Activism can surely be art as long as enough people call it that, or if it is done with the intention of being art, but is there really any advantage for activism to be called art? Will this make for better, or more far-reaching activism?
The article seems to say that activism is creative just as art is, so it can be considered art. OK, but there are lots of creative activities that are normally not considered art, and when they are, this doesn't necessarily change anything for them. I'm thinking of cooking, and Rirkrit Tiravanija, for example. He may have done something for the artworld, but I don't think his work is that significant for cooking as a creative activity almost everyone engages in daily. My point is that the artworld is very fond of colonizing other areas of knowledge/production, but this seems to happen in a onesided manner. People will still be engaging in creative activities whether anyone chooses to call them art or not, and calling them art will probably not make any difference. best, isabel 2011/10/17 Stéphane Mourey <stephane.mou...@impossible-exil.info> > Well, *can art not be activism?* > > > 2011/10/17 dave miller <dave.miller...@gmail.com> > >> http://hyperallergic.com/38275/could-activism-be-art/ >> > -- http://isabelbrison.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
