The Aperture Foundation, the Vera List Center for Art and Politics, and the Photography program at Parsons The New School for Design present a special screening of The Forgotten Space, a film by Allan Sekula and Noël Burch. The evening concludes with a conversation with Sekula, scholar Kristin Ross and independent film curator Chi-hui Yang.

The Forgotten Space follows container cargo aboard ships, barges, trains and trucks; listening to workers, engineers, planners, politicians, and those marginalized by the global transport system. We visit displaced farmers and villagers in Holland and Belgium, underpaid truck drivers in Los Angeles, seafarers aboard mega-ships shuttling between Asia and Europe, and factory workers in China—whose low wages are the fragile key to the whole puzzle. In Bilbao, we discover the most sophisticated expression of the belief that the maritime economy, and the sea itself, are somehow obsolete.

A range of materials is used: descriptive documentary, interviews, archive stills and footage, and clips from old movies. The result is an essayistic, visual documentary about one of the most important processes that affects us today. The Forgotten Space is based on Sekula’s book Fish Story (1995), seeking to understand and describe the contemporary maritime world in relation to the complex, symbolic legacy of the sea.

Posted on November 9, 2011

Organized as forum for people and things, the presentations are set in a theatrical arena arranged around a number of disputed objects. Introductions by Thomas Keenan and Eyal Weizman.

Roundtable I
Forensic Architecture
11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Buildings are both sensors and agents. They materialize political and economical forces, and also the events that befall them. Buildings undergo constant formal transformations in response to forces. They expand and contract with temperature and with the slow degeneration of their component materials, registering transformation in humidity, air quality, CO2 levels, salinity, seismic movements – and sometimes also the abrupt or violent events that target them or simply happen next to them. Some of these processes can be reconstructed through structural calculations, blast analyses, and the determination of the failure points of structures, details, and forms.

Participants:
Nikolaus Hirsch, Städelschule, Frankfurt a.M., Germany, moderator
Eve Hinman, Hinman Consulting Engineers, New York/San Francisco
Jorge Otero-Pailos, Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation (GSAPP), Columbia University
Norman Weiss, GSAPP, Columbia University

Lunch Break 1:00 – 2:00 p.m.

Roundtable II
Constructed Evidence: The Thing Makes Its Forum
2:00 – 3:30 p.m.

What if the object is not a “witness” but an entity constructed for the express purpose of creating, or activating, the forum? Such an object might map the diffused networks of informal or illegal labor, or be called upon to narrate historical events in the absence of evidentiary materials. In fact, the object may be the very thing that produces a forum where none previously existed. An artwork likewise produces its constituency; it gathers, rather than simply assumes an already extant audience. If the object, conceptualized as such, is not that which registers the events that came before it in the manner of the classical witness, then it might be said the object itself becomes the event to which the forum as witness will address itself.

Participants:
Susan Schuppli, Goldsmiths, University of London, moderator
Amber Horning, John Jay College, New York
Sara Jordeno, artist, New York
Joanna Merwood-Salisbury, School of Constructed Environments, Parsons The New School for Design
Arne Svenson, artist, New York

Roundtable III
Animism
4:00 – 5:30 p.m.

In the habituated scheme of modernity, objects are conceived as the passive stuff on which human action leaves its imprint or trace. Whenever this passive/active nexus between objects and subject, humans and the non-human is disturbed or even reversed – as in the coming-to-life of seemingly dead matter, the becoming autonomous of inert things – we inevitably step into the territory of animism: that non-modern worldview that conceives of things as animated and possessing agency. With regards to Forensic Aesthetics, the historical discourse of animism provides a foil for a reflection on the boundaries at stake. This session examines a series of objects and liminal cases in which those borders are being destabilized or transgressed, from the crystal ball to educational objects from the 1920s, via the forensics of hair, to rocks.

Participants:
Anselm Franke, moderator
Brigid Doherty, Princeton University
Spyros Papapetros, Princeton University
Hugh Raffles, The New School for Social Research

Closing Remarks
5:30 – 6:00 p.m.
Srdjan Jovanovich Weiss, Tyler School of Art, Architecture Department, Temple University

Follow the links to detailed event description and DAY ONE schedule.

Presented by the Vera List Center for Art and Politics at The New School and co-sponsored and co-organized with Cabinet Magazine, The Forensic Architecture ERC Project at The Centre for Research Architecture, Goldsmiths, University of London, and The Human Rights Project at Bard College, on occasion of the Vera List Center’s 2011-2013 focus theme “Thingness.”

Posted on October 19, 2011

While legal and cultural scholars have labeled the third part of the 20th century – with its particular attention to testimony – as the “era of the witness,” the emergence of forensics in legal forums and popular entertainment signifies a new attention to the communicative capacity, agency, and power of things. This material approach is evident in the ubiquitous role that science and technologies now play in shaping contemporary ways of seeing, knowing, and communicating. Today’s legal and political decisions are often based upon the capacity to display and read DNA samples, 3D laser scans, nanotechnology, and the enhanced vision of electromagnetic microscopes and satellite surveillance. From mass graves to retinal scans, the topography of the seabed to the remnants of destroyed buildings, forensics is not only about the diagnostics, but also about the rhetoric of persuasion. The aesthetic dimension of forensics includes its means of presentation, the theatrics of its delivery, the forms of image and gesture. The forensic aesthetics of the present carries with it grave political and ethical implications, spreading its impact across socioeconomic, environmental, scientific, and cultural domains.

Etymologically, forensics refers to the “forum,” and to the practice and skill of making an argument before a professional, political, or legal gathering. Forensics has always been part of rhetoric, but its domain includes not only human speech but also that of objects. In forensic rhetoric, objects can address the forum. Because objects do not speak for themselves, there is a need for “translation” or “interpretation” – forensic rhetoric requires a person or a set of technologies to mediate between the object and the forum, to present the object, interpret it and place it within a larger net of relations.

The lectures and roundtable discussions by the participating artists, scholars and curators investigate these issues in a series of “forums” organized around a number of disputed objects.

Follow the links to detailed event schedules: DAY ONE and DAY TWO.

Presented by the Vera List Center for Art and Politics at The New School and co-sponsored and co-organized with Cabinet Magazine, The Forensic Architecture ERC Project at The Centre for Research Architecture, Goldsmiths, University of London, and The Human Rights Project at Bard College, on occasion of the Vera List Center’s 2011-2013 focus theme “Thingness.”

Posted on October 19, 2011

Coney Island USA and the Vera List Center for Art and Politics at The New School present a roundtable discussion focusing on how artists and art organizations have taken lead roles in the economic redevelopment of New York City and other urban centers. Leaders of local arts organizations from the Bronx, Coney Island, Gowanus, and the Lower East Side discuss how small business creation and community outreach contribute to economic development.

Arts organizations have long been identified as ideal partners for redeveloping neighborhoods seeking interim plans, due to their ability to draw crowds, activate storefronts, and launch activities in a relatively fast-paced manner. Concerned community leaders and local arts organizers consider how the arts have transformed their communities, and how these transformation yield new ways of  government and arts organization partnerships for economic redevelopment and neighborhood preservation in New York City and nationwide.

Moderated by Kevin McQueen, Assistant Director, Community Development Finance Lab, Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy.

Posted on April 28, 2011

The second presentation in the spring Public Art Fund Talks at The New School series, New York Stories continues to explore the ongoing resonance of radical work created by artists who first came to prominence in the 1960s and 1970s.

Artist Rob Pruitt speaks about The Andy Monument. His homage to Andy Warhol stands on a corner of 17th Street and Broadway, just as Warhol did when he signed and gave away copies of Interview magazine. Pruitt’s sculpture adapts and transforms the familiar tradition of classical statuary, and depicts Warhol as a ghostly, silver presence: a potent cultural force as both artist and self-created myth. Public Art Fund director and chief curator Nicholas Baume, cultural critic Wayne Koestenbaum, and artist and writer Rhonda Lieberman join the artist in a lively conversation about Warhol’s lasting influence on art and culture.

Posted on April 11, 2011

In collaboration with the School of Art, Media, and Technology, Parsons the New School for Design, the Vera List Center for Art and Politics presents an evening of discussion on the work of John Knight. Curator Sabine Breitwieser, writer Anne Rorimer, art historian Benjamin H.D. Buchloh and critic André Rottmann convene to examine the artist’s pivotal role in the development of institutional critique and site-specific art. Moderated by New School faculty member, Simonetta Moro, the panel takes place on the occasion of the opening of Knight’s exhibition at Greene Naftali Gallery on April 7, 2011.

Since the early 1970s John Knight has dedicated his practice to mapping the intersections of art, design, and institutional power through a series of spatial interventions and graphic maneuvers. Following closely on the architectural implications of Minimalism, Knight belongs to a generation of artists including Michael Asher, Daniel Buren, and Dan Graham that has consistently addressed the ideological valences of constructed space. Working “in situ,” all of Knight’s projects address the specific demands of their context, whether it be the gallery, the museum, the library, or the commercial billboard. Recent projects include shows at Richard Telles Fine Art, Los Angeles (2009); Museu d’Art Contemporani de Barcelona (2009); Hamburger Bahnhof Museum, Berlin (2009); Galerie Rüdiger Schöttle, Munich (2008); Espai d’Art Contemporani de Castelló (2008).

Posted on March 31, 2011

Vera List Center for Art and Politics and Sheila C. Johnson Center for Design at Parsons celebrate the 99th Annual Conference of the College Art Association, with a reception and workshop featuring the artistic entrepreneurs of tomorrow.

Dark Matter: Art and Politics in the Age of Enterprise Culture is both a book launch for Gregory Sholette’s new work of the same title, and a concrete application of the principles laid out in the book. The book argues that imagination and creativity in the art world originate and thrive in the non-commercial sector. It examines the political economy of art and business by highlighting interventionist and collective art as the ‘dark matter’ of the art world. This dark matter is indispensable to the survival of mainstream culture which it frequently opposes.

Two projects are lifted from the book’s pages and installed installed in the Sheila C. Johnson Design Center lobby for passerby to participate.

Boston-based artist Cat Mazza offers a craftivism workshop, based on the work of her organization MicroRevolt. MicroRevolt projects investigate the dawn of sweatshops in early industrial capitalism to inform the current crisis of global expansion and the feminization of labor.

New York-based artist Jim Costanzo calls for the 2nd Whiskey Rebellion: A Distillation of American Spirit. The original Whiskey Rebellion was a tax protest in Pennsylvania in the 1790s, during the presidency of George Washington. The conflict was rooted in western dissatisfaction with a 1791 excise tax on whiskey. The tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton’s program to centralize and fund the national debt. Costanzo is acting on behalf of the Aaron Burr Society which has begun to distill whiskey without a license, in an act of flagrant civil disobedience.

Posted on January 26, 2011

ByProduct is a new book that assembles the commentaries of artists, activists, curators, and interdisciplinary thinkers on cultural projects “embedded” in industries, the government, and other non-art sectors. Situated deeply in such institutions – and incorporating their architecture, language and much else – these projects produce meaning contingent on their host, becoming a “byproduct” of their existence. Whether the works are explicitly polemical, indirectly critical or instrumentalized by the host institutions is up for debate, and evokes old and new questions around political efficacy, and tactical media.

Posted on December 1, 2010

A new initiative co-organized with the School of Art, Media, and Technology and the Fine Arts Program Parsons, this lecture series captures the increasingly trans-disciplinary nature of scientific, academic, artistic and cultural practices and, in particular, focuses on the complex cross-disciplinary settings for art’s production in contemporary life.

Artist Mel Chin discusses the philosophical and conceptual development of selected works, in relation to the notion of sustainability. For more than three decades, Chin has been developing a unique and socially engaged body of work in which cultural diversity and global solidarity played an important role. His project Revival Field, perhaps his most well-known work, has made him one of the most important pioneers of ecological art. His works have been defined “sculptural witnesses to ecological and political tragedies.” Whether examining American imperialism in Central America, September 11, the fate of the Native American Indians, civil wars in postcolonial Africa, abuse at Guantanamo Bay, the extinction of animal species, or the way in which people pollute the natural world, Chin’s practice creates an arena in which social and (geo)political activism are coupled with ideas from philosophy, biology, history, religion, anthropology, literature, and alchemy. Chin received a BA from Peabody College in Nashville, Tennessee, in 1975, and fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts in 1988 and 1990. He lives in North Carolina.

Posted on November 22, 2010

A new initiative co-organized with the School of Art, Media, and Technology and the Fine Arts Program Parsons, this lecture series captures the increasingly trans-disciplinary nature of scientific, academic, artistic and cultural practices and, in particular, focuses on the complex cross-disciplinary settings for art’s production in contemporary life. Clustered around specific subjects such as geophysics, system theory, economics, and the physics of time, the lectures are presented in thematic pairs, one week apart from one another. Members of The New School’s acclaimed faculty alternate with external scholars, experts and artists. All lectures are open to the public.

In a double lecture and discussion Pascal Gielen and Michael Hardt discuss the role and the functioning of the art world from a philosophical and a sociological perspective. Gielen describes the art scene as a perfect production unit for economic exploitation in the contemporary network society as he searches for possibilities for artistic freedom in our Post-Fordist work contexts. Michael Hardt responds and argues that the Post-Fordist context offers the possibility of art as biopolitical production. He is asking the question whether artistic skills and talents can be deployed in a democratic project of the defense, production and distribution of the common. This event is paired with a lecture by curator Okwui Enwezor, presented on November 2, 2010.

*   *   *

Pascal Gielen is Professor of Sociology of the Arts at the University of Groningen, Netherlands. The director of the research group and book series Arts in Society, Gielen has written and co-authored several books on contemporary art, cultural heritage and cultural politics. In 2009, he edited the book Being An Artist in Post-Fordist Times (with Paul De Bruyne) and published The Murmuring of the Artistic Multitude. Global Art, Memory and Post-Fordism (Valiz). In 2010, Community Art and Beyond. The Political Potency of Trespassing was published (Valiz), also edited by De Bruyne and Gielen.

Michael Hardt teaches in the Literature Program at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. With Antonio Negri he co-authored Empire (2000), Multitude (2004) and CommonWealth (2009).

Posted on October 11, 2010

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

A new initiative co-organized with the School of Art, Media, and Technology and the Fine Arts Program Parsons, this lecture series captures the increasingly trans-disciplinary nature of scientific, academic, artistic and cultural practices and, in particular, focuses on the complex cross-disciplinary settings for art’s production in contemporary life. Clustered around specific subjects such as geophysics, system theory, economics, and the physics of time, the lectures are presented in thematic pairs, one week apart from one another. Members of The New School’s acclaimed faculty alternate with external scholars, experts and artists. All lectures are open to the public.

Kim Knowlton discusses how climate change impacts public health and how energy production alters landscapes and lives. She explores the story of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to shed light on the far-ranging impacts of energy choices we make today on near-term and future environmental and health consequences.

This lecture is paired with a talk by artist Iñigo Manglano-Ovalle on October 12, 2010, who will talk of his recent works on natural and constructed phenomena, including climate change.

*   *   *

Kim Knowlton, PhD, is senior scientist with the Health and Environment Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), where she leads the Global Warming and Health Project. She is also Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, and chair of the Global Climate Change and Health Committee of the Environment Section at the American Public Health Association. She was among the scientists who participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. She works at NRDC on communicating the health impacts of global warming, and on advocating for public health strategies to prepare for and prevent these impacts. Her published research has looked at heat- and ozone-related mortality and illnesses, as well as climate change’s effects on pollen, allergies and asthma, and infectious illnesses. She attended Cornell University and Hunter College/CUNY, and received a doctorate in public health from Columbia University. She was a postdoctoral research scientist at Columbia, and a Mellon Foundation Teaching Fellow in Barnard College’s Department of Environmental Sciences before joining NRDC.

Posted on September 29, 2010

A man-made catastrophe of rare magnitude has changed the Gulf of Mexico. The largest marine oil spill in history, the Deepwater Horizon disaster spewed oil into the sea for close to three months, from April 20 to July 15, 2010, at the rate of 60,000 barrels a day. How are we to think of this catastrophe? Do customary categories – environmental disaster, corporate responsibility, governmental regulations – still apply? Is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill calling for a new consideration of systems we depend on?

Join faculty members from across The New School as they analyze distinct aspects of the oil spill, drawing from their expertise in political science, economics, environmentalism, media, ethics, fashion, and art. Each one will speak for five minutes and address the crisis from their particular professional domain. Possible questions include: what is the nature of our dependency on technology, and how has technical know-how become the domain of a few? What is the impact of those who made their living on boats and beaches along the coast, and of their new conversations with distant peers in Alaska, still struggling after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill? What issues of design are implicated in the inability to cap the well? How have images of the plume served as a metaphor of the failures of both corporate responsibility and government regulation? How has the visual, what can be seen versus what cannot, shaped our perception of the spill’s effects? What long-term social, political, and environmental consequences might the disaster have in the years to come? What are we to the coral crabs and brittle stars, the mussels and tube worms of the “cold seeps,” the geological features of the Gulf’s ocean floor?

An interdivisional encounter organized by Vera List Center for Art and Politics at The New School for General Studies, The New School for Social Research and Parsons The New School for Design.

Posted on September 27, 2010

How to design democracy? This program features political scientists Steven J. Brams (New York University) and Christian List (London School of Economics) in a conversation with designer and artist Colleen Macklin (Parsons The New School for Design) on the design of democratic decision-making procedures that are broadly associated with Rational Choice Theory and reflective of game theory.

Titled after List’s research – who coined the term – “The Democratic Trilemma” probes the quandary stemming from three basic requirements for the successful design of a democratic, collective decision-making process: value pluralism, majoritarianism, and rationality. A trilemma ensues, as these three requirements are mutually inconsistent although, separately, any pair is perfectly consistent. Depending on which one we reject or violate, we end up with a very different conception of democracy.

List is joined in this cross-disciplinary conversation by Steven J. Brams and Colleen Macklin. Brams presents his research on the relevance of Rational Choice Theory (RCT) to real-life situations, drawing in particular from his recent book, Mathematics and Democracy: Designing Better Voting and Fair-Division Procedures. Voters today often desert a preferred candidate for a more viable second choice in order to avoid wasting their vote. A leading authority in the use of mathematics to design decision-making processes, Brams discusses how social-choice and game theory could enable voters and participants to better express themselves, thereby making political and social institutions more democratic. Macklin presents Budgetball, a newly developed sport designed to increase awareness of the national debt and reward strategic thinking and collaborative problem-solving around the issues of fiscal responsibility.

Ultimately, the focus of the program is on how theory can contribute to society and, in particular, how abstract results such as those identified as the “Democratic Trilemma” may guide us to view our discourses about democratic decision-making in a new light. The program echoes the VLC’s previous cycle on democracy as an eternally deferred state. * Presented on occasion of the Vera List Center’s 2009/2010 program theme Speculating on Change, and initiated and organized by Begum Yasar, a graduate student at Columbia University and Vera List Center Program Intern.

Posted on April 5, 2010

This panel discussion examines the viability of the conventionally printed and published book —monographic, serial, facsimile, high-value, low-budget, no-budget, and otherwise—as a means of artistic production in view of digital media. At a time of mass convergence, when much of the social experience is structured by virtual, electronic means, how might the physical and material residue of small-scale publications distinguish themselves from a space apart for resistance and subjectivity? Moderated by Gil Blank, the panel includes artists Roe Ethridge and Collier Schorr, alongside with James Hoff and Miriam Katzeff of Primary Information.

The Aperture Foundation, publisher of Aperture magazine, is a not-for-profit institution dedicated to the support and advancement of photography as a fine art. In collaboration with the Photography Program in the School of Art, Media and Technology at Parsons Confounding Expectations XI is generously supported by the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs, the Henry Nias Foundation, the ASMP Fund, and the Milton and Sally Avery Arts Foundation. The lecture series has been hosted by The New School since 2001.

Posted on March 29, 2010

CALL: Roberta Smith, Criticism: A Life Sentence

On November 5, 2009, Roberta Smith delivered the 2009 AICA/USA Distinguished Critic Lecture at The New School. From her vantage as senior art critic of the New York Times, she shared her thoughts on art criticism in general and, in particular, as it relates to her twenty years at the Times. She both embraced and challenged the concept of art journalism for a daily newspaper that caters to a broad general public, and elaborated on the primary importance of the art object, distinct from the cultural, political or economic context in which it might be situated.

RESPONSE: Laura Auricchio, Responsibility

Laura Auricchio is the Assistant Professor of Art History at Parsons The New School for Design. Auricchio has written extensively for both scholarly and general audiences on topics in the disparate fields of eighteenth-century French visual culture and contemporary art. She is the author of several dozen exhibition and book reviews that have appeared in publications ranging from The Art Bulletin to Art Papers to Time Out New York. Her first book, Adélaïde Labille-Guiard: Artist in the Age of Revolution, was published by the J. Paul Getty Museum in 2009. She is currently working on a visually-informed biography of Lafayette, the French hero of the American Revolution.

During the heated 2008 campaign season, Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin sought to downplay Barack Obama’s experience as a grass-roots organizer by contrasting it with her own past as the chief elected official of Wasilla, Alaska. The mayor of a small town, Palin famously pronounced, “is sort of like a community organizer, except with real responsibilities.”

Listening to Roberta Smith discuss her thirty-seven years as an art critic, more than twenty of which have been spent writing for the New York Times, I found myself returning to an underlying, if unintended, question implied by Palin’s invidious comparison: does every profession come with its own set of responsibilities? If so, what are the responsibilities of an art critic? And does the act of speaking from a platform as powerful the Times add to her load?

By responsibilities, I do not mean tasks, though Smith surely wrestles daily with a to-do list of epic proportions. (As she explains to a questioner, it is only through obsessive list-making that she manages to maintain her bearings on New York’s high-speed carousel of gallery, museum, and alternative exhibitions.) Rather, I mean responsibility in the sense of “moral accountability,” in the words of Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. To whom, and for what, is an art critic responsible?

Smith apparently believes that art critics do indeed carry a certain burden of responsibility. Mid-way through her presentation, she proposes that all of us who are “lucky enough to have a feeling for art” have an obligation “to give back.” “You can’t be proud about where art will take you,” she insists, suggesting an equivalence among the art world’s varied career choices. Whether your professional relationship to art involves making it, curating it, writing about it, or selling it, the fundamental responsibility, Smith believes, remains the same: to “put [the love of art] back into society.”

As a critic, Smith understands herself to be primarily responsible to her “readership.” But who, precisely, is the reader?

At one point, Smith suggests that her readership may be composed of frequent exhibition-goers. Noting that her reviews are “written in the moment,” she observes that they are also “used by people that way, very quickly.” To a certain extent this is true. For a cultured New Yorker or an out-of-town visitor with a bit of spare time, a Times review may offer little more than casual guidance on which shows to catch and which to skip. In this view, criticism is fleeting, with few enduring consequences.

Elsewhere in her talk, however, Smith implies that responsibilities may run deeper. Lamenting that “our visual lives in this country are more or less unexamined,” Smith seems to propose that a critic might serve as a model whose approach to works of art, designed spaces, and other visual features of our environment could be emulated by others. Everyone has a response to the visual, she avers, and everyone has a “critical ability” – the capacity to “analyze and judge.” Yet when faced with Art, which seems always to begin with a capital A, many otherwise confident viewers feel unprepared, intimated, and so fail to engage with their reactions. The world might be a very different place, Smith muses, if this vast but underutilized resource of critical potential could somehow be tapped. She is quite clear on the point that museums have a role to play in fostering visual literacy among the public. Perhaps critics also share some of this burden.

I wonder, though, whether a critic’s constituency might be much smaller than this vision would suggest. As a very part-time writer of exhibition reviews for Time Out New York, I have been known to share Smith’s hopeful attitude towards the power of criticism to open eyes. I’ve aspired to reach out to a broad public, to persuade just one person to give art a chance. But in moments of more sober reflection I have to concede that a reader who finds art uninteresting is not likely to spend any length of time with an exhibition review. Those who turn to the art section are already hooked. In that case, maybe the best I can do is to provide a bit of historical insight or comparative context that will enable readers to see the art in new ways. In other words, maybe the critic’s responsibility is to educate the educated.

Of course, exhibition-goers are not a critic’s only readers. Artists, curators, dealers and collectors also read reviews. In fact, they can be affected quite profoundly, and in lasting ways, by their contents. Is the critic to be held accountable for these effects? Should potential consequences influence a critic’s writing?

Smith responds with a resounding “no.” She is the viewer’s advocate, pure and simple. “I’m not doing it for the artist,” she states. “They can take my response as evidence of how their broadcast is being received,” or they can ignore it. On the subject of commerce, she demurs. “I don’t really know what effect I have on the market because I don’t really pay any attention to it.”

Does anyone? Should anyone? If so, who?

An audience member hints at this line of inquiry by asking how exhibitions are selected and assigned for review at the Times. Evidently, as the critics with greatest longevity, Smith and Holland Cotter wield considerable power in this regard. But Smith hastens to add that they are not omnipotent. Ultimately, the critic reports to her editor, who reports to someone else, and so on up the ladder. At some point, the paper’s bottom line – a matter of particular urgency in these difficult economic times – must come into play. After all, the Times is a commercial enterprise, albeit one that adheres to a code of journalistic ethics. The critic is an employee. She is, in the cold parlance of an increasingly web- and numbers-driven world of journalism, a “content provider.” Neither more nor less.

Still, I think the question is worth pondering. To whom, and for what, is an art critic responsible?

Posted on February 22, 2010

It might be useful to start with differences. Had Richard Sennett not fallen ill and participated, as intended, it would have been easier. After all his work is representative of a very learned but moderately progressive critique of the current problems of labor and it would have provided a more clear-cut counterpart to the more radical and transformative approaches of Andrew Ross and Tiziana Terranova (from now on AR and TT). In their cases, difference might be too strong a word. It might be more appropriate to talk about degrees of emphasis. Yet, I am going to highlight a few areas where, in my opinion, they diverge in the hope of adding some clarity to the current discourse on the nature of labor and on its possible political ramifications.

There is a strong sense of continuity, almost inevitability, in AR’s picture of the current restructuring of labor, particularly in the case of the so called creative industries and new media industries with working conditions of a high degree of flexibility and precariousness. AR explicitly claims that such restructuring is but the latest stage of a trend that started in the 1920s under the managerial practices of Human Relations. I find this assertion rather problematic because either it is too general a statement about the constant attempt on the part of capital to regiment its workforce by force or inducement (and in this case it can be applied to the history of capitalism even before the advent of Human Relations), or, if it is the result of a comparative analysis of specific managerial strategies, it misses the important point that the current capitalist turn in regards to labor is a repudiation of Human Relations’ theories and practices of the past. In fact, at the risk of simplifying, one can say that the break between Fordism and Post-Fordism consists, to a great degree, in the substitution of Human Relations with what it is often called distributed management or self management, and therefore with an entirely new conception of what management and labor are.

Historically, Human Relations were developed to respond to the failure of Taylorism and Scientific Management in order to create a docile work force that could be molded to fit the dictates of standardized mass production (the assembly line being the epitome of such arrangement), and to deal with workers’ subjectivity and their rebellion to work rules and work rhythms. Thus, Human Relations began to consider the work force as a counterpart to be dealt with through some form of communication and negotiation. It led eventually to the recognition of shop floor representation albeit with a clear separation of management from waged labor. More broadly, it corresponded to the dialectics of classes of the Keynesian system and of the welfare state.

The neoliberal turn and the Post-Fordist mode of production have drastically changed the terms of engagement. In rethinking the enterprise, to the point of envisioning its disappearance in a series of distributed entities, current management theory tries to capture the realities of drastically reconfigured labor dynamics characterized by work teams, temporary employment, flexible skills, and amateur “free labor.” For AR, these new realities are but an extension of old Human Relations strategies. The difference today is only in the degree of “permissiveness” (AR). It is not by chance that for AR Harry Braverman is a paradigmatic author. Capitalism leads inevitably to a progressive impoverishment of the quality of labor and to the socialization of alienation and exploitation, a sort of proletarianization of the whole society that might not take the form of deskilling, as Braverman claims, but that leads to even worse conditions of sacrificial labor and self exploitation.

For TT, the importance of the present restructuring consists instead in the novelty and discontinuity that they represent in relation to the previous social economic formation. TT is interested in understanding the current changes in managerial practices, but also in reading these changes against the grain, so to speak, from the other side of the relationships of production. Thus, she is interested in analyzing not only the new forms of extraction of value from labor, but also the new subjective practices that accompany and shape those relations, and in drawing implications for a new political strategy.

Interestingly enough it is Marx that provides a guide to understand the current shift in the nature of labor. Marx shows that there are always two inextricably connected sides of the labor process: the side of exploitation and alienation, and the side of cooperation. In general, the Marxist tradition has emphasized the former and left the latter to the realm of politics and consciousness, beyond the labor process. Yet, the changing nature of labor in Post-Fordism has shifted the balance of productive forces towards the side of cooperation. Increasingly, it is social engagement, both in the sense of interpersonal relationship and symbiosis with technological artifacts, that pushes innovation and creativity to the center of production by transforming machinery into media.

But cooperation is also the site of subjective practices of resistance, and here is where TT sees the opening of new possibilities for alternative forms of production. We could say succinctly that where AR is describing the new conditions of labor as a social factory, TT sees them as a factory of the social. Work in the new productive landscape is increasingly characterized by communication, symbolic interaction, affective engagements. It entails less and less fabrication and more social cooperation, something that TT and others call “immaterial labor.” And these are the material conditions that give rise to new subjective practices.

The difference between the two approaches becomes even more evident when their proponents envision future developments and formulate alternatives. In my view, AR’s analysis leads ultimately to a very defensive position. It seems that his main concern is to alleviate the deteriorating working conditions of the labor force and to fight the onslaught of neoliberalism’s restructuring, which indeed has created, particularly in the present crisis, massive unemployment, the increase in precarity and the abolition of safety nets. To respond to such devastating dislocations, much more has to be done in terms of providing adequate income maintenance programs (see for instance the current push on health care) or developing new forms of labor organization that expand across economic sectors and global fragmentation. But if we follow TT’s perspective, these struggles have a much greater strategic value to the extent to which, in addition to being defensive measures, they prefigure new productive arrangements and alternative social configurations.

Take, for instance, the proposal of guarantee income. Whatever the difference between Europe and the U.S., in terms of historical circumstances and short term feasibility, it appears to be an proposal that is gaining ground and could be central to a policy debate in the near future. However, guarantee income can be conceptualized quite differently and have different political implications: For AR, guarantee income is a remedy for the instability and flexibility of employment. By providing income security it increases the chances of finding adequate employment. For TT, guarantee income is, in a larger context, a stepping stone in the direction of severing the relation between income and work. Guarantee income that is based on life needs and not productive performance goes a long way in prefiguring and giving sustenance to experiments of non-economic productive arrangements. The political value of a struggle around guarantee income is in linking of immediate defensive measures to the strategic new institutions of cooperation, what TT calls the commons. Seen from this point of view, the path from the guarantee income to the commons is part of the process that, in the Italian Marxist literature that TT refers to, is called the “exodus.” In other words, the potentials expressed by the current social dynamics point to the opening of areas of self valorization and autonomous social practices that are quite different from the preceding dialectics of classes.

By now, it must be quite apparent where my preferences lie. The conceptual framework and the practice of the new commons, however, are still in their infancy. Thereare some fundamental political and theoretical issues that have to be addressed and clarified. What is the nature of commonality that it is detected in current subjective practices and proposed for future institutional forms? For instance, it is not clear to me to what extent there is a direct path from immaterial labor to the commons. Is the commons a realization of labor, albeit a labor based on cooperation rather than competition? Is it the old Marxist notion of emancipation of labor through labor? And, if so, how does it differ from the historical experience of Soviet and workers’ councils, in other ways than the heightened sociality of immaterial labor? Could it just be another version of industrial democracy, a democracy for the social factory?  If, on the contrary, it means not just exodus of labor but from labor – and from its connotations of productivity, utility and efficacy – then it would be nothing short of a redefinition of praxis itself. And maybe that is what is required today.

Posted on November 11, 2009

CALL: Changing Labor Value
Changing Labor Value, a panel discussion on September 29, 2009, examined the nature of work in the digital era, focusing on the relationship between invisible labor, play, exploitation, pleasure, and the production of value. The speakers, Andrew Ross and Tiziana Terranova, considered the impact of corporate expropriation of value from millions of net users and offered some alternatives. The panel was accompanied by an installation of Web-based projects by Burak Arikan, Ursula Endlicher, Scott Kildall and Victoria Scott, Aaron Koblin, Stephanie Rothenberg and Jeff Crouse.

The Internet as Playground and Factory on Vimeo

RESPONSE: Paolo Carpignano
The response is offered by Paolo Carpignano, Associate Professor of Sociology and Media Studies at The New School and coordinator of the Masters/Ph.D. program in the Sociology of Media. A writer, consultant and producer for production companies in the United States, Brazil, and Italy, Carpignano has published articles on sociology, social history and media theory. He is the co-author of Crisis and Workers’ Organization and The Formation of the Mass Worker in the USA, and the author of the online project Televisuality. He is currently working on a book on the relationship between work and media.

Posted on November 11, 2009

For the complete conference schedule and registration

This conference, organized by Lang faculty member Trebor Scholz and, among others, supported by the Vera List Center, confronts the urgent need to interrogate the concepts of labor and value in the digital economy and seeks to inspire proposals for action. There are currently few adequate definitions of labor that fit the complex, hybrid realities of the digital economy. The Internet as Playground and Factory poses a series of questions about the conundrums surrounding labor (and often the labor of love) in relation to our digital present. It is the first in a series of biennial conferences titled The Politics of Digital Media.

The conference was preceded by a panel on September 29 entitled Changing Labor Value that featured Andrew Ross, Tiziana Terranova and McKenzie Wark and presented as annotations in space Web-based art projects by Burak Arikan, Ursula Endlicher, Scott Kildall and Victoria Scott, Aaron Koblin, and Stephanie Rothenberg and Jeff Crouse.

Sponsored by Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts and presented in cooperation with the Center for Transformative Media at Parsons The New School for Design and the Vera List Center for Art and Politics on occasion of the center’s 2009/2010 program cycle “Speculating on Change.”

Posted on September 20, 2009