Why object construction?

Linking ‘object construction’ (Jonathan Sterne, The Historiography of Cyberculture) to cultural artifacts in the digital domain.

My previous post discussed the relationship between the apparent and the existent, with Berger telling us that a painting ‘a physical cultural object / artifact’ is an affirmation of the existent. Now, if I’m correct Sterne (2006) introduces us to ‘object construction’ in the digital domain embedded within a broader discussion of the web as maturing entity. Sterne attempts to dislodge the notion of digital technologies as “epochal forces that will transform” by replacing that ‘ideology’ with a view of digital communication (the Web) as cultural putty, and encourages the creation of objects as cultural digital artifacts.

Is Sterne seeing ‘object construction’ in the digital domain as a replication of existent cultural atrifacts (objects)? If this is the case then what is the relationship between what Berger names as “mirages: refractions not of light but of appetite” and what Sterne refers to as ‘object construction’, with existent culture (existent being not virtual)? Can the web (as an entity) singularly be seen as an existent cultural artifact in its own right? What conclusions can then be arrived at?

(Velázquez, Rokeby Venus, curtsey of the National Gallery)

Take the Rokeby Venus or correct tile The Toilet of Venus painted 1647-51 as a ‘period’ existent cultural artifact. Velázquez painted this ‘risky’ image to hang in a private collection, and ‘not to be seen in public’. The painting is very much a consequence of an over bearing state, state being the ‘Roman Catholic Church’. The ‘Roman Catholic Church’ of this period pursuing the ‘Baroque’ (1600 ish) as a means of control, borderline propaganda.

Could the Church (as an entity) singularly be seen as an existent cultural artifact in its own right? If I accept that hypothesis, then how is that culture defined, and more importantly how is that culture usurped or modified? The Church and what it stands for (in all of its many manifestations) I would suggest is defined by the production of cultural artifacts, readings, art (icons), architecture, cloth and possibly food. These all being artifacts that attempt to define a culture?

Is Velázquez by painting the ‘Rokeby Venus’ attempting to rebel against the constraints of the culture in which he is existent? Velázquez paints Venus unable to show her true face, while her son Cupid holds a mirror only to reflect a gross ‘refraction’ of her beauty, not only aesthetically but technically. Does Velázquez portray himself as Cupid? His hands bound by a pink ribbon as metaphor of ineptitude and hopelessness? By producing a cultural artifact of this type, is Velázquez attempting separate the apparent from the existent to highlight hypocrisy within his existent culture?

So back to Berger and the separation of the apparent from the existent. So Velázquez paints the ‘Rokeby Venus’ as an affirmation of the existent (accepted). That artifact is not only ‘active’ and ‘affective’ in the definition of a culture, but also has the ability to contribute to the historical understanding of the epoch in which it was created.

Could I then position the ‘Web’ as Velázquez positions his mirror? A space to figure hypocrisy (Julian Assange) an affirmation of the existent and an historical archive to define an epoch/s. I now struggle to understand the nature of what is created online. Do digital artifacts need to be understood / researched as being representations or duplications of what is existent? Asking the question what are Digital artifacts and how can digital artifacts be categorised?

Are we all now painters and/or writers?