Dreams of Progress: philosophical debate

A philosophical debate about Utopia and Progress was held at the WRF in July 2009, as part of the Dreams of Progress video art exhibition. The debate attracted around 50 people from various backgrounds, including professors from London universities, philosophical students, art curators and engineers.

In these days of economical, environmental and sometimes ideological uncertainties, the debate took a look back at our previous visions of the future, how they materialised and the way that they relate to the dreams we nourish today. The debate was punctuated by projections of videos, questioning the meaning of progress, between modernism and post-modernism, individuality and utopia, human nature as opposed to mega structures.

Philosophical debate on Utopia and Progress

The predictions for the 60s from General Motors in 1940 served as a perfect introduction to the concepts of Utopia and Progress. I asked the audience their first impressions, to describe the vision presented in the video, if it is realistic and what were the assumptions made. The video attracted a lot of interest because I think it embodies so many of the modern utopias.

In the second part of the debate, I showed the Productivity Vision for 2019 by Microsoft, the Future of Cities by the Danish Royal Academy of Architecture and the Tokyo.future by Ian Lynam. I asked people what kind of utopias and progress the videos showed, what were their assumptions and why they were made. The vision by Microsoft monopolised first the attention, it was perceived at the same time inhuman and very realistic. The Future of Cities was unexpectedly the most controversial video of the debate. Some people felt that its message was closer to their preoccupations, others thought it was not that different from the other visions and that its humanity was only superficial. The last video from Ian Lynam was sadly a little lost in the debate even if its screening got great reactions during the exhibition.

In the last part of the evening, I showed the Mardi Gras video from the artist Keith Loutit and McCool!!! from Julian Roberts and Namalee Bolle. I asked if the videos were showing utopias or dystopias. Because of the previous videos and the discussions that followed, the reference to McDonald’s was heavily debated. The Mardi Gras video was well received but came a little late in the debate to really be properly exploited.

I got many positive feedbacks from the participants of the debate. The use of the videos worked very well in engaging the audience and the contributions were challenging. It was only an introduction as two hours is just enough time to open up the conversation. Some important questions about the nature and role of contemporary utopias started to emerge by the end of the debate. One problem I didn’t anticipated though is that my selection of videos biased a little the debate towards a judgment on corporate visions, avoiding sometimes the more difficult question to define our own utopias.

You can find here the philosophical paper that I prepared for the debate, updated with some of the arguments that were raised during the evening.