JOANA MOLL

Joana Moll is a Barcelona/Berlin-based artist and researcher, her work delves into the critical examination of techno-capitalist narratives, and their impact on the relationships between machines alphabetisation, humans, and ecosystems. With a focus on topics such as Internet geopolitics, data materiality, surveillance, social profiling, interfaces, and energy, Moll’s research uncovers the hidden dynamics and consequences of our increasingly digitised world.

Her exceptional critical spirit and innovative approach have earned her international media attention, featured in prestigious publications such as The New York Times, The Financial Times, Der Spiegel, National Geographic, CBC, NBC and MIT Press, consolidating her reputation as a leading figure in contemporary art. Moreover, Joana has presented her work in renowned institutions, museums, universities and festivals worldwide, including the Venice Biennale, Art Basel, MACBA, CCCB, ZKM, Berlin Museum of Natural History, Ars Electronica, Photographer’s Gallery, Korean Cultural Foundation Center, New York University, Georgetown University, Harvard University, Cambridge University and Goldsmiths University, amoung many others.

As co-founder of the Critical Interface Politics research group at HANGAR (Barcelona), she has played a key role in fostering critical debates and interdisciplinary collaborations in the field. Her dedication to the advancement of knowledge has been recognised with research grants from the BBVA Foundation and the Weizenbaum Institute in Berlin, among others. She is currently visiting professor at the Elisava School in Barcelona and resident artistic researcher at the Critical Media Lab at the HGK in Basel.

In this conversation, Moll reflects on the distinctions between personal relationships in real life and virtual spaces, explores the transformative potential of platforms such as the metaverse, raises concerns about the monetisation of interpersonal relationships through the release of data, and stresses the need for collective action to address pressing issues such as climate change, and the influence of post-capitalist dynamics. Joana also stands for greater inclusion and support for artists in a precarious cultural landscape.

Through her bold and innovative projects, Moll relentlessly nurtures greater technological awareness while fearlessly confronting unethical practices in various spheres of the system, from the institutional to the corporative level.

A Silent Opera for Anthropogenic Mass. Arte Tv. 5th of Feburary 2023. Berlin, Germany.

Guillermo Moreno Mirallas: Joana, what are the main differences you perceive between personal relationships in real life (IRL) and virtual ones?

Joana Moll: Regarding the differences between personal relationships in real life (IRL) and virtual relationships, there are aspects that can never be replaced in a virtual environment. In an in-person encounter, it is impossible to be completely anonymous, whereas in a virtual space, masks can be worn and one can play the role of someone else. Additionally, in a virtual environment, we lack physical sensitivity and other sensory elements such as smell. I believe that in a virtual environment, less instinct is utilised compared to getting to know a person in real life, where we observe movements and perceive details that are not present in the virtual world.

It is important to consider that all virtual relationships are mediated by a platform, and all interactions are predetermined. There is a sense of reality or freedom that is false since we must adapt to the limitations and possibilities imposed by the platform without the possibility of negotiating them. This raises the question of how to reconcile the technological system with the social system built around it, as well as the boundaries between the public and the private.

What are your thoughts on the potential of the metaverse and similar platforms to transform our cognitive experience, relationships, and social reality?

I believe that all these platforms have a very specific business model. Unlike Second Life, which emerged in the early 2000s with a more naive vision, aspiring to fulfil libertarian ideals and escape capitalism through the internet, promoting absolute freedom online, and considering the internet as an alternative political model, free from the problems of conventional political dynamics.

However, the current Metaverse is based on a more refined and well-articulated business model. Our cognitive and relational experiences are shaped according to this carefully planned business model. It is important to note that our interactions and actions within the Metaverse, and similar platforms created by these big companies, are designed to generate profits for the companies behind them. Although this aspect may be hidden and difficult to comprehend, I believe we will adapt and integrate into these spaces in the way these platforms require for their business model to work. In other words, we will become what is commonly referred to as “cannon fodder,” generating benefits for these companies at various levels.

How would you describe your experience in The Dating Brokers project?

What reflections would you like to share about the boundaries of our private space, the surrender of our data to big corporations through social media platforms, and the monetisation of interpersonal relationships?

My experience in The Dating Brokers project was astonishing. I was amazed by how easily I could obtain data from a million users of online dating platforms. This data is often much more intimate than what we share on other platforms, which is very dangerous because depending on where that data ends up, it can cause irreversible harm.

When we surrender our personal data to big companies, especially when it is so personal and intimate, we are providing a wealth of information that is used to create increasingly sophisticated profiles of specific users. These companies thrive on these profiles for monetisation purposes. We share personal interests, relationship preferences, body measurements, beliefs, and other specific details that we wouldn’t share on platforms like Twitter or Facebook. This enables these companies to create highly personalised and detailed profiles, but in doing so, we are unknowingly revealing a very intimate part of ourselves to the world. I believe this is extremely dangerous for various reasons, including reasons and processes that we still don’t fully understand, especially in relation to the development of artificial intelligence. These are data that we are relinquishing now without knowing how they might be used in the future.

Could you tell us a bit about the Critical Interface Politics Research Group and The Institute for the Advancement of Popular Automatisms?

The Critical Interface Politics Research Group emerged as a result of a European project where a manifesto was created to critically address interfaces. Additionally, topics related to the functioning of data systems and the role of the interface in the opacity of these processes were explored. Research was conducted through workshops, talks, and other interventions with the aim of revealing and understanding these processes more deeply.

As for The Institute for the Advancement of Popular Automatisms, it is a micro-collective in collaboration with Eugenio Toselli. The idea behind this collective is to counterbalance the density and complexity that my projects typically entail, which in recent times have required extensive research processes. This way, we can explore topics in a fresher and more poetic manner, emerging spontaneously and capable of being explained in a few lines, adopting a less investigative and more playful attitude. This approach is liberating and enjoyable and at the same time generates deep reflections on a variety of issues.

Considering the evidence and explorations presented in projects like 4004, The Hidden Life of an Amazon User, DEFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOREST, and CO2GLE, which highlight the connections between techno-capitalism, climate change acceleration, and the decline of essential ecosystems…

Any thoughts on how we might address these pressing issues while moving towards a more sustainable technological future, without perpetuating post-capitalist dynamics, through laws, institutions, and our actions as citizens?

I feel that as users and consumers, we are burdened with the responsibility of solving all the problems of the systems we interact with. However, don’t you think that as individuals, we don’t have enough agency to change many of the patterns and the way these systems operate? For example, when we previously talked about the Metaverse, and the social media, we interact with macro structures that are practically impossible to change on an individual level. Even if you stop using the internet, at the end of the day, you will still face limitations. The issue of the internet and discontinuing the use of platforms, among other examples, simply isolates us. Furthermore, when we transfer these problems to an even broader level, such as the political system, as users and citizens, don’t you think that our responsibility lies in collective action and bringing these concerns to the people responsible for making political decisions? After all, these individuals are democratically elected, whether the system works or not, to change things and address these concerns.

On the other hand, there are large companies like Meta and Google that should assume the responsibility of changing many of their practices, for example, in relation to energy. These companies should be obliged to disclose information about their energy consumption in their operations, and yet they are not. Even when they do, they often claim to be completely sustainable and have zero emissions, which is absolutely false considering that these companies depend on many other external infrastructures to operate. Unfortunately, legislation does not seem to adequately address this aspect, and I believe it is a huge problem. A clear example of this is when I carried out an intervention at Arts Santa Mónica, a museum in Barcelona, in which I “forced” the institution to work with a limited energy budget. Although we opted for sustainable practices and collaborated with an engineering firm specialised in sustainability, we found that the museum was connected to a renewable energy grid, which was counted as zero emissions. This turned out to be absolutely ridiculous, as it would mean that we could use as much energy as we wanted forever. However, when I asked where the limit was and how these emissions were accounted for, I was told that they didn’t have a clear answer. It seems to be a legal problem rather than an ecological one. I believe that legislation is fundamentally broken, and honestly, I don’t know how to fix this.

However, what I firmly believe is that we need to express our dissatisfaction to policymakers and advocate for increased economic resources to support independent studies on energy, energy consumption, and emissions, particularly within the internet industry, where such resources are currently scarce or non-existent.

Could you tell us more about this project, called 16/2017, at Arts Santa Mònica in Barcelona, and how this initiative aims to generate debates on the relationship between culture and resource management, contributing to the fight against climate change?

What reflections or experiences would you highlight from this project?

I was commissioned to carry out a project within the framework of a four-month exhibition. I proposed that my work focused on reducing the energy consumption of the exhibition by half, meaning working with a limited energy budget of 50%. The piece developed organically, implementing a 10-hour daily electricity blackout during those four months. In winter, we couldn’t turn off the heating pump for that long, so we had to compensate for it, for example, by avoiding inviting speakers who would travel by plane. In the end, there were negotiations with Santa Mònica and other participants, such as the venue’s staff and other artists.

We also organised roundtable discussions, which we called “negotiation tables,” where we invited politicians, scientists, and cultural agents from the city, mostly linked to the issue of climate change. These tables aimed to discuss the role of culture in climate change mitigation, a topic that is often overlooked and underestimated. We expanded the discussion on the function of culture in this aspect since climate change is related to our habits and how we relate to our resources as a society.

I believe that it is fundamentally a cultural problem, and we need to change our habits through cultural processes. However, those in charge, such as politicians, businessmen, and those with the capacity to implement measures to mitigate climate change, seem to be waiting for technology and science to solve the problem for us. But that won’t happen. It seems like they are waiting for a magical solution that can absorb CO2 and generate money! It is essentially a cultural problem that we are not addressing. The work at Arts Santa Mònica revolved around this issue, denouncing this idea.

In a post-pandemic context, considering the actions taken by governments and the private sector during the crisis: What less obvious but significant changes do you think have happened as a result of the pandemic? Which of these changes do you think will be permanent?

What aspects do you think have been lost that are important to recover and reclaim?

In the context of the global health crisis, I believe we are still dealing with collective trauma. Personally, I find it difficult to grasp all the consequences of what has happened. There have been less obvious changes in personal relationships and how we interact in our daily lives. There is a lot of fear and rigidity. I think it will take a long time to overcome this. The subtle fears are less evident but are internally affecting us fundamentally. Pharmaceutical companies have made excessive profits; for them, a pandemic is like a dream come true. I often think about how much space all these discarded masks must be taking up. I imagine tons of them.

Like after 9/11 attacks, I think we have also accepted many things that we used to consider morally unacceptable, such as intensive surveillance. We feel that our bodies can represent a threat. I believe this is causing a lot of trauma, and it’s something that will persist. Surveillance is no longer just external; it is increasingly embedded within us. This is very dangerous, and I don’t know what will happen in the coming years, but I believe it is a shift in consciousness that is shaping new cultural rituals. This won’t disappear.

As a cultural producer deeply engaged in exploring the impacts of post-capitalist narratives on machines, humans, and ecosystems…

How do you see your practice, as well as the role of other cultural producers, contributing to the development of a technologically aware society that fosters greater consciousness and understanding of the materiality of the Internet, surveillance, social profiling, and interfaces?

Regarding artistic production, I believe it has the ability to establish unlikely connections and speculate on the functioning of various aspects. I consider this subversive potential of art to be one of its most powerful qualities.

In terms of developing greater technological awareness and exposing the unethical practices of big tech companies, among others, it is crucial to understand the processes and structures being criticised. Before generating public policies that can impact certain systems, it is necessary to deeply comprehend the dynamics involved so that these policies can be effective.

In my artistic practice and that of other colleagues, there is a research-oriented approach that seeks to understand and reveal what truly happens within these systems. Through art, utilising unlikely connections and more instinctive research methods, aspects that may not be visible from other domains can be uncovered. I consider this work to be absolutely critical.

As cultural agents, how do you believe we can employ strategies and tactics that embrace inclusivity, democratise artistic practice, and seamlessly integrate it into the fabric of society, effectively engaging with its contemporary struggles?

Certainly, there are artists who have a lot of wealth and resources to produce, but in general, it seems to me that most of their discourse lacks interest. Most artists who make a lot of money through galleries are influenced and dictated by what the galleries need. They are told: “Make a few paintings like this, with four pixels”, they sell and that’s it. I am fortunate enough to make a living from my artistic practice and live relatively well, I don’t consider myself ultra-precarious.

However, I know many brilliant artists and many people who hesitate to become artists because of the precariousness of the sector, and I believe they could create very interesting things. In this society, culture, being unquantifiable, is not prioritised. As I have reiterated throughout this conversation, I hold the belief that art possesses the inherent ability to forge unlikely connections and challenge established structures of thought and imagination. However, in order for this potential to be fully realised, there is a pressing need for art to be less precarious. I understand that this perspective oversimplifies the issue, yet I consider it to be one of the key challenges at hand.

Let’s dive into a little game and imagine two contrasting futures: one brimming with optimism and the other tinged with dystopia.

I would like to imagine a future in which nations disappear, especially as climate change affects us even more intensely. To me, it is crucial to change the structure. I wish it resembled less the centralisation of nation-states and that we could organise smaller communities, even at the urban level. Not all needs are the same. For example, Burgos, a small city in the interior of Spain, doesn’t have the same energy resource needs as Barcelona. It would be wonderful to achieve organising ourselves into much smaller communities and not depend on centralisation that currently don’t benefit us at all. The case of Ukraine is a clear example.

In a more dystopian future, the concern is that nation-states and corporations will acquire even more power, beyond what they already have, if that is even possible. For me, these corporations and nation-states are psychopathic systems that lack empathy and do not understand the reality in which we live. They are incapable of addressing and solving its problems and needs. That is what worries me, the tendency of these entities to gain more power while users and citizens have less and less choice.

In other words, I envision an optimistic future in which we can manage and administer the resources that allow us to live at a local level. In contrast, an even more dystopian future would be one in which essential resources for our survival are controlled from distant places where they are needed. An extremely dystopian example would be Amazon having control over the price of cereal!

Thank you very much, Joana. Finally, could you share with us some artists, philosophers, sociologists or scientists whose work is a reference for you?

I have great admiration for the work of Yásnaya Aguilar, a Mixe linguist and activist based in Oaxaca. I am truly captivated by her writing style, the substance of her words, and the way she articulates her ideas. She is unquestionably a brilliant individual. Additionally, I hold a deep admiration for Yayo Herrero, whose outstanding contributions in the realms of social and political issues, particularly in the context of climate change from a feminist perspective, are truly remarkable.
Another figure that I find immensely fascinating is Matthew Fuller, primarily due to his unique perspective on the interplay between technology and politics. Jussi Parikka is another scholar whom I have closely followed, as his work on the materiality of media and technology has been incredibly thought-provoking.

When it comes to theorising about energy and its connection to creative practices and education, I find Ivan Illich to be an exceptional reference. His insights align with my belief in the significance of education. Additionally, I highly recommend the book “Petrocalypse: Global energy crisis and how we are (not) going to solve it” by Antonio Turiel, which critically examines the fallacy of renewable energies. Lastly, there are numerous intriguing ecological projects, one of which is being actively pursued by Eugenio Tisselli in Mexico.