Re: [-empyre-] politics of critical fusion?

Maurice I would like definitions for some of the more significant terms that are being thrown around here -
What does one mean by critical action - does critical here refer to necessity and does it assume a value system and that gives form and content such acts - I like the fact you refer to what you do as interrogation ( gathering information by submitting questions to another) in that there is no pretense to objectivity and it acknowledges that all is dependent on your ability to discern fact from fiction - both your own as well as that of the other

as for you final statement " the limit of the expected explosion (of?), is the right place to play this role (of interrogator?) - I would be curious to see /hear the analysis this is based upon

Meanwhile Alice,
Self reflexivity, means to being inquisitive and curious about one's own motivations and means of analysis - for instance how do you or can you directly address perception (sensory intake) - seeming from your descriptions you address either cognition (how we make sense of that which we perceive) or how perception might be ordered or influenced (both being significant areas of research for cog sci) as such do you ask yourself how it is you precieve differently and how that has come about

To really look is to observe something in all its visually discernable aspects

Part of whar compelled me to ask my question initially was the looseness of the language being used and the assumptions that these implied - critical fusion - seemed like just another way to avoid the concept of praxis in which theory modifies practice and reciprocally practice modifies theory - theory always already be hypothetical

On Sep 23, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Alice Miceli wrote:

This could take pages and maybe my interpretation of your comment is not
right, but I really would like to express that there is a kind of critical
action that is more about contributing to interrogate the boundaries of our
social behaviour and our global environment and I strongly believe that what
I call “critical fusion”, just .

I would like to say that I very much agree with Maurice. I also think that there are always risks in falling into a trap, especially if artists sometimes end up in stiff and controlled places previously assigned for them by the "economy of power they seek to either address, expose or intervene". So, of course, for me at least, works should always be self-reflexive on that question, and so many others as well. Being self-reflexive meaning to be inquisitive and curious about the very own way a work itself is created: by the way an image is generated, by the way a work comes to being financially, by the way and where it is exhibited. Something that strikes me as very essential in my practice is that in making art, one directly addresses perception, how things in life are perceived - modes of really looking at things. But what it means to really look? What it is that you see beyond what is deceivably shown to you by an “economy of power”, or merely beyond common sense? That, for me, even if in a very small scale, can be a subversive act.

_______________________________________________ empyre forum

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

saul ostrow Chair, Environmental Chairs Council Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies Head, Sculpture


This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.