[-empyre-] art and ethics

Sun Jan 24 07:54:49 EST 2010

Eg identifying and endowing  the ex-slave (whose being is that of expropriated property) as a citizen with rights, is equivalent to granting citizenship to property

On 1/23/10 2:49 PM, "Christiane Robbins" <cpr at mindspring.com> wrote:

No worries especially as there's no difference of opinion here.  I was simply trying to draw out your clarification below as I thought it to be a significant point.  And ... clearly, emailing and texting do not lend themselves to delving into deep (historical) context.

To my mind, this all is circulating around legal fictions  - initially that a " freed slave" was considered as an entity apart from that of an "American,"  to that of a corporation being considered as a person, and to the permutation that the aspect of financing (monetization) of "free speech" has now been concretized into our legal system as one and the same as the guaranteed right of individual free speech or utterance.

C

On Jan 22, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Jun-Ann Lehman wrote:

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><mailto:drucker at gseis.ucla.edu> drucker at gseis.ucla.edu>

To:  <mailto:jhaber at haberarts.com><mailto:jhaber at haberarts.com> jhaber at haberarts.com; soft_skinned_space < <mailto:empyre at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au><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> <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><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> <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><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> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au

<http://www.subtle.net/empyre><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/> 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> 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><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

 _______________________________________________
 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

_______________________________________________
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/20100123/55cbf54d/attachment-0001.html 