Van Veeren, 2013, Thought Piece

DRONE IMAGINARIES
There is more than one way to imagine a drone: visualizing the practice of drone warfare
In the award-winning film Five-Thousand Feet is the Best (2011), video artist Omar Fast offers us, the
viewers, his drone imaginary. Weaving testimony from a former US military Predator drone operator
together with a fictionalized interview, a series of sequences acted on the ground, and the
corresponding view from 5,000 feet above, Fast brings to the fore and over here some of the
troubling politics that have prompted so much discussion around the growing use of drones (also
referred to as unmanned aerial vehicles or remotely piloted aircraft). Is it ethical to watch and then kill
from five thousand feet? What is the effect of drone vision or a drones eye view on those who
watch and on those watched? Is it safer for pilots? For civilians? In short, do drones deliver security
and for whom?

Still from Five-Thousand Feet is the Best, Omar Fast, 2011

The official US position is that this technology and accompanying practices (from increased visual
fields to the required human chain of authorization) is only the latest development in a progression that
enhances precision and effectiveness of munitions and ultimately saves lives. Anti-drone activists
such as Droneswatch (http://droneswatch.org/), on the other hand, have led an increasingly vocal
campaign calling for the end of drone warfare as unaccountable, unethical and a violation of
international law based on the disproportionate use of force and the number of civilian casualties.
Their protests often frame the new technology as a human-less video-game form of warfare. Unlike
campaigns such as Occupy or efforts to close Guantnamo, however, anti-drone campaigners have
been less successful in finding a visual frame around which to mobilize.
Why should this matter? Because politics, in the words of Jacques Rancire, revolves around what is
seen and what can be said about it, around who has the ability to see and the talent to speak. In
short, politics including the politics of security depends on the distribution of the sensible. We
must therefore pay attention to the processes, practices, and techniques involved in the design,
staging and circulation of an event or issue that make it appear in the world. We must pay attention to
its sensible politics (Meg McLagan and Yates McKee, Sensible Politics, 2012) and this includes
paying attention to the ways in which issues and their subjects are imagined.

Van Veeren, 2013, Thought Piece

In the case of drones, their capacity to project force more distantly, it is argued, also means that this
force is projected more invisibly and with less accountability as part of a US shadow war. So, as artist
James Bridle suggests, drones must be made visible, or as is argued here, sensible. Those who
cannot perceive the network cannot act effectively within it, and are powerless and doomed to
endless war. Instead, to understand drones and debates about drones we must be attentive to the
competing ways in which drone warfare is made sensiblethe ways in which it is assembled, seen
and experienced. This is therefore about more than careful looking at drones, but about paying
attention to the processes, practices and techniques that bring drones out of the shadows. How do
they privilege particular forms of looking? How do they draw on past and existing narratives that make
that image of drone warfare speak to particular subjects? How are drones and their effects made
sensible? How, as Bridle suggests, do we make such things visible?
Drone Thing
The most common way in which drones seem to be imagined, or made sensible, is through the
presentation of drones as things; things that fly or things that sit. Most mainstream news media or
publications such as the New York Times or organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations
choose to use images of sterile, highly modern technological-things, embracing an almost technofetishistic vision of drones common to traditional representations of military hardware. In this
imaginary, we sit outside the drone to see it as a neutral object that can be admired or feared. The sort
of drone imaginary that featured in PBSs Rise of the Drones or that MIT Professor Missy Cummings
projected in her recent appearance on The Daily Show (UK version).

For artists and activists seeking to challenge drone warfare and promote ethical reflections and
encounters, this vision of a drone thing is problematic. Satirists such as Drew Christie may be
successful in troubling the politics of drones by using the drone thing. For example, Christie presents
them from the perspective of a former KGB agent proud of the proliferation of US drones that will fill
the skies.

Van Veeren, 2013, Thought Piece

Still from Attack of the Drones, Drew Christie, 2013.

Predominantly, though, a number of strategies are employed to present different visualities and
therefore different viewpoints (or subject positions) connected with drones. These strategies used to
make drones sensible (re)present drones through the different, yet interconnected, approaches of
drone vision, the dronestream, and from under the drone shadow.
Drone Vision
First, Bridle and Fast, as well as artist Trevor Paglen, imagine drones and bring this otherwise invisible
practice out of the shadows through drone vision: the viewer sees with a drone rather than seeing it,
as if through the screen used by a drone operator. For the US military and CIA, this drone vision has
been a key argument for the use of drones due to the supposed clarity of image and the capacity to
watch a drones target for extended periods of time, even weeks. Their sensory capacities to record
and transmit information (and increasingly interpret it) renders them seemingly unbiased and reliable
witnesses. It is also an imaginary that by its nature places the viewer outside the danger zone and is
typical of how those outside the conflict zone see air strikes conducted in their name and therefore
facilitates the representation of this form of targeting as precise (Derek Gregory, Seen/Seduced From
Above, 10 December 2012).

Van Veeren, 2013, Thought Piece

Still from Five-Thousand Feet is the Best, Omar Fast, 2011; Dronestagram:
1:17 pm, 24 December 2012, James Bridle, 2012.
For those looking to think more critically about drones, drone vision either becomes all-seeing and
intrusive, a panopticon of the sky or becomes a hazy mist. In the former, work that looks through
drone vision, as Bridle suggests with Dronestagram (a series of instagram images of the landscape
targeted by drones), unseen and abstract targets are converted into physical places giving substance
to what is otherwise invisible (Derek Gregory, Drones Eye View, 13 November 2012). This view, like
a map, therefore has its own violent cartography (Michael Shapiro, Violent Cartographies, 1997). As
with official accounts, it makes it seem as though everything is seeable, reachable, attainable (Derek
Gregory, Drones Eye View) whilst occluding the complexity of life.

Van Veeren, 2013, Thought Piece

George Barber, The Freestone Drone. In George Barbers imagining (The Freestone Drone, 2013),
we fly a mission with a drone as it becomes sentient and eventually rebels and explores.
But, the importance of clarity and clear thinking that characterizes both official and critical accounts of
drone vision can itself be challenged, as Paglen offers with his Drone Vision, through which we
struggle to make sense of what we see.

Still from Drone Vision, Trevor Paglen, 2012.

Dronestream
A second set of drone imaginaries are those used most particularly by news organizations, such as
the Bureau for Investigative Journalism, the go-to source for data on CIA covert drone operations, and
to a lesser extent by anti-drone activists such as Drone Wars UK. These are the representations of
drones and their impact imagined through the use of statistics and graphs.
These figures and statistics work in the same way as Bridles drone vision to produce a sense that
everything is knowable. But statistics and graphs (and related infographics) are also visual practices
that seek to deliver a sense of certitude and objectivity through technology. As much as drones are,
they are also a technological imaginary. Like drone vision, statistics and graphs seem to offer an
anesthetic experience of violence, one which is calculating, rational and irrefutable. Categories are
clear and definable: civilians and combatants, children and adult. Like official representations of drone
use, drone statistics turn around a visual representation of accuracy. Within the frame used by the

Van Veeren, 2013, Thought Piece

Bureau of Investigative Journalism, for example, these statistics and graphs as imaginaries of drone
warfare become a central means to present drones as dirty weapons, as weapons that kill civilians as
well as combatants. Whereas official constructions of the shadow war (and before that the Global
War on Terror) relies on a projection of security as clean ethical, legal, just even virtuous (in the
just war tradition), minimising collateral damage, depending on surgical strikes, and smart or
clean bombs -- these statistics look to trouble that message of accuracy with their own.

In a similar way, capturing this dronestream is a twitter feed set up and operated by Josh Begley.
Begley tells the story of the drone war and renders drones visible by tweeting every drone strike in
Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan in the last ten years, linking it to the report of casualties. Presenting the
rhythm of these strikes, with a different kind of visuality or imaginary than that of drone vision,
Begleys tweets make visible the mounting death toll of drones, and renders visible in particular the
double tap strategy used by US forces (an illegal practice under international law whereby a first
strike follows the second to target any assistance arriving at the scene). The use of statistics, graphs
and the dronestream to imagine drones captures the scale of the shadow war. Collated and visually
reframed, a steady trickle of information on drone strikes becomes a torrent that seeks to disrupt the
clean imagery of war.
Drone Shadow
Lastly, looking through drone vision or through the dronestream is one thing, looking at drones from
under their shadow is another. The final way in which drones are visualized is from a perspective on
the ground. We no longer look with the operator, but with those who may be the target of their
weapons. Using this imagery artists such as Bridle, Fast and Paglen also present us with a view from
below, positioning the viewer with those that may be targets or collateral damage.

Van Veeren, 2013, Thought Piece

James Bridle, Drone Shadow 002, Kemeralt Caddesi, Istanbul, 2012.

American Predator (Collaboration with Noor Behram), Billboard, 2011.

Arguably, the most difficult of all these drone shadow imaginaries are those produced by Noor
Behram, a local resident and journalist working in Waziristan, who in 2007 began photographing
scenes of drone strikes from the ground. Living in the shadow of the drone, Behram photographs
the aftermath of strikes across Waziristan. With the help of the legal rights campaign group Reprieve
and artist Trevor Paglen he circulates these images world-wide in an effort to bring attention to
unacknowledged civilian deaths and trouble the clean war imagery of drones. He takes the statistics
and graphs used by organizations such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and makes them
human, even personal, in an attempt to compel a moment of compassion, or ethical encounter.
The few places where I have been able to reach right after the attack were a terrible sight One such
place was filled with human body parts lying around and a strong smell of burnt human flesh. Poverty
and the meagre living standards of inhabitants is another common thing at the attack sites I have
come across some horrendous visions where human body parts would be scattered around without
distinction, those of children, women, and elderly (quoted by Trevor Paglen).
His imagery, particular those images of dead children, are critical images that sit uneasily within an

Van Veeren, 2013, Thought Piece

account of drones as clean, especially when these children are named and their deaths recognized in
the dronestream.

Behrums work as it sits in the Dronestream, becomes a particularly compelling imaginary of drones as
we move personal to political, from local to global. Drones are not just things that sit or fly, but are part
of a network or assemblages of practices of violence. From under the shadow the impact of drones is
made sensible in a way that brings forth the complexities of life and how decisions and actions over
here and over there are inescapably interconnected.
Drone Imaginaries
If drones are to be understood and debated, we need to pay attention to the ways in which visual
politics plays into these debates. How are drones visualized? How are the politics of drone warfare
made sensible? Drones as things enter into our world through the ways in which they are talked about,
but also the way they are represented, repeated and circulated. They become objects and images
through which we think. Their different perspectives drone thing, drone vision, dronestream, and
droneshadow offer different and in some ways competing imaginaries of drones. These imaginaries
become important as they connect us to a set of meanings and relations out of which our
understanding of the world is created (Cornelius Castoriadis, The Imaginary Institution of Society,
1987; Jutta Weldes, Constructing the National Interest, 1999).
Paying closer attention to these visual practices, to the sensible politics of drone warfare, offers a way
to think through the many ways in which security and insecurity are produced. These drone
imaginaries make drones visible and sensible, and in so doing they also tune us into the different
people and identities that are connected with this technology. Imagining a drone also means imagining
a viewpoint and there is more than one way to imagine a drone.