As part of the ongoing campus initiative Global Urban Humanities: Engaging the Humanities and Environmental Design, the Arts Research Center co-sponsored the Reimagining the Urban: Bay Area Connections Across the Arts and Public Space on September 30, 2013. Participants have been asked to submit a blog post "on a keyword you see debated in the Bay Area arts, policy, and planning landscape." This posting is by Megan Hoetger, a second year PhD student in Theater, Dance, and Performance Studies at UC Berkeley.
Keyword: Long-term
The long-term is a durational temporality. If I set this against the
continuous present of the participle, ‘re-imagining’–the keyword which
leads the title of the symposium–what kind of time do I find myself in?
The call for the long-term engagement is a particularly fraught one for
the field of visual art practice forcing the surface a series of
questions, like: how long is enough for an artist to engage a community?
How long should the dialogue be? How long does the project go? How long
should the artist *be* in that space, or need she be there at all? What
point, if ever, should/can she dis-engage and move on to the next
community, city, country? When I shift these questions to arts
organizations we might similarly ask: how long is long enough? And,
coming more sharply in focus at this level, if long-term is the desired
time, where is funding to sustain that continuous present coming from?
How might that conflict with the very conceptual root of the continuous
present action, to re-imagine? What costs must we / are we / should we
be willing to pay to secure that duration temporality? And what do we
imagine to be the relationship between the artist / the arts and
communities across the long term?
Radical Connectivity — Joel Slayton, director of the Zero 1 biennial
in San Jose, delivered a presentation on the topic of digital public art
practices, which is the focus of the biennial. Slayton proposed two
forthcoming changes (which a consensus has agreed are forthcoming,
although whose consensus I am not quite sure): the first, radical
connectivity; the second, infinite data. The former brought ‘the
radical’ to bear on the ways in which Cloud will revolutionize our
connections, shifting us into a culture of reciprocity; that is, a
culture of give and take. What Slayton’s proposition, as great as it
sounds, seems to ignore is the basic issue of access that surfaces as
soon as we begin to talk about Cloud and infinite data.
Radical parasite– Raquel Gutierrez’s presentation on her work with
the new program YBCA in Community brought ‘the radical’ to bear in a
fundamentally different way, directly taking up issues of access.
Gutierrez’s deployment of the term was paired to with a relation based
on reciprocity but with a self-recognized leechlike relation. Gutierrez
is from Los Angeles and only recently relocated to the Bay Area for this
job at YBCA; here with within the communities in San Francisco, as a
result, is as that of an itinerant outsider. What she proposed though,
was not to try to overcome that status as outsider, but the possibility
of operating as a radical parasite and working within the realities of
uneven power relations and precarious duration to create space for youth
outreach.
Slayton and Gutierrez proposed seemingly opposing visions of a
radical long-term relationship, so what do we make of the viability of
the extended duration as a mode of artistic engagement? Can the
relationship be both reciprocal and parasitic?
No comments:
Post a Comment