Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
Hi Stuart,
I was just replying to Helen's question, which seemed addressed to
practicing artists. The approach I propose may not be relevant or
viable for curators, art critics, or reformers of arts institutions.
Following one's own art practice where it leads is not necessarily a
simple approach. It might wind up being a lot more complicated than
the ICA situation currently being discussed, depending on the nature
of one's practice -- the networks, entanglements, and scales it takes
on.
Best,
Curt
>Hey curt,
>
>
>mmm. I reckon if we go by your criteria there would be no
>furtherfield and all the other bits that go along with it, it's a
>bit more complicated than that surely, which is why we are right now
>discussing this stuff!
>
>Stuart
>
>
>
>
>>--- Original Message Follows ---
>>From: "Helen Pritchard"
>>To:
>>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in
>> Deinstitutionalisation
>>Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:07:09 +
>>
>>me too!
>>thankyou for your reply Curt -
>>Helen
>>On 11 Feb 2010, at 18:43, marc garrett wrote:
>>
>>> I like that also...
>>>
>>> marc
>>>> Curt,
>>>>
>>>> Beautiful!
>>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Antonio Dias:*
>>>> http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/
>>>>
>>>> *Horizons of Significance:*
>>>> http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> *Fine Lines*
>>>> http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 11, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Helen (and all),
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that for an artist, the next tactical turn is to not
>>>>> bother about the next tactical turn (don't bother to make it; don't
>>>>> bother to refuse to make it). The next move is to follow the topics,
>>>>> interests, and concepts of one's own practice, however long they may
>>>>> take to develop, into whichever communities of shared interest they
>>>>> may lead (on or off the popular radar). The less dependent one's art
>>>>> is on any particular "tactical" approach ("institutional critique,"
>>>>> "hacktivism," "relational aesthetics"), the more free it is to
>>>>> pursue
>>>>> its own peculiar ends. Indeed, what fruitful, monstrous, utterly
>>>>> irrelevant situations may emerge?
>>>>>
>>>>> If I spend all my energy making art that seeks to avoid being
>>>>> commodified by the spectacle, I'm always already being influenced by
>>>>> the spectacle. It seems almost a requisite, then, to be willing to
>>>>> move into art practices that don't necessarily involve "art"
>>>>> (writing, design, urban planning, nursing, geology, advertising). It
>>>>> is not a matter of outpacing institutions; it may be a matter of
>>>>> using institutions to make moves that reverberate beyond
>>>>> institutions
>>>>> (beyond museum systems, gallery systems, biennial systems, new media
>>>>> festival systems, academic seminar systems, online art discussion
>>>>> group systems). Then one begins addressing larger forces without
>>>>> being constrained to act solely within the sandbox of "art," which
>>>>> is
>>>>> itself always already modulated by larger forces.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Curt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>With participatory,conversational, collaborative, temporary,
>>>>>> fluid
>>>>>> approaches all being appropriated so quickly into institutional
>>>>>> policies and communication being commodified by social networking
>>>>>> sites.. has really made me wonder what the next 'turn' will have
>>>>>> to be
>>>>>> in artists tactics
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What new approaches will emerge?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best
>>>>>> Helen
>>>>>> www.helenpritchard.info
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org <mailto:NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
>>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>>
>>>>
> >>>
>>>> ___
>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>
>>> ___
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>>___
>>NetBehaviour mailing list
>>NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>___
>NetBehaviour mailing list
>NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
Tony, Find all this interestingly humorous Karens remark was a quote by Kathy Acker. Initially wondered tongue in cheek which country was Kathy Acker referring to...! >> "One of the reasons I think the ultra right-wing has such power in this >> country is that no one talks out." >> Kathy Acker. __ Martin. On 11 Feb 2010, at 22:16, Antonio Dias wrote: > matin, > > That's all correct. My comments were in response to my perception of an > oversimplification in your "suggestion…" to Karen. > > The "ownership" we deal with here, "somewhere on the ethernet," is a fragile > space where there is a modicum of freedom tempered by the broad yet shallow > reach voices like any of ours have here in comparison with what passes for > public discourse. This is the dynamic we struggle within. > > I can't think of a better place to be, or I'd be there instead! > > Tony > > > Antonio Dias: > http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/ > > Horizons of Significance: > http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/ > > Fine Lines > http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com > > > On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:56 PM, martin mitchell wrote: > >> Tony. >> >> Control, prejudice, ignorance and ideology are often used to 'control free >> speech', one of the restricting tools used is idea 'ownership' which can >> take on many slippery meanings like money, power and copyright, this email >> conversation structure has ownership but who might be defined as the owner >> is somewhere in the ethernet >> >> Martin. >> >> On 11 Feb 2010, at 19:28, Antonio Dias wrote: >> >>> Martin, >>> >>> it's not my presumption that keeps you from being heard, but the >>> "ownership" of "free speech." >>> >>> Tony >>> >>> >>> Antonio Dias: >>> http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> Horizons of Significance: >>> http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> Fine Lines >>> http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com >>> >>> >>> On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:18 PM, martin mitchell wrote: >>> But nobody owns my spoken words only your presumption. Martin. On 11 Feb 2010, at 19:12, Antonio Dias wrote: > Martin, > > Outside of places like this list free speech equals money. That's what > the Right has. Owning speech, what a thought! > > Tony > > > Antonio Dias: > http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/ > > Horizons of Significance: > http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/ > > Fine Lines > http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com > > > On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:07 PM, martin mitchell wrote: > >> Suggest. maybe you are looking in the wrong places. >> >> Martin. >> >> On 11 Feb 2010, at 18:52, karen blissett wrote: >> >>> "One of the reasons I think the ultra right-wing has such power in this >>> country is that no one talks out." >>> Kathy Acker. ___ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> ___ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>> >>> ___ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> ___ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
Hello Karen. And which country is Kathy Acker referring to? Martin. On 11 Feb 2010, at 22:12, karen blissett wrote: > Hi Martin, > > That was a Kathy Acker quote... > > not my own. > > karen, > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:07 PM, martin mitchell > wrote: > Suggest. maybe you are looking in the wrong places. > > Martin. > > On 11 Feb 2010, at 18:52, karen blissett wrote: > >> "One of the reasons I think the ultra right-wing has such power in this >> country is that no one talks out." >> Kathy Acker. ___ >> >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
Hey curt,
mmm. I reckon if we go by your criteria there would be no furtherfield and all
the other bits that go along with it, it's a bit more complicated than that
surely, which is why we are right now discussing this stuff!
Stuart
>--- Original Message Follows ---
>From: "Helen Pritchard"
>To:
>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in
> Deinstitutionalisation
>Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:07:09 +
>
>me too!
>thankyou for your reply Curt -
>Helen
>On 11 Feb 2010, at 18:43, marc garrett wrote:
>
>> I like that also...
>>
>> marc
>>> Curt,
>>>
>>> Beautiful!
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>> *Antonio Dias:*
>>> http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/
>>>
>>> *Horizons of Significance:*
>>> http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Fine Lines*
>>> http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Helen (and all),
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that for an artist, the next tactical turn is to not
>>>> bother about the next tactical turn (don't bother to make it; don't
>>>> bother to refuse to make it). The next move is to follow the topics,
>>>> interests, and concepts of one's own practice, however long they may
>>>> take to develop, into whichever communities of shared interest they
>>>> may lead (on or off the popular radar). The less dependent one's art
>>>> is on any particular "tactical" approach ("institutional critique,"
>>>> "hacktivism," "relational aesthetics"), the more free it is to
>>>> pursue
>>>> its own peculiar ends. Indeed, what fruitful, monstrous, utterly
>>>> irrelevant situations may emerge?
>>>>
>>>> If I spend all my energy making art that seeks to avoid being
>>>> commodified by the spectacle, I'm always already being influenced by
>>>> the spectacle. It seems almost a requisite, then, to be willing to
>>>> move into art practices that don't necessarily involve "art"
>>>> (writing, design, urban planning, nursing, geology, advertising). It
>>>> is not a matter of outpacing institutions; it may be a matter of
>>>> using institutions to make moves that reverberate beyond
>>>> institutions
>>>> (beyond museum systems, gallery systems, biennial systems, new media
>>>> festival systems, academic seminar systems, online art discussion
>>>> group systems). Then one begins addressing larger forces without
>>>> being constrained to act solely within the sandbox of "art," which
>>>> is
>>>> itself always already modulated by larger forces.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Curt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> With participatory,conversational, collaborative, temporary,
>>>>> fluid
>>>>> approaches all being appropriated so quickly into institutional
>>>>> policies and communication being commodified by social networking
>>>>> sites.. has really made me wonder what the next 'turn' will have
>>>>> to be
>>>>> in artists tactics
>>>>>
>>>>> What new approaches will emerge?
>>>>>
>>>>> best
>>>>> Helen
>>>>> www.helenpritchard.info
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org <mailto:NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>> ___
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>___
>NetBehaviour mailing list
>NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
matin, That's all correct. My comments were in response to my perception of an oversimplification in your "suggestion…" to Karen. The "ownership" we deal with here, "somewhere on the ethernet," is a fragile space where there is a modicum of freedom tempered by the broad yet shallow reach voices like any of ours have here in comparison with what passes for public discourse. This is the dynamic we struggle within. I can't think of a better place to be, or I'd be there instead! Tony Antonio Dias: http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/ Horizons of Significance: http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/ Fine Lines http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:56 PM, martin mitchell wrote: Tony. Control, prejudice, ignorance and ideology are often used to 'control free speech', one of the restricting tools used is idea 'ownership' which can take on many slippery meanings like money, power and copyright, this email conversation structure has ownership but who might be defined as the owner is somewhere in the ethernet Martin. On 11 Feb 2010, at 19:28, Antonio Dias wrote: Martin, it's not my presumption that keeps you from being heard, but the "ownership" of "free speech." Tony Antonio Dias: http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/ Horizons of Significance: http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/ Fine Lines http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:18 PM, martin mitchell wrote: But nobody owns my spoken words only your presumption. Martin. On 11 Feb 2010, at 19:12, Antonio Dias wrote: Martin, Outside of places like this list free speech equals money. That's what the Right has. Owning speech, what a thought! Tony Antonio Dias: http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/ Horizons of Significance: http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/ Fine Lines http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:07 PM, martin mitchell wrote: Suggest. maybe you are looking in the wrong places. Martin. On 11 Feb 2010, at 18:52, karen blissett wrote: "One of the reasons I think the ultra right-wing has such power in this country is that no one talks out." Kathy Acker. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
Hi Martin, That was a Kathy Acker quote... not my own. karen, On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:07 PM, martin mitchell wrote: > Suggest. maybe you are looking in the wrong places. > > Martin. > > On 11 Feb 2010, at 18:52, karen blissett wrote: > > "One of the reasons I think the ultra right-wing has such power in this > country is that no one talks out." > Kathy Acker. ___ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
Tony. Control, prejudice, ignorance and ideology are often used to 'control free speech', one of the restricting tools used is idea 'ownership' which can take on many slippery meanings like money, power and copyright, this email conversation structure has ownership but who might be defined as the owner is somewhere in the ethernet Martin. On 11 Feb 2010, at 19:28, Antonio Dias wrote: > Martin, > > it's not my presumption that keeps you from being heard, but the "ownership" > of "free speech." > > Tony > > > Antonio Dias: > http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/ > > Horizons of Significance: > http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/ > > Fine Lines > http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com > > > On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:18 PM, martin mitchell wrote: > >> But nobody owns my spoken words only your presumption. >> >> Martin. >> On 11 Feb 2010, at 19:12, Antonio Dias wrote: >> >>> Martin, >>> >>> Outside of places like this list free speech equals money. That's what the >>> Right has. Owning speech, what a thought! >>> >>> Tony >>> >>> >>> Antonio Dias: >>> http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> Horizons of Significance: >>> http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> Fine Lines >>> http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com >>> >>> >>> On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:07 PM, martin mitchell wrote: >>> Suggest. maybe you are looking in the wrong places. Martin. On 11 Feb 2010, at 18:52, karen blissett wrote: > "One of the reasons I think the ultra right-wing has such power in this > country is that no one talks out." > Kathy Acker. ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>> >>> ___ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> ___ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
Martin, it's not my presumption that keeps you from being heard, but the "ownership" of "free speech." Tony Antonio Dias: http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/ Horizons of Significance: http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/ Fine Lines http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:18 PM, martin mitchell wrote: But nobody owns my spoken words only your presumption. Martin. On 11 Feb 2010, at 19:12, Antonio Dias wrote: Martin, Outside of places like this list free speech equals money. That's what the Right has. Owning speech, what a thought! Tony Antonio Dias: http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/ Horizons of Significance: http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/ Fine Lines http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:07 PM, martin mitchell wrote: Suggest. maybe you are looking in the wrong places. Martin. On 11 Feb 2010, at 18:52, karen blissett wrote: "One of the reasons I think the ultra right-wing has such power in this country is that no one talks out." Kathy Acker. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
But nobody owns my spoken words only your presumption. Martin. On 11 Feb 2010, at 19:12, Antonio Dias wrote: > Martin, > > Outside of places like this list free speech equals money. That's what the > Right has. Owning speech, what a thought! > > Tony > > > Antonio Dias: > http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/ > > Horizons of Significance: > http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/ > > Fine Lines > http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com > > > On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:07 PM, martin mitchell wrote: > >> Suggest. maybe you are looking in the wrong places. >> >> Martin. >> >> On 11 Feb 2010, at 18:52, karen blissett wrote: >> >>> "One of the reasons I think the ultra right-wing has such power in this >>> country is that no one talks out." >>> Kathy Acker. ___ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> ___ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
Martin, Outside of places like this list free speech equals money. That's what the Right has. Owning speech, what a thought! Tony Antonio Dias: http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/ Horizons of Significance: http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/ Fine Lines http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:07 PM, martin mitchell wrote: Suggest. maybe you are looking in the wrong places. Martin. On 11 Feb 2010, at 18:52, karen blissett wrote: "One of the reasons I think the ultra right-wing has such power in this country is that no one talks out." Kathy Acker. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
Suggest. maybe you are looking in the wrong places. Martin. On 11 Feb 2010, at 18:52, karen blissett wrote: > "One of the reasons I think the ultra right-wing has such power in this > country is that no one talks out." > Kathy Acker. ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
me too!
thankyou for your reply Curt -
Helen
On 11 Feb 2010, at 18:43, marc garrett wrote:
> I like that also...
>
> marc
>> Curt,
>>
>> Beautiful!
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>> *Antonio Dias:*
>> http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/
>>
>> *Horizons of Significance:*
>> http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/
>> *
>> *
>> *Fine Lines*
>> http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com
>>
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Helen (and all),
>>>
>>> It seems to me that for an artist, the next tactical turn is to not
>>> bother about the next tactical turn (don't bother to make it; don't
>>> bother to refuse to make it). The next move is to follow the topics,
>>> interests, and concepts of one's own practice, however long they may
>>> take to develop, into whichever communities of shared interest they
>>> may lead (on or off the popular radar). The less dependent one's art
>>> is on any particular "tactical" approach ("institutional critique,"
>>> "hacktivism," "relational aesthetics"), the more free it is to
>>> pursue
>>> its own peculiar ends. Indeed, what fruitful, monstrous, utterly
>>> irrelevant situations may emerge?
>>>
>>> If I spend all my energy making art that seeks to avoid being
>>> commodified by the spectacle, I'm always already being influenced by
>>> the spectacle. It seems almost a requisite, then, to be willing to
>>> move into art practices that don't necessarily involve "art"
>>> (writing, design, urban planning, nursing, geology, advertising). It
>>> is not a matter of outpacing institutions; it may be a matter of
>>> using institutions to make moves that reverberate beyond
>>> institutions
>>> (beyond museum systems, gallery systems, biennial systems, new media
>>> festival systems, academic seminar systems, online art discussion
>>> group systems). Then one begins addressing larger forces without
>>> being constrained to act solely within the sandbox of "art," which
>>> is
>>> itself always already modulated by larger forces.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Curt
>>>
>>>
>>>
With participatory,conversational, collaborative, temporary,
fluid
approaches all being appropriated so quickly into institutional
policies and communication being commodified by social networking
sites.. has really made me wonder what the next 'turn' will have
to be
in artists tactics
What new approaches will emerge?
best
Helen
www.helenpritchard.info
>>>
>>> ___
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
"One of the reasons I think the ultra right-wing has such power in this country is that no one talks out." Kathy Acker. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
I like that also...
marc
> Curt,
>
> Beautiful!
>
> Tony
>
>
> *Antonio Dias:*
> http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/
>
> *Horizons of Significance:*
> http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/
> *
> *
> *Fine Lines*
> http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com
>
>
> On Feb 11, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>
>> Hi Helen (and all),
>>
>> It seems to me that for an artist, the next tactical turn is to not
>> bother about the next tactical turn (don't bother to make it; don't
>> bother to refuse to make it). The next move is to follow the topics,
>> interests, and concepts of one's own practice, however long they may
>> take to develop, into whichever communities of shared interest they
>> may lead (on or off the popular radar). The less dependent one's art
>> is on any particular "tactical" approach ("institutional critique,"
>> "hacktivism," "relational aesthetics"), the more free it is to pursue
>> its own peculiar ends. Indeed, what fruitful, monstrous, utterly
>> irrelevant situations may emerge?
>>
>> If I spend all my energy making art that seeks to avoid being
>> commodified by the spectacle, I'm always already being influenced by
>> the spectacle. It seems almost a requisite, then, to be willing to
>> move into art practices that don't necessarily involve "art"
>> (writing, design, urban planning, nursing, geology, advertising). It
>> is not a matter of outpacing institutions; it may be a matter of
>> using institutions to make moves that reverberate beyond institutions
>> (beyond museum systems, gallery systems, biennial systems, new media
>> festival systems, academic seminar systems, online art discussion
>> group systems). Then one begins addressing larger forces without
>> being constrained to act solely within the sandbox of "art," which is
>> itself always already modulated by larger forces.
>>
>> Best,
>> Curt
>>
>>
>>
>>>With participatory,conversational, collaborative, temporary, fluid
>>> approaches all being appropriated so quickly into institutional
>>> policies and communication being commodified by social networking
>>> sites.. has really made me wonder what the next 'turn' will have to be
>>> in artists tactics
>>>
>>> What new approaches will emerge?
>>>
>>> best
>>> Helen
>>> www.helenpritchard.info
>>
>> ___
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
Curt,
Beautiful!
Tony
Antonio Dias:
http://antoniodiasadw.wordpress.com/
Horizons of Significance:
http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/
Fine Lines
http://finelinesamatterofdistinction.wordpress.com
On Feb 11, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
Hi Helen (and all),
It seems to me that for an artist, the next tactical turn is to not
bother about the next tactical turn (don't bother to make it; don't
bother to refuse to make it). The next move is to follow the topics,
interests, and concepts of one's own practice, however long they may
take to develop, into whichever communities of shared interest they
may lead (on or off the popular radar). The less dependent one's art
is on any particular "tactical" approach ("institutional critique,"
"hacktivism," "relational aesthetics"), the more free it is to pursue
its own peculiar ends. Indeed, what fruitful, monstrous, utterly
irrelevant situations may emerge?
If I spend all my energy making art that seeks to avoid being
commodified by the spectacle, I'm always already being influenced by
the spectacle. It seems almost a requisite, then, to be willing to
move into art practices that don't necessarily involve "art"
(writing, design, urban planning, nursing, geology, advertising). It
is not a matter of outpacing institutions; it may be a matter of
using institutions to make moves that reverberate beyond institutions
(beyond museum systems, gallery systems, biennial systems, new media
festival systems, academic seminar systems, online art discussion
group systems). Then one begins addressing larger forces without
being constrained to act solely within the sandbox of "art," which is
itself always already modulated by larger forces.
Best,
Curt
With participatory,conversational, collaborative, temporary, fluid
approaches all being appropriated so quickly into institutional
policies and communication being commodified by social networking
sites.. has really made me wonder what the next 'turn' will have
to be
in artists tactics
What new approaches will emerge?
best
Helen
www.helenpritchard.info
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
Hi Helen (and all),
It seems to me that for an artist, the next tactical turn is to not
bother about the next tactical turn (don't bother to make it; don't
bother to refuse to make it). The next move is to follow the topics,
interests, and concepts of one's own practice, however long they may
take to develop, into whichever communities of shared interest they
may lead (on or off the popular radar). The less dependent one's art
is on any particular "tactical" approach ("institutional critique,"
"hacktivism," "relational aesthetics"), the more free it is to pursue
its own peculiar ends. Indeed, what fruitful, monstrous, utterly
irrelevant situations may emerge?
If I spend all my energy making art that seeks to avoid being
commodified by the spectacle, I'm always already being influenced by
the spectacle. It seems almost a requisite, then, to be willing to
move into art practices that don't necessarily involve "art"
(writing, design, urban planning, nursing, geology, advertising). It
is not a matter of outpacing institutions; it may be a matter of
using institutions to make moves that reverberate beyond institutions
(beyond museum systems, gallery systems, biennial systems, new media
festival systems, academic seminar systems, online art discussion
group systems). Then one begins addressing larger forces without
being constrained to act solely within the sandbox of "art," which is
itself always already modulated by larger forces.
Best,
Curt
>With participatory,conversational, collaborative, temporary, fluid
>approaches all being appropriated so quickly into institutional
>policies and communication being commodified by social networking
>sites.. has really made me wonder what the next 'turn' will have to be
>in artists tactics
>
>What new approaches will emerge?
>
>best
>Helen
>www.helenpritchard.info
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation
Thanks Mark. To me the most insightful part is where Charlesworth explains how overarching forces of capitalism are causing an arts institution to sponsor work by artists critical of capitalism. The tactical artists cary out their confined, parochial, micro-critiques of capitalism under the auspices of an institution that is only sponsoring their work is because more glamorous displays of spectacular capital have become financially imprudent, and so they must resort to sponsoring "authentic" (and conveniently inexpensive) displays of spectacular anti-capitalism. It's all depressingly Baudrillardian, and all sadly un-Debordian. Curt >M | U | T | E | __ rread it! > >Crisis at the ICA: Ekow Eshun's Experiment in Deinstitutionalisation > >By JJ Charlesworth > >Amidst a general acceptance of the cash crisis afflicting the ICA as an >accident of the recession, and a rush into headlong 'hairshirt' >institutional self-critique as a means to deflect real scrutiny, JJ >Charlesworth uncovers a catalogue of avoidable mistakes and the >free-market, lifestyle thinking behind them > >* > >http://www.metamute.org/en/content/crisis_at_the_ica_ekow_eshun_s_experiment_in_deinstitutionalisation > >___ >NetBehaviour mailing list >NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
