18 de junio de 2017



Vain. Vanity. Vanitas


Today I wanted to write about the idea of Propaganda, Art and Activism.

What do I mean by Porpaganda? Propaganda I would call any object, say a painting, a poster, a piece of writing, and forms of speech that have the aim of forming an opinion. This is, they operate in a context of choice where one option is favoured against another, or the other. This is, Propaganda is charged with Intent, but and intent with certain Direction, it has a goal to achieve.

Propaganda nevertheless, has certain sense or tint of passivity. Say the effectiveness of a poster relies on people stopping and looking at it, as most images do. Texts rely on them being read, but also read in the way that is intended, which produces a direct and simple graphic language. At this point we could argue that propaganda has an identifying Style.

I am baffled and confused by the word Activism. Wikipedia says:

Activism consists of efforts to promote, impede, or direct social, political, economic, and/or environmental reform or stasis with the desire to make improvements in society. Forms of activism range from writing letters to newspapers or to politicians, political campaigning, economic activism such as boycotts or preferentially patronizing businesses, rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, and hunger strikes.

I think Activism is a step up from Propaganda. Although Propaganda is a form of activism, is feel Activism requires a higher level of engagement. I also associate Activism with Direct Action: when people take issues to their hands and use their bodies and actions as instruments to produce change, like in an occupation by a group of people of a building owned by someone else, or a protest in front of the headquarters of an institution. Most importantly Activism is highly political- and not always grass-roots -and sets in motion actions to achieve a desired result. Its highly political because it usually engages with partisan politics, identity politics, structural categories (race, sex, sexuality, gender, social class, etc.) and mobilises towards achieving a certain aim by using its social potency (a trade union, a student body of certain department, etc.). This means, it is a highly socialsed form of action, where individuals are geared in certain direction because they share a common vision (most usually). 

Some people would think that my characterisation of Activism as propaganda is Wrong -that people might engage in Activism to achieve some goal for their own interest by using other bodies or objects (Adistinction not everyone would make), as if their engagement was somehow disingenuous or not aimed at a collective good- but I wanted to relate them since they both have an aspect of persuasion within a known context. This is, the readings and possible outcomes are carefully constructed. This is something that Xenakis- 20th Century music composer -identifies in electronic music. He explains that in electronic music the outcome of a piece is heavily restricted and predictable, unlike in notation, where performers get to express their individuality through interpretation. 

Although a bit too quick, I wanted to draw Art as distinct to the above. Music in this sense is good at setting parameters of action, rather than producing ticking box exercises. There is room for change in the reproduction of the piece, and therefore in the outcome. This is not possible in electronic music ( there must be someone who has already looked into this). Art I would argue -and as it was with Xenakis- aims at widening the gap of determinism. This is, it aims at indeterminacy, in this case through the personal agency of the interpreter -the person who plays the musical instrument-. 

With time I have seen my "artistic" work compromised by these ideas, and I have been battling them with a lot of difficulties, which has set me in creative stasis (for lack of a better word). My issue here is that when people talk about making the world a better place, they talk about producing a better society (yet again Modernism haunting us!) and having a positive impact. These things are- to start with- generic and underexamined. They assume that Society exists and that, as it stands, it is a positive construct to which we should contribute by ignoring the inequalities embedded within the so called System. They might also assume -most of the time rightly- that structural issues are the problem, rather than issues which could be tackled through personal agency (Liberalism?). 

Art has been widely instrumentalised to make things "better". This is also something to put into question. The idea that "Art" (questionable both as a concept, institution, and a category) can make things better is somehow funny. And the moments when I have seen it does, it has been purely to bank on its ability to attract the human gaze, purely as a device to attract people (tourism) and property speculation (marketing). These are not, in my opinion the founding principles of a work of art. Since again, like propaganda and activism do, have predictable and desirable outcomes (predictable because they are assumed to function in a certain way to improve the system in which they operate, say public works of art to make surrounding properties more valuable in the housing market: tip, check the sponsoring bodies).  

Wikipedia has a good definition (of consumer society "activism")

One can also express activism through different forms of art (artivism). Daily acts of protest such as not buying clothes from a certain clothing company because they exploit workers is another form of activism. One view holds that acknowledging privileges and oppressions on a daily basis ranks as a form of activism. Research has begun to explore how activist groups use social media to facilitate civic engagement and collective action.

The idea that personal agency and political views can find expression in the act of buying (you can't escape Consumerism!). BUT and it is a big but, which leads me into the conclusion.

Art doesn't operate in a vacuum, because it operates in a material world, within a mass of subjects. Meaning: it is embedded in a net of meanings, functions, and dispositions.

Some people find frustrating that some other people produce objects with no "use" (another problematic word!). This might be because they have never looked long enough to start observing. Some people find it difficult to encounter pockets of material where no direct answers are produced. Where "nothing" is produced (this usually equates to assimilation -like when purposefully casting a spoilt ballot as a sign of protest in a democratic country in an election under a bipartisan system-). Some people find it itchy that meaning is reverted back to where it came from. Useless, empty, futile. Vain. Vanity. Vanitas!




14 de junio de 2017