This debate will address some of the doubts that hard core activists have
about the usefulness of art in a political context.
For many, the urgency of some of the questions we are facing generate an
angry skepticism around any practice that raises art or media questions.
For real actionists the equation is simple, discourse = spectacle. They
insist on a distinction between real action and the merely symbolic. From
this perspective media tacticians are accused of merely talking not doing
anything. By focusing on the art and media questions are we in danger of
just creating more empty signs?
If we value art for its effect rather than its economic or symbolic value
then can we describe some of the starting conditions necessary for real
effectiveness?
Although campaigning media activism lie at the heart of N5M because they
prevent us from making the frequent mistake of only posing the questions
that we can answer and then crediting ourselves with knowing something
definitive about society. Art is one of the discourses that lie at the
nucleus of the N5M because, at its best, it refuses to simply separate
good from bad, *that is give answers*. Rather it dramatizes the difference
between what we want and what we are. If politics is about control, art is
about knowing how and when to let go of control. Artists in N5M are
involved are not only generating spectacle but should be fully integrated;
triggering, supporting or interrupting discourse. |
|