Day ten by Mira

Back home.
The things surrounding me are still a bit distanced. As usual when you got back after an intensive travel. But, I think, maybe it will stay a bit like that…
So “back home”, this is an in-between feeling. And I notice: feelings about property, about release, closeness and necessity, about centre where to go from, inside/outside of me and places and other people, are turned upside down – not totally, not as if a storm would have passed, but more as if the axis, the centre of rotation would have shifted slightly.

Thank you, to all who and all that have contributed to that!

I hope this mind set will stay longer: An experience besides the academic approach of “how to develop a good art practice” to “what to do this practice for?”.

I’d like to close this entry with a quote of Claire Bishop, in whose book “Artificial Hells” I have been reading on my way “back home”:

“The social inclusion agenda is therefore less about repairing the social bond than a mission to enable all members of society to be self-administering, fully functioning consumers who do not rely in the welfare state and who can cope with a deregulated, privatised world. As such, the neoliberal idea of community doesn’t seek to build social relations, but rather to erode them; as the sociologist Ulrich Beck has noted, social problems are experienced as individual rather than collective, and we feel compelled to seek >biographic solutions to systemic contradictions<. In this logic, participation in society is merely participation in the task of being individually responsible for what, in the past, was the collective concern of the state.”
“What emerges here is a problematic blurring of art and creativity: two overlapping terms that not only have different demographic connotations but also distinct discourses concerning their complexity, instrumentalisation and accessibility. Through the discourse of creativity, the elitist activity of art is democratised, although today this leads to business rather than to Beuys. The dehierarchising rhetoric of artists whose projects seek to facilitate creativity ends up sounding identical to government culture policy geared towards the twin mantras of social inclusion and creative cities. Yet artistic practice has an element of critical negation and an ability to sustain contradiction that cannot be reconciled with the quantifiable imperatives of positivist economics. Artists and works of art can operate in a space of antagonism or negation vis-à-vis society, a tension that the ideological discourse of creativity reduces to a unified context and instrumentalises for more efficacious profiteering.”

(in: Claire Bishop: Artificial Hells. Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship, published by Verso, 2012, page 14 and page 16)


Deja una respuesta

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Salir /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Salir /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Salir /  Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: