The Counter-testimony of the Maker

Abstract

The chapter begins with the question of critique, mainly how and why does one critique but more importantly why does no one critique effectively anymore. Such is a sentiment echoed by Bruno Latour in the paper Why has Critique Run out of Steam? He states: “It does not seem to me that we have been as quick, in academia, to prepare ourselves for new threats, new dangers, new tasks, new targets. Are we not like those mechanical toys that endlessly make the same gesture when everything else has changed around them?”(Latour, 2004:225). According to Latour, the absence of principles is to blame. As he puts it, critique has battered through all claims to a ground and the lack of a sure ground argument has backfired. The result is that there isn’t even a sure ground for criticism. Without a ground, it’s hard to differentiate a rigorous critical claim from a conspiracy theory. That’s why conspiracy theory books are best sellers. Latour mourns the death of critique. In its remnants lies a whole industry denying the Apollo program. My claim is that the absence of principles transforms critique into an issue around the strength of evidence and the credibility of the testimony. Effective critique is synonymous with a counter-testimony of a reliable witness. A witness is someone who is present at the time of an event, often a crime, and is able to testify before the law. They are able to give direct evidence in relation to the events. However, they often rely on foggy memories and blurred vision. It is not too difficult for the defence or prosecution to put the reliability or credibility of the witness in doubt. Here is where the role of making comes into play. More often than not, in the post-critical age, a testimony, or counter-testimony, is not simply uttered but is rather constructed. Latour is the first to admit that a critique has to be made. As such the eyewitness is no longer a person but a photograph, a video or other forms of surveillance. Juries are more decisive when they are presented with the facts, the evidence, more often submitted as objects as opposed to a fuzzy testimony of a witness. Critique, or counter-testimony, is a material process enabled by infrastructure. Is a practice-based question of physics, chemistry and the material forms of agency. Given all this this chapter explores further the role of critical making as counter-testimony. From aesthetic practices of forensics, counter-forensics to the role of labs in media archaeology and investigative practices, I will tell the story of makers that present their objects as a counter-narrative to pressing socio-political issues. More importantly, however, I will address the issue of how critical making practices can establish credibility in a world of fakes and loss of belief