WaterTOALL projects- discourse,comment
upon looking at the description on WATERTOALL PROJECT, it stated “
It is about art, communication and ethics, not politics.” and what interests me is this idea about “politics”. I recall once talking to someone about the political, and they said ” everything is politics”, because inherently everything we do is either a position connected to first ” economy” or sometype of demarcation that identifies us with “humanity”, and that to avoid this, in the non, is also a political act. Thus, what we believe is not a political act, no matter how small, perhaps an everyday decision, perhaps buying toothpaste, is connected to something political, then immediately becomes political- via the economic, social, environmental…etc…that there is no escape from the political. However, there are those who see levels to the political, and in this, they separate Political Acts specifically designed to address power (voting, demonstrating, writing letters to the state, voicing ideas in the media), as being THE political, and all other acts to that of the everyday or ordinary, somehow out of the reach of the political. However, the everyday is extremely political. ( the amazing 60’s….the personal is political…is true.) Thus, in dealing with the simple notion of water useage, not even waste, distribution, structure, because it is linked to so many human activities, is very political, - or perhaps socio-politcal. Further, it demands, a knowledge, and a stance. iT demands a beleif. IT demands a relations. It demands an opinion- related to, at some point, environmentalism and governmental decisions and the choice, perhaps, between the two, in terms of power. Essentially, the water situation can be seen as….lack of water = looking for water= takes away time from working= less income= poverty= economics= political. Further, when looking at the photographs in
(water reportage) they did seem to be “objective” or analyticial documentations , also poetic photos, artistic, interesting compositions, interesting color and tone and light, yet this focus on the ordinary, a water tap with running water, a stream, begged a question, and in this questioning, it seemed to
drift into the political, of asking, what IS its politcal ( yet, this could be my now, bias conscious knowledge and understanding of what is the notion of water shortage, an unescapble perspective as all water i now see fits into a category of either plentiful water, useful water, water shortage, swimming water, beautiful water, soothing water, refreshing water, in other words the relations of the water to my own needs- thus again political) Beyond this though, my first response to the photographs was that I should turn off the water fawcet in the photo. why is the water running and there are no hands, or a person in the photo. also, my response to the photos was a sensation of the environment, that is seemed dry, pale earth, emptiness……IN this, the context, was equally the meaning of the water, as the water. which brings me to two questions,…… can one look at water without context….and can one document water without out it being political.
April 19th, 2008 at 7:31 am
perhaps, it is not about “being” political, rather it is about a type of engagement into a politcal where particpants and collaborators, in the art, either do not acknowledge the political, or it is a political expressed or accepted on their terms as a subtext…..however, when the manifestation of the potential political in the art and experience of those engaged in the art, is either seemingly not politcal to the artist or participants, or intentionally not addressed, or intentionally denied, or overlooked, because it is in the poetic, or fun, or enjoyable, or in the moment, or social in the conventions of culture and the conventions of the social (or whatever one describes as outside or distanced from the political) , the mask of the politcial is still apparent….. and their lack of understanding of how the poitical functions is very apparent……..in this approach is a type of deception of the art, and/or artist and/or particpants,…… …..however, it is a beautiful functional deception (perhaps)…… yet deeper in this notoin of what may be described as the “soft” political, or the “subtextual” political, or the “playful” political….. is that the artist MUST be aware of this, in either the creation of the art, or its representation, - because it is automatically one of the decisions the artist makes in creating the work- and it deserves the artist’s attention and intention, unless the artist chooses to let the art create itself, or the artist, or the participant, which is an intention and another matter ( and is still visible in the art as a politic); However the subject - the water, or place, or people, need not be aware of this notion and the political, (possbily ), …I say possibly, because if the particpants are aware of the political then their responses would be different, and, this may be a type of empowered difference and the art would also have a sense of empowerment or “greater” meaning….. specifically, in looking at some past art made in capadoccia, the artists were either very naive of their actions as political…..in terms of power…..in terms of being the dominant in the relations they were constructing…….or they were putting these notions aside in the name of creating either a type of art that was more of a documentation of their experience in that region, like an artistic tourist,- which does function in some unique ways of empowerment, in some cases, to create a new and socio political history - , or these artist were intent on creating a theoretical “noncolonial” position or statement - which is very obvious and trite in the sense that to deny one’s power is hypocritical…. ( the work i am particularly referencing is when the artist gave a group of eight or ten young children in a small village in (capadoccia?) digital cameras to take a limited amount of pictures…….the technology of the digital camera actually functioned as the power of the colonialist, and the children subservient to the technology, they served the camera, the children were a tool of the camera, not visa versa ….if the children were aware of this….the results of the project may have been more dynamic and definately different ……in the sense of being less an exercise of the artist….and more an implementation of the participant…….where the amusement would have been less of eight children in a developing country “given the opprotunity” to use a digital camera….a toy …..and more of eight children “deciding on how to voice” with a digital camera…..a medium ) My point is that sometimes, for the artist and the participant, it is necessary to know of the politcs of the art, even “subtextual” politics, to make art that is not only interesting, but also more honest.