[-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 108, Issue 20

sandradanilovic at rogers.com sandradanilovic at rogers.com
Fri Nov 22 13:18:42 EST 2013

Hi Everyone,

I'm loving this conversation and I wish I had more energy to contribute more elaborate thoughts, such as the others have done. I just felt compelled to fire off a very brief comment, especially in relation to Patrick's point that we may be separating the art from the activism. I do not want to consciously commit that act myself, even though in my last email I may have been privileging one over the other. We don't have to evacuate one for the other. It's about imagination. What could be. I also sometimes feel that we are quick to judge something based on some normative criteria for what constitutes art or activism (or not) or (good) artivism without allowing it to expand our senses in other directions, keeping in mind the iffy parts, the uncomfortable parts (propaganda,for example...) (I keep thinking of Steven Shaviro's Without Criteria in this regard which rocks my world...)

I'd like to quote Brian Massumi (2011) on this topic:  "... the discipline called art does not have a monopoly on creative composition. And the domain called politics does not have a monopoly on real existential change. There is no less an aesthetic side to politics than there is a political side to art. Practices we call doing politics

and practices we call doing art are all integrally aesthetico-political, and every aesthetico-political activity is integrally speculative-pragmatic" (p. 12-13 Semblance and Event). 

I think there is so much to engage with in artivism, but I also think it's not a novel term, it's not a groundbreaking new concept and the history needs to be acknowledged. I am also thinking of ways in which Deleuze and Guattari invite us to create new concepts, move beyond old associations...

Sandra Danilovic, BFA, MA. 
SSHRC Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Information, University of Toronto 

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:00:13 PM, "empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au" <empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
Send empyre mailing list submissions to
    empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au

You can reach the person managing the list at
    empyre-owner at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."

----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: empyre post (Patrick Keilty)


Message: 1
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:40:55 -0500
From: Patrick Keilty <p.keilty at utoronto.ca>
To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre post
    <CAG1hG5e5_59aM=_fH0bDWwrhf1yon0KLPSGmC5RwuZt4cPL7aQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Thanks David! Some great ideas. I'll reply to them more fully when I get a
chance. Since Matt Brower's post, I have been thinking a lot about whether
the emphasis of the projects that interest us is activism instead of "art"
-- that is, creative, playful, or artful activist practices. Perhaps this
kind of activism is at the core of this discussion, instead of aesthetic
theory. This is just a passing thought. More later --

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:58 AM, McIntosh, David (Academic) <
dmcintosh at faculty.ocadu.ca> wrote:

> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> Hi all, I?ve been following the posts for a few weeks now, and have found
> the range of perspectives intriguing. I hope my contribution extends the
> context for considering the terms under debate. As has been pointed out in
> other posts, working across the various visual, political, economic,
> academic, gender, race, representational regimes that underpin each of the
> terms ? documentary, activism, art, digital technology ? is complex and
> fraught. I?m not the least bit surprised to learn that Selmin and others
> have encountered hostility when attempting to merge these seemingly
> separate regimes that have a range of self-interests attached. I recently
> attended an ?artivism? conference in Buenos Aires, where I have lived and
> worked part-time for almost 15 years. I use quotes around ?artivism? as I
> haven?t and am not likely to accept it as part of my vocabulary. First of
> all, it has limited meaning, especially in the context of this debate where
> we are attempting to read across a wider set of terms than just the binary
> of art and activism; it doesn?t encompass documentary or digital technology
> in any substantive way. Secondly, it is linguistically clunky, not unlike
> ?glocal,? a truly painful effort at attempting to think global and local
> simultaneously; mercifully this latter word has disappeared. I am not
> suggesting that terms must remain separate, nor that terminology must
> remain static and tied inevitably to its etymology and usage. Quite the
> contrary, I consider terms like ?artivism? as foreclosing more extended
> network thinking that could produce more extensive change in all the
> terms/nodes comprising the network. Paraphrasing Latour, networks are
> simultaneously real like nature, narrated like discourse and collective
> like the society. It is this extended chain of simultaneities that
> proliferates hybrid boundary objects that challenge existing regimes. It is
> the modernist process of purification that shuts down network thinking and
> defines once simultaneously conjured network elements as incommensurate.
> Back to the ?artivism? conference in Buenos Aires. Most of the six
> presentations were relevant enough, with one in particular provoking an
> extended chain of thought. GRaFiTi  http://www.escritosenlacalle.com   is
> a geo-located graffiti website, where users load photographic and other
> content, but it has limited memory; it only goes back to 2009, when the
> website started. As the creators of the site were presenting their work, I
> slid back in time to my memories of 2001 in Buenos Aires, when the
> ultra-neo-liberal economy had completely collapsed and demonetarized, the
> state collapsed and began murdering protesters, and finally the people won,
> organizing themselves into a range of local popular assemblies, completely
> autonomous self-determining bodies, that unleashed individual and
> collective agency to rapidly and effectively build and manage local
> networks of the real, the narrated and the collective. The popular assembly
> movement also underpinned a wide range of art movements integral to the
> functioning of the network, notably graffiti and stencil art works that
> denounced, commemorated, documented, communicated, instructed, provoked,
> imagined. (As much as I would like to offer a link to a website where the
> 2001 stencil art could is archived, not possible, doesn?t exist.) The
> difference between the Buenos Aires graffiti of 2001 and of 2013 was
> startling and almost absolute. Has the post-2001 return of the Argentinean
> state and a neo-liberal economy, albeit in modified form, completely elided
> 2001 radical embodied popular action and art in favour of an ever-expanding
> digital archive of graffiti ?selfies?? Actually, the two periods are
> linked; the latter wouldn?t exist without the former. The issue raised here
> for me is the matter of network thinking over time, sequenciation if you
> will; networks are not static constructions but rapidly changing, constant
> producers of hybrids. The diachronic dimension is crucial here, as is
> immediate local context, a concept articulated by other posters. ?What is
> at stake?? is a question that must always be posed when considering the
> network structures over time.
> In terms of the relationship between art and activism/politics, I get a
> ?Groundhog Day? feeling reading some recent posts here, posts that tend
> more toward purification than proliferation. As a counterpoint, some
> relevant examples of historical practices that have successfully integrated
> art and activism have been provided in other posts, which have mitigated my
> d?j? vu all over again moments with the discussion. I offer another
> example, a lived experience in my case, of the shifting relationship
> between art and activism that may also help to move this element of the
> discussion forward. In 1987, after several years of media constructions of
> ?gay plague? and vicious homophobia, complete government and medical
> establishment inaction, and thousands upon thousands of deaths of gay men,
> a horizontal network of self-organizing, self-determining forces coalesced
> to fight for education and treatment for people with HIV/AIDS. I chose 1987
> as the date to locate this example of a sutured art/activism network for a
> number of reasons, notably it marks the publication of the special October
> issue edited by Douglas Crimp titled ?AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural
> Activism.? Here is a link to Crimp?s opening chapter:
> http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic868218.files/Crimp_1987.pdf
> What was at stake in this instance is made patently clear by Crimp. The
> massive mobilization, lead by primarily by artists, demonstrated that art
> can and does save lives. And it was in the midst of this massive
> mobilization, perhaps an early instantiation of Negri?s ?multitude,? that
> many artists produced their work, artists who died of AIDS yet still remain
> part of contemporary art discourse, including David Wojnarowicz, Keith
> Haring and 2 of the 3 members of General Idea, to name just a few.
> Admittedly, this historical example addresses concerns with documentary
> only obliquely, and doesn?t address digital technology as it didn?t exist
> in any substantive way at the time. But my intent in offering this
> experience is to lay a clear groundwork for the relationship between art
> and activism. Considering this crucial network moment in diachronic terms,
> clearly the HIV/AIDS crisis is not over, but what is now history conditions
> how many contemporary artists and queer folk perceive their collective
> past, their inheritance as it were. One notable and recent instance of a
> very meaningful diachronic consideration of this history is the exhibition
> ?Coming After? curated by Jon Davies for the Power Plant in Toronto. The
> exhibition ?does not focus on those artists who were, as artist Christian
> Holstad succinctly put it, ?burying their dead? at that time, but instead
> those who grew up in the shadow of the crisis, whether by fate or by
> choice. Their work evidences a sense of having come after or missed out on
> something. The potential represented by both very recent and more faraway
> radical (queer) historical moments is both an open wound and a fount of
> inspiration. What was lost along the way from then to now??
> http://www.thepowerplant.org/Shop/Publications/Publications-by-The-Power-Plant/Coming-After.aspx
> There are many relevant and instructive historical moments of art,
> activism, digital technology and documentary intersecting in proliferating
> networks, from the 1994 EZLN revolution in Chiapas to magazines such as
> Mondo 2000 (1989-1998) and Neural (still publishing http://neural.it ).
>  I?ll try to address these concerns in my creative practice in coming posts.
>  David McIntosh PhD
> Associate Professor
> OCAD University
> Toronto Canada
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

Patrick Keilty
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Information
University of Toronto
@patrickkeilty <https://twitter.com/PatrickKeilty>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20131121/71beed46/attachment-0001.htm>


empyre mailing list
empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au

End of empyre Digest, Vol 108, Issue 20
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20131121/09cceee9/attachment.htm>

More information about the empyre mailing list