SHAKIN CONFERENCE BOOK OF ABSTRACTS 26–28 JUNE 2023 In from the margins - Sharing footnotes of subaltern knowledge and practices: Questioning North-South relations and ethics of international collaboration, 2023
The aim of this research is to re-examine the relationship between participatory art, which was e... more The aim of this research is to re-examine the relationship between participatory art, which was established as a concept in the Western episteme at the beginning of the nineties in the last century, and institutional theory, by problematizing and theorizing the notion of collective habit. According to the prevailing reading of Danto´s art world, art appreciation must be a habit like any other. The primary question of this inquiry is, therefore, why some participatory projects in the contemporary art world cannot be and are not viewed as qua artwork, in comparison to many participatory artworks in which the promise of participation appears merely to be an empty rhetorical phrase. At the same time, some projects are included and recognised within the regime of what is called contemporary art. On the one hand, to apply the old formal aesthetical procedures of classifying and recognizing participatory art would be misleading, since this type of art emerged from the historical, neo-, and post-avangardes. On the other hand, it seems that unfortunately Danto´s revolutionary sixties theory of the art world, with all its revisions, alongside the rest of institutional theory, is not any longer entirely sufficient to justify the logic of the regimes of recognition for such practices; because, ontologically, epistemologically and practically, at the core of the participatory practice is not the problem of the dichotomy between art (autonomy, i.e. aesthetics, artwork) and non-art (heteronomy, i.e. society, real things), but a certain habit of relation – a habit that is established in-between these entities.
SHAKIN CONFERENCE BOOK OF ABSTRACTS 26–28 JUNE 2023 In from the margins - Sharing footnotes of subaltern knowledge and practices: Questioning North-South relations and ethics of international collaboration, 2023
The aim of this research is to re-examine the relationship between participatory art, which was e... more The aim of this research is to re-examine the relationship between participatory art, which was established as a concept in the Western episteme at the beginning of the nineties in the last century, and institutional theory, by problematizing and theorizing the notion of collective habit. According to the prevailing reading of Danto´s art world, art appreciation must be a habit like any other. The primary question of this inquiry is, therefore, why some participatory projects in the contemporary art world cannot be and are not viewed as qua artwork, in comparison to many participatory artworks in which the promise of participation appears merely to be an empty rhetorical phrase. At the same time, some projects are included and recognised within the regime of what is called contemporary art. On the one hand, to apply the old formal aesthetical procedures of classifying and recognizing participatory art would be misleading, since this type of art emerged from the historical, neo-, and post-avangardes. On the other hand, it seems that unfortunately Danto´s revolutionary sixties theory of the art world, with all its revisions, alongside the rest of institutional theory, is not any longer entirely sufficient to justify the logic of the regimes of recognition for such practices; because, ontologically, epistemologically and practically, at the core of the participatory practice is not the problem of the dichotomy between art (autonomy, i.e. aesthetics, artwork) and non-art (heteronomy, i.e. society, real things), but a certain habit of relation – a habit that is established in-between these entities.
Uploads
Conference Abstracts & Proceedings by Sruti Bala
therefore, why some participatory projects in the contemporary art world cannot be and are not viewed as qua artwork, in comparison to many participatory artworks in which the promise of participation appears merely to be an empty rhetorical phrase. At the same time, some projects are included and recognised within the regime of what is called contemporary art. On the one hand, to apply the old formal aesthetical procedures
of classifying and recognizing participatory art would be misleading, since this type of art emerged from the historical, neo-, and post-avangardes. On the other hand, it seems that unfortunately Danto´s revolutionary sixties theory of the art world, with all its revisions, alongside the rest of institutional theory, is not any longer entirely sufficient to justify the logic of the regimes of recognition for such practices; because, ontologically, epistemologically and practically, at the core of the participatory practice is not the problem of the dichotomy between art (autonomy, i.e. aesthetics, artwork) and non-art (heteronomy, i.e. society, real things), but a certain habit of relation – a habit that is established in-between these entities.
therefore, why some participatory projects in the contemporary art world cannot be and are not viewed as qua artwork, in comparison to many participatory artworks in which the promise of participation appears merely to be an empty rhetorical phrase. At the same time, some projects are included and recognised within the regime of what is called contemporary art. On the one hand, to apply the old formal aesthetical procedures
of classifying and recognizing participatory art would be misleading, since this type of art emerged from the historical, neo-, and post-avangardes. On the other hand, it seems that unfortunately Danto´s revolutionary sixties theory of the art world, with all its revisions, alongside the rest of institutional theory, is not any longer entirely sufficient to justify the logic of the regimes of recognition for such practices; because, ontologically, epistemologically and practically, at the core of the participatory practice is not the problem of the dichotomy between art (autonomy, i.e. aesthetics, artwork) and non-art (heteronomy, i.e. society, real things), but a certain habit of relation – a habit that is established in-between these entities.