Ant Farm, “Media Burn” (1975) – a performance where a Cadillac crashed into a wall of televisions
Table of contents
Generally speaking, to invert something is to reverse it, turn it around, redirect its flow, flip it upside down, inside-out, or backwards. For our class specifically, we use “inversion” to refer to criticism where a thing is used against itself or against the systems it ordinarily produces. In other words, a technology is inverted when it is used in such a way that it subverts the power dynamics and social norms that it would ordinarily represent. Inversion is a transformation that flips the viewer’s expectation or perspective of a technology.
This mode of criticism is about re-imagining a technology to be different, and in so doing, revealing a truth about its original form. Any particular part of the technology can be re-imagined including the way it looks, the way it works, the people who are affected, and the places it exists.
That said, inversion is typically a transformation within the conceptual body of the technology itself. A transformation to the context would be considered a weak form of inversion. For example, adding regulations to limit the negative consequences of a technology: that’s a boring inversion. Changing the language used to talk about the technology: that’s a boring inversion. These are valid modes of criticism, and indeed they might be really profound; but they do not get at the heart of inversion.
Along similar lines, inversion differs from appropriation in that the transformation should be in the technology itself, not in the technology’s context. Inversion differs from parody in that the transformation is not ironic or intended to be funny. This doesn’t mean that inversion has to be solemn, but rather that it does not derive its meaning from humor.