I wonder why the internet (as idea and practice) is considered so differently from other technological and connective innovations before it. The various mediums discussed in this interview (film, sculpture, prints, plates, etc.) were (and are) all vulnerable to the appearance of ‘artifacts’ and ‘translations’— what makes the web different?
At one point, Steyerl mentions himself as “image and agent,” in a way that seems to make the image secondary to his own agency; what about the agency of an image once it is ‘released’ into the world?
Steyerl also says, “it’s not about object-ontologies but image-actions.” If we accept this and think of the value of an image as residing in its transmission, to what extent do we ignore the, presumably important, questions: “what is an image? What makes an image valuable? Relevant? What can an image, as image (and not a link in a chain of image-actions) say?”