It is with some trepidation that i contribute to this discussion But it has
spurred me to think about this discussion topic with some consideration.

I hope my observations are too obvious but your subject matter provoked some
self examination that I needed to explain this to myself...

activism -"the use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a
demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause."  

There are probably too many contributing factors to take into account when
discussing the rise of the term art activism. Changes in attitudes, media
and technology always impact subsequent cultural output. Even the notion of
culture is in flux under the repercussions of recent globalization.

In a information heavy world where war, religious and social divides are
felt all the more keenly due to an ever quickening communication system. It
is not surprising that art can no longer remain in the aloof self
referential terrain it has occupied in the past.

Historically art has constantly confronted itself and its audience in the
pursuit of the new. From the dynamics of the gaze, of enactment and
participation, the artist has been involved in a constant process of
breaking the conventions of previous movements and styles. Each epoch has
had its own technologies that have shaped its art, politics and religion.
These have been interdependently employed evolving the practice of its
activists which feed back into this cyclic cultural process. 

This era's concerns are no doubt influencing the practice of those engaged
in its activism. Today's new technologies, that of a globalized digital
communication network offers new tactics and strategies to be employed in
interpersonal exchange. Is it any wonder that the concerns of collective
action seem to be a foremost on the minds of artists today? This escalation
of the radical proposes new medias and locations for art, switching the
focus in the way art is located, perceived and experienced. 

Perhaps previous formulas of theory heavy presentation have alienated
audiences. Headline driven media outrage at the absurdity of modern practice
polarizes public attitudes further. At a time when blockbuster painting
exhibitions draw huge numbers and media attention, modern art appears
sidelined, a elitist clique chatting to its self.

An aesthetic poverty has created a schism in the appreciation of it, by a
public divided by education. By the appropriation of the language of other
forms of cultural activism eg. Political. Art asks for a re-evaluation of
its wider worth. Under the banner art activism art finds a purpose outside
of the gallery, a purpose of action, one with a community function,
broadening of its audience and participation, away from the laboratory
setting of the white cube. This pervasive participation involves directly
the public in the execution of the work. 

The broad range of current practice being associated with this genre only
shows that there are many opinions on how an artist today generates a
dialogue with a wider audience and under which context. Whatever the
methods, a dialogue with the public around issues that they hold relevant in
a language they understand seems to be recurrent. The code employed in fine
art criticism often only presenting itself in the funding proposals written
to facilitate them.




In a wider arena than could have been imagined definitions become stretched,
boundaries blurred and new terminologies coined. If the emperor's new
clothes of post modern art have taught us anything, it is that the naming of
something as art is enough to generate a dialogue between those involved
with in its production. 

It is not obvious at this time whether the definition of art activism will
be an important one, and join other theoretical definitions of art practice
that have been made over the years. What is clear is as art aligns itself
with methodologies associated with political motivations it may become
increasingly difficult to resolve the conflicts between new criterias of
worthiness or public function and that of its previous artistic
considerations.

The path forward seems a tricky one with a balancing act between ethics of
merging areas of cultural activism resulting in inevitable recriminations
between camps on message style and focus. 

What can be agreed on is that there is a growing number of people
politicized outside of conventional political circles eager to be heard in
which ever way they can.


My own practice under the name of c6 should be explained in some way

C6's role of provocateur is instrumental in the functioning of the dynamics
between the audience and themselves. The methodologies of agitprop marketing
generate interaction to and from the street, web or gallery to the work
being presented.

Without a political mandate c6's choice of apolitical themes and medias are
delivered via community based media interventions drawing attention to the
links between the gallery and various other spaces. Systems of collective
output elicited from simple pop media techniques result in a realization of
the interactive dynamics rather than the pre defined conceptual framework.


leon