How can we harness collaborative culture, critical analysis, participatory technologies and aesthetics to incite social change?  What content and platforms can we create that will respond to the limits and possibilities of the ever-shifting contemporary media landscape?

Paper Tiger Television puts theory into practice — participants of the conference are challenged to collaboratively design prototypes for a new rrradical media, building on the ideals of non-hierarchical-participatory culture, critical analysis, activism and innovative aesthetics. A broad cross section of individuals, working together with varied proclivities, interests and abilities, opens up the potential for something truly revolutionary to develop.

Media Intensive: 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Succinct, fast-paced and provocative presentations on key topics of the design challenge: Justice & Autonomy, New Activism & Movement Building, Collectivism & Collaborative Culture, Materiality & Aesthetics

Lunch: 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Presenters and grassroots media advocates host informal discussions dedicated to conference themes.

Design Challenge: 1:00 – 4:30 p.m.
Groups of 8-10 participants will be challenged to collectively create prototypes for a new form of rrradical media.

Team Presentations: 4:30 – 6:00 p.m.
Each group gives 10 minutes to present their rrradical media prototype. Selected prototypes will be featured in Documentary Fortnight 2012: MoMA’s International Festival of Nonfiction Film and Media on February 24.

Media Studies Speakers
Jesse Drew, professor, Techno-cultural Studies, University of California, Davis
Pablillo Jose, hacktivist
Shannon Mattern, assistant professor, School of Media Studies, The New School
Martha Wallner, Media & Communications Coordinator, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Isaac Wilder, Executive Director, Free Network Foundation

Design Challenge Facilitators
Robby Herbst, artist
Tracy Luz, documentary filmmaker
Deep Dish TV, media laboratory since 1986

Democracy Now!, national, daily, independent, and award winning global news program
Housing Is A Human Right, documentary project
Manhattan Neighborhood Network, public access network
Media Action Grassroots Network, local-to-local advocacy network of grassroots community organizations
People’s Production House, journalism training and production institute

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

* Presented by Paper Tiger Television, Vera List Center for Art and Politics, and School of Media Studies at The New School for Public Engagement , on occasion of the Vera List Center’s 2011-2013 focus theme “Thingness.”

Posted on January 23, 2012

“The power of mass culture rests on the trust of the public. This legitimacy is a paper tiger.”
–PTTV Manifesto

Borne of the residual political optimism from the sixties and a flush of infatuation with small-format video, Paper Tiger Television (PTTV) began as a series on Communications Update on public access. Featuring Herb Schiller tearing apart the New York Times’ “all the news that is fit to print,” Paper Tiger’s penetrating and playful critiques of Time, Rolling Stone, National Geographicand Cosmopolitan soon followed.

The public access movement took root at a moment of disillusionment with network television, generating hope that cable would offer a genuine alternative to TV wasteland. Over the last thirty years, the accessibility of public access TV centers has significantly declined, while for-profit corporate media consolidated from fifty into five companies that control 90% of the public’s media consumption.

Yet, with the growth of the internet and the proliferation of consumer grade production equipment, social media, crowd sourcing, online video, live streaming, and wireless technology, today’s media environment is rife with opportunities for innovation and collaboration.  Still, from the digital divide, to online filter bubbles, to the echo chamber of social distribution of mass media, to SOPA and Net Neutrality, an analysis of how these developments are used coupled with the threats coming from the policy level reveals that even these seemingly promising trends are nuanced.

Given these developments, what does a vibrant, radical media look like, how could it function? What lessons can we apply from Paper Tiger’s innovative media activism?  How can we use media strategically and creatively in the pursuit of social justice?

Moderated by Daniela Capistrano, Multi-Platform Producer of DCAP Media, the festive event features a keynote address, a screening of Paper Tiger Television’s Greatest Hits, selected by current Tigers, followed by a panel discussion on the future of rrradical media.

Keynote Speaker
Malkia Cyril, Executive Director, Center for Media Justice

Panelist
Andy Bichlbaum, The Yes Lab
Jamilah King, News Editor, Colorlines
Jennifer Pozner, Founder, Women in Media & News

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

* Presented by Paper Tiger Television, the Vera List Center for Art and Politics, and the School of Media Studies at The New School for Public Engagement , on occasion of the Vera List Center’s 2011-2013 focus theme “Thingness.”

Posted on January 23, 2012

What is radical media? What has it been in the past? What can it be in the future? What is media’s relationship to social justice and movement building?

Paper Tiger Television, the Vera List Center for Art and Politics, and the School of Media Studies at The New School for Public Engagement present a two-day conference of activists, artists and media makers to celebrate, reflect and build on thirty roarin’ years (and counting!) of media art and activism.

In 1981, Paper Tiger Television (PTTV) pioneered a truly radical public access show, raising awareness amongst workers in the communication industries of the economic, political and social power structures perpetuated through the profit-driven mainstream media. Ever since then, the collective has been making fun, yet incisive video that demystifies the information industry and provides a platform for underrepresented perspectives. Collaborating with activists and artists, PTTV videos take many forms — from critical performative readings of the mass media & popular culture, to traditional style documentaries on social justice issues.

Thirty years later, how can we harness collaborative culture, critical analysis, participatory technologies and aesthetics to incite social change?  What content and platforms can we create that will respond to the limits and possibilities of the ever-shifting contemporary media landscape?

We invite artists, activists, scholars and media makers, movers and shakers of all stripes to explore these questions. Participants are challenged to collaboratively design prototypes for a new rrradical media, building on the ideals of non-hierarchical-participatory culture, critical analysis, activism and innovative aesthetics. A broad cross section of individuals, working together with varied proclivities, interests and abilities, opens up the potential for something truly revolutionary to develop.

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

*Presented by Paper Tiger Television, the Vera List Center for Art and Politics, and the School of Media Studies at The New School for Public Engagement, on occasion of the Vera List Center’s 2011-2013 focus theme “Thingness.”

Posted on December 8, 2011

Coming on the heels of The New School’s Teach-in on October 22, this event highlights the perspectives of critical theorists, historians, lawyers, and sociologists and presents their predictions for the future of public protests.

Speakers:
Nancy Fraser, Henry A. and Louise Loeb Professor of Political and Social Science and Department Chair, The New School for Social Research
Joseph Giacona, student, Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts
Gideon Orion Oliver, Executive Committee of the National Lawyer Guild, New York City Chapter
Jeremy Varon, Professor of History, The New School for Social Research
Alex Vitale, Professor of Sociology, Brooklyn College
Eli Zaretsky, Professor of History, The New School for Social Research

Posted on November 1, 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

“Grave diggers” have, since the middle of the 1980s, been unearthing bones and turning burial sites into an epistemic resource from which the details of war crimes can be reconstructed and brought into the pale of the law. Forensic teams, including archaeologists, anthropologists, pathologists, radiologists, dental experts, bio-data technicians, DNA specialists and statisticians of all sorts, are working in international teams organized by NGOs or sponsored by the United Nations or international tribunals. Their practices mark a shift in emphasis from the living to the dead, from memory and trauma to empirical science, and from subjects to objects in accounting for atrocities.

Introduction:
Thomas Keenan, Bard College
Eyal Weizman, Goldsmiths, University of London

Presentations:
Eric Stover, writer and faculty director, The Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley
Grupa Spomenik / Monument Group: Damir Arsenijevic, Branimir Stojanovic, and Milica Tomić, Belgrade, Serbia

Follow the links to detailed event description and DAY TWO 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

Scholar Ella Habiba Shohat and curator Rasha Salti discuss the new edition of Shohat’s seminal book, Israeli Cinema: East/West and the Politics of Representation (Library of Modern Middle Eastern Studies, 2010) which shaped new paradigms for critical discussion of ‘national cinema’ and the Zionist master-narrative. Their conversation is punctuated by brief excerpts from Palestinian films produced within Israel, and diasporic films that address contested geography of Israel/Palestine. New School faculty member Sumita Chakravarty, a film scholar and author, offers introductory remarks.

Israeli Cinema: East/West and the Politics of Representation explores cinema as a productive site of national culture. Taking its cue from the simultaneous emergence of Zionism and cinema, the book offers a deconstructionist reading of this movement by considering the role that cinema itself played in the ‘invention’ of the nation. The book provoked a stormy public debate upon its translation into Hebrew. Unthinking the Eurocentric imaginary of East versus West, Shohat highlights the paradoxes of an anomalous national/colonial project through a number of salient issues: the ambivalence toward the geographies of both East and West; the Sabra figure as a negation of the Diaspora Jew; the iconography of the land of Israel as a denial of Palestine; the narrative role of the good Arab and the limits of positive image analysis; and the oxymoronic place allotted to Arab-Jews/Mizrahim within an orientalist historical and social discourse.

The new publication includes an extensive postscript chapter that reflects on the book’s initial reception. It looks at the inscription of the Arab-Jewish memory of Muslim spaces, and reflects on the Palestinian narration of the Nakba within a revisionist cinema that actively constructs an audio-visual archive.

Presented in collaboration with Arte East.

Posted on August 10, 2011

How do objects sometimes act as vibrant things, with an effectivity of their own, a degree of independence from the words, images, and feelings they provoke in humans? Political theorist Jane Bennett delivers the inaugural lecture as the Vera List Center for Art and Politics embarks on a two-year exploration of the material world. In the face of virtual realities, social media and disembodied existences, the center will focus on the material conditions of our lives and examine “thingness,” the nature of matter.

Renowned for her work on nature and ethics, Bennett investigates the power of things, which sometimes manifests as the strange allure that even useless, ugly, or meaningless items can have for us. Her latest book Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things (Duke, 2010) asks how our political world would approach public problems were we to seriously consider not just our human experience of things, but the capacity of things themselves. How is it that things can elide their status as possessions, tools, or aesthetic objects to manifest traces of independence and vitality?  Following the tangled threads linking vibrant materialities, human selves, and the agentic assemblages they form, Bennett examines what hoarders – people preternaturally attuned to things – might have to teach us about the workings of agency, causality, and artistry in a world overflowing with stuff.

*  *  *

Jane Bennett is Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, where she teaches political theory and American political thought. She is a founding member of the journal Theory & Event, and is currently working on a project on over-consumption, new ecologies, and Walt Whitman’s materialism.

* Presented on occasion of the Vera List Center’s 2011-2013 focus theme “Thingness.”

Posted on August 10, 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

Aperture Foundation, the Photography Program in the School of Art, Media and Technology at Parsons and the Vera List Center for Art and Politics present a panel entitled Contemporary Documentary Practices, as part of the ongoing series, Confounding Expectations: Photography in Context.

Martha Rosler’s seminal critique of documentary photography in the 1981 text In, Around and Afterthoughts on Documentary Photography, this panel explores the viability of documentary practices today, both within the contemporary art realm and in the larger context of visual culture. In the 1981 text, Rosler claimed that documentary photography has yet to be realized in its full potential. Moving from a direct critique of documentary photographic practices, many contemporary photographers are utilizing art strategies to initiate and maintain social and political engagement through the use of the photographic medium. This discussion aims to examine photography’s ability to fostering social change in the contemporary moment and in generating a discussion about the importance of institutional and discursive framing in determining photographic meaning. Moderated by Susan Bright, panelists include LaToya Ruby Frazier, Chris Verene, and Michael Wolf.

Posted on October 26, 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

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

In January 2009, artist and Parsons faculty member Melanie Crean launched The Shape of Change, an ongoing project consisting of two interconnected works that examine the ephemeral nature of change, independence and the formation of identity. The first work tracks change on an international scale on the Web site www.shapeofchange.com, an online archive of American and Iraqi desires for political change.

Through the presentation and visualization of opinions of artists, writers and the general public, this part of The Shape of Change seeks to countermand the empty political brand that the term ‘change’ was reduced to in recent American and Iraqi elections. The second project looks at change on a personal scale, documenting an infant’s early development as it learns to walk and speak, thus establishing itself as an independent social subject. In this conversation, scholars and practitioners from the fields of art, science and religion discuss how their concepts of change both correspond and differ.

Participants:

AA Bronson is an artist and healer living and working in New York City. In the sixties, he left university with a group of friends to found a free school, a commune, and an underground newspaper. This led him into an adventure with gestalt therapy, radical education, and independent publishing. In 1969 he formed the artists’ group General Idea with Felix Partz and Jorge Zontal; for the next 25 years they lived and worked together to produce the living artwork of their being together, in addition to undertaking over 100 solo exhibitions, and countless temporary public art projects. In 1974 they founded Art Metropole, Toronto, a distribution center and archive for artists’ books, audio, and video. From 1987 through 1994, they focused their work on the subject of AIDS. He is currently the President of Printed Matter, Inc., in New York City, and Artistic Director of the Institute for Art, Religion, and Social Justice at Union Theological Seminary.

Melanie Crean is Assistant Professor of Media Design at Parsons The New School for Design, teaching classes in experimental time-based work, mobile media and gaming. As the former Director of Production at Eyebeam, she founded a studio that worked with socially based moving image, sound, public art and open source software. She designed special effects at MTV Digital Television Lab and produced documentaries in Nepal, on subjects that include women trafficking and the spread of HIV along trucking routes. Crean has received commissions from Art in General, Bronx Arts Council, Harvestworks, NYFA, NYSCA, Rhizome and Creative Time.

Sensei Jules Shuzen Harris is a Soto priest who has been practicing Buddhism for more than twenty-five years. He holds an Ed.D. with a concentration in applied human development from Teachers College of Columbia University and a MSW from New York University. As a psychotherapist, Shuzen has found creative ways to synthesize Western psychology and Zen to achieve dramatic results with his patients. He also focuses on the relationship between Zen and the martial arts. He is a fourth-degree Dan Black Belt in Iaido (the art of drawing and cutting with a samurai sword) and a Black Belt in Kendo (Japanese fencing). He also founded two schools of Japanese swordsmanship in Albany, NY and Salt Lake City, UT.

Alaa Majeed is a reporter, producer, and translator. She received her BA from Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. Majeed has co-produced segments for Al-Jazeera International and PBS. She has also reported for United Press International, Pacifica Radio, the BBC, National Public Radio, “60 Minutes,”and The Sunday Times (London). Her experience as a translator includes work with news services, conducting/translating classes for Iraqi civil servants, and a position with Nature Iraq, a non-governmental, environmental organization. She is currently also working as a researcher, monitoring news wires, documenting press freedom violations, and conducting investigative interviews with journalists overseas for the Committee to Protect Journalists, which is based in New York. In 2007, she received the International Courage in Journalism award from the International Women’s Media Foundation.

Presented as part of Streaming Culture / Art & Politics, a new interdivisional initiative organized by Victoria Vesna, Visiting Professor, UCLA, and Director of Research, School of Art, Media and Technology, Parsons The New School of Design, in collaboration with the Vera List Center for Art and Politics at The New School.

If you are not able to join us in person, log on to: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/parsons-the-new-school-for-design

Posted on April 19, 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

Joshua Simon is a curator and writer based in Tel Aviv-Jaffa. He is the co-editor of Maayan Magazine for Poetry and The New & Bad Art Magazine and editor of Maarvon – New Film Magazine, all based in Tel Aviv. Among his projects in poetry is Red: Poems of the Working Class, an anthology in Hebrew and Arabic he co-edited (May Day, 2007). Recent curatorial projects include Internazionale! (Left Bank, Israeli Communist Party Culture Club, Tel Aviv 2008), Come to Israel, It’s Hot and Wet and We Have The Humus! (Storefront for Art and Architecture, New York Times 2008), The Rear at the First Herzliya Biennial of Contemporary Art (2007), and Sharon (Tel Aviv 2004). The book The Aesthetics of Terror (Charta, 2009) which he edited, is based on a group show on censorship he co-curated in New York City.

1.
Roee Rosen’s insightful “The Law is Laughing: Fragments Following the War in Gaza” traces a variety of pathologies through their symptoms expressed in the Israeli media. The self-explanatory mechanisms of the Israeli media disavow any criminality on their part. The Israeli media presents its case from the standpoint of the victim.
In order to render the logic of the unconscious, Freud cites a joke about the impoverished man who borrows 25 florins from a well-to-do acquaintance, assuring him at some length of his distress. The very same day, his patron comes upon him in a restaurant with a plate of salmon with mayonnaise before him. He reproaches him: “What, you borrow money from me, and then you go and order salmon with mayonnaise. That’s what you used my money for?” “I don’t get it,” answered the accused, “when I’ve got no money I can’t eat salmon with mayonnaise. When I’ve got money, I mustn’t eat salmon with mayonnaise. So tell me, when can I eat salmon with mayonnaise?”

Freud’s delightful reading of this joke puts the impoverished bon vivant’s claim in an existential context: while the benefactor believes the impoverished man should be compelled not to even think of delicacies such as salmon with mayonnaise in his situation, the impoverished man knows that tomorrow he will be in the same situation, therefore he should enjoy today. In many ways, the Israeli self-explanatory mechanisms, both those of the government and those of the media, use the same logic of the accused in this joke, but in a very different way: a series of claims by Dutch, British, Norwegian, and Swedish organizations right after the attack on Gaza were answered with Israeli counteraccusations regarding these countries’ demeanor during the Second World War and during their Colonialist and Imperialist past. Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman’s responds frequently to the accusations by saying something along the lines of: “I don’t get it. Our actions are nothing compared to what you did in the past centuries. Had we have done what we are now doing back then, it would not have even been regarded as crime at all.” In the spirit of the joke, this Israeli mechanism of justification against any criticism of its actions echoes the logic of the impoverished man: “When we didn’t have our own state we couldn’t do it. Now that we do have a state, we mustn’t do it?”

2.
Having the privilege to publish Rosen’s “The Law is Laughing” in Hebrew in Maayan Magazine was a learning experience—the text enabled a reading into the Israeli civil society as constantly oscillating between mobilization as citizenship and citizenship as mobilization. The regime of segregation has taken its toll on the privileged as well as on the oppressed. By making of the Palestinians non-citizens, Israeli civil society condemned itself to have no civilian life. One of the ways this toll manifests itself is a pathology of eccentric normativity: Only in Israel (and maybe North Korea) can one find on the front page of the most popular daily newspaper a rating of high schools based on the number of graduates volunteering to elite army units. Another example for the eccentric normativity of Israeli civil society is the “business as usual” manner with which the Israeli military’s video-on-demand TV channel was received by viewers; during the first days of the attack on Gaza the military spokesman launched a TV channel in which re-runs of aerial documentation of recent shelling on Gaza were shown, together with more “arty” videos with footage of blindfolded detained Palestinians dissolving to landscapes with swarming soldiers and of armored vehicles passing in slow motion. This same eccentric normativity enables the military to occupy a vast area right in the center of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (it owns the most desired real estate lots in the heart of the business district, spread over approximately a hundred acres), and to have its chief command facility hover over the city, making the 1.5 million residents in the surrounding area actual human shields of a military compound.

Contrary to Apartheid, the occupation is a system of denial. As a regime of segregation it differs from Apartheid in that the privileged do not admit its existence. This is a disavowal Apartheid. Eyal Weizman has claimed that today, the concept of the banality of evil, introduced by Hannah Arendt, has been updated to the paradigm of the lesser evil. Today political and ethical debates revolve around a management of evils. This would be one of the ways to explain the Israeli consensus surrounding the attack to which they subjected Gaza.

3.
In the months since the attack on Gaza in December 2008, Israeli media has ignored the city’s existence—there isn’t a word about the hunger and impoverishment of the population. In many ways it is as if the whole Gaza Strip had disappeared. This, while the war has continued by other means: as the military operation, killing approximately 1,400 people, was just phase one of the attack, phase two is the control of the reconstruction of Gaza, or more accurately, the prevention of re-building. Reconstruction is a form of destruction; the aim was to dethrone Hamas through the reconstruction. From the Israeli viewpoint, the battle now is over who will reconstruct Gaza and what elite will be consolidated through the distribution of foreign funds.

Almost ten months after the attack, the first report on the situation of the population in Gaza in Israeli media was a story about the Gaza zoo; after the zebras in the zoo were killed during the Israeli attack, the manager invited an artist to paint stripes on a number of donkeys. This sad story of deprivation and creativity was regarded as a funny anecdote by Israeli commentators, and experts on animal rights were rushed to the studios to explain how inhuman the Gaza zoo staff was.

During this whole period of silence since the attack, the front pages of Israeli papers were bleeding with headlines to stories of random violence: an ultra-orthodox pregnant woman arrested for starving her toddler son, later diagnosed in her psychiatric evaluation as suffering from Münchausen syndrome by proxy; a hate crime, directed against a gay youth center in the center of Tel Aviv, that killed two teenagers; a group of drunk teenagers beating to death a man on the beach in front of his wife and daughter; a TV celebrity, Dudu Topaz, going on a revenge spree, ordering attacks on TV executives after his show was taken off the air and rival channels rejected him—waiting for his trial in a detention facility, Topaz hanged himself in the shower using the cord of an electric kettle; a young divorcé drowning his daughter in the bathtub and cutting his wrists—while waiting for his trial he jumped to his death in the detention facility’s courtyard from a ten-foot-high wall, cracking his skull and breaking his neck.

At the same time Israeli media highlighted these gruesome stories, they were silent on the conditions in devastated Gaza. Since January 2009, after the Israeli military resumed its invasion, Gaza has continued to be enclosed from all sides and under a strict embargo of rations and quotas of food, clothes, medication, and building materials. In the face of the media’s inability to acknowledge their responsibility and unwillingness to report this collective abuse of a population of more than 1.5 million people, one cannot but define their hysteria over this series of random stories of violence in the past months as a symptom of repression and projection. These headlines are a confession: we are the starving mother, we are the drowning father, we are the ones committing hate crimes, we are the ones who are killing the innocent, we are going on a revenge spree.

4.
In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt suggested the Dreyfus affair to be a “foregleam” of the twentieth century, a grand rehearsal of the rivaling ideological powers of twentieth century Europe. With the help of Karl Marx’s analysis of the fall of the Second French Republic and the raise of Napoleon III in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (which was first published in the U.S. in the spring of 1852, one hundred years before Arendt’s book), one can borrow this “grand rehearsal” idea and apply the grave mishaps of the Second French Republic to twentieth- and twenty-first-century parliamentary regimes, or better, “dictatorships of the bourgeoisie.” Marx is giving an insightful report on the recent history of his time, describing how the logic of lesser evil and (almost) free general elections results in proto-Fascism. In his text, Marx shows how the Revolution, calling for universal manhood suffrage, resulted in just a few months in the election of a “grotesque mediocrity” of a president (on December 10 that same year). Louis Bonaparte was elected President of the Republic with almost 5.5 million votes—75% of the total). He would later on eliminate the Second Republic and restore a Second Empire on December 2, 1852 (What Marx refers to as his Eighteenth Brumaire). Marx would have probably agreed with Deleuze and Guattari when they say: “No, the masses were not innocent dupes; at a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted Fascism.”

5.
Nowadays in parliamentary regimes governance is often synonymous with corruption, and Israeli politics is no exception. Under parliamentary regimes of the past decades we have been subjected to the rule of capital’s technocratic Fascism—a bureaucratic elite of economists and political practitioners. Yet, in Israel one notices how the traditional “junta” of military elite (Yitzhak Rabin, Commander in Chief turned Prime Minister; Ezer Weizman, Air Force Commander turned President; Ariel Sharon, Head of Southern Command turned Prime Minister; Ehud Barak, Commander in Chief turned Prime Minister; Shaul Mofaz, Commander in Chief turned Cabinet Minister and candidate for Prime Minister in the primary elections of Kadima Party—this genealogy of militarism in government established its dominance with the Israeli military victory of 1967) joined forces with the technocratic Fascists (Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni—and prominent Israeli politicians who are linked to the genealogy of neo-liberalism that swept the country since 1991, all with strong ties to key business figures who benefitted immensely from the ongoing wave of privatizations they have been implementing in the last two decades) to construct together a corporatist Fascism.

In 2006 Roee Rosen created the illustrated figure of Shit Boy and the drawing Shit Boy Showers (Suicide). In this touching and hilarious drawing, Shit Boy is showering in his own pee, and by doing so bringing about his own demise. Rosen’s Shit Boy is our Angelus Novus—it calls for an allegorical reading of the age of “Anal Capitalism” (as Kaja Silverman coined it) and is a poignant image for our political horizon. Walter Benjamin saw Paul Klee’s 1920 watercolor Angelus Novus as depicting “the angel of history. His face is turned towards the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage.” Rosen’s Shit Boy presents a perpetual circulation of destruction and reconstruction. This is an animation of an ungrateful privilege—being captive of yourself, being hostage of a logic of which you yourself are the cause. The “shit boy showers pathology” is self-inflicting. Jewish Israelis are held hostage by their own logic. They are trapped by their privileges.

6.
In his fragments, Rosen refers to war crime as a political qualification and to criminality as a sought-after characteristic of the Israeli leadership. It seems even more so today with the Israeli response to the investigation of international human rights and humanitarian law violations related to the attack on Gaza, which was assigned by the United Nations Human Rights Council and headed by Richard Goldstone. After the Goldstone report, Israeli Welfare Minister Isaac (Buzi) Herzog of the Labor Party suggested constructing a special internal bureau to deal with allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity by high-ranking Israeli officers and politicians. Herzog was quoted saying: “Israel is going through a harsh judicial campaign that undermines its sheer existence, and therefore it has to recruit the best jurist minds to support it in its battle.” In a bitter irony, the Welfare Minister turns the state that was supposed to protect the victims of crimes against humanity into a state that protects war criminals. By suggesting the construction of this bureau, the minister has proven that Israeli leadership forms its constituency through incrimination. We are all accomplices. Harboring war criminals, Israel has turned to be a very bad Holocaust joke.

Posted on December 2, 2009

CALL: Birth and Rebirth of a Nation, colloquium and film screening, September 26, 2009
Centered on D.W. Griffith’s film The Birth of a Nation, this day-long event reconsidered the notorious white supremacist manifesto in the context of the Obama call for change. The speakers, among them Douglas A. Blackmon, David W. Blight, Bill Gaskins, Margo Jefferson, Michelle Materre, Paul D. Miller (a k a DJ Spooky That Subliminal Kid), Miriam J. Petty, and Michele Wallace considered questions of race and representation and asked whether today’s racial imagination can be reconciled with that of nearly a century ago when Griffith’s film became the first blockbuster in American cinema.

Watch Birth and Rebirth of a Nation on YouTube: Parts 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

RESPONSE: Chris Johnson, Ways of Seeing
Chris Johnson is a musical anthropologist and Assistant Professor in Culture and Media at Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts. Johnson has been a Fulbright Senior Scholar, in Germany for one year, and a Fellow at the Du Bois Institute at Harvard University. He is also an Apple Computer Distinguished Educator and a graduate of New York University’s American Studies Doctoral Program.

His interests include African American culture, as related to Jazz as a black art form specifically, and performance practices generally, and the role of images in the shaping of ideas in society, historically and in our time. Johnson teaches using images, film, and sound and promotes digital technology as a teaching tool.

As an alternative to seeing The Birth of a Nation at the public screening on September 26, I viewed clips of it on YouTube to refresh my memory of the content of the film.

Watching it on my laptop, I wondered how Americans could ever have accepted the white actors in blackface as African American? Their makeup does not appear to be very well done at all. This observation leads to more questions and other observations. Since “Birth” was the first blockbuster in American film, many moviegoers had not seen blacks or blackface on screen before. Also, Americans were mainly familiar with minstrelsy, where makeup at best was sort of a simulation of blackness. In The Birth of a Nation, the performers in blackface were juxtaposed with African American actors which truly jilts the mind. Is it possible, I thought, that Americans were so racist as to buy into this poor theater? What does it mean that “Birth” operated within this visual charade?

In his introduction to African-American Performance and Theater History (2001), Harry Justin Elam presents race in theatrical terms. Race, according to him, is a “device” that is only one of a set of other props that are  “co-constructed” by actors as well audience members.  Belief is both created and suspended in performance. In the same book, in a chapter entitled “Deep Skin: Reconstructing Congo Square,” Joseph Roach describes how white observers of live performances were habitually distracted by the actors’ skin color from the “cultural productions” that they observed. The authors take on the nature of observation suggests that the meaning of performance itself becomes “essentialized”—or condensed—by  the connotations of race. Art cannot be separated from social values, in fact, Roach goes so far as to propose that history and memory are rooted in performance.

If we apply this set of ideas to “Birth,” the theatrical device of the constructed character explains how audiences could have readily accepted blackface performers—alongside African Americans. Arguably, audiences knew the difference and reveled in the imitation, the racial lampoon. To the extent that certain performance is “essentialized,” the makeup serves as a prop to reinforce the actor’s role. The distraction of darkened skin is enough to propel a caricature. This thinking also explains the necessary segregation in the shooting of the film as audiences could only be comfortable with actors of the same race in intimate scenes. Thus “acting black” became a trope.

In his essay “Narrating Black Music’s Past,” (Radical History Review, 84, Fall 2002) Ronald Radano describes a dilemma in how black history has been presented. He writes of “the language of white supremacy in constituting ‘black music’” and asks the question “how might we engage simultaneously in black music’s deconstruction and its affirmative reconstruction?” Radano finds troubling the reality of African American culture’s mediated story. Our participation in the Vera List Center’s event “Birth and Rebirth” is of great importance as a means of articulating a new path for the construction of racial images while acknowledging the setting, ideology, and technical apparatus that created The Birth of a Nation in the first place. Such creative displays as “Rebirth of a Nation” challenge the force of the original piece by taking possession of the content, sampling it, and revaluing the film for our time. Through this process we take control of our destiny even in the face of continued bias.

“Birth” and “Rebirth” on the Web
If you search the phrase “Birth of a Nation” (in quotes) on YouTube, the top hit is for a trailer for the film with 140,825 views. The trailer was posted two years ago. It has 832 comments the first dozen of which were posted “2 days ago” and up to a week ago. One user has posted the entire film in twenty approximately nine minute segments. There are 2,890 results in total for this search on YouTube.

After viewing a few scenes from the film, I wondered about the fact that this controversial work can be viewed at any time and that we can all add our interpretation of the piece. The first page of comments vary in length and direction, ranging from one-liners such as “this movie is really disturbing” to responses that consist of full paragraphs. One response to a post ends with “attitudes like yours are not helping.” I am interested in the implications of having archival media at-the-ready in our time. I am concerned about the risks and dangers of misinterpretation of such work. Without context such items can be misread. In fact, isn’t YouTube racist for allowing such films to be posted? Well, no. But I do believe that context matters.

Searching “Rebirth of a Nation” on YouTube immediately brings up Paul D. Miller’s film with 24,143 views. There are five comments on the trailer posted one year ago with a total of 60 hits for the search phrase. Public Enemy’s 2006 rap album of the same name is second in prominence for listings on the first YouTube page for this search. On the first and on the following pages are many versions of Miller’s trailer and sections of the piece. It is interesting and ironic that “Rebirth” is so popular compared to “Birth.”

Jay David Bolter, in his essay “Digital Media and Art: Always Already Complicit?” (Criticism, Winter 2007, Vol. 49, No. 1), speaks of media archaeology when considering the  broad assemblage of film online and its study. Karen Gracy, in “Moving Image Preservation and Cultural Capital” (Library Trends,Vol. 56, No. 1. Summer 2007), makes a series of arguments regarding the need to reimagine the moving image archive. She speaks of the moving image as a form of “objectified cultural capital” that on the Internet is both user appropriated and user created. Moving images are recycled into “new works” and as part of “creative acts.” The growing meta-archive is tagged and linked within and beyond particular video hosting sites. My interest in this topic begins with the global community’s attraction to African American culture and the dissemination of that cultural capital.

Tagging and linking suggests promotion, not unlike the way Digg.com works where often tagged items become identified as particularly significant. The manipulated versions of the original clips, their posting and viewing, have established a unique archive. Whether this leads to an anarchic Internet is debatable, but it certainly is available to a large and ever growing audience. It is fascinating how, through access and distribution, a discussion of old material has found new life.

Classic Film
Not long ago I purchased the DVD version of Stormy Weather, the Hollywood produced, all-black-cast music and dance film from 1943. It has only recently become available in digital form. In the film, the African American star Lena Horne sings the title song with full orchestra; the film also features dance interludes with the Katherine Dunham dancers. There are two dance scenes that set off Lena’s position from a window where she begins the song to a down-stage position where she performs the core of the piece. I was amazed to see that in a close-up mode Lena is shedding a tear as she sings. It wasn’t until I saw the digital version in full screen modus (I use this film in class), that I noted this moving expression of emotion. In the 1947 film New Orleans Billie Holiday sings the song “The Blues are a Brewin’.” She is with trumpeter Louis Armstrong and his orchestra. Holiday plays the role of both the maid of the white woman with whom the main protagonist has fallen in love and the girlfriend of real life jazz artist Louis Armstrong. She is young and beautiful as she sings in a sequined gown, wearing her trademark gardenia in her hair. This is a high-class setting with a white and well-dressed audience. In this clip Holiday also gets her close-up: her eyes and jewelry sparkle as her face fills the screen. In both these examples, the digital versions of the films show us more than viewers have ever seen in the original versions. We are arguably seeing more than was originally intended to be seen.

It seems to me, conventions of seeing are at play in both the film experience described above and my earlier observations regarding blackface. The concept of “how we see” has undergone a profound evolution since the last century. These changes are in equal parts a metaphor for the changes the values attached to our vision  have undergone as well as the changes in the technologies that advance it. Above I suggest a set of ideas that have been a part of that change.

Posted on December 2, 2009

“We still do not know what a body can do.” (Spinoza/Deleuze)

The early Greek philosopher Heraclitus famously claimed, “You can never step in the same river twice.” Comically, one of the rebuttals to this observation was, “You can never step in the same river once.” The logics of activism invariably relate to ideas of how change happens – how we step in this seemingly paradoxical river. This discussion is an attempt to test and experiment with the linkages between activist practices, ideas of change, and theories of time.

Arguing that theories of activism need to frame activism as essentially a theory of time, the presenters propose that the time of change not be defined chronologically but qualitatively. Rather than sequential time, they propose measureless time. But how can we think and experimentally work with qualitative time today? How do we take into account the ruptures, swerves, emergences, and folds of becoming that sweep us far beyond identity, being, and the logics of critique? What are the new possibilities and techniques of activism and activist art that develop out of these logics of the event? This is an evening to debate and develop new models of time, and in so doing to rethink and propose new ideas of artistic practice.

A presentation by Iain Kerr, artist, theorist and founding member of the research collective spurse, is followed by discussion with respondents Brian McGrath, architect, writer and Associate Professor of Urban Design at Parsons The New School for Design; Petia Morozov, architect, writer, educator and urban explorer; and Nato Thompson, writer and Chief Curator of Creative Time.

Presented as part of “Streaming Culture / Art & Politics,” a new interdivisional initiative organized by Victoria Vesna, Visiting Professor (UCLA) and Director of Research, School of Art, Media & Technology, Parsons The New School of Design, in collaboration with the Vera List Center for Art and Politics at The New School, on occasion of its 2009/2010 program cycle on “Speculating on Change.”

If you are not able to join us in person, log on to Parsons The New School for Design Ustream channel.

Posted on November 11, 2009

Refuting all notions of serious scholarship, Mitrasinovic and Kuoni tackle three big ideas–time, place and word–in little over an hour’s time. From their respective fields of architecture and urbanism (Mitrasinovic) and art and politics (Kuoni), each presents three case studies for the audience’s delight and their counterpart’s contemplation. The quick exchange will present examples of interdisciplinary practices that take into account current ideas about public space and social engagement.

Miodrag Mitrasinovic is an architect, author and Associate Professor at The School of Design Strategies, Parsons The New School for Design, where he currently serves as Dean and was previously the Chair of Urban and Transdisciplinary Design. His professional and scholarly work has been published internationally, including the Journal of Architecture and Building Science of the Architectural Institute of Japan, L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, and Metropolis. He is the author of Total Landscape, Theme Parks, Public Space (Ashgate 2006), and co-editor of Travel, Space, Architecture (Ashgate 2009).

Carin Kuoni is director of the Vera List Center for Art and Politics at The New School. From 1998 to 2003, she was director of exhibitions at Independent Curators International (iCI), and from 1992 to 1997 director of The Swiss Institute. An independent curator and art critic, Kuoni has curated many exhibitions of contemporary international art including “The Puppet Show” (co-curated with Ingrid Schaffner, 2008) and “OURS: Democracy in the Age of Branding,” presented at Parsons The New School for Design in 2009.

Presented as part of “Streaming Culture / Art & Politics,” a new interdivisional initiative organized by Victoria Vesna, Visiting Professor (UCLA) and Director of Research, School of Art, Media & Technology, Parsons The New School of Design, in collaboration with the Vera List Center for Art and Politics at The New School.

About Streaming Culture / Art & Politics
The New School comprises eight different schools with hundreds of programs in the visual and performing arts, design, the humanities, public policy, and the social sciences. This lecture series pairs faculty from the various schools and their guests, to discuss some of the pressing issues facing their fields, and to explore common grounds between aesthetic and political practices. Hailing from all New School divisions, the speakers will inspire students, colleagues and the public to connect across disciplines.

If you are not able to join us in person, log on to The New School’s Ustream channel.

Presented on occasion of the Vera List Center’s 2009/2010 program theme “Speculating on Change.”

Posted on October 21, 2009

On view at the Sheila C. Johnson Design Center at Parsons The New School for Design from October 15, 2008, to February 1, 2009, the exhibition OURS: Democracy in the Age of Branding was conceived as an interdisciplinary investigation of democracy positioned as a consumer brand. Including original commissions and works by Yael Bartana, Sam Durant, Liam Gillick, Aleksandra Mir, Carlos Motta, Trevor Paglen, The Yes Men, and many others, the exhibition was guest-curated by Carin Kuoni and Marisa Olson (web component) and accompanied by a newspaper-style exhibition guide designed by Project Projects. The guide contains introductory statements by the curators; a complete list of public programs associated with the exhibition and the Vera List Center’s 2008-09 annual theme, Branding Democracy; and information on artworks and participants.

The exhibition guide is currently available free of charge from the Vera List Center. For more information, email vlc@newschool.edu.

OURS: Democracy in the Age of Branding Exhibition Guide (PDF)

Posted on September 20, 2009

Inspired by the 2005-06 cycle of public programs, Considering Forgiveness is the first in a series of forthcoming books that examine pressing issues of social, cultural and political relevance from a multitude of perspectives. The Considering Forgiveness volume is edited by Aleksandra Wagner with Carin Kuoni, with curatorial advice by Matthew Buckingham. It features textual and visual contributions commissioned from scholars, activists and artists, including Anne Aghion, Ayreen Anastas, Gregg Bordowitz, Omer Fast, Rene Gabri, Andrea Geyer, Mark Godfrey, Sharon Hayes, Susan Hiller, Julia Kristeva, Mierle Laderman Ukeles, Lin + Lam, Jeffrey Olick, Brian Price, Jane Taylor, Eyal Weizman and Elisabeth Young-Bruehl.

Table of contents and introductions (PDF)

Pbk, 6.5 x 10.5 in. / 268 pgs / 90 color
ISBN: 978-0-9821745-0-0
Price: $24.00

Review in Modern Painters magazine, June 2009

Available in bookstores, at online retailers, and directly through D.A.P./Distributed Art Publishers.

Posted on September 20, 2009

Drawing from critical perspectives on labor, social media, political theory, this panel discussion addresses the nature of the work of Internet users and networked workers, focusing on the relationship between invisible labor, play, exploitation, pleasure, and the production of value. What constitutes work in the digital era? What are some alternatives to the seamless corporate expropriation of value from millions of net users? Is it possible to acknowledge the moments of ruthless exploitation while not eradicating optimism, inspiration, and the many instances of individual financial and political empowerment?

As annotations to the panel, several web-based projects by artists including Burak Arikan, Jeff Crouse, Ursula Endlicher, Scott Kildall, Aaron Koblin, Stephanie Rothenberg and Victoria Scott will be installed in the same lecture hall from 5:30 p.m. onwards through the evening.

This event is presented as a prelude to “The Internet as Playground and Factory,” a conference organized by Eugene Lang faculty member Trebor Scholz that will take place at Eugene Lang College (The New School), from November 12 to 14, 2009 (www.digitallabor.org). The conference will address the massive transformations in economy, labor, and life related to digital media and confront the urgent need to interrogate what constitutes labor and value in the digital economy.

Presented on occasion of the Vera List Center’s 2009/2010 program theme “Speculating on Change.”

Posted on September 20, 2009

Where do we stand on issues of race and representation? Can today’s racial imagination be reconciled with that of hardly a century ago, when D.W. Griffith’s notorious film, The Birth of a Nation, became the first blockbuster in American film? The Vera List Center presents a screening and colloquium around Griffith’s notorious white supremacist manifesto, reconsidered in the context of the Obama call for change.

The speakers hail from different backgrounds including history, film, music, journalism, and photography. Presenting analyses of some of the most recent scholarship on slavery and racism, particularly as manifested during the conception, production and distribution of The Birth of a Nation, they examine the film’s legacy and reverberations today.

PROGRAM

Screening I – 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. D.W. Griffith, The Birth of a Nation, 1915, silent, 180 minutes Original sound score and live accompaniment by Michael Stein (Graduate of The New School for Jazz and Contemporary Music), introduced by faculty member Sonny Kompanek

Colloquium – 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.

Introduction

Bill Gaskins Photographer, essayist and Professor of Photography and Art History, Parsons The New School for Design

Presentations

Douglas A. Blackmon Atlanta Bureau Chief, The Wall Street Journal, Social historian of the Civil War, and Pulitzer-prize winning author of Slavery by Another Name

David W. Blight Class of 1954 Professor of American History and Director of the Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance and Abolition, Yale University; author of Race and Reunion and numerous other studies and books

Michelle Materre Assistant Professor, Media Studies and Film, The New School for General Studies

Miriam J. Petty Assistant Professor of Film and Media Studies, Rutgers University-Newark

Michele Wallace Professor of English, City University of New York

Roundtable – 4:00 to 5:00 p.m.

All participants, moderated by Margo Jefferson Associate Professor of Writing, Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts

Screening II – 5:30 to 7:00 p.m.

DJ Spooky, Rebirth of a Nation, 2008, color, sound, 90 minutes Followed by Q & A with filmmaker Paul D. Miller (a k a DJ Spooky That Subliminal Kid)

Presented on occasion of the Vera List Center’s 2009/2010 program theme “Speculating on Change,” with support of The New School for Jazz and Contemporary Music and The Andy Warhol Foundation of the Visual Arts.

Posted on September 20, 2009

Photographer, essayist and Parsons faculty member Bill Gaskins introduces “Birth and Rebirth of a Nation,” a colloquium and screening event taking place at The New School on Saturday, September 26, 2009.

Posted on September 20, 2009

Colloquium participants submitted this list of suggested readings to create a context for the discussion:

Blackmon, Douglas. Slavery By Another Name. Anchor Books, 2008.

Blight, David. “Fifty Years of Freedom and Reunion” in Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. Harvard University Press, 2001.

Wallace, Michele. “The Good Lynching and The Birth of a Nation: Discourses and Aesthetics of Jim Crow,” Cinema Journal 43, No. 1, Fall 2003, 85-104.

Wallace, Michele. “Oscar Micheaux’s Within Our Gates: The Possibilities for Alternative Visions,” in Pearl Bowser, Jane Gaines, and Charles Musser, eds. Oscar Micheaux and His Circle African American Filmmaking and Race Cinema of the Silent Era, Bloomington: Indiana University Press 2010, 53-66.

Wallace, Michele.”Uncle Tom’s Cabin: Before and after the Jim Crow Era,” Drama Review 44, no. 1 (spring 2000): 137-56.

Wallace, Michele. Two chapters on the score for “The Birth of a Nation” in Music and the Silent Film: Contexts & Case Studies, 1895-1924 by Martin Miller Marks, Oxford University Press, 1997.

Posted on September 20, 2009

Petty’s remarks provide some historical context for D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, in terms of its sweeping and enduring cultural significance. She will also explore the way in which the visual and ideological representation of Black/mulatto women in The Birth of a Nation is explicitly countered and revised by Oscar Micheaux in his 1920 film Within Our Gates.

In D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, mulatto domestic Lydia Brown (Mary Alden, in brownface makeup) cries crocodile tears to her white employer Austin Stoneman (Ralph Lewis). She tells him an inflammatory lie; that she has been violently assaulted or “outraged” by his white friend and fellow congressman, Charles Sumner. Brown ultimately uses the lie as a lure to seduce Stoneman; when we next see her, she has plainly ascended to new status as his mistress. Like the film’s blackface “Mammy” character (Jennie Lee), Lydia is a caricatured, grotesque version of real (read: white) womanhood. Her character testifies to the racist belief that Black women cannot be raped, that they lack the requisite honor and humanity to be sexually defiled.

Captured still from Within Our Gates (Oscar Micheaux, 1920)

Five years after The Birth of a Nation’s blockbuster run, African American filmmaker Oscar Micheaux’s released Within Our Gates, which many film scholars have cited as Micheaux’s response to Birth. Here, the film’s African American protagonist Sylvia Landry (Evelyn Preer) tries to protect herself from a very real assault and attempted rape at the hands of white landowner Armand Gridlestone. Note the symmetrical reverse of the Birth scene with Brown and Stoneman, including the framed presidential portraits between the two figures; George Washington on the wall in the scene from Birth, and Abraham Lincoln on the wall in the scene from Within Our Gates. As a character, Sylvia directly refutes the assumptions carried by Birth of a Nation’s Lydia Brown on numerous levels. Moreover, Micheax’s jump cut editing of this scene with one in which Sylvia’s family is lynched establishes the rape of Black women by white men as having a comparable political and historical significance and function as lynching; that of terrorizing and repressing African American individuals and communities.

Posted on September 20, 2009

Where does conflict come from? The answer to this question is becoming ever more elusive, even in cases where we appear to know the answers, the protagonists and the situations well enough. Roee Rosen’s text, “The Law is Laughing: Fragments Following the War in Gaza,” asks what role the law occupies in a protracted conflict. The question itself is structured around the over-determination of protagonism and on an understanding of conflict that revolves around a narcissistic and negative doubling of the protagonist. Rosen’s mode of interpretation is itself both comedic and comic, banking on the startle response of the reader, familiar with and worn-out by terms of the situation to which he refers.

In his essay “Laughter” (1900), Henri Bergson proposes, broadly, that a situation that is comic is structured around the coexistence of contradiction within a singular situation without one element of the combination ever overwhelming the other, except in a punctuated manner.¹ These punctuations are revelatory moments that elicit release in the form of laughter. For Bergson, the reigning contradiction is a mechanistic arrangement that gives off the illusion of life. If the procedural matrix of the law is a form of such mechanistic arrangement, then we might read Rosen’s fragments as identifying those moments in which the law seems, perversely, to come to life as though through the periodic and repeated lifting of a veil.

The first instance of this unveiling is in the parsing of the names of various military operations whose cheerful meanings carefully and meaningfully veil the horror of the operations themselves. These names do not conceal any hoped-for outcomes, but in fact provide semiotic cover for enacting certain forms of destruction. The reading of those names through the veil of that semiotic cover is a process rich with revelation, especially insofar as it points to the contradiction between meaning and action, between nominal and verbal forms. As Bergson puts it, in comedy, one is faced with “manner seeking to outdo the matter, the letter aiming at ousting the spirit.”

The fragment itself bears testimony to the punctuated temporality of a protracted civil war that in turn bears the enormous weight of a fundamental contradiction, that between ethical and unethical forms of militancy. The law imagines itself to be on the side of sovereignty and professional soldering and against terror and un-civility, yet the lines between the ethical and unethical are continuously blurring within the spaces of conflict.

Each episode, each action, in this protracted conflict is marked by the law’s negation of itself, that is to say, its violation of norms upheld as sovereign, by sovereign authority. This self-transgression that turns the lawgiver, the state, into a criminal, results in confounding the boundaries of sovereignty. When the state itself thus negates the concept of the law, what is happening may be read as a simultaneous and, of course, contradictory expansion and contraction of the scope of the law and sovereignty under the guise of a singular set of procedures. “An effect, which grows by arithmetical progression, so that the cause, insignificant at the outset, culminates by a necessary evolution in a result as important as it is unexpected.” (Bergson, 113) Rosen suggests that events progress in a punctuated fashion and their effects are ejected values. If the comedic effect lies in maintaining an illusion of life in relation to a mechanistic arrangement, then the zombie is the perfect choice of metaphor—neither fully living nor fully dead, the zombie periodically returns to haunt the scene of the crime, thus revealing the law’s transgressions.

Through each fragment, each punctuation, we can discern the increasing urgency of understanding the comedic structure of sovereign law, the chief protagonist in this protracted civil war. Rosen writes: “When the law is constituted on its own negation, its comic mode is not set against the law (as Deleuze understands humor and irony). This comic mode is not driven by a discontent with what is (for instance, as a defiance against wrongdoing or a reaction to fear or horror), but is rather prompted by a paradoxical attempt to stabilize and preserve the law in its condition of self-negation. (…) The comic resonance is thus the result of a condition by which the state itself negates the concept of the law.”

This self-negation takes myriad forms: the benign and even cheerful naming of events; the multiplication of forms of illegality that might be legal and legalities that might in fact be illegal; the negation of the border and the disavowal of sovereignty as a means of maintaining an occupation; the consequent confusion of who belongs as a citizen; and, finally, the refusal even to simulate ideals of justice and good-will as required by the norms of nationalism.

How then does the law maintain itself as law? Rosen’s fragments suggest that the comedic mode is critical to sovereign self-maintenance. In this mode, life itself is negated while its illusion is maintained through the perpetuation of mechanistic arrangements. In this mode, the law imposes its sovereignty while provoking suspicion about its own seriousness. But its effects are realized primarily in its performative dimension. Linguistic anthropologists and poststructuralist critics suggest that performative acts are a special genre of speech or other behavior that are constitutive of meaning in and of themselves. While the law presupposes the citizenry as its interpretive community, its constant violations of its own normative limits open a space of uncertainty about this community. The law’s performative violations of its own limits speculatively seek out an alternative community, constituted by and therefore accepting of its violations.

What is inherently comedic about this mode of operation is its episodic but profound engagement with normative limits, at once presupposing and constituting those limits. The law is not humorous but comedic, laughter is not just a release but constitutive of the citizen. The sovereign laughs at and laughs with the citizen thus negating the oppositional dimension of laughter instead, bringing to the fore its focus on contradiction, the mixing of mechanistic form with the episodic illusion of life.

The particular contradictions that are brought together in the operations of the law prompt reversals of commonsense understandings—as when the assertion of good citizenship becomes an act of mutiny against a law-negating state rather than an act of conformity. Each episode begins to be measured in terms of possible reversals. Rosen’s fragments might be read similarly, mimicking the sovereign’s comic mode, they work as critique precisely because their seriousness is articulated in a veiled language—not of death and destruction alone, but of how the illusion of life is ostensibly maintained.

Posted on September 20, 2009

1. The Comic Mode of the Occupation
The name of Israel’s recent war in Gaza, Operation Cast Lead, was taken from a Hanukkah nursery song that Israeli children know by heart. It was penned decades ago by Chaim Nahman Bialik who in Israel is known as the national poet (the complete line reads, “My uncle bought me a dreidel made of cast lead”). When a mass killing in which hundreds of Palestinian children are slaughtered in about three weeks has a name conjuring innocent childishness, we are faced with a vile joke. The comic bent of the occupation army and of Israeli law is persistent and has its own distinct literary style. Its poetics can be recognized in a long sequence of names offering a variety of reversals—a war being called “peace” in Operation Peace of the Galilee (the first Lebanon war, 1982); a destructive offensive rendered in terms of constructive defense in Operation Defensive Shield (2002); and the horror of assault on the city of Rafah in Southern Gaza cloaked under a name of faux pastoral lyricism in Operation Rainbow in a Cloud (2004).

To set into relief the uniqueness of this comical lyricism, one need only mention the American offensive Operation Desert Storm, an infantile, repulsive name inspired by war movies, but undoubtedly a name without concealed smiles. In Israel, these reversals of meaning are ubiquitous and go beyond the naming of wars, so much so that they are routine presuppositions of daily life. In 2003, for example, I wrote about how a news story was seen as “positive” because it reported on the reduction in the jail-time sentencing for what are called “administrative detainees,” prisoners who are never put on trial, and hence for whom a legal sentence actually doesn’t exist. This amounts to a legal action that contradicts its own premise – or a joke by which the law negates itself.

2. The Comic Mode and the Law as the Criminal
A philosophical insight to which I frequently return is Gilles Deleuze’s claim that the comic mode is the only way to destabilize the law. A law such as “thou shalt not kill” is premised on the possible action of the killing. Thus, on the structural level, crime affirms, justifies, and solidifies the mechanism of the law. The comic response to the law (for instance, the masochist’s eagerness to be punished regardless of his innocence or guilt) may confound, confuse, and undo the structure and the meaning of the law. How then can one reconcile the comic mode of Israeli law with the transgression of law that the comic mode is supposed to entail?

The answer lies in the fact that, with the advent of the occupation, Israel became a state whose law is based on its own negation. The occupation refutes the notion of the border as the basis of national sovereignty. Once the concept of the border has been negated, the state itself must diligently and persistently act to obfuscate its borders and disavow its sovereignty, from which follows the negation of the presupposition that the state’s inhabitants are its citizens, and thus the very concept of citizenship is negated as well. (It should be noted that, in Hebrew, the word “ezrakh” is used both for “citizen” and “civilian,” a subtle conversion that makes citizens into mere civilians distinct from military personnel.) The comic resonance is thus the result of a condition by which the state itself negates the concept of the law. The lawmaker—the state—is the criminal.

3. Without the Facade of a Law
National law, of course, is never innocent, but its rules and operations are premised on a simulation, appearance, and facade (of good will, justice, ideals, and values) that cannot be maintained once the negation of the foundation of the national law (the border) becomes the explicit appearance and the constitutive structure, that is, once certain crimes explicitly appear as law.

In this sense, I do not wish to claim that Israel’s crimes are worse than those of other nation-states (for example, the United States’ crimes in Iraq), but rather to understand the special pathologies stemming from this disintegration of the relation between appearance and action, law and crime, transgression and comicality. Thus, for example, one can imagine an American citizen who actually believed George W. Bush’s axis-of-evil rhetoric, but it is impossible to imagine an Israeli citizen who would be deluded enough to think that the Israeli government would like to turn the Palestinians of the occupied territories into Israeli citizens. This is why the murderer is unabashed when joking: there is no facade to keep.

4. The Unique Comicality of Criminal Law: A Nameless Comicality
When the law is constituted on its own negation, its comic mode is not set against the law (as Deleuze understands humor and irony). This comic mode is not driven by a discontent with what is (for instance, as a defiance against wrongdoing or a reaction to fear or horror), but is rather prompted by a paradoxical attempt to stabilize and preserve the law in its condition of self-negation. Such comicality, of a criminal sovereign, is akin to cynicism, but does not fully correspond to it. We are dealing with a nameless comic mode.

5. The Legal-Illegal and the Illegal-Illegal
In my novel Ziona™ (2006), there is a minor character, Ma’adan (formerly Gordon) Dukas, who settles in a caravan on hill number 547, which he calls Tel Or (Hebrew for Mount Light): “a one-man settlement of the illegal-legal-legitimate kind (to be distinguished from the illegal-illegal-legitimate kind, and from the illegal-illegal-quasi-legitimate kind).” When the law negates itself, it perpetuates a dynamic, ever-expanding system of legal activity aiming to establish comic distinctions between legally approved crimes (the crime that is not a crime), and between those crimes that are still defined as crimes. This legal bustle is characterized by dizzying hyperactivity, and even though, by its very nature, it aspires to remain discrete, its signs cannot help but pop up in the media. Thus one can read about the versatile actions of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), specifically the department of international law and its attorney’s office, whose prime goal is to render kosher those illegal military actions such as the killing of civilians (Haaretz magazine, January 23, 2009).

Then there is the plan to “incriminate,” after the fact, every house bombarded during Operation Cast Lead—the creation of a dossier for each target that documents its hostile use—a plan whose natural offshoot ought to be the incrimination of every murdered child. There is also the exposure in the media of a governmental database, deemed secret by the defense ministry, that documents the fact that the vast majority of the settlements in the occupied territories—“The Legal Illegal”—are unlawfully expanding, building with no authorization on a massive scale, often on private Palestinian lots (Haaretz magazine, January 30, 2009). This database reveals that which is still “Illegal-Illegal” aspiring to become a “Legal-Illegal” as well, an activity in which practically all Israeli governments have engaged since the occupation, with varying degrees of concealment.

6. Values as Phlegm; Values as Zombies
When the law is its own negation, its comicality is like spasmodic coughing. The phlegm(s) secreted during such coughing fits are cherished values that are converted into refuse. In Operation Peace of the Galilee, the value that became refuse is the longing for peace. And in Operation Cast Lead, in its extraction of its name from a nursery song, the value/waste is the sensitivity to the lives of children. Values are the living dead—matter ejected that ever returns from within: an uncanny zombie. This explains why someone who holds the value as if it were fully alive (an Israeli mourning the murder of Palestinian children) might be intimidating and threatening, to the point of being called a criminal (a traitor). As zombie values resurge as the Unheimliche, there is a correlation between the Israeli psychological reactions used to cope with, for instance, the murder of children, and the major comic mechanisms described by Deleuze: disavowal as the mode of the masochist (e.g., we murder despite the terrible pain we feel; we murder because there is no choice; we kill as few as we can; our suffering and our attempt to save those we did not have to kill attest to our humanity; we, in fact, do our best to save lives by killing) and negation as the mode of the sadist (Hamas is responsible; it is the Palestinians who put the children in harm’s way; they murder themselves through the mediation of our weapons, hence, we do not murder).

Comic coinage in this situation is the zombie residue of values the law is supposed to affirm, that is, when it could still be “seriously” grasped as a law—the era when it could still be said without a bitter smile that Israel aspires to be a democracy, sovereign within its established borders. Think, for example, of a relatively bland product of the law, meant to signify humanism, abidance by international law, and the fear of hurting civilians: a procedure the IDF calls “knock on the roof,” that is, shooting “mild” ammunition at the roofs of people’s houses in Gaza before deploying heavy ammunition that will eradicate the house and kill those who stay inside it. The name “knock on the roof” cannot but be associated in the Israeli memory with the infamous “neighbor procedure” (the army’s use of Palestinian fighters’ family members and friends as human shields in the attempt to lure them out of houses during the second Intifada). These names remain as verbal comic loci of zombie values.

7. Measured Crime
The comic phlegm, as well as the crimes themselves, has a dimension of proportionality. Thus, for instance, exceedingly cruel and prohibited cluster bombs were used against the civilians of Gaza and phosphorous weaponry was used against Lebanon, however the criminal measures that will be taken against the demonstrators in Bil’in, Palestine, who protest weekly against Israel’s separation wall, will be more moderate (as many of the demonstrators are Jewish Israeli citizens)—with an occasional comic resonance. Among the diversity of such measures, the Israeli police recently introduced The Skunk, an armed vehicle splattering demonstrators with jets of noxious fluid. Thus, for humanitarian activists, the law reserves the more gentle reversal—that of treating protestors like criminals. This proportionality, however, is fluid, ever seeking opportunities to redraw its lines. War is such an opportune time. While the headlines were busy with Operation Cast Lead, tiny news items informed the Israelis that the Bil’in demonstrators were now being shot with 22 millimeter bullets, long declared illegal after their deadly potential was recognized.

8. Haaretz: The Criminal’s Expression
It is difficult to add much to Noam Chomsky’s exhaustive analysis of the way consent is manufactured by the media. Consent necessitates gaining the favor of those who perceive themselves to be critical and enlightened through a newspaper that has the appearance of integrity, criticality, and autonomy in relation to the law: in the United States, the New York Times (for example), rather than the tabloids, and in Israel, Haaretz.

During the war, the structures described by Chomsky were clearly reflected in the headlines of Haaretz. The daily number of Palestinians killed appeared customarily at the end of the bylines (if at all), and details of the killings were usually scarce and marginalized and accompanied by no images. The general composition of the daily, with the reports of Amira Hess (the only journalist who delivered substantial information from Gaza) relegated to page 8 or 9, reduced Hess’s contribution to almost that of an Op-Ed.

But what went beyond Chomsky’s reflections were instances in which Haaretz portrayed the imagined nation as a singular, unified entity with its own collective psychology—that of the criminal. This is how, for example, Haaretz framed the United Nations’ call for a cease-fire in a big headline on page 2: “Israel’s Friends Sarkozy and Bush Disappoint in the UN” (January 11, 2009). The “disappointment” over the fact that the “friends” do not approve of the crime and decline to oppose the UN’s resolution is not given in quotes. The disappointment doesn’t even reside in dismay over the position of a right-wing leader. The disappointment” is not a response to the news either (against which other reactions can be fathomed, such as relief and strengthened hope for a cease-fire). Rather, the disappointment itself is the news reported: “I” am disappointed¬—“I,” that is to say “we,” are disappointed, and we will to continue “our” war in Gaza by the criminal power that is the law.

9. Solemnity
From within the comicality of the law can be understood the radical dimension of the call of a thinker such as Ariella Azoulay who argues for a serious, willful return to the notion of citizenship, and for the active assertion of a civil domain. In relation to the law as such, the coinage “a good citizen” might indicate conformism, obedience, and a normative stance, but in a law-negating state, good citizenship might be seen as a mutiny.

10. War Crime as a Political Qualification; The Timing of War
If the state is criminal, it stands to reason that part of its leader’s job qualifications would include an ability to be a criminal, and since the problems at hand are no less than existential, white-collar crimes would not suffice: the leader should be a war criminal.

This is why Ariel Sharon epitomizes the “leader” in the national imaginary. Sharon is the leader who was found unfit by a federal committee to serve as a defense minister following the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon (1982), and became a highly popular prime minister, not in spite of his crimes, but because of his proven ability to negate the law. This sheds some light on the timing of massive killings right before or after national elections: the second Lebanon war left about 1,000 Lebanese dead two months after an election and Operation Cast Lead left at least 1,300 Palestinians dead (of whom at least 410 were children according to Be’Tselem data of January 28, 2009) two months before an election. During election time the burden of murderous proof lies with the prospective leader, especially if the suspicion can be raised that his or her heart is not cold enough.

Posted on September 20, 2009

Prompted by Israel’s invasion of Gaza in January 2009, the following text by artist Roee Rosen and the response by anthropologist Vyjayanthi Rao examine the public articulation of conflict, specifically the military acts in the current Israeli Palestinian conflict. Rosen posits that the comedic mode, which has yielded innocuous names for aggressive military actions, is a core trait of Israeli law in that it reaffirms itself by negating the premise on which it is built. Vyjayanthi Rao develops a narrative of the law as protagonist in a temporary situation. Both Rosen and Rao have participated in various VLC programs; the subjects of sovereignity, electoral processes and performativity were also alluded to in the exhibition OURS: Democracy in the Age of Branding.

Roee Rosen is an Israeli-American artist and writer, living and working in Israel.

Vyjayanthi Rao is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at The New School.

Rosen’s text was written in late January 2009 before Benjamin Netanyahu’s election as prime minister in spring 2009.

Posted on September 20, 2009