{"title":"The German Campaign against Cultural Freedom: Documenta 15 in Context","authors":"A. Moses","doi":"10.1162/grey_a_00369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/grey_a_00369","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44598,"journal":{"name":"Grey Room","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49233008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"When Louis Pasteur Taught at the Beaux-Arts","authors":"Lucia Allais","doi":"10.1162/grey_a_00376","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/grey_a_00376","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44598,"journal":{"name":"Grey Room","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46288392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Interrelations: The CIAM Grid in 1949","authors":"Andreas Kalpakci","doi":"10.1162/grey_a_00365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/grey_a_00365","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44598,"journal":{"name":"Grey Room","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43944051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With Documenta 15 in our rearview mirror, what seems important at this stage is to understand the connections among the politics of exhibition, organization, and spectatorship. Only then does the significance of its propositions come into focus. These connections are also imbricated in, if not overdetermined by, the charged mediation of Documenta 15, particularly in German-language media. Focusing on spectatorship requires, first of all, that we begin to unpick its plural modes of operation; for example, differentiating, on the one hand, the experience of visiting the exhibition and engaging with the various art projects (on site and online, in short and extended time frames), and, on the other hand, browsing the exhibition on social media. To explore the latter mode of spectatorship is, above all, to consume the discourse about the exhibition, although this difference between spectatorial modalities would be decisive only if access through social media were the sole mode of experiencing the exhibition. I maintain that the moment of spectatorship is key to our understanding of Documenta 15. I find this to be crucial not due to some abstract, postconceptual notion that the visitor “completes” the work (a condition that may characterize much of the work on display at Documenta 15 but is not specific to it). Rather, I am struck by the altered role of the spectator that results from the hyperrelational principle of this exhibition, which is microcosmic in its participating projects and collectives. The spectator’s role is either undefined or defined away; that is, there are no spectators, only participants. The spectator as a “vanishing mediator,” then, is the premise I pursue here, with the aim of avoiding a reified conception of what happened in Documenta 15. That is, I am concerned to hold on to Documenta 15’s relational concept as a diffractive rather than reproductive approach to the global institution of art.1 The curatorial principle of Documenta 15, which was decisively anticonsumerist and anticontemplative, cannot separate the mode of engagement it posits for the spectator from its general mode of address (i.e., the voice of the exhibition). If a pursuit of this other, diffractive form of relationality is one of the accomplishments of Documenta 15, the exhibition was nevertheless incapable of doing more than staging the contradictions of undefining the spectator. That is, Documenta 15 was characterized by a junction of material
{"title":"Nothing to See Here: On the Bracketing of the Spectator in a Hyperrelational Exhibition","authors":"M. Vishmidt","doi":"10.1162/grey_a_00377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/grey_a_00377","url":null,"abstract":"With Documenta 15 in our rearview mirror, what seems important at this stage is to understand the connections among the politics of exhibition, organization, and spectatorship. Only then does the significance of its propositions come into focus. These connections are also imbricated in, if not overdetermined by, the charged mediation of Documenta 15, particularly in German-language media. Focusing on spectatorship requires, first of all, that we begin to unpick its plural modes of operation; for example, differentiating, on the one hand, the experience of visiting the exhibition and engaging with the various art projects (on site and online, in short and extended time frames), and, on the other hand, browsing the exhibition on social media. To explore the latter mode of spectatorship is, above all, to consume the discourse about the exhibition, although this difference between spectatorial modalities would be decisive only if access through social media were the sole mode of experiencing the exhibition. I maintain that the moment of spectatorship is key to our understanding of Documenta 15. I find this to be crucial not due to some abstract, postconceptual notion that the visitor “completes” the work (a condition that may characterize much of the work on display at Documenta 15 but is not specific to it). Rather, I am struck by the altered role of the spectator that results from the hyperrelational principle of this exhibition, which is microcosmic in its participating projects and collectives. The spectator’s role is either undefined or defined away; that is, there are no spectators, only participants. The spectator as a “vanishing mediator,” then, is the premise I pursue here, with the aim of avoiding a reified conception of what happened in Documenta 15. That is, I am concerned to hold on to Documenta 15’s relational concept as a diffractive rather than reproductive approach to the global institution of art.1 The curatorial principle of Documenta 15, which was decisively anticonsumerist and anticontemplative, cannot separate the mode of engagement it posits for the spectator from its general mode of address (i.e., the voice of the exhibition). If a pursuit of this other, diffractive form of relationality is one of the accomplishments of Documenta 15, the exhibition was nevertheless incapable of doing more than staging the contradictions of undefining the spectator. That is, Documenta 15 was characterized by a junction of material","PeriodicalId":44598,"journal":{"name":"Grey Room","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48234561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Representation and Its Discontents: The Council as Concrete Utopia Oskar Negt has memorably characterized workers’ councils as “the concrete utopia of the twentieth century.”28 Indeed, the council form is a utopia of concretion in that it rejects the politics of what has been termed abstract representation. The historian Paul Friedland uses this term to characterize the concept of political representation developed during the French Revolution by Abbé Sieyès, in contradistinction to corporational representation under the Ancien Régime.29 Based on a protosociological account of the division of labor in modern societies, Sieyès argued that politics, too, was best left to the specialists, to professional politicians, so the role of “the people” should to be reduced to elections. Direct democracy was anathema.30 To constitute the feudal Estates General, the representatives of the three estates (nobility, clergy, bourgeoisie) were selected in local meetings during which the delegates were also given a binding cahier with agreed-on political positions.31 Precisely this mandat impératif was scuppered in modern parliamentary democracy—hence the familiar sight of politicians forgetting about their election promises once in office. In 1818, the German reactionary romantic Adam Müller defended the feudal society of estates as an “organic state,” pitting this politico-aesthetic ideal against the “newfangled head-, souland money-representation,” which he considered a dangerous French innovation.32 Leftists, too, attacked abstract representation. As Jonathan Beecher writes in his biography of Charles Fourier, “One of the most striking intellectual developments of the postrevolutionary period in Europe was the growth of interest in groups and communities, both as constituents of society and as influences on individual personality and behavior.”33 Reacting to “the destruction of parish, guild, and other primary groups during the French Revolution,” reactionary and progressive thinkers alike broke with the eighteenth century’s “atomistic conception of society as a network of specific and willed relationships entered into by free, autonomous and rational individuals.”34 Marx himself, in his early essay on the “Jewish Question,” homed in on the contradiction between the “living individual,” as a social and economic (as well as religious) subject, and the abstract citoyen or citizen. If the living individual
{"title":"Plan and Council: Genealogies of Calculation, Organization, and Transvaluation","authors":"S. Lütticken","doi":"10.1162/grey_a_00374","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/grey_a_00374","url":null,"abstract":"Representation and Its Discontents: The Council as Concrete Utopia Oskar Negt has memorably characterized workers’ councils as “the concrete utopia of the twentieth century.”28 Indeed, the council form is a utopia of concretion in that it rejects the politics of what has been termed abstract representation. The historian Paul Friedland uses this term to characterize the concept of political representation developed during the French Revolution by Abbé Sieyès, in contradistinction to corporational representation under the Ancien Régime.29 Based on a protosociological account of the division of labor in modern societies, Sieyès argued that politics, too, was best left to the specialists, to professional politicians, so the role of “the people” should to be reduced to elections. Direct democracy was anathema.30 To constitute the feudal Estates General, the representatives of the three estates (nobility, clergy, bourgeoisie) were selected in local meetings during which the delegates were also given a binding cahier with agreed-on political positions.31 Precisely this mandat impératif was scuppered in modern parliamentary democracy—hence the familiar sight of politicians forgetting about their election promises once in office. In 1818, the German reactionary romantic Adam Müller defended the feudal society of estates as an “organic state,” pitting this politico-aesthetic ideal against the “newfangled head-, souland money-representation,” which he considered a dangerous French innovation.32 Leftists, too, attacked abstract representation. As Jonathan Beecher writes in his biography of Charles Fourier, “One of the most striking intellectual developments of the postrevolutionary period in Europe was the growth of interest in groups and communities, both as constituents of society and as influences on individual personality and behavior.”33 Reacting to “the destruction of parish, guild, and other primary groups during the French Revolution,” reactionary and progressive thinkers alike broke with the eighteenth century’s “atomistic conception of society as a network of specific and willed relationships entered into by free, autonomous and rational individuals.”34 Marx himself, in his early essay on the “Jewish Question,” homed in on the contradiction between the “living individual,” as a social and economic (as well as religious) subject, and the abstract citoyen or citizen. If the living individual","PeriodicalId":44598,"journal":{"name":"Grey Room","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42619646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Does Bolsonaro Have a Point? (Or Does He Have a Semicolon?)","authors":"Maria José De Abreu","doi":"10.1162/grey_a_00373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/grey_a_00373","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44598,"journal":{"name":"Grey Room","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46183146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Liquid History: Millbank, London and the Thames Flood of 1928","authors":"Tobah Aukland-Peck","doi":"10.1162/grey_a_00371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/grey_a_00371","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44598,"journal":{"name":"Grey Room","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45320819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：