On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 2:27 AM, Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldr...@gmail.com>
  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Blake Stimson <blakestim...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>>  My premise is that the question "how do we govern ourselves? ... with
which
>>  institutions, under which rules, backed by which constraints?" that
Brian
>>  raises can never be asked from the outsider standpoint of institutional

>>  critique but instead can only be asked immanently. This means first and

>>  foremost taking on responsibility in the way that Brian's “grey beard”
mea
>>  culpa wisely and graciously invites.
>>
>> In kindred spirit and in search of specific causes for our failure to

>> effectively the institutional question, I referred him to a recent piece
of
>> mine [http://www.abladeofgrass.org/fertile-ground/art-social-death/] that
>> tries to think through how a broadly defined cultural left has been
>> prevented from asking institutional questions less by the Kochs et al
and
>> more by its own relationship to race.
>
>
> Blake, I'm glad you took up this thread, and I'm also curious what Florian
> thinks, since he started the ball rolling.

My great apologies for replying so late - I've been under the hood with
work and staying off Nettime for a while. I am probably not the right
person to have any good answer to this question. These are recurring,
structural dilemmas between institutional and self-organized politics. (In
my own work life, I have always been involved in both.) The pitfall of any
form of self-organization is that it typically relies on an assumed, but
never codified political and/or ethical consensus. That consensus can often
turn out to be a fiction or delusion, for example, when in a media activist
project, participants turn out to be on the extreme political right, but
could go along unnoticed because of a fake, shared anti-establishment
politics; or when in a contemporary arts project, people side with or end
up on reactionary positions because they defend the "freedom of art"
against "political correctness". It can also be the opposite, not
tolerating a well-founded conservative position from the extreme left,
which I haven't experienced for quite some time though.

Often, these questions and conflicts are much better addressed and
regulated in public institutions or, as a rule of thumb, larger and better
established institutions. There are sound policies in place that tell where
to draw the line and how to deal with conflict in general, and how to
develop policies.

If we speak of institutional critique, it struck me - for example - how
here in Rotterdam, an internationally established, institutional, white
cube contemporary art space like Witte de With was much more critical and
radical than most alternative and self-organized artist-run spaces in
rethinking its own position in a predominantly non-white city. (This
rethinking will lead to WdW changing its name.)

Blake wrote in his essay, quoting Occupy co-initiator Micah White, that
"protest politics, movement politics, network politics, the politics of
color revolutions, color revolts and 'rehumanizing us as a people,' [...]
have gradually but no less surely forgotten a fundamental fact: that
politics is about taking control of governments and then governing."
Personally, I've drawn the same conclusion and became active in a political
party (the Dutch intersectional civil rights party BIJ1, formerly Artikel
1). A major motivation was that I no longer wanted to stand by and tolerate
the discursive hegemony of the extreme right.

Florian
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Reply via email to