{"id":923,"date":"2011-01-03T04:31:17","date_gmt":"2011-01-03T11:31:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/curatoriaforense.net\/niued\/?p=923"},"modified":"2013-12-28T14:41:42","modified_gmt":"2013-12-28T21:41:42","slug":"camp-summer-camp-format-artists-residences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/curatoriaforense.net\/niued\/?p=923","title":{"rendered":"To make Camp. The Summer Camp format in artists’ residencies"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

[fotograf\u00eda de\u00a0Amor de Verano<\/strong>,
\nValpara\u00edso\u00a0– Chile, Enero de 2010]<\/p>\n

Sie ist ein modell, und sie sieht gut aus
\nich nehme sie heut\u00b4 gerne mit zu mir nach haus
\nsie wirkt so kuehl, an sie kommt niemand \u00b4ran
\ndoch vor der kamera, da zeigt sie was sie kann.<\/em>
\nDas Modell.\u00a0Kraftwerk<\/p>\n

[Versi\u00f3n en espa\u00f1ol<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Two\u00a0years ago,\u00a0as part of our work in contemporary art, we decided to confront a\u00a0hypothesis, which now looks like as certainty: we all take part of a\u00a0model.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0issue is to determine which of the available models prevails in us,\u00a0why we support its goals and how the model spreads into the actions\u00a0that we carry out.<\/span><\/p>\n

This,\u00a0in other words, is to affirm that we are all crisscrossed by\u00a0ideology. The decisions of our daily actions have a symbolic\u00a0organization that it is used and put to test when we decide what part\u00a0of knowledge we use and prioritize to take any action.<\/span><\/p>\n

This\u00a0symbolic organization feeds, reaffirms, embroils\u00a0or refutes itself, depending on how we understand the consequences of\u00a0our intervention on everything that surrounds us.<\/span><\/p>\n

But\u00a0to take part of an ideology is not necessarily\u00a0equivalent to subordinating or yielding the critical capacity that\u00a0appraises, investigates and questions it. On one hand because the\u00a0ideologies are based on a structural fault that organizes them (the\u00a0part of reality that they do not apprehend), fault which also\u00a0compounds them; and because they are contaminated by fragments of\u00a0other ideologies that complement them in the points in which they put\u00a0less interest.<\/span><\/p>\n

Why\u00a0all this preamble? To say that the (art)\u00a0market is not a written sentence (or a promise that will be\u00a0inevitably fulfilled); and that to try to understand how cultural\u00a0actions related to contemporary art can as well occur in a\u00a0co-dependent autonomy between the art market, the pedagogy of art and\u00a0the independent micromanagement.<\/span><\/p>\n

The\u00a0first thing that we saw (already in 2008) was the development of parallel\u00a0pedagogic systems (to the academy and to those which functionalize\u00a0the market efforts) via the realization of art clinics, indicating\u00a0that in these exist \u00aban implicitly acknowledgment of the\u00a0incomplete character of knowledge and; in that, the parallel\u00a0construction of knowledge transmission systems, independent from the\u00a0late-modern academic university. This is relevant because it implies\u00a0an effective action on the plans and programs that shape the form in\u00a0which knowledge is used by the institution to feed the need of more\u00a0institution\u00bb where \u00abthe clinic comes to rescue exercise as\u00a0a method\u00bb.<\/span><\/p>\n

We\u00a0describe that this innovation in the pedagogic systems, together with\u00a0including artistic and discursive productions ignored or obviated before,\u00a0was reproducing some of the academic own vices such as -what we\u00a0call- messianism and jesuitism.<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u00a0could not be another way, one cannot deny wherefrom he\/she comes and\u00a0the thought and action structures learned previously. In other words:\u00a0the development of cognitive processes generates cognitive obliquity. <\/span><\/p>\n

It is not possible to deny the way that we learned to learn, but it\u00a0is possible to face this programmatically.<\/span><\/p>\n

A\u00a0simple spin\u00a0served us to test, in our own art clinic version, the history that\u00a0was preceding us: TRAMA<\/em>, Antorchas<\/em>, Entrecampos<\/em>,\u00a0etc. This turn was the passageway from the analysis of the (art) object to the argumentation of its\u00a0value. This is what Sparring\u00a0Tour<\/strong> (Argentina – Uruguay, 2009) was about. <\/span><\/p>\n

But <\/span>this did not seem to be sufficient. What we affirm on having judged\u00a0our past was also valid when we analyze what we did in our intervention: the\u00a0model induces the errors. Other errors, of course.<\/p>\n

On\u00a0having treated the artistic production from the perspective of its value argumentation (symbolic, economic and\u00a0financial), we were discovering our confusions (and those of the\u00a0participants) about the way of using the art object. And how, from\u00a0there, we were reproducing a subordination system of other systems to\u00a0the financial art system.<\/span><\/p>\n

Why\u00a0do we need the skills of argumentation? To demonstrate the value, to disassemble it and to structure it again to turn it communicably. It is here\u00a0where the financial system has its major success: the value that\u00a0prevails unifying (it) and that plunder the complexity of the\u00a0artistic work, is the financial value.<\/span><\/p>\n

What happen\u00a0then with everything else that happens when art occurs? To verify\u00a0this, we organized what we called the cloister Put\u00a0into Practice \/ Puesta en Pr\u00e1ctica<\/strong> (C\u00f3rdoba, Argentina, November 2009). Because we think that\u00a0another type of relations among the participants were possible, and\u00a0that these other likely relations would allow us to approach the\u00a0statute of contemporary art from other perspectives, doing justice to\u00a0its complexity.<\/span><\/p>\n

In\u00a0that opportunity, we\u00a0gathered 18 South American artists and cultural agents for three\u00a0days, with the pretension to accede to the artistic practices more\u00a0than to their surpluses (the art objects). What was it seen? The\u00a0decisional system behind (and preceding) the \u201chands to work\u00bb\u009d.<\/span><\/p>\n

But\u00a0every step induces the following one, building a range and tools for\u00a0its implementation. The valuable thing that we discovered, the way\u00a0that we were moving away from the prepotency of the object (turned\u00a0into goods), needed -for our hypotheses- space and time of\u00a0stabilization and articulation: this space and time could be the\u00a0artists’ residencies.<\/span><\/p>\n

Till\u00a0then the artists’ residencies were, mainly,\u00a0the relocation of the workshop of one or two artists to an exotic\u00a0environment where the effective experience that was carried out was\u00a0that of cultural animation or cultural tourism.<\/span><\/p>\n

This\u00a0continues, to our understanding, reproducing a structure of privileges, which is\u00a0impermeable to local experiences and people visited, being for these\u00a0ones a highly valued accident but irrelevant in the long-term.<\/span><\/p>\n

How\u00a0might we conceptually restructure the artists’ residencies as a way of\u00a0making possible relations among equals and with the environment? How\u00a0could we redefine them from a real interest for the difference, from\u00a0a vulnerable conceptual and diagrammatic structure more than an\u00a0enforcing one, from a desire to really inhabit that different place?<\/span><\/p>\n

At\u00a0the end of 2009, we had already finished our art clinics and decreed\u00a0their death; we had carried out a confabulation with South American\u00a0independent art agents and artists, had surveyed certain recurrences\u00a0in the artistic production and in the claims and initiatives which\u00a0were deriving from them as a way of solutions or failings repair.<\/span><\/p>\n

Principally, we knew what was what we did not want to do.<\/span><\/p>\n

The\u00a0artists’ residence -that\u00a0we had imagined like a summer camp- would be an instance where it\u00a0would be possible to occur for what we were expecting:<\/span><\/p>\n