Swanson is an artist directly in conversation with Heidegger and is particularly drawn to the complexities of glitches and quirks of modern technology especially concerning linguistics and communication.
His pieces are all aesthetically very clean and simple and, of the ones shown, all concern this common theme of linguistics, They are mostly black and white or composed of light sources such as the LED used in the Lady Gaga project or the neon tubing. The commonalities in all projects take this conversation from Heidegger and recontextualize it for the modern era utilizing modern technology and modern cultural phenomena. They are essentially a remix. But even Swanson notes that "remix has its limits" not simply in attempting to trace the source of authorship but in the loss of that authorship there begins an endless cycle of "unintentional remixing." This remixing he stated has something in common with modern capitalistic society in its own self-devouring of old infotainment and repackaging (remixing) it to appear new to the unassuming masses. This begs the question of his own participation in this process however. By remixing Heidegger does he himself contribute to the eroding of traditional demarcations of intellectual property? I believe that he is doing both. To those that do not understand the context of his work with technology and reflection on society this work only perpetuates the blind acceptance of remixes without identification of the "remixers." However, to those that do understand his work in relation to this topic the conversational underpinnings are very evident. Swanson himself notes this as "hypocritical."
His work with pieces such as the morse code translator of Lady Gaga's Twitter feed aren't inherently evident intellectually. His curiosity with technology and linguistics combine to form an absurd and annoying blinking light on a plinth. Perhaps it thus symbolizes the absurd preoccupation with infotainment and its inherent and unavoidable flashy-attention-grabbing existence. The linguistics are simply and also devoid of any significance. In the very end the societal fascination with the twitter-feed of a celebrity is nothing. just light bits being flashed at a consumer of the information. Heidegger hypothesized that the role of technology serves to perpetuate human existence but it makes the viewer question how that can be with the advent of things such as twitter fans and followers of celebrities. Maybe in that sense Heidegger is both correct and incorrect on different levels. On the individual level the consumption of such infotainment demands a forgetfulness of one's own life to follow anothers. On the other hand, the consumption of such infotainment perpetuates human existence as a mass collective. In such the simple act of 'following' a celebrity advocates their very existence including their clothes, brands, shampoo, purses, phones, etc. All of which are extracted from nature.
