[-empyre-] introductory questions

[Patrick Keilty]

What a fabulous conversation! It's been a hectic week on this end, so I am
only just getting to this conversation now. I think Matt raises some
important questions about what counts as artivism -- questions I share. I
have a lot of ideas circulating about this, and no definitive answer. So
I'll just recite some of my meandering thoughts. On the one hand, I agree
with Adorno that the political content of a work is not necessarily its
most important aspect. There are so many important aspects that go into any
work. Yet work can also become political, by virtue of its context, without
an explicit political message. I'd count this as artivism, too, but in this
case, it's the relationship -- that is, the dynamic and performative
interplay -- between viewer and object that occasions an explicit politics
and turns the work over into artivism. I also feel that it's nearly
impossible for works to escape politics, even if those politics are subtle
or seemingly unknown to us. Such a work doesn't withdraw from politics
because it isn't exempt from politics. I may be saying something similar
here to Selmin -- about how a withdrawal from politics is itself a
political choice. So I don't know where that leaves me in this discussion.
It probably leaves me everywhere and nowhere. Maybe all I can say is that
what counts as artivism doesn't depend on whether the work has an explicit
political message. I am also not sure whether artivism depends on its
"effects" -- which I imagine would be difficult to measure, if we put even
the slightest intellectual pressure on the concept. For example, must it be
a collective effect or can it be an individual effect; does it matter who
is effected; does it matter if those effects are sustained?

I fully embrace Owen's comments linking artivism to marketing strategies.
Why not? Maybe this embrace stems from growing up in a fairly adherent
Catholic household. Nothing provides a better education of the power of
propaganda! Sometimes artivism is a form of evangelism. I have no problem
with that. So to answer Matt's last question -- can there by right-wing
artivism? -- yes.


On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Matthew Brower <matthew.brower at utoronto.ca>
 wrote:

> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> Hi Selmin,
> Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I realize that my questions
> overlap with the questions you’ve identified yourself receiving from your
> colleagues about artivism. They stem from my uncertainty over whether
> artivism is a concept (with internal logics), a category (with parameters),
> an approach (with a toolkit or set of methods), or a brand (with a set of
> aspirational values). As I’ve been reflecting on this discussion I keep
> thinking that Owen’s comments linking artivism to marketing methodologies
> are pointing to something significant for understanding what artivism might
> or might not be.
> Another question that I’ve been trying to work through is whether artivism
> has a specific politics. Can there be right wing artivism? Are the Tea
> Party’s costumed stunts and actions a flavor of artivism?
> Best,
> Matt
>
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [
> empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] on behalf of Selmin Kara [
> selminkara at gmail.com]
> Sent: November-12-13 11:28 PM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] introductory questions
>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>



-- 
Patrick Keilty
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Information
University of Toronto
@patrickkeilty <https://twitter.com/PatrickKeilty>




On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Matthew Brower
<matthew.brower at utoronto.ca>wrote:

> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> Hi Selmin,
> Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I realize that my questions
> overlap with the questions you’ve identified yourself receiving from your
> colleagues about artivism. They stem from my uncertainty over whether
> artivism is a concept (with internal logics), a category (with parameters),
> an approach (with a toolkit or set of methods), or a brand (with a set of
> aspirational values). As I’ve been reflecting on this discussion I keep
> thinking that Owen’s comments linking artivism to marketing methodologies
> are pointing to something significant for understanding what artivism might
> or might not be.
> Another question that I’ve been trying to work through is whether artivism
> has a specific politics. Can there be right wing artivism? Are the Tea
> Party’s costumed stunts and actions a flavor of artivism?
> Best,
> Matt
>
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [
> empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] on behalf of Selmin Kara [
> selminkara at gmail.com]
> Sent: November-12-13 11:28 PM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] introductory questions
>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>



-- 
Patrick Keilty
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Information
University of Toronto
@patrickkeilty <https://twitter.com/PatrickKeilty>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20131117/efcf4d2f/attachment.htm>