, coupled with overexploitation of digital technology kills trends quicker than you can say URL. And that is certainly the case with UE. It is no longer an elite wink between a select club but something that is overinformationalised, categorised and pegged down to the last Googled, iPhoned coordinate.

UE needs the limelight so that the members can display their findings, but at the same time, that very same light kills the sport as it is not only based on exclusivity (partly because some of the acts are criminal) but also on exposure of the sites that have been visited and documented. Put simply, when you drag a this said subculture into the light, it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

And a great deal of the responses I got when posting my advice on how to handle this unexpected limelight confirmed this. In fact, some of the responses were not only outrageous but even borderline juvenile. To debunk some of then: Stating that one bears no responsibility as group or individual for publishing information on a forum that could lead to the endangering of others is a blatant declaration of incapacity. Furthermore, referring to the “common sense” of a thirteen year old in the same sentence is a rather serious mistake, especially since it in this case lead to a young mans death. No adult can count on the “common sense” of a child. No one.

A note on the usage of the term “common sense” in debates. “Common sense” is not an indivisable, lucid term and it is only with some difficulty that a group of people can agree on what common sense actually means. While not claiming to have the absolute answer for this, I’ve noticed a sliding scale of the usage of said term in debates and in particular, online debates. Worse yet is the fact that whenever someone refers to “common sense” it is usually to cover up a rather muddy agenda, as if waving the wand of “common sense” would explain and do away with any unpleasant arguments. This, to me at least, represents a form of “magical thinking”, akin to that used by small children and people suffering serious illnesses. Thats why I always prick my ears a bit further whenever I hear the term being used.

As for the argument of waiting for the whole thing to blow over: again, irresponsibility. The problem of accepting that whenever you publish information about a site that could lead to others visiting it, and injuring themselves in the process – you have a moral and ethical (not yet legal, but this can and in most likely probability will change some time in the future) responsibility. It’s the devils prerogative; he can’t push you to commit the crime, but he sure can instill the desire in you to do so yourself. Afterwards, the devil will of course, rid himself of any lingering guilt. After all, it was you who tread those stairs, was it not?

The members of the forum claim, almost in unisom, that they do not need a spokesperson that the media could talk to (I also read that they don’t need help as they already “know” the media, which is not only untrue but shows an apalling lack of judgment. Just because someone is the recipient of media does not make him anything more that just that. A passive recipient. It is a bit like saying that you know how to pilot a plane based on the fact that you fly regularly – as passenger).

Yet again, a mistake and miscalculation. Media has already selected a spokesperson. The only thing that actually mitigates the whole sad, miserable, affair is that the spokesperson is unusually gifted and apt in handling media attention. For the time being it sufficed. Next time – and there most certainly will be a next time (there have already been other cases, but none involving deaths – again, to my knowledge – I have not duly researched this), the UE community might not be so lucky. Already borderline associated with thugs, graffiti-artists and shady activities of less savoury citizens, UE is nothing short of a media-disaster waiting to happen.

The press, being the press, have  jumbled any fringe cultures, subcultures, trends and groupings and made their own interpretation of UE. And a very unfavourable one as thing stand now. Pinning graffiti artists and Urban Explorers in the same group is just not good research – these are almost opposing factions – but in the public eye, they are one and the same.

In the long run, this unwanted and unmitigated attention, coupled with misinterpretations like the one above – might lead to a lobbying for the passing of certain laws (i’m sure you can imagine the nature of those laws), making the blatant displaying of borderline accepted activities a case for the courts, not admiration. Or worse. Any unwanted, unregulated attention calls for greater scrutiny, particularly in our modern society obsessed with the concept of “security”, “fear” and a systematic eradication of “the unknown”. UE as a concept, group or trend, not ready to accept the outcome of its presence in the limelight, and even already crippled by internal disorder amongst members of opposing factions – will suffer the penalty of any quarrelling group: splintering into fractures, each fracture conviced out their right to exist and promote (or not) their own views.

In short, the fall of public UE as they know it.

Lost opportunities

Which is, all in all – rather a shame, really. What makes Swedish UE so interesting (and about the only thing that makes it interesting – our sites are to say the least – not near as impressive as those over in the U.S.A or the European continent even), is its spokesperson: Mr. Jörnmark. He wasn’t the first Urban Explorer to document the decay. He was, however, the first to put them into a real and vivid context. Explaining the process in words (as it happens, by way of his area of expertise, economics) and captivating it in well-taken pictures turned out to be a public success, spawning three volumes of well-recieved books.

For the first time in a long while – modern history came alive in a way that had hitherto not been explored. In succint, wonderfully crafted text Mr. Jörnmark explains the Swedish, and indeed, global history in a captivating and unrelenting fashion.

Apart from being a terrific read, the works of Mr. Jörnmark are followed by a large group of more or less dedicated fans. And so, the phenomena has been outed in a fashion that in hindsight seems unfit considering its main characteristic: being clandestine.

My effort, to show the UE-practictioners of the forum then under pressure, was not aimed at making them more known or forcing them into institutionalisation (that part they’ve managed all too well themselves as I’m sure they are going to realise in the near future) – but was an effort to hide them in plain sight. We do not ask any deeper questions we can easily find the answers to, the modern, popular, mind is simply to… simple for that. This is in particular true of journalists (yes, that was a jibe). It is an unfavourable situation: Exceedingly few members of society have the power to play such sinister havoc with our passion, lives and indeed; secret groupings – as journalists do. Lately, the social media prophets have unsuccessfully tried to claim this crown-and-staff, but as of yet come off as nothing short of loudmouthed clowns. Much to the leering smiles of professional journalists.

The point – was to make sure that UE would attain the status it deserves and once and for all free itself of its murky past. UE can teach us a great deal of things about our recent past that we need to know in order to attain a decent future. Generalising the matter a bit, but only a bit; around the world, the UE culture is nothing more than a uninteresting and unending display of corrosion. Ironically tragic, when speaking of hiding in plain view – the words behind the very visible corrosion, the explanation behind the entropy is almost always much more interesting, crucial even – than most of the substandard Photoshop-damaged, formulaic photography. It almost makes you long for the times when photography and imaging were not a concern for the general public. That however, is a different gripe altogether.

In conclusion, refusing to take responsibility when in public view is both dangerous and naive. When picked up by the media radar you have a choice to play well or to play badly. Not playing is simply not an option. The idea of the format is visibility. And there are simple, almost selfexplanatory rules how to play this game well. Deluding oneself that one can display something, anything, on the public stage and then wash ones hands of any consequence is a failing strategy, and an attitude that the media loves to tear apart. In full view, of course.

The only other, logical, consequence would be to disappear from the public eye once media attention subsides. It will certainly not undo the bad press, but it will not provide such ample opportunities to make mistakes next time something like the aforementioned tragedy occurs (and it will happen, accidents are patient in nature – much more so than their prey). For all intents and purposes, there are those in the UE community that probably wouldn’t mind slipping back under the radar of media society. Perhaps, that would be for the best. That is however not my case to pass any further judgement upon.

And so, instead of taking a step forward and claiming a rightful place – UE has, as a movement, subculture, hobby – or whatever its dubious, capricious, practitioners would like to call it; proved itself naive, uncapable and to be quite honest, rather uninteresting in their ritualistic narcissicm. There is no standing on the stage and not performing to the rules of the house. Not with the media involved. Try as you might, there is no escaping the laws governing the value of visibility – a value much more liquid and volatile than can be spotted at a glance. Especially so by sticking the proverbial head in the sand.

“Electronic aids, particularly domestic computers, will help the inner migration, the opting out of reality. Reality is no longer going to be the stuff out there, but the stuff inside your head. It’s going to be commercial and nasty at the same time.” – J.G Ballard

And this:

“The American Dream has run out of gas. The car has stopped. It no longer supplies the world with its images, its dreams, its fantasies. No more. It’s over. It supplies the world with its nightmares now: the Kennedy assassination, Watergate, Vietnam.” - J.G Ballard

A prophecy indeed. How worrysome that after Ballard wrote that particular piece of future noir, the list didn’t end with the last item on it. On the contrary, it has spiralled out of all and any control. The image of a frantic Henry Rollins, shouting: “America, is killing its youth!” comes instantly to mind.

Also, it brings to mind Ballards controversial novel, Crash. On the pervasive theme of people sexually addicted to mutilations via particpating in carcrashes. A postmodern-modern novel if there ever was one written. Or filmed (Cronenberg). If nothing will make you a careful driver, take is a sort of Clockwork Orange-themed therapy. You will never drive again without visualising a relentless, fiery-eyed Elias Koteas in the lane next to you.

Screen cap from David Cronenbergs, "Crash"

(Right about here, I hear the whitewashed chamber choir of social media savvies cry out against the word “manipulate”, however, scrutinising the process; it remains the main objective – pretty manifestos, social media camps and other exotic highbrowery notwithstanding).

The infinite amount of status updates, tweets-retweets, largely unfounded and undigested flow of uninterrupted information poses three main problems. One, since every social media entry is by definition egodriven, then recycled – it will be hard to create any lasting credibility as the information goes through the replication process (losing value by every egodriven retweet). Two, as argued by CUCUMATZ, whenever a corporation creates an online persona, it fails to use the inherent power of its own preexisting networks – diluting the brand image in the process (thus following the target audience deviation trajectory of any successful brand). Three, the modern father of nonsensical information transfer, Jeff Koons, will (presumably) be proud to know that social media messages largely follow the aesthetics of transfer, aswell. Meaning: the way in which the message is relayed seems to be superior in importance to the actual content of that same message.

Whenever one or several of the above problems occur on their own or combined, the end result of communication relayed via the social scene creates a form a digital scar tissue that not only threatens to overthrow the message itself but also adds to the problem of controlling the credibility of content, a major issue for any brand or corporation. Modern gurus will tell you that it is an inherent factor of the social game and beyond any real circumstance save the fact that it “probably will occur”. In other words, internet professionals are trying to magick their customers into thinking that flawed communication using the social scene is better than letting the scene construct its own reality – tweet by tweet eroding away at the single remaning tool of any brand aspiring towards longevity and profit – credibility.

The organisational infostream is to reduced to a near-alchemical process where input gets stuffed into the leaden jar at one end and coming out as discolored confetti in the other. I’m not saying that organisations should stay out of engaging into online conversations. Quite the contrary. Make sure you actually have something to say, then say it using your own existing network.

There are however further problems with communicating in social media fashion. As Paul Virilio argued, the (modern) speed with which we communicate induces a state of confusion. And as classical philosophy puts it (dispensing with the ideal state of Plato), we exist in the manner of us being here and now, Hic et nunc. That might very well have worked for nearly two thousand years. Our current here and now however is split in so many facets and can via status updates, online presences and other digital tracks set us in so many here’s and now’s that the classical notion of existing becomes not only flawed but borderline ridiculous. You are your tweet and your status update. Or are you the comment on your status update? Or are you the construct path of your cellular phone record? And just what were you when the two lanes of information intersected?

The same notion of accelerating confusion will apply to any brand or corporation entering the social media circus. Further disambiguation follows loss of control and credibility. Who is the corporation hijacked on the information slipstream? Tweet with care, fellow brands – perhaps it will turn out that the best medicine against a digital motion sickness is slowing things down in order to evaluate what actually needs to be said and what value this will add to the community, if any.

A circus is so easily transformed into a freakshow.

Perhaps we’re a step closer to a truly democratic society with the birth of social media – a system of transmission and decision where we trust no one else to do our talking but rather do it ourselves. Now, if there only was any real power attached to that vote button.