|
The PCLA (r) upholds that the museum,
that the institutions, that the museums, that the museums devoted
or dedicated to Contemporary Art (not valid)
The PCLA (r) is compelled by the circumstances
to pronounce on contemporary art museums and the narcissist identitary
politics projected on the activity of contemporary art. In this
respect, the Post Colonial Liberation Army (r) upholds:
1: that no institution devoted to contemporary art is fit to define
what art is, or what makes one thing more contemporary than another;
2: that, under an appearance of theoretical porosity, these institutions
are governed by solid pragmatic principles;
3: that if these institutions have today difficulties in managing
aesthetics, they are, on the other hand, highly qualified to manage
other kinds of categories;
4: that my avant-garde is bigger than yours;
5: that the museums are institutions devoted to the praxis of autist
self-portrait;
6: that the artists do not exist;
7: that neither does art, only its praxis;
8: that the National State ethnifies: the Family of Man, Modernism
and Postmodernity, the notion of the Contemporary, Geography, Flora
and Fauna, the ownership of the Picassos, the Alterity that justifies
and upholds its Autist Self-portrait and Creative Freedom;
9: that globalization is not round like a globe; that the perception
of the "multicultural" is more effective when done from the Renaissance
central perspective; that it is not certain that the mere economic
inversion would allow access to the mainstream of contemporary culture;
that this is not a text; that any object exposed in a vitrine acquires
the peculiarity of catching our attention for a moment; that our
attention is fragmentary;
10: that the new underwear design market does not have as its object
the expansion of either the notion or the function of art;
11: that the flows of capital, information, technology, products
and people characterizing the so-called globalization process, release
forces which, in themselves, have no a priori ethic intention, wherefore
concepts as ethnification, plurality, inclusion, exclusion, innovation,
repetition, accumulation or fascination may play roles both progressive
and conservative depending on subjective conditions in specific
contexts;
12: that even though art is part of the symbolic production of our
times, its products function as both quantitative and qualitative
categories;
13: that alterity is another of the resources for renovation of
the avant-garde of the New Global Middle Class;
14: France, one point; la Suède, un point; le Portugal, um
ponto; Deutschland, ein und fünfzig; etc...
15: that multiculturality and globalization are not enough for New
Zealand, Australia, South Africa and the River Plate to communicate
horizontally;
16: that in contemporary society the notion of social groups with
common interests transcends the limits traditionally defined by
national state; that as capital tends to draw transnational strategies,
and as contemporary art's system of education, production and distribution
grows more international, postmodern youngsters and adults also
are disposed and ready to defend their museums, galleries, grants,
critics, pencils, round tables, passepartouts, rulers, draughtman's
squares, digital videos, watercolours, genome maps, erasers, collections,
easels, postduchampian traditions and their favourite curators against
all not immersed in the precise space of the contemporary;
17: that it is false that the notion of contemporaneity in art fulfils
a homogenizing function in contradiction with the plural vocation
of the present;
18: that all those excluded from social representation in the institutions
devoted to contemporary art do not necessarily stay in the same
hotel (it is not evident either that all those excluded aspire to
harmony between body and soul);
19: that revisionism is a political condition of history; so is
seduction;
20: that p-p-p-possibly nothing of the aforesaid f-f-f- faithfully
expresses the desires and aspirations of the excluded, the excluders,
the devoted or the enemies of the mainstream of art, nor any other
issue or p-p-p-position of people or groups related to culture produced
in our days;
21: that it is false, of absolute falsity, what it is said that
there is not one system of contemporary cultural production but
several, and that it is impossible to uphold the affirmation that:
"there is no generic contemporary culture but a superstitious desire
of the same, fragmented into a thousand different praxis and three
thousand activities of diverse urgency which the PCLA
(r) neither attends to nor understands properly", and before
which the PCLA (r) wonders with the
same wonderment a child wonders before the wonder of each day with
the same wonderment a child wonders before the wonder of each day
with the same wonderment a child wonders before the wonder of each
day with the same wonderment.
|
