Hi Mark & all, Very interesting discussion in many ways...
Now the maelstrom has passed. We have had a little time to reflect upon what was discussed on the list over a week ago on this subject. I do not particularly want to bring back the discussion where anyone is being aligned as being an anti-jew, which I see as a tactic to win an argument. I just wanted to pull a few things together, in respect of highlighting some of the issues that I personally felt were not dealt with - the fallout. The main issue that I want to put forward which has always concerned me and it tends to happen often is, how the very people who are involved in raising and exploring (openly) important and difficult questions; can be tainted by it at the same time. I have had this experience myself in the past and it is one of those things which also, at that time can be unnerving and frustrating. Usually, when the situation itself does not allow a more contextual or relational understanding of who one is or where one is really coming from, as an individual - this can happen a lot with email discussions. Many things can be left unconsidered as well left unfinished. Which of course can more reflect the nature of list experience, yet it can also leave shades of misinformation and unquestoned asssumptions lingering in our memories that represent a more distorted view of things. I 'personally' think that it is important for people to feel comfortable in knowing that they are able to express their own views and values on this list, whatever they may be. Even if they do not fit into the main concerns or purpose of the list's general interests or (assumed) shared ideals. This surely creates healthy controversies for all to explore, allowing shifts and potential space, for reasonings which 'many' may not experience (usually) in our everyday contexts. It can be messy and some of it may not be fully formed, but it is fresh and it is real, even if it is truncated through a digital, networked protocol such as email. Secondly, I think when debating with each other on here, it may be useful (for me anyway it works) to consider that there is the choice and option to take into account that we are not actually the whole sum of what we discuss. I do not always agree with many things discussed on here, but I do take that extra bit of time to see where they are coming by researching about them outside of the list. This shows that, what an individual discusses may not necessarily represent them (literally) as a whole. By observing where some one is coming from outside of this list, we gather information that informs us more in how we can proceed regarding the subject and the dialogue. "When people listen to you don't you know it means a lot, 'Cos you've got to work so hard for everything you've got." Novelty - Joy Division. marc >But hey, who doesn't like Monty Python? >Bob Thanks, Bob, I'm glad to provide a little entertainment and I humbly bow to anyone else in the audience who hasn't already pegged me with a tomato. And apologies out to Bob and Rob for misreading "Rob" where I should have read "Bob" on that particular "truth" bit. I've loaded a glove with a brick and slapped myself silly for all of you. Actually, I don't know why I didn't think of it before but this whole thing reminds me of the criticism of Hans Haacke for his Shapolsky Project in the 80s. Actually, folks are still debating it. I'm guessing that there would be a similar break down of interpretations from folks on the list as there were to Haacke's piece from critics in the 80's. I'd like to read thoughts... or maybe not? here's a relevant paragraph from http://www.ccca.ca/c/writing/h/hassan/hass002t.html "Leo Steinberg's text is not only an elaborate demonstration of an obvious failure to recognize the integrity of social / political art, but contains a perverse attack against Haacke. When reviewing the Real-Time Social Systems, he wonders why Haacke had to choose Shapolsky to illustrate a real estate network in New York City slums. He questions, 'Did this exposé of a stereotypical Jewish landlord express the old gut reaction that resents a non-Aryan presence among holders of wealth or was this the updated anti-Semitism of the New Left?', and writes from a completely cynical position when he flatly declares that, 'The artist knows perfectly well that Mobil will not be induced to retreat from its South African market.' This is totally unlike Deutsche who locates the concepts of specificity and explains why Haacke selected the Shapolsky group as the subject for his work: in 1971 they held the largest concentration of properties in the Lower East Side and Harlem of any group owner. Thus Haacke's reasons were economic rather than racial. Deutsche' s insightful text articulately probes the temporal and relative nature of meaning within works of art to affirm the potential 'education and transformation of the viewer' that further the implications of Haacke's work." _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
