I have been reading, with great interest, many of the reviews and talk back blogs from the Creative Time Summit – Revolutions in Public Practice, which I had the opportunity to attend in NYC. Claire Bishop’s commentary in Art Forum had a predominantly snide & condescending tone. Although I find this degree of cynicism a little difficult to digest, she did make a number of interesting points.
-
“At its best, the “Revolutions” summit offered an immensely valuable overview of a wide range of engaged practices otherwise lacking visibility in New York, while the discursive format provided an appropriate alternative to the exhibition as a means of presenting this often visually evasive work. Socially, it was dynamic—and in this respect, it had much in common with the energy of Hans Ulrich Obrist’s marathons. On the other hand, the summit was only an overview and did nothing to problematize “public practice” as a direction in contemporary art. It assumed (along with many of the positions presented) that art as a discipline can and should be marshaled toward social justice. I would have liked to see more pondering of the specifically artistic competences that can be deployed toward these ends.”
-
The main point of contention, in the talk back section centers around the question of critical discourse, and it’s potential failings and benefits. I strongly believe that a critical discourse has the potential develop a subject area – as members of an engaged and invested community we rely on each other to advance our practices. It was noted in another blog entry by Jennifer Allen that Bishop’s adopted tabloid style of writing is also akin to the kinds of work that she privileges – work with spectacular and antagonist content.