Two new posts from Anonymous have appeared.: "Anonymous is everyone and everywhere. We have no leaders, no single entity directing us…"
I still owe this weblog posts about graduation, the Deckchair guide and what I’m up to right now, but that’s going to wait until I reach my destination and get settled. Meanwhile I’ve been thinking about Anonymous.
The recent Anonymous videos have been fantastic as works of art, reminiscent of the footage from Pattern Recognition, which Beth studied in her dissertation. Anonymous’ work puts into play many of the theoretical concepts I love. Who is it that signs a work as Anonymous when anyone can give a work or a tract that name? It is impossible to canonise Anonymous work – it is up to the reader to agree or disagree with an individual piece, since unpleasant or insulting messages might be signed as Anonymous. Anonymous is potentially juvenile and pointlessly offensive at times; but since anyone might be Anonymous, you can judge the messages only on content. Anonymous might be anyone.
Anonymous’ pirating and remixing of pop culture reminds me of the situationists and their practise of detournement (the Fox news report on Anonymous is like something from Chris Morris). Anonymous has the advantage that it cannot be recuperated as the work of the Situationists was. If someone steps forward and repudiates or sells out their own anonymous work, they are no longer Anonymous. You can’t negotiate with Anonymous. You can’t make terms with Anonymous.
- The original video
- Anonymous’ response to the media
- Response to Fox #1
- Response to Fox #2
- Warren Ellis on criticism of Anonymous
- Wikipedia on the ‘attack on scientology’
- Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Anonymous (offensive and NSFW)
- The Times reports on the recent events