[-empyre-] art and ethics

[Christiane Robbins]

hardly ... the "art stuff" is rather easy ... a pleasure, actually,  
comparatively speaking.  Somehow there was a rupture in this cocoon -   
at least for some of us here in the States.

Well then,  a suggestion - perhaps you could re-frame the conceit of  
complicity in relationship to an art  (and ethical)  practice during  
the current moment  -  perhaps in relationship to the old news of the  
corporate global landscape/fifedoms ( ala Saatchi and/or Deitch- the  
privatized public domain )... or perhaps in relationship to a  
corporation as a global avatar.... or perhaps in relationship to any  
number of imaginings

Have to get on - thanks for the discussion -

Best,

C





On Jan 23, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Gerry Coulter wrote:

> I guess the art stuff was too hard? We got bored??
>
> What is all this today -- the art of talking about anything but art?
>
> This is becoming a huge bore -- it was better when we all just did  
> other things (as per most of past week)
>
> Life in America stinks -- its not news.
>
> best
>
> gerry
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-bounces at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre-bounces at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au 
> ] On Behalf Of John Haber [jhaber at haberarts.com]
> Sent: January 23, 2010 5:24 PM
> To: empyre at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 62, Issue 22
>
> I must say I'm a little appalled at the idea that the problem is the
> 14th amendment itself and, in particular, that it must be challenged
> because it's inherently unfair to single out former slaves, whereas a
> better legal framework would guarantee protection for all.  There's a
> lot wrong here.
>
> First, the 14th amendment already does say plain and simply that all
> persons deserve equal rights under the law.  Its only mention of  
> slavery
> is in the last clause, to state that we didn't have to reimburse  
> former
> slave owners.  It's the 13th amendment, freeing the slaves, and the
> 15th, giving them the vote, that mention "race, color, or previous
> condition of servitude," and I trust we don't wish to rescind those.
>
> Second, what if it had specifically addressed the rights of African
> Americans?  It's disgusting to think that there's anything wrong with
> that.  It sounds like the right wingers complaining that whites are
> suffering from civil rights.  In fact, it sounds like the position of
> the faction of the court that reached this awful decision.
>
> Third, one could, I suppose, argue that the amendment could have been
> phrased differently to make clear that persons were, well, people.   
> The
> trouble is that the current interpretation is so ludicrous that no one
> would ever have thought of that before.
>
> Now, it's not easy to explain how the idea of corporations as persons
> under the 14th amendment came to be, along with the second plank, of
> money as speech.  It would not have occurred to a nation after the  
> Civil
> War, when corporations were relatively rare, less powerful, and often
> nonprofit.  It would seem to be denied by the text of the amendment
> itself, which starts with the phrase "born or naturalized," thus, at
> least to me, implying that "persons" are going to be life forms.
>
> It's a long history, and I'm not really qualified to tell it, so I'll
> let you look it up.  It started with a mere aside or note in a  
> decision
> largely unrelated to the point from a conservative court.  Even  
> then, it
> only slowly attained much value as precedent.  It certainly didn't  
> imply
> all this till this week.  I recommend Stevens's dissent, in fact,  
> where
> he starts right in by pointing out that, whatever value we agree to  
> give
> to corporate rights as persons, they're not the same as human rights
> since, for example, corporations can't vote or hold office (his
> examples).  Then he notes the 100 years of precedent that this  
> decision
> broke.
>
> Anyhow, we could blame the American legal system, but I suggest we  
> start
> blaming the Republicans.  I know it's hard for us liberals to organize
> rather than mourn (or backbite).  I sure felt that this week, with the
> reaction to the Massachusetts election and the readiness to blame  
> those
> who actually supported a more liberal health-care bill rather than  
> scum
> like Nelson, Landrieu, Snowe and the fiercer rest of her party, and  
> the
> media network putting out their lies.  But consider it.  Had Bush not
> got a second term, with Alito and Roberts appointed to the court, this
> decision would not have happened, and indeed no one would ever have
> dreamed it would happen.
>
> To put it another way, perhaps more relevant to Empyre, this isn't  
> about
> legal or critical theory.  It's about politics and power, and the bad
> guys won.
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> 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