[-empyre-] art and ethics

Sat Jan 23 09:09:57 EST 2010

oouuuh ... this singes ...

On Jan 22, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Gerry Coulter wrote:

> Not to worry Christiane -- Americans will continue to get the  
> politicians they deserve (as do we all)
>
> best
>
> gerry
> From: empyre-bounces at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre-bounces at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au 
> ] On Behalf Of Christiane Robbins [cpr at mindspring.com]
> Sent: January 22, 2010 12:20 PM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] art and ethics
>
> Actually, I find the unleashing of corporatist art to be among the  
> very least of worries as a result of yesterday's ruling.
>
> I'm certain that others can offer a far more delineated and informed  
> accounting.  However, in the interim, for those of you unfamiliar  
> with this stunning ruling ( some are referring to it as a coup )  
> from January 21, the US Supreme Court basically has overtly  
> transformed our democracy to that of an oligarchy - all under the  
> aegis of the guaranteed right of free speech to all " individuals ,  
> " including "corporate personhood."
>
> Specifically, and in abbreviated form, the Fourteenth Amendment to  
> the US Constitution was created at the conclusion of the Civil War  
> granting basic rights to freed slaves.  Since that point in time it  
> has often been utilized by attorneys representing corporate  
> interests to extend additional rights to businesses far more  
> frequently than to freed slaves. Prior to 1886, corporations were  
> referred to in U.S. law as "artificial persons." However, in 1886,  
> after a series of cases brought by lawyers representing the  
> expanding railroad interests, the Supreme Court ruled that  
> corporations were "persons" and entitled to the same rights granted  
> to people under the Bill of Rights. Since this ruling, the States  
> have lost the legal structures that allowed for people to control  
> corporate behavior.  In other words, corporations came to acquire  
> rights reserved for individual citizens.
>
> The US Supreme Court ruled yesterday that corporations (and unions,  
> lest they not be counted!) now have no limits on their financing  
> political campaigns to any political campaign or candidate.   
> Connecting the dots is rather a simple task in this situation.  And  
> this was all done to ensure free speech...
>
> I'm hoping that  others can parse this issue for a better  
> understanding -
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2010, at 8:26 AM, Timothy Murray wrote:
>
>>> Nick, could you explain your reference to the recent Supreme Court
>>> ruling to our -empyre- community, since a major proportion of our
>>> -empyreans- live outside the US?  I'm also wondering why you think
>>> that a ruling regarding political lobbying (if this is what you're
>>> referencing) would unleash a genre of corporatist art.
>>
>> Thanks so much.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>> international participants...but how to de-link these states seems
>>> impenetrable - like the recent Supreme Court ruling that will
>>> certainly unleash a whole new genre of freely circulating
>>> corporatist art, no?
>>>
>>>
>>> nick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Johanna Drucker <drucker at gseis.ucla.edu>
>>> To: jhaber at haberarts.com; soft_skinned_space <empyre at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au 
>>> >
>>> Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 8:12:46 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 62, Issue 13
>>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> Much different. I agree.
>>>
>>> I do want to make a space for art that is not tasked with being the
>>> moral conscience of the culture too.
>>>
>>> Johanna
>>>
>>> On Jan 11, 2010, at 4:09 PM, John Haber wrote:
>>>
>>>> The analogy to rebranding is very interesting indeed, in an  
>>>> excellent
>>>> post.  Let me ask more about it, though.  Now, to me it's only an
>>>> analogy, and of course whatever venting we may wish to have about
>>>> torture and Israeli policy aren't instantly illuminating  
>>>> regarding art
>>>> except as a kind of red flag.  (Hey, there's injustice in the
>>>> world, so
>>>> don't let it happen in this realm.)  Indeed, it could actually
>>>> disguise
>>>> the problem, by suggesting distinct realms after all, which the  
>>>> whole
>>>> problematic of complicity in art is supposed to question.  Thus, my
>>>> question would be this:  if the political analogy is silence, then
>>>> does
>>>> that open possibilities for art, in which making visible is part of
>>>> the
>>>> game?  Now, I realize that acknowledging something, as argued well,
>>>> doesn't make it go away.  But it's still different from silence.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> empyre forum
>>>> <mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>> <http://www.subtle.net/empyre>http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> empyre forum
>>> <mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>> <http://www.subtle.net/empyre>http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Timothy Murray
>> Director, Society for the Humanities
>> http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/
>> Curator, The Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art, Cornell Library
>> http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu
>> Professor of Comparative Literature and English
>> A. D. White House
>> Cornell University
>> Ithaca, New York 14853
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20100122/c4aed0b4/attachment.html 