Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship - autonomous ...

notes to pages 11– 13
University of Minnesota Press, 2007; Johanna Billing, Maria Lind and
Lars Nilsson (eds.), Taking the Matter into Common Hands: On Contemporary
Art and Collaborative Practices, London: Black Dog Publishing, 2007;
Charles Esche and Will Bradley (eds.), Art and Social Change: A Critical
Reader, London: Afterall and MIT Press, 2007.
Chapter One The Social Turn
1 See for example the questionnaire in which artist- collectives are requested
to cite their infl uences, in WHW, Collective Creativity, Kassel: Fridericianum/
Frankfurt: Revolver, 2005, pp. 344– 6.
2 Grant Kester, Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in
Modern Art, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004, p. 29.
3 Jeanne van Heeswijk, ‘Fleeting Images of Community’, available at
www.jeanneworks.net.
4 Blake Stimson and Gregory Sholette (eds.), Collectivism After Modernism:
The Art of Social Imagination After 1945, Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 2007, p. 12. They go on to quote El Lissitzky, who in
1920 wrote that ‘The private property aspect of creativity must be
destroyed; all are creators and there is no reason of any sort for this division
into artists and nonartists.’
5 Nicolas Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics, Dijon: Presses du Réel, 2002, p.
85, p. 113. Elsewhere: ‘art is the place that produces a specifi c sociability’
because ‘it tightens the space of relations, unlike TV’ (p. 18).
6 Jacques Rancière, ‘Aesthetic Separation, Aesthetic Community: Scenes
from the Aesthetic Regime of Art’, Art and Research: A Journal of Ideas,
Contexts and Methods, 2:1, Summer 2008, p. 7.
7 See David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2005.
8 Paolo Virno, interviewed in Alexei Penzin, ‘The Soviets of the Multitude:
On Collectivity and Collective Work’, Manifesta Journal, 8, 2009– 10, p.
56.
9 Kester, Conversation Pieces, p. 112.
10 See Andrew Brighton, ‘Consumed by the Political: The Ruination of the
Arts Council’, Critical Quarterly, 48:1, 2006, p. 4, and Mark Wallinger and
Mary Warnock (eds.), Art for All? Their Policies and Our Culture, London:
Peer, 2000.
11 For an incisive critique of social inclusion policies from a feminist
perspective see Ruth Levitas, The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and
New Labour, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998.
12 The dominant tone of Labour’s social inclusion policy, as Ruth Levitas
has pointed out, is strongly imbued with what she calls ‘MUD’ (the moral
underclass discourse, which focuses on the behaviour of the poor rather
than the structure of society) and ‘SID’ (social integration discourse,
289