> Some artists have been exploring how to instrumentalise their own 
> work; partly because they want it to have a clear function and partly 
> because they don't want others (activists, NGO's, govt) to 
> instrumentalise it for them. (Perhaps this is similar to the strategy 
> of the creative commons:  opening up the work, before someone else 
> locks it down?) Can anyone give examples of this?
>
> No-one here is talking about Political Art which is didactic, 
> prescriptive, single issue etc. And there are enough 'gallery' artists 
> parodying this strategy (Mark Titchner for example) to render it 
> politically redundant . Exhibitions like 'RISK: Creative Action in 
> Political Culture' (CCA 2005 www.riskproject.org.uk) and 'The 
> Interventionists' (Mass MoCA, 2004-5)  highlight artists who are 
> working in overtly politicised ways, but art not making single issue 
> Political Art.   But in Europe the activists are being left behind... 
> so that IndyMedia simply replicates a mainstream approach to media, 
> and programmers are making wonderful open source tactical tools that 
> no-one is using. Is this lack of joined-up thinking specific to 
> European artists and activists? Or is it just a very slow process?
> Ele
> CRUMB

I'm wondering what people make of some of the recent "major" art world 
discourse that has definite ties to this discussion. what of Claire 
Bishop's critique of "relational aesthetics" for example. In a recent 
Artforum article, Bishop holds up the work of artists like Thomas 
Hirschorn (continuing from her earlier "Antagonism & Relational 
Aesthetics") against collaboratives like Oda Projesi. While Bishop's 
supposed point is to critique the de facto moral privileging of 
"collaborative" practice, her argument sounds oddly reminiscent of 
Michael Fried's "Art & Objecthood" - an earlier text she even mentions 
in "Antagonisms..." Of course, who cares if some art critic wants to 
identify current collaborative/relational aesthetics as parallel to 
late 60s theatrical minimalism? Only, she makes some politically 
valuable critiques of Bourriaud and relational practice. Where she ends 
up is entirely conservative - making it an Adorno-esque argument 
between a more-or-less autonomous aesthetic (that can handle 
contradiction) and one mired in utility and ethics - but the initial 
question is pretty right on, i think. To bad, she doesn't seem to have 
access to the numerous other collaboratives/collectives that present 
other options (CAE, IAA, Raqs, xurban, etc). i know, it's about the 
market function of "critical writing..."
i think there is a kind of rebuttal and different direction offered by 
Warren Sack's ideas of an "aesthetics of governance"
http://hybrid.ucsc.edu/SocialComputingLab/publications.php
which he presented at CAA this past February. What's interesting is to 
consider the value of an aesthetic based on organization as a counter 
to either Bourriaud or Bishop's arguments. But then there's the problem 
of ethics...
what do people make of the question of "ethics"?
i've always had problems with ethics as a discipline and unit of 
measure. It's a formalization of morals based on abstractions that 
obstructs talking about politics (with a lowercase "p").
But, an "aesthetics of governance" may, at least, move us past the 
"tool kit" aesthetic that presents the solution as a new utility belt. 
This is one of the more unfortunate things to come out of the tactical 
media paradigm, IMHO... the idea that we can design our way out of 
political problems. Isn't that the dogma of progress we already 
inherit?
But is the notion of governance so different? Is it still about 
designing a format/platform that will somehow necessitate/constitute 
change? And what are the alternatives?
just some quick thoughts/questions...
thanks for the discussion.
best,
ryan