Hi Andreas,
>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.
I am not sure if this directed to me, but - I have no personal issue
with James participating in the show. Although, you may find my
conversation 'cheap' or perhaps less durable within such an academic
framework, because my language is possibly less formulated due to not
coming from a university background, and also being working class (self
educated I'm afraid) - this can make things a little sticky. Of course,
you would not of known this, but it does highlight some of the other
issues regarding peer (communication) contexts and the inflexible nature
of media art dialogue, in the more complex sense. So, I apologise now
for this immediately...
>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.
Of course, this is an excellent point. Again, I am really not that sure
whether you are discussing with me in this text. Especially when I agree
with what you are saying here.
>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:
Still, it would be great to know what the organisations themselves think
about all this, especially when they have first hand knowledge which can
elighten and inform others regarding the finer contexts of their
cultural experiences on the matter. Perhaps, their involvement is more
honourable or critically thought out than originally alluded, whether
this is worth pointing out or not - may not necessarily be a helpful
juncture or starting point. But considerations that support the
engagement of thinking around the ethical predicaments surely need to be
explored further in an open forum. A discussion can happen that allows
myths and confusion to be blown away, where dialogue is potentially
fruitful in its own right - wouldn't this be good?
In the meantime, I should read these links - thank you for these :-)
http://brianholmes.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/one-world-one-dream/
http://www.gdmoa.org/zhanlan/threeyear/4/24/1/
wishing all well (honest).
marc
> > 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
______________________________________________
SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe
Info, archive and help:
http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
