art-e-conomy _ reader - marko stamenkovic

8
as a political (cyber) activist, able to interfere the broad cultural sphere through a
set of engaged social and political activities, i.e. a being with a high-level of political
awareness and activity, functionalized from its proper professional sector of operational
efficiency, and not as a parliamentary-involved and politically engaged subject (acting
out of his professional sector or only for the benefit of his/her own professional
community). Art’s political potential is therefore not signaled only in terms of its
preconceived overlapping with non-artistic (side) effects, but in terms of its ability to
coordinate and control the state of art with constant reference to those non-artistic
(side) criteria that are imposed by political, social, and economic decision-makers.
I depart from a belief that the decision-making process in contemporary art and
culture should no longer be treated only as reflecting the totality of political reality
(just as it had been the case in totalitarian societies of former Eastern Europe), but
as influencing particular segments of such a reality through art’s ability to respond
to the demands and criteria controlled by other public sectors. This attitude toward
political identification and configuration of a curator as an activist responds to
the ways that political power relations are articulated in the sphere of art, theory,
activism, and culture, and also – to the ways that this sphere is related to the effects
of ideology, hegemony, hierarchy, and political legitimacy. The question of interest
here is: if there is no autonomy of culture from politics and the economy, what are
the cultural dimensions of globalization, and how are they recognized today in the
field of curatorial practices?
Marko Stamenković