I have just gone through the recent posts and it seems to me that
there are two concerns: one, potentially productive, around the range
of topics/ urgencies addressed - topics that do intersect but around
which so far not much critical mass seems to be coagulating, and it
seems to me that the conjunction between urgency and dispersal may be
worth taking seriously, not to clarify positions necessarily but
rather to shift some of the premises of the discussion.
Particularly because the other concern that came out of reading the
posts is one around the role of protocols/ formats (and in that sense
also 'turns'). In centering our discussion around models, forms of
delivery, formats and frameworks, are we not also implicitly
naturalising the increasingly scripted formalisation of education as
paradigm for expanded practice? Or, to put it differently, is not the
focus on the infrastructural/ institutional discussion itself
prolonging the coercive family/ school (tv, art) axis around
education as procedural subjection?
It would seem to me that this is an important point of convergence
between the discussions around educational formats and
conceptualisations of curating, too: The urgency for both may indeed
lie in finding/ recognising registers of engagement that allow to
consider the lateral/ oblique dynamics and effects of such situations.
Educational situations and encounters with curatorial propositions
cannot be thought exclusively from the perspective of an offering. By
and large, tensions and dynamics tend to be generated in oblique
take-ups, through opposition to what is on offer, through mis-using
propositions or indeed through simple dis-regard. To insist on such
emancipation offers another axis that allows to challenge, re-frame
and/or disregard some of the dominant tendencies of the current
debate. And it seems to me that it would be very useful to account for
such dynamics at least as a corrective suspicion, if not a hinge
toward different uses of the current crisis.
best for now, edgar