In order to put an end to the cretinizing influence of current street names, names of city councilors, heroes of the Resistance, all the Emiles and Edouards (55 Paris streets), all the Bugeauds and Gallifets, * and in general all obscene names (Rue de l'Evangile) should be obliterated
what is their averse towards the past and history? why is this something that should be erased from civilization? isn't it good to collectively remember?
Paris Metro maps
the beauty of this seems to be its practicality, that it is a radically bold innovation, to transport mass numbers of people around an urban metropolis, smoothly and efficiently - does art then here become defined by its ability to transform tangible life?
The revolutionary transformation of the world, of all aspects of the world, will confirm all the dreams of abundance
how narrowly is "all aspects of the world" applied? surely it can't be all right - certain things must remain the same?
an idea of happiness whose crisis must be provoked on every occasion by every means
what is the alternative to this - I wonder why this is positioned as wrong thing?
gruesome corpses dredged up from the river and surrounded by the police and onlookers.
I wonder what this within the context of the other more sexually charged imagery in Baltrop's photographs does
A month later, Acconci made explicit the sense of danger on the piers in an untitled project at Pier 17
It is with statements like these that you can understand how the concepts of body art are applied to performance art as a whole more broadly
the subject and site of Matta-Clark's art was the city itself, the city experienced as simultaneously neglected and usable, dilapidated and beautiful, loss and possibility
I really appreciate the contrasting ideas that a work of art can hold, especially how it relates to a lived gay experience in New York City during this time
Less well-documented is the fact that artists with large and relatively accessible lofts would open their spaces to guests for performances and concerts.
I wonder how this would impact the environment in which art during the 70s was consumed... is there a way that institutional critique could be applied to the "lofty", clique -y atmosphere that art was created in?
tangible
is tangibility a desired quality in a monument? would this go against postmodern ideas?
Taking into account the regular activities of the civil population maintaining it and the presence of local residents and tourists visiting it day by day
what is the relationship between the public/private realm dichotomy and the validation of monuments by the public? is the authority that grants this the same one?
Consequently, it has not become part of the symbolic landscape of the authorities, neither was it accepted as a monument or memorial by the public
Is the public's acceptance required in order to achieve the significance of a monument? I feel like a monument could be installed by a regime that still stands as a symbol of oppression without their recognizing of it as legitimate.
The act of memorialisation and practices of commem-oration have also entered the everyday settings of life
this makes me wonder if social media can become a place for commemoration - if we are constantly being influenced by visual media that manipulates how we remember things, aren't these forms of memorials too?
A memory cast in stone, following a certain agen-da, eternalises one single narrative in a fixed aesthetic, serving specific purposes of the political power, limiting the freedom of remembering and forgetting.
really excellent point here - shows how monuments are manifestations of power enacted by ruling regimes. this is why people are so upset about confederate statues and memorials still standing in the South - in some way, they reflect the current white supremacy still very much in place, and the fact they are still standing even though the South lost the Civil war calls to question how much really has changed.
public art can present itself as the voice of marginal cultures,
this is a really great point, and reminds me of a lot of the community art I see around various Minneapolis/St. Paul neighborhoods, particularly around Lake Street. There's an urgency to present marginalized voices, to make them visible - it seems that this for me is more of a function of public art than to de-design.
The function of public art is to de-design
why is this a necessity? how does de-designing affect society in significant ways?
You pay, too, for the proximity of other bodies; you pay for the right to "test the waters
I do wonder how much of this is an American/Western assumption - I assume that various cultures around the world have different approaches to this idea, and this to me brings down this idea of public vs. private realm as a universality, especially given the tone of the piece.
The public exists as raw material
I'm not so sure what this means besides the fact that the public is malleable and subject to alteration - this is certainly true, but how does it "only" exist to be manipulated - ontologically this seems a bit of a reach, especially since the public realm is something that had to be created
a place where the public gathers precisely because it doesn't have the right-a place mad
this is interesting to me as it raises larger questions about authority over space - who has the ultimate say in what is private and public? owners, government, the people? a house could become a public space both through homeowners opening it up , or it could be forced open by intruders Or, in a relevant scenario, the siege of the Capitol is a fascinating case study - this is a building that is supposed to be for the American people, yet it was sieged by Trump loyalists who inherently wanted to intervene in a democratic process. The Capitol was made public by force for a few hours.