Saw this item & thought you might enjoy my interview with Mr. Flash Mobs himself. It's up at http://www.vulturedroppings.com.

Take care,

V.

This is a conflation, but you should always react with the site. The premises of acontextualism is the most anthropocentric stance possible, one in which complacency of site history has lead to the acceptance of our big box store culture replete with nefarious empires where McMansions loom over subdivisions. Furthermore, the lack of understanding of geography of site has lead to a hermetically sealed building practice filled with air conditioners and other designs of waste and death—this is a much longer conversation and has more to do with the traditional concept of “sustainability”. In certain circles there is a “myth” of disappearance—I guess these people think the tree doesn’t make a sound. Unfortunately there is an either/or mentality in most practice in which folks think that you are either for or against something. In reality all actions are compromises, and people should start understand that a double agenda can be a good thing. I’d say that the current temporality in art institutions is that of the fair and the biennial model, which propagate slap-dash hedge fund collecting not dissimilar to the shit that big-box stores get away with, a sort of destruction of the commons of the art community. The question shouldn’t be about disappearance, but about self-criticality, which, without which there is already a kind of disappearance into dogma. I think that there were models in which institutions were more generative than storehouse, like at MoMA under Alfred Barr, most of Harald Szeemann’s work etc. and smaller venues like AFA Gallery, or publications —a type of site—Avalanche, S,M,L,XL , and now Scorched Earth. As far as us, yes, we should consider site, but maybe in an Oulipo fashion in which we have swaps and moves and invite others so as to be open to outside influence. BUT there is such a thing as expertise, be it in mitigating permits, contacts, honing an eye and so forth, home advantage they call it, and it would be a gross ignorance to wash this away in favor of a fad of so called anti-institutionalism—and as I brought up in a pervious post, look at the Wrong Gallery, isn’t it simply becoming a self-cannibalizing parody?

Now of course self-criticality is a kind of mantra, but maybe paying attention to site is just what can keep us open to more possibilities. What I mean is no, ground-zero is not the only thing in our “jurisdiction”, there are other major points of interest down here, my favorite is on East B’way where a through-fair of Chinese markets cross with all the tourists getting off the C-town buss in that make shift depot below the Manhattan Bridge—a case of X-Urbanism! Maybe by paying attention to multiple locations and growing—as opposed to deploying—projects in them we can avoid, to barrow from Shawshank, an institutionalization of our minds concerning downtown. Instead of banging out WTC center projects as a kind of recipe and instead of the mantra of self-criticality , maybe we can become interested in the idea of foreignness as a condition that could be exploited in a creative way. Usually, to be a foreigner means you don't understand very much, but there's also a naivety and a kind of freshness. It's like when you're a tourist: your eye is more sensitive. You're more eager to understand. If we approach both site and project and lower Manhattan in a nomadic fashion, the resultant synthesis is beyond the anti-inst./inst. Dialectic, so that things like market ploys simply become tools, not goals. Furethermore defining space itself, literally not figuratively, is a most powerful politics, and with this kind of procurement, our projects will have a proper gestalt--and will not be a family entertainment thing.

Check:

Art Angel, www.artangel.org.uk/
City Museum, http://www.citymuseum.org/home.asp,
The Long Now Foundation http://www.longnow.org/

Or get out of art, how about things like Rockefeller University, The Mayo Clinic, the CERN particle accelerator, should these institutions “disappear”? This too may be a conflation, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with presents.

I've been advocating for a while now that LMCC should operate like a grassroots political organization rather than an arts organization - that we should function with a unified ideological conviction that art not only happens here, but matters here - that we should have the impossible goal of converting all of Lower Manhattan into an idyllic arts wonderland, at which point LMCC would no longer need to exist. Now seeing as between global warming and overpopulation, the world is going to be irreversibly headed toward self-destruction in fifty years - I'm willing to entertain other ideas of what we should be doing until kingdom come.

But Adam has made some interesting comments regarding my questions about how we (LMCC) can operate toward Ground Zero. He suggests there are benefits for us looking at Lower Manhattan as though it is all new to us. It gave me an idea for a little thought experiment:

Suppose we are exactly what the general populus thinks artsy types are - aliens from another planet, one sufficiently like our own, but entirely unknowable at the same time.

Imagine that our life force, rather than being air and water and all that, is an equally vague substance called culture. We have been compelled by a collective hallucinatory trance to do a little research and development in lower manhattan. We're intergalactic culture farmers, if you will.

The point of the exercise is to propose an agricultural plan. Build a farm. The first question I would ask in this situation is:

Shall we enslave the humans to grow our crops for us, or are we better doing it ourselves?

slaves are usuful, they built the pyramids

Great article, that was interesting

Great article, that was interesting

Hi! http://www.insurance-top.com/company/ auto site insurance. The autos insurance company, compare car insurance, auto insurance. from website .

ringtones free