Hi Renee, I'm just playing devil's advocate with those potential critiques of tactical media. You are absolutely correct to point out that "tactical media" is anything but monolothic and homogenous -- by definition, because to be tactical is to be supple. The work we will discuss in class is the work Raley includes in her book. Her three main genres are border disruptions, allegorical gaming (my term, not hers), and data (re)visualizations (mosty regarding capital). I teach at a public liberal arts university in southern Appalachia in the US, and this particular course is outside of my new media department. So these will be freshman students, 80% from North Carolina, and probably none who will go on to major in new media, or even art. I have no agenda to sell them the work or to undermine it. I am genuinely interested to see their response to it.
Personally, I myself am one to push "tactical" into even less overtly political realms (referencing de Certeau's original use of "consumer tactics" vs. "institutional strategies.") True de Certeauean tactics are more like reading and walking. Someone like CAE or The Yes Men are really employing techniques that are closer to institutional strateiges (although to obviously more disruptive ends). So for instance, here I theoretically embrace "artistic web surfing" as a kind of legitimate "tactic": http://lab404.com/articles/commodify_your_consumption.pdf Ranciere makes a similar move, basically arguing that the litmus test of "ethical" art is not simply that it overtly addresses "political" themes. Ranciere's argument hinges on his understanding of ethical education and ethical theater -- presenting something without overdetermining it, allowing the learner/viewer to "make" their own sense of the experience. This approach seems similar to de Certeau's original understanding of "consumer tactics." All that to say, my own "aesthetic" critique is that the work of someone like The Yes Men might be "too" overtly political. To me, art is better suited for other less didactic, more abstract moves. But honestly, I like The Yes Men (mostly because of their humor, and because their criticality is hopeful). Fortunately I can enjoy genres of art that I myself am not personally compelled to make. But I'm guessing (some of) my students will likely critique (some of) the work in Raley's book from the opposite perspeective -- namely that the work is not really changing anything. This is a standing critique of all art (tactical, new media, old media, whatever) leveled from extra-art circles. In the class we will go on to consider situationist texts, culminating with Public Image Limited's appearance on American Bandstand in 1980 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdYevkJf--M ]. Then Hakim Bey's TAZ, Baudrillaud's simulacrum. And I hope to end on the Bergson/Whitehead/Deleuze/Latour thread -- philosophers considering the nature of "change" at all -- what real change is and how it might be affected. +++++++++++++ Regarding giving a man a fish vs. teaching a man to fish, if we are teaching new media art/theory, we're not really teaching anybody to fish. Teaching database programming at a technical college or plumbing at a trade school is more like teaching somebody to fish. We are doing something even more abstract and indirect than that. Best, Curt >Hi Curt, > >You're course sounds fascinating. I wish I could enroll! >> >> "It is my fervent wish that this book will become obsolete becaues >> the world will have changed so dramatically that this study of >> art-activism could only appar as a quaint historical artifact, its >> latent pessimism misguided, its failure to imagine otherwise >> indicative of the author's poverty of imagination. Until such a >> point, I will continue to look to tactical media artists for > > inspiration and guidance." (xii) > >Good to read the Raley quote... Although I know her writing from other >contexts, I didn't realize she'd written a book on tactical media. >> >> Not that I myself look to "tactical media artists" for much >> inspiration or guidance, and probably by the end of the course we >> will have critiqued their approaches from contradictory perspectives >> -- the work is too didactic/hamfisted/pragmatic; the work is too >> disengaged/esoteric/impotent. (Throw a critical stone in the air and >> you will hit a tactical media artist.) > >Since the mid nineties, I was involved in one way or another with the >Next 5 Minutes, a tactical media conference which happened every few >years Amsterdam. Through that event which was a convergence of art >and activism, I met some pretty amazing artists/activists/tactical >media practitioners (some known and others more obscure). While I >understand your cynicism, it feels strange to generalize about these >practices in that they are quite diverse. So can you talk a little >more about the kind of work you're referring to? I'm thinking here of >the difference between let's say the sanctioned practices of Superflex >or maybe N55 versus the more "grass roots work" (not sure if this is >right word) of RepoHistory, Paper Tiger or Deep Dish Television. Btw: >I'm asking this out of curiosity, not in an adversarial "you-gotta- >defend-yourself-way"... it's more that I think about these issues >myself :-) > >> >> It is always amusing to me when artists and/or educators try to >> out-ethicalize each other, as if any of us are all that directly, >> pragmatically, quantitatively, measurably changing anything. For me, >> art and teaching are a gamble -- a gamble that some kind of abstract >> affective agency will eventually modulate actual aspects of the world >> in some way that will "matter." Consequently, I admire others who are >> making similar wagers. > >I agree with you that art and teaching are a gamble.... also it's a >"slow cooking" process, the impact is often difficult to see, measure >or register. > >> But I don't ever fool myself into believing >> that I'm on the street feeding the poor. Because I've done that kind >> of work as well, and it's quite a different thing. > >I wonder if you're trying to make a distinction between direct and >indirect action. Feeding the poor on the street is immediate; give >someone food, and their belly is full. Education is very indirect; >educate someone, and they will make of it what they will (or not). In >other words, these are two types of digestion with different rates of >ingestion. (btw: as I'm writing this, it strikes me that somewhere >buried in here is that quote about teaching a man to fish ;-) > >all the best, > >Renee >www.geuzen.org >www.fudgethefacts.com >> >> Rock & Roll Ain't No Pollution, >> Curt >> >> >> >>> There's more irony to be had in the quotes, that's why I posted them. >>> That and, as Michael points out, they are funny. >>> >>> Art & Language are anti-academic but started and have often ended >>> up in >>> academia. They are politically committed but show at a gentrifying, >>> market-leading gallery. Despite protests to the contrary they are >>> radical artists who have artworld careers. I like them. >>> >>> It's very easy to criticise academia, artistic careerism, the art >>> market, politically/socially committed art etc. from the security of >>> one's own, virtuous, position outside of them. But there's no point >>> outside the world where we can stand and point and laugh at it. >>> >>> We all need to be careful about glass houses, or at least work on >>> smashing our own windows, whether our teaching means we are >>> objectively >>> in academia or our radical socially committed artistic practice >>> means we >>> are objectively part of gentrification. >>> >>> The most important criticism is self-criticism, although this may >>> sometimes mean that we have to admit we are not criticising others >>> enough. ;-) I've taught, I've wired up abandoned warehouses, I've >>> attended private views, I write reviews for a techno-art-and- >>> society web >>> community. We are all guilty... > >> >>> - Rob. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > >_______________________________________________ >NetBehaviour mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
