Re: [-empyre-] second posting from teddy cruz

I don't know how to continue to maintain a 'position'either proximity or distance. These are binaries of identity that seem to cancel one another. I can try to initiate conditions for possible positive outcomes for a progressive architecture by working for the reform of zoning ordinances to help the deterriorialized and marginalized people who cannot get housing. But I cannot mobilize (or even less likely, coerce) positive outcomes without become a collaborator (implicated) with power;, as architecture in part resists emergence of the new (since it wants to 'design' the future, while futurity is always escaping our plans), even as it resists the power relations upon which it depends (developer initiatives, political contingencies) . In this tension condition though surely there's a productive tactical space "in between" that isn't entirely bound by cultural power relations, 'neither Marx or Jesus'. Power over against architecture always be work ing as series of positive "capillary relations, microlinkages" (Grosz) like the Lilliputians who throw nets over the Giant and immobilize him in a thousand frozen moments. The escape from the net is a resort to the 'natural' processes of becoming that form the deep nature background of our cultural actions in the world. Maybe that's part of Markus's point that participation is 'naturally' violent, as he points out using a metaphor from physics. Elizabeth Grosz thought about this in 'Architecture from the Outside', in the chapter "Architecture and the In-Between." Maybe Kevin's 'grace' is natural too.


On Sep 26, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Teddy Cruz wrote:

1a. Even though this topic might be too old already, I cannot avoid
thinking of the ground zero development process as the most
emblematic case study of the powerlessness of artistic and
architectural fields in the context of socio-political and economic
realities. No matter how much architecture thinking and form seemed
to have developed at the beginning of the 21st centuryŠ It had never
seemed so irrelevant and trivial in the context of an usurped public
process, the economic power of the developer and a governance without
visionŠ and ultimately under the burden of cheap metaphorsŠ

4. The challenge at this moment is to pull things apart, to
critically understand the way certain institutions operate, only then
we can propose counter procedures that can generate new models of
possibility. Traditionally, though, the notion of the avant-garde has
proposed the opposite: that the artist keeps a 'critical distance'
from the institutions in order to critique these spheres of power
from the outside. Today, what's important is what I would call a
'critical proximity,' which in fact is the opposite: it's about us
tactically entering the institutions in order to mobilize their
resources and logics of organization. It is a very different agenda,
less this sort of fake protest or rebellion.

empyre forum

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