Re: [-empyre-] What is to be done .... continued
To respond to your question re: the statements cut and pasted below,
I’ll begin by saying that as one already knows context determines
meaning, and by this I also include historical timing within the
perception of context replete with its specificities, as well. When
we are looking at Documenta itself – one of the most historically
significant of contemporary art exhibitions continuing to this day
and increasingly attracting an international audience – a public if
you will - of over 650,000, suffice it to say that issues arise.
In my earlier statement I had been referencing back to P. Beurgels’
statement: “The global complex of cultural translation that seems to
be somehow embedded in art and its mediation sets the stage for a
potentially all-inclusive public debate.”
This statement strikes me as one based on an assumption of concensus
( if not universality ) of the function of art practice enabling the
transference of a specific, yet ambiguous, knowledge. The issue is
raised as to how that knowledge is being represented and if, indeed,
its ontology ( including his assumption “the ability of art to
mediate the global complex of cultural translation ) is being
mythologized as device servicing public debate. This leads one to
question which public and which forum of debate is he referencing ?
Where is this forum taking place and within which historical context.
For now I’ll synthesize this point for your ( everyone's) further
consideration: what I note in taking a look at Documenta is a
capitalistic forum that very much mirrors current governing global
economic systems (artistic as well as technological, industrial and
knowledge-based systems.) Yet at the same time it appears ( based on
limited knowledge) not to allow for another structure ( for said
purposes of mediation) to be put in place that questions these
hegemonic form of exchange and access. Thus, whatever exchange -
translations- takes place does so within the reifying reinscription
of documenta and these systems themselves.
I believe that P Buergels may well be aware of this conundrum by
virtue of his acknowledgment "how to mediate the particular content
or shape of those things without sacrificing their particularity is
one of the great challenges of an exhibition like documenta." Which
returns us to his suggested salvo of art practice and its function of
mediation for a global cultural translation.
Unfortunately, I have to run as there appears to be some sort of a
chemical spill outside ( yikes ) but hopefully this is enough grist
for thought for the time being -
On Jan 16, 2007, at 1:24 PM, saul ostrow wrote:
can you clarify what you mean by these two statements -
On Jan 16, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Christiane Robbins wrote:
the gelled lens of globalism which offers a branded patina of
regionalized specificity and individuated experience
art practices to function as modes of transferable knowledge
within the “global complex of cultural translation”
J e t z t z e i t
Los Angeles l San Francisco
CA l USA
... the space between zero and one ...
The present age prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to
the original, fancy to reality, the appearance to the essence for in
these days illusion only is sacred, truth profane.
Ludwig Feuerbach, 1804-1872,
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and