Anyway, he makes a fantastic argument for this as he explain how this good: bad ratio of show have to be true, because if not "([...] the Leipzig scene would be the best in the world since, according to the moneybags who buy every painting made there simply because it was made there, no bad painters exist in Leipzig.)"
I rest my case.
[ 723 comments ] ( 9578 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 2.9 / 2030 )M6 was cancelled. Nobody can deny that, but the ideas used in the making of are in circulation still. One of the largest onces are founder of e-flux : Anton Vidokle (hear radio-interview here (as a part of a project form the curator-students in Amsterdam last year)).
His project in Berlin explains itself as an exhibition as school: unitednationsplaza.
It sounds ok, but to be honest; same persons as through the whole 90*ies, just new context. Might be good, could also be a bit boring.
Because I really like the idea of the curatorial team, and I really like some of the projects that Vidokle has produced or organized as a part of e-flux. I wish him the best of luck this weekend and I hope that unitednationsplaza turns out good.
[ 770 comments ] ( 19697 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 1952 )Now, this I can like, a biennale that makes a canon of philosophy before the actuall exhibition with half a year! would love to be there, will check out what tickets costs.
"Thinking Worlds" - An International Symposium on
Philosophy, Politics, and Aesthetic Theory
Dates: November, 17th -18th, 2006
Place: Moscow, Polytechnic Museum
Co-organizer: The Federal Agency for Culture and Cinematography, The Moscow Biennale Art Foundation, Russian Institute for Culturology.
Speakers: Giorgio Agamben, Boris Kagarlitsky, Chantale Mouffe, Molly Nesbit, Jacques Ranciere, Mikhail Ryklin, Saskia Sassen, Bernard Stiegler.
The symposium "Thinking Worlds" starts off from the general idea of a biennial as a meeting place between different worlds, geographical, cultural, and professional, and extends this to fundamental questions bearing on the state of philosophy, aesthetic theory, and politics. The different "worlds" or spheres of philosophical reflection, that we find for instance in Kant`s division between the theoretical, the practical, and the aesthetic, have for a long time provided the philosophical reflection of modernity with its substructure. A fundamental questioning of the present must ask to what extent these three fields still exist as separate domains, what kinds of intersections exist between them, and if one of them can be seen as the foundation of the other or if we have to accept a plurality of parallel discourses. Thinking "worlds" would then imply a reflection on the unity and difference of these three domains, and especially so if seen in the light of contemporary politics. The question of whether there is one world that could serve as a promise for thought, or if it is an irrevocable condition that "Thinking Worlds" exists today only in the plural, is more pressing than ever.
Taking its cue from this historical framework, the symposium is divided into three subsections.
Philosophy and the construction of concept.
What is the role of philosophy in relation to the sciences and the arts? Should philosophy create new concepts, and if so, how should it relate to its tradition(s)? Does philosophy have an autonomy of its own, or does it relate only to the other spheres (science, politics, art) as a form of "reflection", i.e., occupying a second order position?
Universality, reason, contingency.
What happens to identity, citizenship etc, in a global world, and what challenges do these changes pose for how we conceive political theory?
- What are the possibilities under which the arts can engage or challenge our present condition?
The limits of aesthetics.
- How should we conceptualize contemporary art today and what tools
should be used to analyze it?
- What is the meaning of a term such as 2aesthetic theory" today (a concept that Adorno already judged to be outmoded at the end of his life), and is there place for the activity of critical judgment in a world that has been characterized as a "society
of the spectacle"?
The conference is organized by Joseph Backstein, Daniel Birnbaum, and Sven-Olov
Wallenstein, and will be moderated by Sven-Olov Wallenstein
Preliminary program of the Moscow Conference "Thinking worlds"
8 participants / 3 panels
1) Philosophy and the creation of concepts: Bernard Stiegler, Giorgio Agamben.
2) Universality, reason, contingency: Jacques Ranciere, Saskia Sassen and Chantal Mouffe
3)The limits of aesthetics: Molly Nesbit, Boris Kagarlitsky and Mikhail Rykhin
November 17
First day: two panels - 5 participants
10.00 -- 10.20 Opening of the conference
10.20 -- 11.00 first talk of the first panel (Bernard Stiegler)
11.00 -- 11.40 second talk of the first panel (Giorgio Agamben)
11.40 -- 12.00
Coffee break
12.00 -- 12.30 open discussion of the first panel
12.30 -- 13.10 first talk of the second panel (Jacques Ranciere)
13.10 -- 14.40
Lunch
14.40 -- 15.20
second talk of the second panel (Saskia Sassen)
15.20 -- 16.00 third talk of the second panel (Chantal Mouffe)
16.00 -- 16.30 Coffee break
16.30 -- 17.00 open discussion of the second panel
November 18
Second day: third panel – 3 participants + final discussion
11.30 -- 12.20 first talk of the third panel (Molly Nesbit)
12.20 -- 13.00
second talk of the third panel (Boris Kagarlitsky)
13.00 -- 13.20 Coffee break
13.20 -- 14.00 third talk of the third panel (Mikhail Rykhin)
14.00 -- 14.30 open discussion of the third panel
14.30 -- 15.00 Lunch
15.00 -- 17.00 final discussion
[ 665 comments ] ( 4798 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 1925 )I have many times claimed that Tommy Olsson is a great writer, but t I am not sure if I consider him an art critic. But reading Aftenposten's main critic, Lotte Sandberg's review of the exhibition Fantastic Politics: Art in Times of Political Crisis, I understand why I just might be forced to:
Engagement!
although Sandberg's reviews I have read and enjoyed the last decade or so; she is a bit pissed off, a bit angry, a besserwisser and dares to be subjective, there is no engagement in her texts anymore. She goes through this exhibition and register that there are pieces of art compiled together making it what we call an exhibition of art. And in my opinion it looks like it does not engage her much. I might be mistaken, but why write about it then? at least when Tommy Olsson doesn't like the exhibition, he starts to wonder off in "Olsson-land" and it is fun to read. Sandberg is just boring. Boring reviews like boring sex: better off without.
[ 953 comments ] ( 2928 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 2022 )In an text I wrote about the art biennial in Lofoten (LIAF) I claimed that two of the earlier issues (the 1999 and 2004 one) was both a disaster. The text is in Norwegian language if anyone wonder.
The co-curator of both 1999 and 2004 LIAF - Norwegian artist Tor Inge Kveum replied (can be read in the same link as the text, just scroll down). Kveum claims that I am a lose cannon, and that it made him feel quite upset. But he was reminded on the English saying: Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. and that this is the way it goes when one publish harsh conclusions faster then arguments that are based on research and facts.
Now, this is not my best piece ever. And he did arrest me on the money flow from the state of Norway to LIAF. I am very glad he did that, because it
a) taught me a lesson
So now I am double-cross-checking my sources on that.
But, the way he called me a dilettante was not very sophisticated and clear. Obviously, he is really eager to defend his curatorial choices, as am I to attack them, but there is something that is bugging me about this, and that is:
what do you do when you argue with someone?
I have been thinking quite a bit about the way I attacked his festival and the way he replied to that (not to mentioned my 2400 words long reply were I claim that his last effort in 2004 killed every opportunity the festival ever had to become international acclaimed - in contrast was the review only 1500 words long).
and here is what I am thinking
In a situation of debate, think fast and write or speak slower then you think.
be true to your first reaction
- ask yourself why you react this way
Do start with acknowledge the good points made by your opponent.
Always make a point out of your initial critique, and repeat, if possible more elaborated, what your arguments and opinions are.
Remember that opinions are a part of the stuff we bread (stole that one from Roberta Smith) and not a part of our bodies. there are no way around your own opinions, but do treat them with respect, always respect your own as well as other opinions, and do not think that just because someone got a good argument, you have to agree with them.
There are no way, not even in a parallel universe that I would give Kveum right in his argument that his version of LIAF (called Human, Fucking Human) was a good exhibition with a mixed reception. As far as I am concerned, it did not get any reviews, not really. Daniel Birnbaum asked what is the difference between art criticism and propaganda and suggested that a mind being sceptic. I like that.
Now, I do not wish the person Tor Inge Kveum any harm, and I can believe that espescially the last festival he curated have been a drag (really bad organised, unclear structures, changing director at least two times just before the opening, hard and long evaluation process with the municipality owning the festival - and on top of that, me, more than two years after claiming that it sucked - big time).
[ 648 comments ] ( 6373 views ) | [ 60 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 1718 )Back Next
Calendar
