versi\u00f3n en espa\u00f1ol<\/a>]<\/p>\nIf\u00a0we were to become radical in this matter, it would be necessary to\u00a0say that nomadism is an exercise of de-classing, of withdrawing both\u00a0the prejudices which are convenient to us and the tools which have\u00a0made us efficient and automatons<\/span>. <\/span>Because\u00a0the idea of setting oneself the task of forgetting one\u2019s origin\u00a0and <\/span>transforming\u00a0travelling into a method <\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>undermines\u00a0the notions based on settlement as a way of material and conceptual\u00a0production; thus, modifying political and personal relationships. <\/span><\/p>\nIt\u00a0is also necessary to say that, for almost everyone, nomadism is <\/span>a\u00a0state of exception. <\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe\u00a0economy of symbols and things is still based on notions promoted by a\u00a0dying, empty and impoverished substitute for German Romanticism which\u00a0stills regulates and contains what is possible (to us).\u00a0<\/span>Because\u00a0it organises our perception, moralises events and holds us together. <\/span><\/p>\nBecause <\/span>every\u00a0system of meaning also organises what is beyond the system.\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>This,\u00a0our contemporary system, fantasises about what is outside, creating\u00a0myths about its existence and procedures, reinforcing, however, the\u00a0advantage of being here. Its most significant pragmatic triumph has\u00a0been the definition of parameters and successive aesthetics of\u00a0rebellion to reinforce the need for home, tradition and family. <\/span><\/p>\nIts\u00a0praise for nomadism is <\/span>nomadic.\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>That\u00a0is to say, the point to which it returns is always more important\u00a0than the reason for leaving. This establishes the difference between\u00a0migration and tourism; demonstrating, for example, that the former\u00a0seeks to find a place to settle down, while the latter intends to\u00a0experience a departure and then return after being affected by, but\u00a0also protected from, the other; the latter becomes an <\/span>experience\u00a0of controlled risk.<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe\u00a0expeditions of the 19th-Century Naturalists have taught us an\u00a0inventory model (of symbols, objects and ideas) which <\/span>leads\u00a0us to confuse colonisation with adventure.\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>Their\u00a0images hide the execution and dissemination of both economic and\u00a0cognitive colonialism. <\/span>Darwin\u00a0worked for the Empire. <\/span><\/p>\nWe\u00a0soon discovered that it was <\/span>not\u00a0possible to learn without organising knowledge <\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>and\u00a0that we cannot organise knowledge without establishing limits and\u00a0preponderances. <\/span><\/p>\nIt\u00a0is here that, as a group working on contemporary art, our first\u00a0hypothesis was (and still is) performed through actions: <\/span>we\u00a0sought a way of representing (ourselves) so as <\/span>to\u00a0do justice to that which is beyond the inevitable structuring of what\u00a0is ours upon what is alien to us.<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>We\u00a0sought to design and test some diagrams which allow us to make\u00a0evident and contrast the links between those who produce\u00a0(artistically and in discourse) in order to understand their causes,\u00a0specificities and consequences. <\/span>For\u00a0this, we look for evidences which affect the way in which we\u00a0understand what is in front of us and structuring, each time, the\u00a0accumulation of knowledge from previous experiences, transforming it\u00a0into a tool for analysis. <\/span><\/p>\nA\u00a0first evidence is that, in contemporary art, the <\/span>notion\u00a0of network has been objectified and institutionalised in a way which\u00a0considers the nodes as static spaces.\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>These\u00a0nodes, on the one hand, allow for circulation between them but, on\u00a0the other hand, they do not allow for the effective modification\u00a0neither of themselves nor of their immediate context, given that this\u00a0context is defined by the previous interaction (between the node and\u00a0the context) which acts as the selection criteria for entering and\u00a0exiting. <\/span>This <\/span>is\u00a0an idea based on the exploration of multiple destinations <\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>which\u00a0views exoticism as that which establishes a difference between very\u00a0similar and specifically designed initiatives. <\/span><\/p>\nThe\u00a0second evidence is that <\/span>those\u00a0who circulate between these static nodes tend to reproduce the\u00a0positive discrimination of public policies and social imageries\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>(of\u00a0the countries from which they come), making it possible to gain\u00a0profit from their actions when returning home. <\/span>Circulation\u00a0becomes a <\/span>habitus<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>;\u00a0<\/span>it\u00a0shows the specific cultural abilities and the remains belonging to\u00a0its own class of origin. <\/span><\/p>\nThe\u00a0third evidence is <\/span>the\u00a0way in which the efficiency of the relationship with the other is\u00a0feigned. <\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>That\u00a0is to say<\/span>,\u00a0what\u00a0is actually <\/span>made\u00a0from<\/span> what is outside the network?\u00a0<\/span>The\u00a0implementation of institutional or autonomous programmes has had a\u00a0social (or socialist) attitude; a laudable idea which is actually\u00a0full of hierarchical organisations which are executed, only slightly\u00a0disguised, in workshops (the privileges of whoever holds knowledge),\u00a0in clinics or seminars (the privileges of any authority) or in\u00a0community \/ relational actions (the discursive privileges of making\u00a0meaningful what is not).\u00a0<\/span>The\u00a0maximum exhibition of power is the ability to delegate.<\/span><\/p>\nThat\u00a0is why <\/span>we\u00a0cannot avoid feeling that we have carried out someone else\u2019s\u00a0plan<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>. <\/span>Continuously.<\/span><\/p>\nThe other\u2019s plans are felt and deduced from individual actions,\u00a0even when we do not know the cultural imperatives by which they are\u00a0affected or the ways in which personal satisfaction is achieved. <\/span>In\u00a0contemporary art, the manifest destiny and individual freedom are combined. <\/span><\/p>\nWhat\u00a0can we do, then, with this obligation which liberates us?<\/p>\n
A\u00a0first step is to expose ourselves to effective risk. <\/span>A\u00a0sort of extreme experience (such as abandonment, fascination,\u00a0suffering, madness and poetry) which simultaneously breaks the\u00a0subject and the limit. <\/span>But\u00a0this break does not occur in favour of some anarchy of the analytic\u00a0categories or the dissolution of the idea of the (unified) subject;\u00a0rather, it occurs so that <\/span>the\u00a0requested demand and the actualisation converted into action allow\u00a0for understanding and acting upon the overwhelming reality:\u00a0<\/i><\/span>that\u00a0which occurs and which we cannot describe and the possibility of\u00a0collective, collaborative work. <\/span><\/p>\nThe\u00a0residencies of contemporary art (including the <\/span>Summer\u00a0Camp<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span> format and excluding residencies as the mere moving of the workshop),\u00a0the seminars and the clinics <\/span>must\u00a0follow a discipline of containment to avoid uncritical acceptance;\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>in\u00a0them, the teacher ignores (as said by Jacotot through Ranci\u00e8re)\u00a0and learns, while teaching, what he\/she does not know and what was\u00a0passed by word of mouth at research trips on methods and pedagogies.\u00a0<\/span>These\u00a0spaces demand the <\/span>construction\u00a0of criteria and parameters of authority which avoid authoritarianism\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>and\u00a0are motivated by the <\/span>effective\u00a0exercise of art as a system of interrogation and decision-making<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>,\u00a0<\/span>so\u00a0that they do not turn a self-legitimisation (of local scenes, for\u00a0example) into a test of (the subjects\u2019) self-esteem and\u00a0self-help.<\/span><\/p>\nThis\u00a0is evidently promoted by the absence of a centre for the collection\u00a0of canonical definitions and norms. A system which can avoid the\u00a0franchise model. What is found, left, learnt, forgotten or\u00a0restructured can be implemented in unforeseen ways, given that there\u00a0are no mechanisms for supervision and standardisation because\u00a0misunderstanding and recurrence promote the review, revision and\u00a0reconstruction of the local experience contaminated by other\u00a0experiences.<\/p>\n
This\u00a0is our method and our requirement:<\/span>we\u00a0will attempt to make that which we do not know, to reflect upon that\u00a0for which we do not have the tools, to test ourselves affectively and\u00a0effectively in our relationships with others, with their prejudices\u00a0and preconceptions. <\/span>We\u00a0will attempt to not reproduce ourselves in formal resources and quick\u00a0responses. <\/span><\/p>\nBut\u00a0we know that the scenes which we collaborate with and investigate <\/span>must\u00a0reflect the specific proceedings and requirements of continuity and\u00a0daily routine. <\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>The\u00a0autonomous and institutional administrations of contemporary art, at\u00a0each place, are the result of contextual relationships crossed with\u00a0ideological arguments which exceed the field (of knowledge) of\u00a0contemporary art and which regulate its practice. They attempt to\u00a0unify their meaning, which they portray as univocal, because, <\/span>in\u00a0this way, culture comprehends contemporary art: as if it were an\u00a0additional form of culture. <\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nBut\u00a0we know that culture is built on agreements (of meaning) which have\u00a0taken place within society. Contemporary art, rather, is built on\u00a0dissidence, on the <\/span>questioning\u00a0of the validity, relevance and opportunity<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span> of the definition provided by culture about the world and things.\u00a0The tension between them is inevitable and the place in which this\u00a0tension takes place is anywhere where there is an intervention of\u00a0contemporary art; however, it is evident mainly in the contemporary\u00a0art institution, which is the most visible space for this. <\/span><\/p>\nWe\u00a0have often cited\u00a0<\/span>Dan\u00a0Cameron as saying that an art institution is, first, an institution\u00a0and, then, a<\/span>n art institution. <\/span>This\u00a0means that, like any institution, it will care, first, for its\u00a0subsistence and survival and, secondly, for its self-imposed\u00a0objective.\u00a0<\/span>This\u00a0is how the daily influence of culture is exercised upon contemporary\u00a0art: sometimes restricting it and, at others, making it possible. <\/span><\/p>\nWhat\u00a0can an autonomous administration, an institution, an initiative of\u00a0contemporary art do \u2013 wherever they are \u2013 to combine the\u00a0demands of culture with the production of contemporary art?\u00a0<\/span>In\u00a0other words, what can a settlement do if it is the opposite of\u00a0nomadism? <\/span>The\u00a0short answer is simple:\u00a0<\/span>take\u00a0part in a confabulation. <\/span><\/p>\nThe\u00a0long answer is more complex.\u00a0<\/span>Our\u00a0own vulnerability must be acknowledged<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>,\u00a0without being on the defensive, because the systems of protection\u00a0exclude us from the possibility of learning. <\/span>We\u00a0must become permeable<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>,\u00a0yet constant and explicit, because the criteria for entering and\u00a0exiting, when they are implicit, behave as undeniable norms. <\/span>Dissidence\u00a0must receive funding<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span> because the worker is already in charge of sustaining the framework\u00a0and the dissident questions, requires and prepares this for\u00a0unforeseen circumstances. <\/span><\/p>\nOne\u00a0must acknowledge being oneself and still pretend to be someone else. <\/span><\/p>\nIt\u00a0is, in this respect, that the effective exchanges and residencies are\u00a0useful to the institutions (in a broad sense, given that we refer to\u00a0anyone who has, and who follows, any kind of proceedings) and the\u00a0instituti<\/span>ons <\/span>are useful to the people who are directly part of them\u00a0and to the non-specialist public. <\/span><\/p>\nIn\u00a0what way?\u00a0<\/span>The\u00a0uncomfortable guest, the fact of entering the community in the\u00a0building, the game which regulates a portion of the chaos and the\u00a0laughter which reveals the nudity of the emperor, are tools for\u00a0knowledge about a culture, about public policies, about the notion of\u00a0the subject and the possibility of the citizens. <\/span>One\u00a0learns about the unforeseen. <\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>These\u00a0are direct questioning initiatives about identity through the\u00a0activation of the recognition of identity processes. <\/span><\/p>\nThis\u00a0is the great confabulation. <\/span><\/p>\nWe\u00a0can produce a coincidence of interests between the mobile and the\u00a0static, between the forces which claim us to be homogeneous and those\u00a0which disperse us; each of them having their strengths and\u00a0weaknesses.\u00a0<\/span>A\u00a0network is a coincidental choreography<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>,<\/span>
![\"como_fue_el_mundo_cuando_descubrimos_que_era_otro\"](\"https:\/\/curatoriaforense.net\/niued\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/como_fue_el_mundo_cuando_descubrimos_que_era_otro-300x114.jpg\")
<\/p>\n