[-empyre-] art and ethics
Jun-Ann Lehman
junann at junann.com
Sat Jan 23 17:08:54 EST 2010
Saul: Yes. Something along those lines.
Christiane: Sorry for the opacity. Emailing on mobile phone is hard.
To clarify. A special amendment should not have been necessary to
guarantee the basic rights of freed slaves as long as freed slaves
were recognised as full-Americans, which of course, they weren't. The
14th amendment almost reads as absolution for enslavement. Should the
14th amendment, therefore, in this day and age, be regarded as a form
of segregation for descendants of freed slaves and abused by
corporate America which has the funds to pay lawyers to rake through
the constitution for commercial advantage.
On 23/01/2010, at 1:16 PM, Saul Ostrow wrote:
> Perhaps the 14th amendment should have been an affirmation of the
> rights of all citzens of the United States, regardless of color,
> religion or national origin
>
>
> On 1/22/10 5:43 PM, "Christiane Jetztzeit" <cpr at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Your point is well taken. However, I find your statement somewhat
> opaque: "But the thing is, u hv to ask why a special amendment
> isn't required to guarantee the basic rights of regular Americans."
>
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Jun-Ann Lehman wrote:
>
> Perhaps the reasons for introducing the 14th amendment were flawed.
> Freed slaves shouldn't hv needed to be singled out as a separate
> entity requiring basic rights if they had been regarded as a part
> of the mainstream post -constitutional American population in the
> first place.
>
> If the 14th amendment was challenged, it could solve a lot of
> problems. The thing is, no one would dare because it guarantees
> basic rights for freed slaves. But the thing is, u hv to ask why a
> special amendment isn't required to guarantee the basic rights of
> regular Americans. Freed slaves should hv been regarded as
> Americans protected by the American constitution. Perhaps that's
> what the 14th amendment should hv sought to achieve - the INCLUSION
> of freed slaves, not their exclusion.
>
> jun-ann lehman___ junann at junann.com ___+61 410 506 559___
>
> On 23/01/2010, at 7:44, Gerry Coulter <gcoulter at ubishops.ca> 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 < <mailto:drucker at gseis.ucla.edu>
> drucker at gseis.ucla.edu>
>
>
> To: <mailto:jhaber at haberarts.com> jhaber at haberarts.com;
> soft_skinned_space < <mailto:empyre at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> 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>
> mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> <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>
> <http://www.subtle.net/empyre> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> empyre forum
>
>
> < <mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> <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>
> <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
>
>
>
> --
> Timothy Murray
> Director, Society for the Humanities
> <http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/> http://www.arts.cornell.edu/
> sochum/
> Curator, The Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art, Cornell Library
> <http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu> http://
> goldsen.library.cornell.edu
> Professor of Comparative Literature and English
> A. D. White House
> Cornell University
> Ithaca, New York 14853
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100123/be4f6f4d/attachment.html
More information about the empyre
mailing list