I'm not implying that the Bravo program is disruptive (and thereby political). In responding to the title of the email "Isn't Bravo's "Work of Art..." turning artists into politicians?" I was suggesting that it's a loaded question to ask. Of course artists are (potentially) politicians..
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:21 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > This would imply that the Bravo program was an aesthetic act on the > grounds of be ing disruptive and that its product was not the objects > produced but the amount of disruption, like Duchamp? > Kate Sullivan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: paul boshears <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, Dec 31, 2010 8:15 pm > Subject: Re: Isn't Bravo's "Work of Art..." turning artists into > politicians? > > If I understand Jacques > Rancihre<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ranci%C3%A8re>properly, > politics is an aesthetic act in so far as it brings to the > foreground what has been occluded in the background. With this > reasoning he > argues that politics rarely happens because it is so disruptive. The > rest of > the time, instead of politics we have policing -- that is, maintaining > the > aesthetic order. > > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > > - Politics are now nothing more than means of rising in the world. >> >> Samuel Johnson >> >> >> > > -- > Paul Boshears > Co-Editor > continent. <http://continentcontinent.cc> > a topology for thought > > -- Paul Boshears Co-Editor continent. <http://continentcontinent.cc> a topology for thought
