[-empyre-] landscapers and defenders of normalization

[Johannes Birringer]

dear all

thanks to all the contributions elicited by Simon and his topic this month, and yes thanks to Simon's idea. 
i just went back to his beautiful opening mail, introducing this odd and encumbered subject, and back then, I admit  I dreaded it (was I alone in this?) and
thought good, i don't have to read this month 
and I have always considered the topic , and all the language and the justifications and the normalizations around it repulsive.

Of course that must be a defensive reaction on my part, one caused by a deep discomfort I have had for some time for having had to compromise my working in the theatre and dance world by conducting and then elaborating a second form of production (teaching, research) aside from artistic work,  inside university institutions that increasingly extend and alter their reach, their grasp on my creativity, time, health, enjoyment. There was a moment when the institution would even claim they owned my lab's research, while of course I should not need to defend it nor my discomfort, after all, many times one also benefits from the academic world's activities and networks and opportunities, facilities
and energies (the many talented artists, dancers and musicians and software designer etc I have met there)  so it is a mixed bed.  my concern was more over how to justify
all the time wasted on arguing what is research or nor quite research or lesser research, in relationship to creative work (composition, Sophia called it) and the need and passion we have to make new work.  I did read, and wanted to hear about new works that were shown and exhibited and performed, how the "practice-based' stuff traveled back and forth and beyond. And what exciting new ventures are being generated (remember a few years back, the OSU driven collaboration with Forsythe on "Synchronous Objects,"  or maybe some other new ventures? -  I just read about a plan for an "Exhibiting Performance" Conference (University of Westminster), or there was the "Critical Costume" event a couple of weeks ago near Liverpool which seemed rather interesting, combining exhibition/performance with critical debates on design...... 

in any case, we survived the month, and some very fruitful things were said, shared, exchanged, also a good sense of humor I felt (when anxiety and pressure rule these ref-things on the british island), thanks much to  colleagues in Australia,  and also a call for political action I heard, brought to examiners and supervisors to keep working towards changes, along with the researchers who bring their "scores" to the table.

Now Phi Shu teases us with a new acronym, IAE, and language changes, which I had not heard of before, nor do I find it very sexy.  

And you say this (soft-skinned space) is not a good place to discuss torture or the depiction of the politics of  "enhanced interrogation technique", or immorality or normalization techniques,
which, as Zizek argues, "is an extension of politically correct logic: brutal violence practised by the state is made publicly acceptable when language is changed."

I take it that Zizek is attacking what he calls "obscene neutrality"  in artistic representations...

I think this, also on various other levels of containment and despair that were broached here, is quite a good place to go into and reflect on. 


respectfully

Johannes Birringer


[Phi Sju schreibt]
I'm not sure it's the best place to go into such issues : )

[Simon schreibt]
...whilst the origins of IAE might be in some of the pseudo-intellectual back channels of second rate academia its sustenance is driven by commerce, in the form of the art market.