Again, sorry for double posting but thought it would be easiest. Going
on the responses we've had so far, Jasmin has worked on a proposal for
the discussion forum in terms of topic, structure and participation.
I've attached it here for discussion, to get things moving. It's not
fixed in stone but we really need to resolve it for our forward
publicity and printed material. Please let me know your thoughts with
any feedback or suggestions as soon as you can, as Jasmin would like to
start contacting potential participants early next week to discuss the
forum - this may also result in some shifts in topic and participation
but I wanted to get your thoughts first.
The suggested format is designed to try and include as many people as
possible, both participating artists and invited speakers, but as I'm
sure you'll understand, there are limits as to how many people we can
have on the panels themselves (This can be balanced out with
participation in other discussions/talks in the public programs). There
has also been almost an hour set aside at the end for discussion time to
also be as inclusive as we can! The suggested titles are a response to
two key topics that have come up a lot in the discussion group and in
your responses. Anyway, let me know what you think.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Cheers,
Russell
> <<SituationForumoutline.doc>>
Situation Forum
Planning Notes compiled 10 March by Jasmin Stephens
Suggested Special Events text
Saturday 18 June, 2.30pm
Situation Forum
An illustrated forum presenting a critical investigation of non-linear,
multi-dimensional and artist determined practices. Contributors include
Bianca Hester, Lucas Ihlein, Margaret Roberts and Lee Weng Choy and
Situation artists Simon Barney, Lisa Kelly, Lee Wen, Kai Lam Hoi Lit,
Lisa Nellemann, Ariane Muller and Elizabeth Pulie. For full details:
www.mca.com.au.
Admission: Free
Bookings essential: 02 9245 2484 or email educat...@mca.com.au
Suggested program outline:
2.30pm - 2.35pm
Welcome by representative of Museum of Contemporary Art
2.35pm - 3.05pm
Local and Global Relationships Chaired by Lee Weng Choy
3 responses by Ariane Muller, Lee Wen and Lucas Ihlein
3.05pm - 3.35pm
Afternoon Tea
3.35pm - 4.05pm
Tensions of Translation (i.e. the translation of particular practices
into different contexts)
Chaired by Russell Storer
3 responses by Simon Barney, Bianca Hester and Lise Nellemann
4.05pm - 5.00pm
Responses to Forum and Discussion
Chaired by Lisa Kelly
5 minute responses by 6 previously invited respondents (incl. Margaret
Roberts, Elizabeth Pulie, Kai Lam, Juliana Yasin) followed by discussion
5.00pm - 5.05pm
Thanks and acknowledgement by representative of Museum of Contemporary
Art
| MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART | Summer Season |
| Bridget Riley: Paintings and Preparatory Work 1961-2004 | until 6 March 2005 |
IMPORTANT: 1. Contents of this email and its attachments are confidential and privileged. Unauthorised use of content is expressly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please contact us, then delete the email. 2. Before opening or using attachments, check them for viruses and defects. The contents of this email and its attachments may become scrambled, truncated or altered in transmission. Please notify us of any anomalies. 3. Our liability is limited to resupplying the email and attachment/s. 4. The Museum of Contemporary Art collects personal information to provide and market our services.
Actually I'd love to particpate in the forum somewhere, if I've been silent in the online forum its due to my general resistance to email as a mode of complex exchange and because I spend way too much time in front of the computer as it is. Anyway I just wanted to express my interest in participating in something more face to face,
>Again, sorry for double posting but thought it would be easiest. Going
>on the responses we've had so far, Jasmin has worked on a proposal for
>the discussion forum in terms of topic, structure and participation.
>I've attached it here for discussion, to get things moving. It's not
>fixed in stone but we really need to resolve it for our forward
>publicity and printed material. Please let me know your thoughts with
>any feedback or suggestions as soon as you can, as Jasmin would like to
>start contacting potential participants early next week to discuss the
>forum - this may also result in some shifts in topic and participation
>but I wanted to get your thoughts first.
>The suggested format is designed to try and include as many people as
>possible, both participating artists and invited speakers, but as I'm
>sure you'll understand, there are limits as to how many people we can
>have on the panels themselves (This can be balanced out with
>participation in other discussions/talks in the public programs). There
>has also been almost an hour set aside at the end for discussion time to
>also be as inclusive as we can! The suggested titles are a response to
>two key topics that have come up a lot in the discussion group and in
>your responses. Anyway, let me know what you think.
>Look forward to hearing from you.
>Cheers,
>Russell
> > <<SituationForumoutline.doc>>
>Situation Forum
>Planning Notes compiled 10 March by Jasmin Stephens
>Suggested Special Events text
>Saturday 18 June, 2.30pm
>Situation Forum
>An illustrated forum presenting a critical investigation of non-linear,
>multi-dimensional and artist determined practices. Contributors include
>Bianca Hester, Lucas Ihlein, Margaret Roberts and Lee Weng Choy and
>Situation artists Simon Barney, Lisa Kelly, Lee Wen, Kai Lam Hoi Lit,
>Lisa Nellemann, Ariane Muller and Elizabeth Pulie. For full details:
>www.mca.com.au.
>Admission: Free
>Bookings essential: 02 9245 2484 or email educat...@mca.com.au
>Suggested program outline:
>2.30pm - 2.35pm
>Welcome by representative of Museum of Contemporary Art
>2.35pm - 3.05pm
>Local and Global Relationships
>Chaired by Lee Weng Choy
>3 responses by Ariane Muller, Lee Wen and Lucas Ihlein
>3.05pm - 3.35pm
>Afternoon Tea
>3.35pm - 4.05pm
>Tensions of Translation (i.e. the translation of particular practices
>into different contexts)
>Chaired by Russell Storer
>3 responses by Simon Barney, Bianca Hester and Lise Nellemann
>4.05pm - 5.00pm
>Responses to Forum and Discussion
>Chaired by Lisa Kelly
>5 minute responses by 6 previously invited respondents (incl. Margaret
>Roberts, Elizabeth Pulie, Kai Lam, Juliana Yasin) followed by discussion
>5.00pm - 5.05pm
>Thanks and acknowledgement by representative of Museum of Contemporary
>Art
>| MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART | Summer Season |
>| Bridget Riley: Paintings and Preparatory Work 1961-2004 | until 6 March >2005 |
>IMPORTANT: 1. Contents of this email and its attachments are confidential >and privileged. Unauthorised use of content is expressly prohibited. If you >receive this email in error, please contact us, then delete the email. 2. >Before opening or using attachments, check them for viruses and defects. >The contents of this email and its attachments may become scrambled, >truncated or altered in transmission. Please notify us of any anomalies. 3. >Our liability is limited to resupplying the email and attachment/s. 4. The >Museum of Contemporary Art collects personal information to provide and >market our services.
><< SituationForumoutline.doc >>
>Again, sorry for double posting but thought it would be easiest. Going
>on the responses we've had so far, Jasmin has worked on a proposal for
>the discussion forum in terms of topic, structure and participation.
>I've attached it here for discussion, to get things moving. It's not
>fixed in stone but we really need to resolve it for our forward
>publicity and printed material. Please let me know your thoughts with
>any feedback or suggestions as soon as you can, as Jasmin would like to
>start contacting potential participants early next week to discuss the
>forum - this may also result in some shifts in topic and participation
>but I wanted to get your thoughts first.
>The suggested format is designed to try and include as many people as
>possible, both participating artists and invited speakers, but as I'm
>sure you'll understand, there are limits as to how many people we can
>have on the panels themselves (This can be balanced out with
>participation in other discussions/talks in the public programs). There
>has also been almost an hour set aside at the end for discussion time to
>also be as inclusive as we can! The suggested titles are a response to
>two key topics that have come up a lot in the discussion group and in
>your responses. Anyway, let me know what you think.
>Look forward to hearing from you.
>Cheers,
>Russell
> > <<SituationForumoutline.doc>>
>Situation Forum
>Planning Notes compiled 10 March by Jasmin Stephens
>Suggested Special Events text
>Saturday 18 June, 2.30pm
>Situation Forum
>An illustrated forum presenting a critical investigation of non-linear,
>multi-dimensional and artist determined practices. Contributors include
>Bianca Hester, Lucas Ihlein, Margaret Roberts and Lee Weng Choy and
>Situation artists Simon Barney, Lisa Kelly, Lee Wen, Kai Lam Hoi Lit,
>Lisa Nellemann, Ariane Muller and Elizabeth Pulie. For full details:
>www.mca.com.au.
>Admission: Free
>Bookings essential: 02 9245 2484 or email educat...@mca.com.au
>Suggested program outline:
>2.30pm - 2.35pm
>Welcome by representative of Museum of Contemporary Art
>2.35pm - 3.05pm
>Local and Global Relationships
>Chaired by Lee Weng Choy
>3 responses by Ariane Muller, Lee Wen and Lucas Ihlein
>3.05pm - 3.35pm
>Afternoon Tea
>3.35pm - 4.05pm
>Tensions of Translation (i.e. the translation of particular practices
>into different contexts)
>Chaired by Russell Storer
>3 responses by Simon Barney, Bianca Hester and Lise Nellemann
>4.05pm - 5.00pm
>Responses to Forum and Discussion
>Chaired by Lisa Kelly
>5 minute responses by 6 previously invited respondents (incl. Margaret
>Roberts, Elizabeth Pulie, Kai Lam, Juliana Yasin) followed by discussion
>5.00pm - 5.05pm
>Thanks and acknowledgement by representative of Museum of Contemporary
>Art
>| MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART | Summer Season |
>| Bridget Riley: Paintings and Preparatory Work 1961-2004 | until 6 March >2005 |
>IMPORTANT: 1. Contents of this email and its attachments are confidential >and privileged. Unauthorised use of content is expressly prohibited. If you >receive this email in error, please contact us, then delete the email. 2. >Before opening or using attachments, check them for viruses and defects. >The contents of this email and its attachments may become scrambled, >truncated or altered in transmission. Please notify us of any anomalies. 3. >Our liability is limited to resupplying the email and attachment/s. 4. The >Museum of Contemporary Art collects personal information to provide and >market our services.
><< SituationForumoutline.doc >>
Alex - gee, what's the problem? There's been very little complex exchange. We just throw things at each other. It's been more fun than a front row seat on Eucalyptus drive. simon
Oh well, now that I’ve recently entered my name into this ‘situation,’ in a thoroughly absent minded way I thought I may as well make recompense by attempting to ‘throw something’ intelligible into the mix.
Actually, speaking of email I remember way back somewhere there was some discussion about the nature of this forum and the virtual space of email exchanges in general. And I have to say that I have reservations about email space generally and regularly attempt to minimise any time I devote to it. Firstly, because I think the nature of the ‘communication’ email engenders is often directed more at the speaker, the writer than the recipient, even when the latter is obviously the target for any ‘information’ generated.
Its funny because again, in the ancient history of this exchange, Sarah made a point about the difference between email and television, implying on the one hand that the first was something of a dumb but cosy distraction and the second a much more engaged mode of entering ‘virtual reality.’ But actually I wonder what extent of difference there is between TV and email screen reality. Of course, participating in something like this forum requires degrees of thoughtful reflection. For me though, my sense of ‘engagement’ in these types of affairs perpetually feels mis-directed or I feel I am simply sitting writing a tract to myself, which I guess is OK but whose logic often seems thoroughly circular. Interestingly however Sarah also made the point the other night ‘face to face’ at an opening, that if I wasn’t participating in this ‘situation’ then it had to be assumed that I just agreed with whatever everyone else was writing. Not wanting to give that impression I thought I’d start (late) here. Already I feel like I’m rambling….
By this late stage I feel there is waaaaay to much to know exactly where to start, so I guess I thought I’d just chuck in a few ideas regarding…. dare I say it for fear of sounding ‘Oh so eighties and ‘redundant’…. the politicised nature of ‘independent’ artistic ‘practice’ (those ‘controversial’ terms again.) It does seem to me on this note though, that while suspicion of seriously institutionalised codified and atrophied ‘art-speak’ ought to be challenged, adopting an alternative obviously anti-intellectual stance to art making today is highly problematic. Attempting for instance, to unproblematically converge art practice with populist, usually thoroughly commercialised, even corporatised but vaguely related, contemporary ‘creative’ manifestations that today are everywhere ‘in the air,’ by claiming that there really is or shouldn’t be any difference between them, provokes some interesting political questions.
In fact, the implied promotion of the essential present lack of difference between ‘art’ and other unapologetically profit-orientated contemporary cultural modes, usually argued on the basis of the formers supposed elitist ‘snobbism,’ can equally appear deeply reactionary. For instance, with this in mind, to argue that ‘ALL art is political anyway,’ is often really a foil to avoid any real consideration of what ‘type’ of politics is being evoked in any particular cultural manifestation or through particular kinds of artistic practice (and if art is a ‘practice’ it is not so much in the sense of a ‘dentist’s practice’ but in the sense of ‘practicing at’ something, of experimenting, of potentially ‘failing’ by self-testing and taking creative risks.) Anyway, it seems to me as for their ‘political’ content, that the trend of much contemporary art, currently apparent worldwide, where ‘popular’ cultural forms like advertising, or highly marketed sub-cultures, like ‘youth culture’ are explicitly and repeatedly reiterated, suggests not so much any subversive potential or even especial ‘contemporaneity’ but merely provides a passive mirror reflection of the type of political conservatism in which we find ourselves (un-)happily embedded today.
Speaking of anti-intellectualism I was talking to Lisa the other day and she pointed out that in last Saturday’s Herald, (a ‘reputable’ Australian newspaper) was a list of Australia’s most prominent (and ultimately very ‘Herald’ ie. very predictable) intellectuals that failed to include ONE artist! Weird no…. when art has been tied to intellectual tradition for decades? To put it in another broader social context, today the determinedly anti-intellectual ‘class rebel’ who decides that learning for learning sake is for idiots and ‘squares,’ ends up reinforcing exactly the type of conformist societal values promoted by right-wing governments that he or she claims to challenge. This is even more so as such a situation emerges from a scenario where what one would imagine OUGHT to be a basic rights, like the right to an education, are turned instead into a profitable, ‘realistic’ pre-determined ‘vocations.’ Similarly, the artist who imagines that by pretending to produce art as simply an organic extension of the prevailing social and political climate, because ‘art is a business’ like any other and not even as good as the latest Hollywood blockbuster or TV, ultimately supports a much greater political system based in a middle-of-the-road consensus where politics itself is simply about, often purely econometric, dull and unimaginative, ‘administration.’
If anything, that’s what I’ve enjoyed about Simon’s rather inflammatory emails, even if I fundamentally disagree with certain things he’s written, is at least they state a POSITION, which to me is what any politics is about, whether in art or anywhere else. To cut a long story short…. being involved in artist-run-initiatives is obviously not a means of saving the world, but it might be a way of partially challenging the officially reiterated contemporary ‘art world.’ That world I think relies more and more, and not that it’s an entirely new ‘situation,’ on ‘known quantities’ and an institutionalised consensus regarding certain artist’s works. This position implies that if ‘everyone who is anyone,’ that is anyone identified with a position of power, agrees on the work of particular artists, then this somehow means that the art ‘naturally’ being agreed on as ‘good,’ ‘important’ and quintessentially ‘contemporary,’ is obviously ‘better’ then less visible productions, even if maximum visibility is not the aim of all contemporary producers.
I don’t want to opt for a simplistic marginal = ‘good’ / popular = ‘bad’ paradigm, but if anything, artist-run-initiatives (at their most effective and engaged at least), can continue to actively ‘think’ art as a socially conjoined and politicised activity and not merely an exercise in supplying ‘things’ that those in commercial and administrative positions have already agreed ‘the people’ want.
>From: "briefm...@gmail.com" <briefm...@gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Situation@googlegroups.com
>To: Situation@googlegroups.com
>Subject: Re: Situation forum proposal
>Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:08:51 -0800
>Alex - gee, what's the problem? There's been very little complex
>exchange. We just throw things at each other. It's been more fun than a
>front row seat on Eucalyptus drive.
>simon
> Oh well, now that I’ve recently entered my name into this ‘situation,’ > in a thoroughly absent minded way I thought I may as well make > recompense by attempting to ‘throw something’ intelligible into the > mix.
> Actually, speaking of email I remember way back somewhere there was > some discussion about the nature of this forum and the virtual space > of email exchanges in general. And I have to say that I have > reservations about email space generally and regularly attempt to > minimise any time I devote to it. Firstly, because I think the nature > of the ‘communication’ email engenders is often directed more at the > speaker, the writer than the recipient, even when the latter is > obviously the target for any ‘information’ generated.
> Its funny because again, in the ancient history of this exchange, > Sarah made a point about the difference between email and television, > implying on the one hand that the first was something of a dumb but > cosy distraction and the second a much more engaged mode of entering > ‘virtual reality.’ But actually I wonder what extent of difference > there is between TV and email screen reality. Of course, participating > in something like this forum requires degrees of thoughtful > reflection. For me though, my sense of ‘engagement’ in these types of > affairs perpetually feels mis-directed or I feel I am simply sitting > writing a tract to myself, which I guess is OK but whose logic often > seems thoroughly circular. Interestingly however Sarah also made the > point the other night ‘face to face’ at an opening, that if I wasn’t > participating in this ‘situation’ then it had to be assumed that I > just agreed with whatever everyone else was writing. Not wanting to > give that impression I thought I’d start (late) here. Already I feel > like I’m rambling
> .
> By this late stage I feel there is waaaaay to much to know exactly > where to start, so I guess I thought I’d just chuck in a few ideas > regarding
> . dare I say it for fear of sounding ‘Oh so eighties and ‘redundant’
> . the politicised nature of ‘independent’ artistic ‘practice’ (those > ‘controversial’ terms again.) It does seem to me on this note though, > that while suspicion of seriously institutionalised codified and > atrophied ‘art-speak’ ought to be challenged, adopting an alternative > obviously anti-intellectual stance to art making today is highly > problematic. Attempting for instance, to unproblematically converge > art practice with populist, usually thoroughly commercialised, even > corporatised but vaguely related, contemporary ‘creative’ > manifestations that today are everywhere ‘in the air,’ by claiming > that there really is or shouldn’t be any difference between them, > provokes some interesting political questions.
> In fact, the implied promotion of the essential present lack of > difference between ‘art’ and other unapologetically profit-orientated > contemporary cultural modes, usually argued on the basis of the > formers supposed elitist ‘snobbism,’ can equally appear deeply > reactionary. For instance, with this in mind, to argue that ‘ALL art > is political anyway,’ is often really a foil to avoid any real > consideration of what ‘type’ of politics is being evoked in any > particular cultural manifestation or through particular kinds of > artistic practice (and if art is a ‘practice’ it is not so much in the > sense of a ‘dentist’s practice’ but in the sense of ‘practicing at’ > something, of experimenting, of potentially ‘failing’ by self-testing > and taking creative risks.) Anyway, it seems to me as for their > ‘political’ content, that the trend of much contemporary art, > currently apparent worldwide, where ‘popular’ cultural forms like > advertising, or highly marketed sub-cultures, like ‘youth culture’ are > explicitly and repeatedly reiterated, suggests not so much any > subversive potential or even especial ‘contemporaneity’ but merely > provides a passive mirror reflection of the type of political > conservatism in which we find ourselves (un-)happily embedded today.
> Speaking of anti-intellectualism I was talking to Lisa the other day > and she pointed out that in last Saturday’s Herald, (a ‘reputable’ > Australian newspaper) was a list of Australia’s most prominent (and > ultimately very ‘Herald’ ie. very predictable) intellectuals that > failed to include ONE artist! Weird no
> . when art has been tied to intellectual tradition for decades? To put > it in another broader social context, today the determinedly > anti-intellectual ‘class rebel’ who decides that learning for learning > sake is for idiots and ‘squares,’ ends up reinforcing exactly the type > of conformist societal values promoted by right-wing governments that > he or she claims to challenge. This is even more so as such a > situation emerges from a scenario where what one would imagine OUGHT > to be a basic rights, like the right to an education, are turned > instead into a profitable, ‘realistic’ pre-determined ‘vocations.’ > Similarly, the artist who imagines that by pretending to produce art > as simply an organic extension of the prevailing social and political > climate, because ‘art is a business’ like any other and not even as > good as the latest Hollywood blockbuster or TV, ultimately supports a > much greater political system based in a middle-of-the-road consensus > where politics itself is simply about, often purely econometric, dull > and unimaginative, ‘administration.’
> If anything, that’s what I’ve enjoyed about Simon’s rather > inflammatory emails, even if I fundamentally disagree with certain > things he’s written, is at least they state a POSITION, which to me is > what any politics is about, whether in art or anywhere else. To cut a > long story short
> . being involved in artist-run-initiatives is obviously not a means of > saving the world, but it might be a way of partially challenging the > officially reiterated contemporary ‘art world.’ That world I think > relies more and more, and not that it’s an entirely new ‘situation,’ > on ‘known quantities’ and an institutionalised consensus regarding > certain artist’s works. This position implies that if ‘everyone who is > anyone,’ that is anyone identified with a position of power, agrees on > the work of particular artists, then this somehow means that the art > ‘naturally’ being agreed on as ‘good,’ ‘important’ and > quintessentially ‘contemporary,’ is obviously ‘better’ then less > visible productions, even if maximum visibility is not the aim of all > contemporary producers.
> I don’t want to opt for a simplistic marginal = ‘good’ / popular = > ‘bad’ paradigm, but if anything, artist-run-initiatives (at their most > effective and engaged at least), can continue to actively ‘think’ art > as a socially conjoined and politicised activity and not merely an > exercise in supplying ‘things’ that those in commercial and > administrative positions have already agreed ‘the people’ want.
> (Where is Eucalyptus Drive .?)
>> From: "briefm...@gmail.com" <briefm...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: Situation@googlegroups.com
>> To: Situation@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Situation forum proposal
>> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:08:51 -0800
>> Alex - gee, what's the problem? There's been very little complex
>> exchange. We just throw things at each other. It's been more fun than >> a
>> front row seat on Eucalyptus drive.
>> simon
got to apologise for my last entry. just learnt from russell that eucalyptus drive is the site of recent riots in sydney.
very sorry. thot it was just a quiet boring surburban road with lots of sweet eucalyptus trees. how did it got mentioned here in the first place?
and why? before we get lost in translation...we shud be thankful this is an internal email circulation
but did anyone mention publication? it reminds me of some remark by some famous music person, was it stockhausen? about the 9/11 incident as an
art of the extreme and got bashed quite a bit by the public media. there's something in what he said but then again its the sensitivity to the people who suffered.
well now i need to explain how it was i saw it as ehhh boring, suburban...
i guess my inability to keep track of my procrastinated KIVs and my recent flu did make me kind of dull in the head and saw everything and hear everything as if i m going thru severe case of deja vu
the discussion on art as career, institutions within/without et al, seems like the usual questions that artists in alternative enclaves are doing all the time. albeit the need to reassert them. i think the critical question is how alternatives can connect and develop what is already apparent in desire for their continuance amidst the status quo of the superstructure.
in performance art circles there are organizations such as IAPAO, international association of performance art organizers. which have the idealistic desire to be a kind of UN of performance art which i think is unable to really carry out its ideals due to various inadequacies. which is why i did not join but i must also admit that such efforts are not unworthy as most ideals are doomed to failure anyway. there is an expression of some kind of concerted effort by artists from different contexts and countries coming together to work for some universal ideal. i would like to express the desire to start something together here in this situation situation in sydney that further the cause of international network of alternative art possibility.
which is most urgent given the present crisis of humanity. and most recent signs maybe the eucalyptus drive incidents.
> like to go on a ride on eucalyptus drive when i get to sydney
> On Mar 15, 2005, at 3:10 PM, alex gawronski wrote:
>> Oh well, now that I’ve recently entered my name into this >> ‘situation,’ in a thoroughly absent minded way I thought I may as >> well make recompense by attempting to ‘throw something’ intelligible >> into the mix.
>> Actually, speaking of email I remember way back somewhere there was >> some discussion about the nature of this forum and the virtual space >> of email exchanges in general. And I have to say that I have >> reservations about email space generally and regularly attempt to >> minimise any time I devote to it. Firstly, because I think the nature >> of the ‘communication’ email engenders is often directed more at the >> speaker, the writer than the recipient, even when the latter is >> obviously the target for any ‘information’ generated.
>> Its funny because again, in the ancient history of this exchange, >> Sarah made a point about the difference between email and television, >> implying on the one hand that the first was something of a dumb but >> cosy distraction and the second a much more engaged mode of entering >> ‘virtual reality.’ But actually I wonder what extent of difference >> there is between TV and email screen reality. Of course, >> participating in something like this forum requires degrees of >> thoughtful reflection. For me though, my sense of ‘engagement’ in >> these types of affairs perpetually feels mis-directed or I feel I am >> simply sitting writing a tract to myself, which I guess is OK but >> whose logic often seems thoroughly circular. Interestingly however >> Sarah also made the point the other night ‘face to face’ at an >> opening, that if I wasn’t participating in this ‘situation’ then it >> had to be assumed that I just agreed with whatever everyone else was >> writing. Not wanting to give that impression I thought I’d start >> (late) here. Already I feel like I’m rambling
>> .
>> By this late stage I feel there is waaaaay to much to know exactly >> where to start, so I guess I thought I’d just chuck in a few ideas >> regarding
>> . dare I say it for fear of sounding ‘Oh so eighties and ‘redundant’
>> . the politicised nature of ‘independent’ artistic ‘practice’ (those >> ‘controversial’ terms again.) It does seem to me on this note though, >> that while suspicion of seriously institutionalised codified and >> atrophied ‘art-speak’ ought to be challenged, adopting an alternative >> obviously anti-intellectual stance to art making today is highly >> problematic. Attempting for instance, to unproblematically converge >> art practice with populist, usually thoroughly commercialised, even >> corporatised but vaguely related, contemporary ‘creative’ >> manifestations that today are everywhere ‘in the air,’ by claiming >> that there really is or shouldn’t be any difference between them, >> provokes some interesting political questions.
>> In fact, the implied promotion of the essential present lack of >> difference between ‘art’ and other unapologetically profit-orientated >> contemporary cultural modes, usually argued on the basis of the >> formers supposed elitist ‘snobbism,’ can equally appear deeply >> reactionary. For instance, with this in mind, to argue that ‘ALL art >> is political anyway,’ is often really a foil to avoid any real >> consideration of what ‘type’ of politics is being evoked in any >> particular cultural manifestation or through particular kinds of >> artistic practice (and if art is a ‘practice’ it is not so much in >> the sense of a ‘dentist’s practice’ but in the sense of ‘practicing >> at’ something, of experimenting, of potentially ‘failing’ by >> self-testing and taking creative risks.) Anyway, it seems to me as >> for their ‘political’ content, that the trend of much contemporary >> art, currently apparent worldwide, where ‘popular’ cultural forms >> like advertising, or highly marketed sub-cultures, like ‘youth >> culture’ are explicitly and repeatedly reiterated, suggests not so >> much any subversive potential or even especial ‘contemporaneity’ but >> merely provides a passive mirror reflection of the type of political >> conservatism in which we find ourselves (un-)happily embedded today.
>> Speaking of anti-intellectualism I was talking to Lisa the other day >> and she pointed out that in last Saturday’s Herald, (a ‘reputable’ >> Australian newspaper) was a list of Australia’s most prominent (and >> ultimately very ‘Herald’ ie. very predictable) intellectuals that >> failed to include ONE artist! Weird no
>> . when art has been tied to intellectual tradition for decades? To >> put it in another broader social context, today the determinedly >> anti-intellectual ‘class rebel’ who decides that learning for >> learning sake is for idiots and ‘squares,’ ends up reinforcing >> exactly the type of conformist societal values promoted by right-wing >> governments that he or she claims to challenge. This is even more so >> as such a situation emerges from a scenario where what one would >> imagine OUGHT to be a basic rights, like the right to an education, >> are turned instead into a profitable, ‘realistic’ pre-determined >> ‘vocations.’ Similarly, the artist who imagines that by pretending to >> produce art as simply an organic extension of the prevailing social >> and political climate, because ‘art is a business’ like any other and >> not even as good as the latest Hollywood blockbuster or TV, >> ultimately supports a much greater political system based in a >> middle-of-the-road consensus where politics itself is simply about, >> often purely econometric, dull and unimaginative, ‘administration.’
>> If anything, that’s what I’ve enjoyed about Simon’s rather >> inflammatory emails, even if I fundamentally disagree with certain >> things he’s written, is at least they state a POSITION, which to me >> is what any politics is about, whether in art or anywhere else. To >> cut a long story short
>> . being involved in artist-run-initiatives is obviously not a means >> of saving the world, but it might be a way of partially challenging >> the officially reiterated contemporary ‘art world.’ That world I >> think relies more and more, and not that it’s an entirely new >> ‘situation,’ on ‘known quantities’ and an institutionalised consensus >> regarding certain artist’s works. This position implies that if >> ‘everyone who is anyone,’ that is anyone identified with a position >> of power, agrees on the work of particular artists, then this somehow >> means that the art ‘naturally’ being agreed on as ‘good,’ ‘important’ >> and quintessentially ‘contemporary,’ is obviously ‘better’ then less >> visible productions, even if maximum visibility is not the aim of all >> contemporary producers.
>> I don’t want to opt for a simplistic marginal = ‘good’ / popular = >> ‘bad’ paradigm, but if anything, artist-run-initiatives (at their >> most effective and engaged at least), can continue to actively >> ‘think’ art as a socially conjoined and politicised activity and not >> merely an exercise in supplying ‘things’ that those in commercial and >> administrative positions have already agreed ‘the people’ want.
Sorry for delay in response on this. I have finally downloaded the doc attached
to this email and it seems to be empty, but the info in the email gives a
pretty good idea of the plan.
My immediate response was disappointment at not getting the opportunity to be
involved on a panel, but obviously not everyone in the project can be. It'd be
a behemoth! But it's got me thinking more about the suggestion I made earier
about the smaller scale public program idea I alluded to, which would
be modelled on a conversation between 2 to 3 people (one or two museum
visitors and one or two artists)that occurs in the context of the museum. I see
it as a kind of extension of the Artist Archive work for the show.
We had originally thought of having some reciprocal aspect to the work, a way
for the audience to respond, and to record those responses, but I think Alex's
work will do something like that already.
So I thought this would be more focused on an exchange between members of the
audience and an artist. We would like to have any artists in the show, or
artists we have interviewed involved if they are interested, but we are happy
to do it just with Jane and I, if it doesn't appeal to anyone else. Obvously,
there would be a lot to nut out about how they would run.
Also, we wouldn't want to ask artists outside the show if there wasn't at least
a small fee for their time, so I'm wondering if there would be any kind of
budget for an idea like this? I did ask about that last time but didn't get a
reply.
The other thing I was keen to do if this idea is accepted, is to use one of the
tools that the museum uses to assess the effectiveness of their strategies for
education and promotion: the survey. I'd like to be able to ask the visitors
who had talked to the artists some questions in questionaire format. I'd be
interested to make the results into a printed document.
Anyway, let me know what you all think,
thanks
Anne.
Quoting Russell Storer <russell.sto...@mca.com.au>:
> Again, sorry for double posting but thought it would be easiest. Going
> on the responses we've had so far, Jasmin has worked on a proposal for
> the discussion forum in terms of topic, structure and participation.
> I've attached it here for discussion, to get things moving. It's not
> fixed in stone but we really need to resolve it for our forward
> publicity and printed material. Please let me know your thoughts with
> any feedback or suggestions as soon as you can, as Jasmin would like to
> start contacting potential participants early next week to discuss the
> forum - this may also result in some shifts in topic and participation
> but I wanted to get your thoughts first.
> The suggested format is designed to try and include as many people as
> possible, both participating artists and invited speakers, but as I'm
> sure you'll understand, there are limits as to how many people we can
> have on the panels themselves (This can be balanced out with
> participation in other discussions/talks in the public programs). There
> has also been almost an hour set aside at the end for discussion time to
> also be as inclusive as we can! The suggested titles are a response to
> two key topics that have come up a lot in the discussion group and in
> your responses. Anyway, let me know what you think.
> Look forward to hearing from you.
> Cheers,
> Russell
> > <<SituationForumoutline.doc>>
> Situation Forum
> Planning Notes compiled 10 March by Jasmin Stephens
> Suggested Special Events text
> Saturday 18 June, 2.30pm
> Situation Forum
> An illustrated forum presenting a critical investigation of non-linear,
> multi-dimensional and artist determined practices. Contributors include
> Bianca Hester, Lucas Ihlein, Margaret Roberts and Lee Weng Choy and
> Situation artists Simon Barney, Lisa Kelly, Lee Wen, Kai Lam Hoi Lit,
> Lisa Nellemann, Ariane Muller and Elizabeth Pulie. For full details:
> www.mca.com.au.
> Admission: Free
> Bookings essential: 02 9245 2484 or email educat...@mca.com.au
> Suggested program outline:
> 2.30pm - 2.35pm
> Welcome by representative of Museum of Contemporary Art
> 2.35pm - 3.05pm
> Local and Global Relationships
> Chaired by Lee Weng Choy
> 3 responses by Ariane Muller, Lee Wen and Lucas Ihlein
> 3.05pm - 3.35pm
> Afternoon Tea
> 3.35pm - 4.05pm
> Tensions of Translation (i.e. the translation of particular practices
> into different contexts)
> Chaired by Russell Storer
> 3 responses by Simon Barney, Bianca Hester and Lise Nellemann
> 4.05pm - 5.00pm
> Responses to Forum and Discussion
> Chaired by Lisa Kelly
> 5 minute responses by 6 previously invited respondents (incl. Margaret
> Roberts, Elizabeth Pulie, Kai Lam, Juliana Yasin) followed by discussion
> 5.00pm - 5.05pm
> Thanks and acknowledgement by representative of Museum of Contemporary
> Art
> | MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART | Summer Season |
> | Bridget Riley: Paintings and Preparatory Work 1961-2004 | until 6 March
> 2005 |
> IMPORTANT: 1. Contents of this email and its attachments are confidential and
> privileged. Unauthorised use of content is expressly prohibited. If you
> receive this email in error, please contact us, then delete the email. 2.
> Before opening or using attachments, check them for viruses and defects. The
> contents of this email and its attachments may become scrambled, truncated or
> altered in transmission. Please notify us of any anomalies. 3. Our liability
> is limited to resupplying the email and attachment/s. 4. The Museum of
> Contemporary Art collects personal information to provide and market our
> services.
|
