Re: [-empyre-] Re: Critical Spatial Practice
Enjoying the generous responses here so far -
First, I'm a little uncomfortable with how my questions and concerns
might be pushing discussion back to matters of reception. The
emphasis so far here on perception, language and sensory experience
says more about my position as an art educator, and perhaps even as a
trained painter, than about the central concerns of some of the good
work pointed to by Ryan, Brett and others in their cited examples.
That said, conversations about how the senses are organized to
promote certain modes of experience and exchange are of interest to
me, and relevant to the topic and context here. I just wouldn't call
them central to a discussion of "CSP". I'm looking forward to hearing
from some of this month's other discussants whose work is more
directly engaged with the practice, examination and construction of
spaces outside the academy.
On the instrumentality discussion -
Sally Jane asks some very good questions that are prodding me onward
to better clarity here. I concur with Saul's distinction between an
instrument and instrumental use. To borrow from Theater and
performance, I wonder if my worries about instrumentalized approaches
to perception aren't analogous to Brecht's critique of Epic theater.
I understand Brecht's concerns to be about Epic theater's engagement
of senses and bodies toward the end of eliciting very specific
programmed emotional responses. His response through the Theater of
Alienation was to try to shock the senses into action through arrest
or thwarting of expectations. Might his Alienated Theater be equally
as instrumentalizing ? Sure - such reflexive modernist strategies
have been employed with even less freedom for sensory discovery, if
for different ideological ends. (ie, the construction of class
through difficulty and prestige).
Such examples make me think about how and when sensory experience
allows for, and is even dependent upon, more discovery and
contingency. Any produced event worth an audience's trouble carries a
honed and framed experience that contains a finite number of sensory
possibilities. I wouldn't consider such intentionality in framing to
be always instrumentalizing perception, because many of these events
allow for a variety of simultaneous experiences, and even seek a
productive unexpected response or challenge from the recipient.
Maybe I'm still evading Sally Jane's questions, but I want to
maintain that actions seeking exchange, or even offering a gift, are
more generous and humane than actions intended to provoke specific
responses. I remember here too some discussions with anthropologists
in which the social functions of material objects grow narrower and
more routinized as ties between group members grow weak. Autonomy,
safety, and therefore power stability, seem to rely on smoothly
functioning symbol systems. Do the emergency exit lights in my
building need to function as routinized, instrumentally perceived
codes of red letter forms? Sure, but such visual regimes are part of
the construction of specific social spaces, relations to one another
and to authority. There's an interrelationship of certain perceptual
regimes or sensoria and consequent spatialized socialities.
What I miss most in a world where economies mobilize every bodily
capacity towards smooth reception and production are (1) the
experience of simultaneous, and competing sensory inputs (the
auditory suffers greatly here, thinking of Catherine's post); and (2)
encounters that privilege dissonance and difference among
participants via confrontation with differing perceptual subjectivities.
Where this discussion overlaps with our month's topic is this - that
such opportunities for questioning the senses, adapting and arguing
about or from clashing perceptions, seem to be a particularly
prominent part of working with others to understand and change a
particular space. From all accounts, Ultrared deals well with this,
though I haven't attended a performance in person.
And then to Danny about disciplines -
I'll be brief here for now, and his post deserves more than I have
time to write at the moment. I can understand why he would take my
statements so far here the way he did. I should clarify - I'm not
eager to keep such practices or projects as we've mentioned here
suspended outside of existing disciplines. As you say, that's no
answer, and not really possible. My point is more that as a
discipline, art really isn't required by many good CSP-related
projects. And in fact, with the avant garde as a precedent, art
stands to do some of these practices some harm. (Saul pointed out to
me helpfully that one might look at this as an issue of attempts to
circumscribe art's role, and not as an issue of art itself.)
Some alternatives I would suggest based on observation - for one, a
group might think less about disciplinary location and more about
productive goals (as mentioned in Brett's post). For another, a group
might move from discipline to discipline as needed for purposes of
practical institutional recognition and legitimation. Or for another
(mostly my experience), disciplinary identity might be more a concern
for individual members of a collaborative group, so that even if the
project isn't identified as moored to a particular disciplinary site,
individuals who work on the project can use the results as needed to
further their individual standing , thus supporting the creation of
future efforts. My chief concern here is to not weigh down a good
project with the expectations of a particular discipline unless that
discipline's space is part of the project's area of inquiry.
Hope I'm clarifying or helping form questions more than I am
distracting through this thinking-out-loud,
Kevin
On Sep 10, 2007, at 5:05 PM, Danny Butt wrote:
Enjoying this thread a great deal more than I have the capacity to
contribute, but two brief thoughts from a deconstructive vein that
has been productive for me recently:
Firstly, given how thoroughly I tend to agree with them usually, I
am a little surprised at Ryan and Kevin's concerns with escaping
art as context in the service of art as process (to be a bit ham-
fisted about the summary, please correct me if I have this wrong),
as if interdisciplinarity and the refusal to locate practice allows
flight from the power relations of assimilating cultural
institutions. It reminds me of a certain repetition of
Conceptualism in the new media arts sector; and also (as Brett
perhaps suggests) a new media studies repetition of "criticality"
which seems not-well-enough-connected to previous debates on the
limits and exclusions inherent in the critical enterprise's
attempts to find distance from power. This is not to say that I am
not interested in institutional critique, but my reading of
post-60s critical artistic practices is that they are marked with
the recogniiton that it is precisely in the moment of recuperation
that one's criticality finds its disruptive effect in the fabric of
disciplinarity/genre/institutional practice. (I am thinking
especially of US feminist work from the 70s and 80s, inc. Lacy as
Kevin mentioned, included/reframed/assimilated in the recent MOCA
feminist art restrospective which I didn't see but would love to
hear more about w.r.t. this discussion from those in the LA area,
and also thinking of Faith Wilding's comments on the problematic of
reprising "Crocheted Environment" in a new institutional site). (In
fact, this whole point seems heavily gendered). In the end, surely,
we have to choose our sites of participation with a much more
modest sense of our capability to escape the power relations that
pre-exist our participation in whatever cultural scripts we are
performing. For me, the power of interdisciplinarity is in the "and/
against", rather than the "not just".
So to take that out to the broader questions of sensation in space
that Christiane, Sally Jane, Catherine have opened up in Kevin's
"instruments" for us; our ability to comprehend and control
instrumentalising behaviour (as Sally Jane points out, not
deserving of a purely negative connotation) might be less
voluntaristic than some of this discussion might imply. We are
having these conversations within heavily over-determined embodied
subjectivities which to me DO make the de Certeau-esque tactical
walk seem romantic in its assumption that sensitivities to one's
own body are communicated intersubjectively through conversation or
co-presence. My experience is that, contrarily, difference is made
more visible. Just think about race, body and law enforcement/
policing. [This is simply Spivak's critique of the baseline
assumption of a shared subjectivity in Deleuze's flight from the
subject outlined in the Can the Subaltern Speak? essay].
Perhaps instead, I'd suggest, one's movement through space is
instead developed the way one learns a language - very slowly, and
the effects on one's native bodily "language" will never quite be
understood as one attempts to learn another way of being in space,
yes through the infinitesimal mechanisms described by Kevin -
experience is irreducible - but requiring a much longer period of
time than the logic of the "intervention" seems cut out for. Here
then, with the question of time, we have to attend to the history
of the psychogeographic walk's intimate relationship with
exploration/anthropology; and this raises the fundamental aporia
between the subjectivities of the explorer and their informants,
and their different temporal orientations to the encounter. My take
on the history of the debates in anthro is that there is a clear
ethical decision to make when we travel: we either focus on our own
experience and what we can extract for those "back home" in our
disciplinary/subjective locations; or we test our own desire to
enter different spaces by giving ourselves over to the maintenance
of someone else's pathway, where our bodies do not "learn" but
instead give us away constantly, but through our inability to ever
be adequate (or critical ;) ) to this situation we develop our
ability to attend to the exclusions embedded in our own practices/
being.
Mieke Bal's work on travelling concepts is perhaps pertinent here.
Reading back on this it doesn't seem like I've said anything
useful, but I'll send it anyway. Many thanks for all the
stimulating contributions.
x.d
--
http://www.dannybutt.net
On 11/09/2007, at 6:17 AM, Ryan Griffis wrote:
Sorry, i meant to also reiterate Kevin's pointing to Nick Brown
and Ava Bromberg's "Just Spaces" program (if i may shamelessly
promote some friends), as it is deliberately, i think, inclusive
of practices other than Art. Or to paraphrase Matthew Fuller,
projects that are "not just art" (or architecture, or planning, or
activism for that matter). Which leads to some of the concrete
concerns about the shifting of power when structurally exclusive
cultural institutions attempt inclusion...
best,
ryan
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc 2.6.8.