whoarewe

IX. WHO ARE WE?
24/01/2019

Can forcing a socio-equalitarian decision upon subjects reveal the dichotomies at play in political awareness and action, design and activism, theory and practice, selflessness and commodification. Reading Gramsci, Sartre, The Invisible Committee, one could be prompt to think there is an imperative to “shift” political standpoints from institutionalised practices toward more radical acts. Concurrently, Gramsci and Sartre were actual activists and took part in actions which they did not include in their portfolios as tropes for theories of art-activism. Therefore, are we (the creative privileged few) allowed to try and be political within a constant flow of artistic commodification?
In theory, political design and art activism is wishful thinking. In practice… It becomes: ambiguous, complex, difficult, painful, sad, cynical, tragic. "Reaching the Limit When Art Becomes Science" by Beatriz da Costa and "Critical Unmaking: Toward a Queer Computation" by Gaboury, J addresses issues of commodified art-activism discourses and the complexity of being honestly political while depending upon institutions and markets which do not share similar intents.
Introducing notions of speculative design, tactical media and finally queer computation, both text open to a vast range of possibilities for artists to engage with current political crises. In theory, those practices can be distinguished by their will to break with any form of institutional hegemony, meanwhile freeing themselves from dogmatic design methodologies, dichotomies of bad and good design, subject relevancy and so forth. Wether speculative, queer or tactical, those practices are by definition critical of oppression processes, exclusivity and discriminations.
In her essay, Beatriz da Costa introduces us to what could be “us”; a new-born generation of art-design-coder whose position vibrates in-between academic theories, science, research, technological investigations and so forth. From Latour’s dissenter to a proposal for public-amateurism, Beatriz da Costa raises one of the many relevant question when it comes to “our” practice; how to be specific without the resources and context for specificity? As hypothetical answer, she argues in favour of sites specific projects, collaborative and interdisciplinary projects. In doing so she sets the ground for forms of altruistic structure grounded in our practice based on non-hierarchic interaction, techno-scientific demystification but also an outreach beyond the white cube and so forth. The content of our practice is then either about technology itself or about using technologies to highlight matter related to the current technocratic era (Identity politics, global surveillance, information warfare…). Looking at supplementary examples present within Hertz publication, we can further discern two types of methods aiming at similar results; tactical design and speculative design. In short tactical is about practices tactically rooted in the present, a sort of enclosed analyse of a current situation. Meanwhile speculative is about a reflection on potential futures through fictive scenarios (another tactic to reflect upon the present). Lastly queer computation is more linked to cyber feminism and techno feminism and deals with the idea of employing technologies to reconfigure and deconstruct oppressive structures and marginalisation processes of the other (it can be linked to identity politics.). Interestingly, both texts somehow inquire the necessity of surviving commodification processes at work in the art and design market. This leads back to my initial question of wether an art work can escape the very milieu in which it operates. How can a creative project be political meanwhile being displayed, distributed and consumed through a capitalist logic? The 79% work clock is a good example fo this ambiguity. Initially, it is an interesting project about women paid rate inequality. This discursive piece is a mainstream clock with a simple twist, instead of displaying real time it has an extra needle indicating the time at which a women stop being paid in comparison to its male colleague. Although conceptually interesting, the design is problematic in many aspects. In the first place it was financed by MTV, a massive corporation which does not clearly stands for women equality in both its form and content. Second, the design only exists in limited quantity and has been at use in exclusive contexts (creative agencies, privilege youth workspace) while being absent from sites in which those inequalities are prevalent: supermarkets, public services... Finally, although pieces of discussion are interesting on a theoretical level, their actual effect and outreach (beyond press releases) are questionable.
Basing myself on several readings about art and politics from Gramsci, Sartre, Latour and The Invisible Committee, I started believing that political activism emerges from singular will — or even necessity. Wherein, in a time where political and social design became artistic trends, I feel dubious when encouraged to produce political art. In this regard, I share the urge to be political within practice, but I think honest motivations should be assessed at first. Farther, reclaiming the collective aspect of activism is also quintessential within those practices and should not be overlooked.
Activism is no theoretical concept. As we can currently learn from the yellow vest protest happening in France, forms of activism emerges with the refusal to commit to a defunctioning system based on inequalities and humiliation — wherein the difficulty to produce art in a neoliberal system (the art market) based on individualism and competitivity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hertz, Garnet. "Disobedient Electronics." (2016).
Chapter 21: Reaching the Limit: When Art Becomes Science
Gaboury, J. A. C. O. B. "Critical Unmaking: Toward a Queer Computation." (2018).