folks,
> Yes, this is all rather troubling. Although, correct me if I am
wrong - didn't Eyebeam write a statement in support for James when
> all this stuff kicked off?
it was a statement from ANAT in australia:
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:53:14 +0930
Subject: [spectre] Subversive in China - Mainstream in Adelaide Press Release
> It would be interesting to know why such organisations thought it a
good idea to be a part of this the show. The Olympics is such a
slack, hegemonic and over-culturalized form of eugenic
indoctrination, worldwide.
eheh, i place my bet that they will just ignore the question.
i find this polemic a bit cheap, given that one of these people has
already commented extensively and explained his organisation's
motivation for participating in the show.
From: Alex Adriaansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [spectre] media art and dictatorial regimes
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:18:17 +0200
> Perhaps, what we are witnessing is a shift from supposed 'critical'
'intelligent' media art organisations, becoming more traditional in
their approaches and outlooks, such as is the norm in fine art
fields. So much lip service and not enough real challenge. Where
are the socially informed risks here?
i second your sensation very much. is it like when people slide into
comfort? loosing interest in criticism when not needed anymore?
but it isn't just about age time and change, i believe there is also
quite some "top-down" manipulation going on.
(...)
there are multiple dynamics that converge in the same phenomenon we
are talking about, which i believe is not just plain old
"institutionalisation", but also a widespread tendency to represent
success, optimism, beautiful figures rather than a meshy mob of
different voices.
again, while i share the critical attitude towards the celebratory
projects which people participate in in china (and elsewhere, for
that matter), i find it wrong to slag these people off as
success-hungry opportunists. i also find a certain lack of
self-critical reflection on the ideological position that people
slide into by doing these projects, but then i see a similar
slackness on the part of the 'real critics' who are so sure about
their own clean-vest-criticality and bathe in the light reflecting
off from those who were thrown into a chinese prison for voicing
their opinion about tibet in public.
i see the paradox of showing a work like Knowbotic Research's 'Naked
Bandit' - an installation that deals with the dilemma of power,
submission, and excape - http://www.krcf.org/krcfhome/Banditweb
http://www.mediartchina.org/hte/balloon
http://www.krcf.org
which in beijing was turned into some sort of a balloon playground by
the audience. who will read the crossed-out code as a critical
gesture towards chinese censorship and the limitation of the freedom
of speech? but would it be better _not_ to show such a work in
beijing shortly before the biennial (the show we are talking about
closed over a month before the start of the olympic games)?
i believe that it is necessary to find ways of working with artists,
intellectuals, independent and critical people in china. for me, the
question is whether it is legitimate to go to a country like china,
knowing that you do not want to take the risk of being thrown into
prison, either for yourself, or for your chinese partners. i think
that this is a question which people must answer for themselves. and
i think that it is silly to assume that all of those artists and
curators who have been involved in this and other projects in china
have not thought about the implications critically, before deciding
to go. - take, for instance, this thoughtful piece by brian holmes:
http://brianholmes.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/one-world-one-dream/
or the ambitious attempt that sarat maharaj and his colleagues are
making with the guangzhou biennial:
http://www.gdmoa.org/zhanlan/threeyear/4/24/1/
regards,
-a
______________________________________________
SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe
Info, archive and help:
http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
