[-empyre-] art and ethics

Mon Jan 25 17:31:28 EST 2010

Yes! Let's hear it for Eli Broad indeed. And other serious  
philanthropists. Patrons. We could also think about how state support  
works and doesn't -- a complex issue.
Johanna

On Jan 24, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Saul Ostrow wrote:

> Art can’t be ethical only the artist can
> Saatchi is speculator – who realized that the art market is  
> unregulated and as such has engaged in what would be questionable  
> market practices in other indusries – if you want someone who can be  
> onsidered an eithical collector and supporter of the arts try Eli  
> Broad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Broad
>
>
> On 1/24/10 6:00 PM, "Gerry Coulter" <gcoulter at ubishops.ca> wrote:
>
> I'm not certain (and nothing has convinced me of late) that ethics  
> and art have anything to do with one another.
>
> You mention Saatchi -- he's a rare bird in a way -- comes from the  
> "corporate" but is an honest collector who gets it wrong as often as  
> right (as he admits) but he has done alot to breing attention to,  
> now, two generations  of young British artists. Its rare for a major  
> player in the official art world today to play such a useful role.
>
> Is there an American player in recent years who has done comparable  
> things with Saatchi's concern for art -- not just the money?
>
> ________________________________________
> 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 24, 2010 2:12 PM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] art and ethics
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100124/80513ff9/attachment.html 