I think that while our intention and the intensity of the product matter, all of the actions that we do and the activities we take part in definitely have a level of political implications. But politics is integrated into the fibres of our identity to the jewellery we wear. But in current tech, how does this apply? When we take AI, a constant reminder of what our world might boil down to, our safety- and no, I don't mean physically- is a state of overwhelming complexity. Today, these systems encode our assumptions of social visibility and progression. Each and everyone of us is at risk of having our data from default settings to algorithmic recommendations being leaked to the rest of the world. This leads us to a crossroads: do we continue to use such technology knowing that our personal data may be at risk, or do we continue to use technology knowing that we lose anything and everything that remains personal to us? Many refer to this as an ‘acceptable side effect, and that this is just a form of technical inevitability. But this boils down to choice. Political choice.
Today Hardware relies on global supply chains tied to specific labour regimes, environmental regulation, and trade policies. While we all know this theoretically, let me present you with an example: Apple’s infamous iPhone. It is well known that Apple has supposedly stopped using cobalt, a key mineral used in the chips of phones and devices, as the mining of the mineral is done in harmful and unethical ways. A big share of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where artisanal mining has been documented to involve child labour and dangerous conditions. In response, many human‑rights groups and government organizations have such firms of benefitting from these conditions even when they deny direct responsibility.
For the sake of proving my point, let’s say Orange is a company that produces “Uphones,” and they exploit young children in their quest to reap cobalt. Can you, as a consumer, continue to support such an organization? Can you continue to use the products made by children who are poisoned daily, dying from horrible conditions? To such an organization, these children are just a number on the balance sheet, nothing more. With this knowledge, will you continue to use these phones and laptops? A common answer might be, no. But it's a known fact that the products we use today contribute to the ever-growing graveyard of phones, even with programs such as Apple’s trade-in, and so on, a lot of the components may not be able to be used due to the condition in which they are submitted. Hence, while we can consciously stop using devices from such companies, it does not mean we just switch; we do look into feasible alternatives and push for reforms.
But Suraj, how is this linked to art? Art as an entity has always been a form of representation and rebellion, and finally a pathway to reform. Art isn't necessarily pretty paintings and drawings,s but a key component to our way of life and products- and no, I don't mean how it looks. Just as platforms govern speech and visibility in the public sphere, they also determine which artworks, aesthetics, and creators gain attention or are suppressed by algorithmic curation. The same corporate and ideological forces that shape policy and citizenship also shape artistic production through funding models, data-driven recommendation systems, and the aesthetics of surveillance and control they inspire. Today, a key component of art is ethics and censorship–what can and cannot be said–and just like policy, censorship of expression is also heavily controlled, so I guess that art becomes a critical mirror–revealing how technology not only mediates politics and society but also reshapes the very conditions of cultural expression.
As a collective, we see that technology itself is apolitical– Uninvolved in politics–and that only its use determines political consequences. Yet this view overlooks how tools are built with embedded defaults and incentives that shape behaviour long before individuals interact with them. Particularly, these models right now, at least, are running on biased data that is only in place so that it can gain engagement with the user; hence, it is concluded that such design features are not incidental, but they reflect broader economic and ideological contexts to persuade users towards them. Just by recognizing this, we can say that technology is an active element in the web of our societal and political life.
Technology and similar entities may look neutral, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. To dissect this and see the true nature, art is a medium, at least on a mindset aspect, as it shows the dynamics and reveals how power can corrupt and raise marginalized communities, culture, and our consciousness. Whether we engage or abstain, we are always participating in politics because neutrality itself is a political stance.
Best,
Suraj Krishna
