Hi Marc, Right on. I love Latour's understanding of "politics": shared matters of human concern that congregate around things in the world. I never thought of myself as "political" until I read that definition.
One thing I love about Hakim Bey's Temporary Autonomous Zone idea is that I don't have to change things from the top down in order to change things. I live in the mountains, in interesting communities. My family grows and cans some of our own food, we get a lot more food from our friends, and some of our friends get a lot of that food from grocery store dumpsters. We homeschool our children, we make a lot of our own clothes, etc. We don't have to wait around for someone to legislate that everyone else should live this way. Two more situationist slogans that seem relevant: "We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy. " "The revolution is incredible because it's really happening. " Respect, Curt >Hi Curt, > >Thank you for the link to your article, very fascinating reading. >Firstly, I know from our various, past discussions - going back over ten >years now, that we will never agree with each other in full. I see this >as a positive thing, because I have enjoyed the experience of >considering your arguments as well as seeing your artistic vision change >through the years. When moving into the realm closer to what we both >mutually connect with 'as' art, we tend to meet in many interesting and >fruitful places :-) > > > To begin with the agenda of opposing/resisting neolibral capitalism > > is already to commit to a path that is specifically determined and > > necessarily exclusive of other possibly more efficacious approaches. > >Some would argue that's the part of the point. And perhaps, making a >stand whether it changes things or not; may not, necessarily be the real >essence of the matter. It could be more to do with the possibility of >human beings making that extra little effort in respecting >'humans+things', realities and contexts, beyond one's own immediate sphere. > >If we can so readily accept the myth of disempowerment in the face of >neoliberalist massification, why not except another myth, that we can >move on from there and build something else when the larger frameworks >and values that used to support us, are not only broken but decimated? > >In contrast to many theories, whether modernist or post-modernist, I >respect the powers of persons as possible creators of value. We may not >need skilled theorists to offer maps of our futures (alone), for we may >get along fine without them, which is obviously contradictory in the >light of me taking on a PhD all of a sudden. yet, just as much as I am >interested in complex, philosophical arguments and ideas; I think that >much cannot be put into words that art has always had a way of doing. > >I'm not prescribing an 'idealism'. The fun could be in the discovery of >intuitively appropriating alternative ways in imaginatively engaging in >the subtleties and relationships 'of and between' things. And it's not >about impressing one's peers - it's about briinging to the palette other >materials, content and social context with an ethical understanding >beyond macho top-down noise and cliche art-wank. > >I did write some specific responses to your article also, but at present >feel that to do it justice it perhaps needs a more constructive >discussion as a separate thread or entity, another time. > >What do you think? > >Wishing you well. > >marc >_______________________________________________ >NetBehaviour mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
