Nepotistic movements whose moderators censor critique? Is this “movement” REALLY ENGAGING “social practices” just because it claims so? A fetish? Is art’s insistence upon appropriating scientific models but a symptom of its impotency?
http://www.doubledialogues.com/archive/issue_two/minchinton.htm
As people die for REAL social practices in phenomena such as the so-called Arab Spring are we entitled to believe that our nepotistic movements so-called “social practices” do things other than fulfil the narcissistic desires of ourselves or those “within power”? Irrespective of what fucking word or phrase identified there is an ideology motivating identifications.
IDENTITY.
The question of Live Art and its so-called “social practices” I believe is an abstracted conceptual framework and a fetishised self-serving exclusionary power.
Why?
What for?
Livelifeperformanceartdeathdeadabstractedfetishisedconceptuals
No comments:
Post a Comment