Theory vs action
So, I was sadly unable to attend this big ol’ seminar with Brian Holmes a few weeks ago because I was cruising around Europe with Mira. Now that sounds pretty pretentious but in fact, all I am saying is that I was sad to not be able to attend the talks. Anyway, I had to participate via conversations with friends that had attended and cobble together what I could of them.
My pal Daniel was fairly exuberant over the entire thing. He is a big fan of Brian’s writings (as am I) and found him consistently on point. Josh, I believe, got typically frustrated with the lack of utility put into place over the course of the weekend. It’s a common concern of his, but one of which I have great sympathy. I am used to these theory get-togethers and often, the rallying cry of stop thinking and start doing inevitably rears its head. It’s what happens. However, the more you go to, the more clear it is that talking is just easier than doing.
I am not convinced that theory gets one much closer to changing things. That effective political action can, in fact, occurr with a far more myopic insight into neoliberal capitalism. There was also talk of how the Chicago model is so different from the NYC model. That the Chicagoans are more ‘on the ground’ in their practice and NYC (albeit very influenced by the Whitney ISP) are more theory heavy. Now, these oversimplifications can be divisive but it’s a useful question to raise. I really feel that a sincere dedication to on the ground action must go hand in hand with any self-described political get together.
Even interrogating myself, I know that I could ramble for hours over the new face of capital. However, when it comes to effective models for social change, my litany runs dry. It’s a much more confounding question and one where a collective level of discussion could prove fruitful. I suspect this is the direction the DSLR/CPI folks want to take with the on-road whistle stop tour. Discussing effective models for aesthetic social action. That feels reasonably satisfying.
I am fairly eager to start connecting the circuits between all the folks we know. Only in so much as producing an infrastructure that can be useful in terms of co-ordinated social action. I have long lost the love for any type of convenient Deleuzian critique of co-ordinated action. I say convenient, because I have never seen that argument used in any way other than to extend ones personal ambitions and not sociall effectiveness.
In general, I am just interested in co-ordinating things enough to put action into high gear. You can just feel that co-ordinated social action resonates so much more deeply than any theoretical article. You can just feel the effectiveness ringing in your bones.
October 1st, 2005 at 11:45 pm
“You can just feel that co-ordinated social action resonates so much more deeply than any theoretical article. You can just feel the effectiveness ringing in your bones”
There is good writing and boring writing. There is good art and bad art. Same fucking difference.There is innefective social action and effective action.
From several years of observantion and a few of experience I am of the opinion that NY’s mind blowing creative “activist” scene doesn’t really bother with “art” scene primarly because it is by nature hierarchical, and shit, hierarchy fucking sucks and these folks strive to be freaky and effective Anarchists not freaky Artists. One thing that NY “artists” share with “activists” is extremely limited rental market in extremely expensive realestate. “Activists” generally are better equiped to deal with this- and they do it partly through disapearance..
“Artist” aim to be identified within a humongiusly large art landscape. As such NY’s art scene tends to have a huge degree of specialization. Once specialized these folks can pull off great shit, but tend to be working in boxes.
What this says about theory vs practice? Not much. Theory vs practice is A false and dangerous dialectic (one that us folks from LA are particularly aware of). My word is “what tool should be used for this job”.