diipsexshop

[noritual]

Reclaiming Artistic Research

Lucy Cotter

What does art know? And how? Twenty artists discuss the epistemology of artistic creation

What is artistic research? How does art know? How does artistic thinking develop through artistic processes and takes shape in artworks? These questions form the departure point for this new book by artist, academic and curator Lucy Cotter (born 1973). In 20 conversations with leading artists, she maps out an epistemology of artistic creation today, exemplifying an approach that is dynamically engaged with other fields, but which thinks beyond concepts into bodily and material knowledge that exceeds language, revolutionizing our perception of art from the ground up.

Artists include: Lawrence Abu Hamdan , Katayon Arian, Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev, Sher Doruff, Em'kal Eyongakpa, Ryan Gander, Liam Gillick, Natasha Ginwala, Sky Hopinka, Manuela Infante, Euridice Zaituna Kala, Grada Kilomba, Sarat Maharaj, Emma Moore, Rabih Mroué, Christian Nyampeta, Yuri Pattison, Falke Pisano, Sarah Rifky, Samson Young and Katarina Zdjelar.

[foodfunfantasy]

@spicemarket.kol... Good News for all the Drinkers as well as foodies... is going to be your new address from now... It's situated just opposite to Maharaj on Sarat Bose Road and at the 1st floor of the same building of Hotel Metropole... Ambience is classy and elegant with plenty of seating arrangements along with some group seating arrangements too... I love their road side Mezzanine seating space a lot... The semi dark and light ambience makes the place perfect for hangouts... Service here is really good and the staffs are very attentive and friendly... Just what a good Bar cum Resturant requires... Coming to the important aspect of all the food... We found that the portion sizes are very good and taste of dishes are equally good... The presentations on the dishes are very simple but still it will attract your eyes... Although each dishes and drinks are very good here... But I must recommend some for you... 1. Fish in Hot Garlic Sauce 2. Egg Fried Rice 3. Mutton Rogan Josh 4. Onion Khulcha 5. Drums of Heaven 6. Fish Peshawari Kebab 7. Tandoori Paneer Tikka Among all these deliciousness... The most delicious was the Mutton Rogan Josh and the Onion Kulcha was a deadly combination... They also use to serve some amazing Cocktails too... Their kitchen can serve you Chinese and North Indian delicacies... And the quantity and quality is really awesome... Pocket pinch here is moderate... . . . #food #garlicfish #friedrice #paneertikka #indochinesefood #northindianfood (at Spice Market) https://www.instagram.com/p/CTgpC7BlJYM/?utm_medium=tumblr

[magdalenajandel]

Sarat Maharaj, Arachhe's Genre

credit : Material Obsession, Wreath - Stitchery

“Arachne, a Lydian woman renowned for her needlework, sewing, and stitchery, challenges Athena, goddess of the crafts, to a contest of textile skills. Athena, disguised as an old woman, tries to dissuade her. But Arachne persists with her challenge. The test begins, Arachne's hands fly across the taut loom-netting with the shuttle as swiftly, as ably as Athena's. Athena inspects the completed piece, finds it faultless, as lovely as her own. The denouement is best left in Ruskin's words: 'She loses her temper; tears her rival's tapestry to pieces, strikes her four times across the forehead with her boxwood shuttle. Arachne, mad with anger, hangs herself; Athena changes her into a venomous spider.'  “

- Ruskinovo prepričavanje mita projicira normu za izradu tekstila i ženskost, za 'pravilan' tekstilni posao i 'pravilan' seksualni identite (Athena). -> “ Athena' serves as the device through which this feminine/textiles norm is constructed and dramatized. He justifies her wrath by presenting her as a corrective, sobering force exercised in the name of the law, the norm. How she enforces it-the matter of her aggressive jealousy, her violent fury, the all-too-final punishment meted out to Arachne, is side-stepped.“ 

ATHENA - SVE DOBRO, “’PROPER’ GENRE AND GENDER”

ARACHNE - IMPROPER, DEVIANT

- Također, nadalje pokušava prikazati svoju teoriju proučavajući njihove vezove: 

Arachne vez: Ruskin opisuje vez kao 'podno i odvratno'. Demistificirala je živote bogova koji izlažu svoje trikove, nepravde koje su vršili kako bi bilo po njihovome. Nadalje, Arachne prikazuje svoju poantu prikazom "Rape of Europa" i dvadeset drugih epizoda koje uključuju otmicu bogova i povrede prema ženama.

Athenin vez: vijeće bogova- ozbiljna, važna tema. Slavilo je red, obrazložena razmjena, odmjereni diskurs. Sastav se dotaknuo osjećaja građanskih manira, vrline, morala, na civilizacijsku silu, zakon muškarca.

“ What Ruskin subsumes under the term 'textiles' seems surprisingly all-embracing 'good stout clothes to knit and weave but also to make pictures on them'. It seems to take in the spectrum of textiles genres, cutting across all its modes and effectseverything from production of cloth, through commodities and goods, to textiles as art practice, as something which may be read as fine art statement or object. “

- Ruskin prihvaća i “validira” samo Atheninu vrstu veza;  “ He sees its force as essentially institutionalizing-at the four corners of her tapestry she had embroidered 'admonitory panels' depicting the dreadful fate of those who dare question the established order. He favours its capacity to replay received imagery and iconography, to cite and re-cite an approved, accepted system of attitudes and values-a logic encapsulated by the notion of 'sewing sampler'. “ 

-  “ Ruskin's split view of the Lydian as the exquisite or foul is not separate from this tradition of looking. It is tied to his own distinction between the Greek ideal, 'Daedalus work', and what he sees as Indian art's excess and moral inferiority.8 Indian textiles, design and craftwork count as exquisite in his scheme only because he hives if off from the distasteful content he finds in Indian art. “

[esmithmajortwo2020]

Documentary and the Dialectical Document in Contemporary Art

https://sophieberrebi.net/Documentary-and-the-Dialectical-Document-in-Contemporary-Art-Right

by Hubert Damisch

Introduction A recurring phenomenon in recent years has been the introduction into contemporary art exhibitions of documentary films and photographs made not only by artists, but also by people known primarily as photographers and filmmakers. This phenomenon, seen in a number of large-scale international exhibitions and smaller thematic shows, seems to bear witness to an urge to “show things as they are”, to present documents conceived as indexes of the real in preference to self-referential, autonomous works of art. In the context of Documenta 11, one of the curators, the art theorist Sarat Maharaj, spoke of works of art as “epistemological engines,”1 while Masssimiliano Gioni, one of the two curators of Manifesta 5, which took place in Donostia – San Sebastian in 2004, evoked “Filmmakers and artists who aim at posing questions, at responding in an oblique way to large world issues in politics and culture.”2 In London and Cologne the exhibition Cruel and Tender (Tate Modern and Ludwig Museum, 2003) presented a survey of art and documentary photography under the sign of empathy and emotions that suggested photography was simply a window open onto the world. These exhibitions, and others, reveal a tendency towards ascribing to the documentary a privileged position within the art context of reflecting upon the realities of the world. One of the characteristics of, and, I would argue, problems with this enthusiasm for documenting the real, compiling evidence and displaying truth is its apparent disinterest in formal issues. The forms these documentary works take seem most often to be a neglected issue. In the following pages I will use the issue of form to critically discuss the absorption of documentary forms and genres into contemporary artistic production, and propose that an alternative to “documentary art” may be found in the work of artists making what I will call “dialectical documents”, works that adopt the form of documentary but simultaneously reflect on the conventions and legibility of the documentary itself. It is true that documentary photography and film were never defined according to specific formal rules. The filmmaker and critic John Grierson, for example, spoke of nothing more specific than a “creative treatment of actuality” when he coined the expression “documentary film” in 1926; and the photographer Walker Evans never translated his ambivalent but suggestive phrase “documentary style” into anything formally concrete when he began using it in the 1930s.3 Nevertheless, certain conventions or, to borrow a term from photography historian Olivier Lugon, signs,4 have come to be associated with documentary production: in photography the conventions of “straight photography” – clarity of the image, “frontality” of the subject depicted, working in series – predominate, alongside makeshift and more amateur-looking testimonial kinds of images. These also exist in documentary film, where the shaky camera inherited from cinema vérité and direct cinema has become a familiar style. So familiar in fact that in a paradoxical way their claim to neutrality and transparency has rendered almost unnoticeable the formal characteristics of those works of art embracing the documentary aspect. A Degree Zero of Form? The result is a homogenizing of forms that suggests that formal issues are not important. The look of those exhibitions incorporating documentary works tends, in fact, to vary very little, and often consist of rows of framed photographs and television monitors, of successions of black boxes in which films are projected. Hence Documenta 11’s nickname “the 400-hour Documenta” – a reference to the time allegedly necessary to view every film included in the exhibition in its entirety. These displays result in a different kind of perception of the works on view. If it is not possible to spend 400 hours at the Documenta, then one can do little more than savor the ambience or grasp sound bites while walking amidst the talking screens. The presentation conveys the feeling that information circulates without it ever getting anywhere; as the critic Tom Holert has recently noted: “No matter how critical, important or shocking the images or sounds, they are arranged and presented in a manner that takes no account of their power to fascinate and to provoke.”5 The trademark formal neutrality, the subdued style, also works to suggest to viewers that they can get closer to the subject and become involved in it, become a witness rather than a spectator. And so it is not surprising to find that the enthusiasm for documentary has converged with another phenomenon, namely the development of so-called bricolage or DIY art. Significantly, Documenta 11 presented alongside documentary photographs and films a number of sprawling, seemingly unfinished installations, such as those of Thomas Hirschorn, Ivan Kozaric and Dieter Roth. Roth’s Large Table Ruin – 1970-1998, which consists of a large accumulation of objects and furniture from his studio space, stuck together and piled up on tables, works as a metaphor for the artist’s creative process. There is no finished work to be found, only bits and pieces that testify to some kind of creative activity. These works function on the principle of the fragment; they seem to be perpetually in progress and to document their own making – as Jean-Luc Godard used to say about film. Like documentary films, bricolage installations take the viewer to the center of the event, conveying an impression of intimacy and immediacy. You can watch things as they happen. Despite their apparent unobtrusiveness, the discrete forms of documentary are far from neutral. A case could be made, for example, for their role in the globalization of art: to what extent does the recourse to documentary act as a booster of globalization? The question is worth asking in reference to an exhibition such as Documenta 11, which brought together works from all continents, revealing a homogeneity previously unseen. Perhaps the difference between this exhibition and the earlier “global” projects of Jean-Hubert Martin (for example, Les Magiciens de la Terre, presented at the Centre Pompidou and La Villette in 1988, which marked the first attempt to present a global perspective on contemporary art, and his more recent Partages d’Exotismes of 2002) was that Documenta 11 cleverly included, in some notable cases, filmmakers rather than artists. A case in point is filmmaker Amar Kanwar, whose documentary films are shown on television in India. In Kassel, his full-length documentary A Season Outside (1997) was presented on a large screen in a darkened room of its own. Further, one may also wonder whether this “attraction to the documentary” is the result of artistic or curatorial practice. Are there really an increasing number of artists turning to the documentary format for their work, or is the phenomenon a consequence of curators bringing into the exhibition context filmmakers and photographers for whom this change of venue may mean a different circuit, a different mode of production or presentation but one that does not fundamentally alter the content of their work. Amar Kanwar, for example, has explained that a minor change of presentation is sufficient for his work to change status. It is enough to paint the walls of the rooms in which his films are shown a different color in order to turn his TV documentary into an art installation. This fluidity of the presence of documentary in art as style, format or genre makes its relevance difficult to pinpoint. For this reason, it seems to me that we need to take a step back from the documentary in order to consider the question of the document, the basic unit of documentaries, which has a historical presence in the discourse of art. In other words, addressing the issue of the document makes it possible to anchor the discussion about documentary in the particular context of art history, rather than, for example, in the context of film or media history. Etymologically speaking, a document is defined as something that serves to instruct. It may be a text, an image; an object either found or constructed that is used for purposes of identification, education, evidence or archival record. Documents recur in the context of art production in a variety of guises. A document may define a work of art strictly by its legal properties, as is the case with the ready-made. A document may act as a stand-in for a work of art that is no longer there, as in the case of a performance, of which it is the only trace. Evidence One of the most striking historical examples of the use of documents in art occurred in the project led by the artists Mike Mandel and Larry Sultan entitled Evidence, which took the form of a book publication and an exhibition at the San Francisco Museum of Modern art in 1977. The project brought together the results of research the two artists had undertaken over a three-year period, collecting photographs from archives of over 100 American government agencies, educational institutions and corporations, such as the General Atomic Company, the San Jose Police Department and the United States Department of the Interior. Out of these archives, Mandel and Sultan assembled a careful sequence of 59 pictures for the book, which they presented without captions. Stripped of any description or indication of origin, these images, made within the purest conventions of photographic documentary as objective records of activities and situations, test results, crime scenes and so forth, became absurd, gaining a life of their own by virtue of the selection and montage. The project met with some criticism from the museum world; for example, the curator of the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard objected to the artistic presentation of the images, in particular their framing, because this transformed them into works of art, thereby removing them not only from their original context, but also from the sociological perspective he believed they were intended to present in the exhibition. Evidence offered up documentary photography in its most elementary form and demonstrated how the conventions of clarity and frontality and the use of black and white could fail to convey any information whatsoever once the captions had been removed and the context had changed. The effect was accentuated by the contrast between the highly demonstrative images, originally staged and framed solely with the purpose of pinpointing a certain reality, and the total obtuseness that resulted from their reconfiguration in the exhibition and book project. Furthermore, Evidence revealed the instability of the document as immutable record. As the photographer and theorist Joan Fontcuberta has said: “Evidence pulverized the very notion that photography was the proof of something, the support of some evidence. Because we should have asked ourselves: Evidence of what? Perhaps evidence only of its own ambiguity. What remains, then, of the document?”6 Dialectical Documents What remains, then, is that the document changes, once it has been appropriated in the context of art. A range of oppositions is opened by this reconfiguration, including that between neutrality and subjectivity, transparency and opacity, art and non-art. The document, like the image in general (as defined by Walter Benjamin) becomes dialectical. One of the central characteristics of the document is that it is always a thing in itself and, at the same time, always refers to something else. As Jean-François Chevrier has elegantly put it: “the document provides facts and is a fact in itself.”7 This dialectical mode of functioning means that when appropriated by artists the document becomes a work of art without actually abandoning its earlier status and identity. The document’s dialectical nature was exploited by the Surrealists, particularly in the pages of the journal Documents, edited by Georges Bataille, Michel Leiris and Carl Einstein between 1929 and 1931; and later on by conceptual artists like Douglas Huebler and Robert Smithson, who created works that documented particular events. In recent years, a number of artists have been working along this paradigm of the dialectical document. They have deconstructed the processes by which the documentary seeks to convey information whilst nonetheless resorting to its conventions. In an exhibition I organized in Paris in 2004 entitled Documentary Evidence, I sought to bring together several artists of different generations who seemed to be involved in a critical reinterpretation of the forms of documentary via a particular use of the document. The expression “documentary evidence”, referring to the idea of the document as proof, aimed at conveying the ironical posture shared by these artists regarding the issue of evidence expressed through documentary means.8 Their works also engaged in a reflection on the traditions, the modes of presentation and conservation of the documentary genre, including the photographic archive, the magazine page and the framed photograph, as well as the hand-held video and the fragment of paper re-photographed for preservation purposes. Although each work in its particular way opted for a “straight” aesthetic, each also manipulated the document in such a way as to show its absence of meaning. The American artist Lisa Oppenheim lifted photographic negatives from an old newspaper archive to reprint their damaged, unreadable surfaces (Damaged: Photographs from the Chicago Daily News, 1902-1933, 2003). In another series of works, Panorama, New York (2002) she excavated documentary images of New York from the archives of the Farm Security Administration and photographed the extra-diegetic space as it exists today. Adopting the plain style of the earlier documentary image, she slightly shifted the angle of the photograph, allowing to appear precisely what the original photographer had sought to conceal. This gesture destabilized the idea of truth and certainty associated with documentary photography, demonstrating that there is always another photograph that is possible in place of the one that has been preserved. Furthermore, these “panoramas” suggested the instability of the photographic document by creating – through the juxtaposition of found and created image, of old and new – a temporal disjunction and geographical continuity. Focusing on the printed page and resorting also to found images, the German artist Alexandra Leykauf re-photographed magazines and book pages that had printed images full page for maximum readability – a readability that was eventually impaired by the fold in the middle of the page. The Los Angeles-based Christopher Williams presented catalogue-like views of the mythic Hasselblad photo camera, only that it was a copy of a Kiev 88. Finally, the French artist Jean-Luc Moulène paid homage to the tradition of the Surrealist document by presenting a found object: a tree stump photographed as a botanical sample and as a match to the instable figure of the duck-rabbit, whose identification is itself the result of a subjective perception. In these various projects original documents are reworked and manipulated, as if they were rough material ready to be used and transformed. In being manipulated and reworked, the documents lose their quality of certainty and truthfulness; they become obsolete. But perhaps this obsolescence is already present in the way one document can always give way to another, one that will provide, we hope, a more stable truth than the one before. Artists, in any case, seem to feel freer than ever to appropriate and manipulate documents. The obsolescence of the document may turn it – as Rosalind Krauss has argued was the case for photography – into a theoretical object; that is: that an entity called “the document” could be identified throughout Modernism as something ever-shifting.9 In acknowledging such past practices as those of Surrealism and Conceptual Art and their use of equivocal documents, those artists working in the manner described above seem to suggest that it might be possible to reconstruct a genealogy of the dialectical document throughout Modernism. But that leaves the question of the documentary’s obsolescence once artists have appropriated it. It is a question that may also merit close examination. 1. “Art-ethical processing plants churning out options and potentials for chipping in, action and involvement in the world.” In: “Xeno-epistemics: Makeshift kit for sounding visual art as knowledge Production and the retinal regimes,” in: Documenta 11 – platform 5 catalogue, Ostfildern-Ruit: 2002. 2. Massimiliano Gioni, “This Wild Darkness”, Manifesta 5, San Sebastian: 2004, p. 29. 3. John Grierson, New York Sun, 8 February 1926. Cited in : Olivier Lugon, Le Style documentaire d’Auguste Sander a Walker Evans 1920-1945, Paris: Macula, 2001, p. 14. According to Lugon, Walker Evans first mentions the phrase “documentary style” in 1935, (p. 7). 4. Lugon : “signe documentaire […] elle tend vers un statut d’image-type […] de chaque objet, elle donnerait l’image générique qui résumerait et annulerait toutes les autres,” p. 177. 5. Tom Holert, “The Apparition of the Documentary.” In: Documentary Now. Rotterdam: NAIi Publishers, 2005, p. 156. 6. Joan Fontcuberta, “Evidence of What?”, in : Fantastic, The Harvard Photography Journal, Volume 9. Online publication: https://hcs.harvard.edu/hpj/evidence.htm. 7. Jean-Francois Chevrier, “Documentary, Document, Testimony”, in : Documentary Now. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2005, p. 48. 8. Galerie chez Valentin, Paris. 9. Rosalind Krauss, “Reinventing the Medium”, in: Critical Inquiry, Winter- issue, 1999, vol. 25, No. 2, p. 290.

[lsmithpca]

CONTEXTUAL RESEARCH

To gain further insight and understanding about the reasons why we collect objects, I took out some books from the library to allow me to discover the context behind my collecting habits. I found the information in the books to be very helpful and eye-opening, as well as diverse in terms of the theorists that were cited. These included, Freud, Duvost, Alsop, Aristides, amongst others. The books that I looked at were:

‘Interpreting Objects and Collections’ Edited by Susan M. Pearce

‘The Cultures of Collecting’ Edited by John Elsner and Roger Cardinal

Relevant notes from the books can be seen below:

‘Interpreting Objects and Collections’ Edited by Susan M. Pearce:

‘The Cultures of Collecting’ Edited by John Elsner and Roger Cardinal

Page 50 - Sarat Maharaj, Lecturer in the Department of Historical and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths College London described collecting as ‘the chief mode of our culture’. 

Martin Kelner, broadcaster at The Independent Newspaper, wrote a light essay under the heading ‘Martin Kelner’s Theory of the Meaning of Life’, titled ‘The Importance of Stuff’. The theory states that ‘life is all about acquiring stuff, then acquiring more stuff, maybe changing your stuff around a little, then acquiring even more stuff, then getting a bigger place because there’s no room for all your stuff, getting rid of some stuff, then getting a smaller place because you haven’t got as much stuff. Then you die’.

Page 51 - ‘Collecting has to do with our need to make visible our own reality’.

References:

Pearce, S. (1994). Interpreting Objects and Collections. 1st ed. Routledge, pp.13, 21, 23, 26, 125, 157, 158, 159, 194, 235, 236, 317, 318, 319, 321, 322, 328, 330.

Elsner, J. and Cardinal, R. (1994). The Cultures of Collecting. 1st ed. Reaktion Books, pp.7, 50, 51, 53.

[offstate]

Florian Hecker <Formulations>

Formulations is a trans-disciplinary collection of responses to the work of Florian Hecker, published to complement his major solo show at Culturgest, Porto, Portugal, September–December 2015 and MMK, Frankfurt, Nov 2016–Feb 2017. The exhibition brings together works by Hecker from 2006–present.

Both abstract and material, Hecker’s approach to his works is informed by the technical manipulation of sound and, increasingly, other media; yet in their realisation as installation or performance, the works produce rich subjective sensory experiences that evade categorisation. Their computational composition makes the works ‘virtual’ in a certain sense, yet experience of their manifestation is profoundly material, even physical. The works propose new experimental forms yet contain references to histories of conceptual art, minimalism, and performance. Viscerally disturbing, high-volume performances can be the product of austere conceptualisations. All of these qualities prevent the works from being exhaustively described by any one disciplinary approach.The book meshes together a number of different approaches to the work and to its significance for contemporary culture.

Contributions by Éric Alliez, Ina Blom, François J. Bonnet, Gabriel Catren, Diedrich Diederichsen, Christopher Haworth, Robin Mackay, Sarat Maharaj, Reza Negarestani, Michael Newman and Fernando Zalamea address the work along three major conceptual axes of Synthesis, Perspective, and Hallucination.

Editor Robin Mackay (Urbanomic, UK, editor of Collapse: Journal of Philosophical Research and Development) together with designers NORM (Zurich) have developed a unique editorial and typographic model which responds formally to the content matter. The contributions will be arranged according to an experimental process of ‘interpolation’, with fragmentary anticipations and echoes distributing each text across the entire volume, relaying some of the synthetic processes of Hecker’s work and making the whole more than the sum of its parts: a many-voiced chimera and a series of ‘refrains’ or ‘repetitions’.

While the authors’ contributions come from various perspectives and with different concerns, parts of each text will be typographically ‘glued’ into the others, highlighting continuities across the texts and encouraging the reader to piece together a global view of the conceptual space opened up by Hecker’s work—in the same way as, in the work itself, the audience is compelled to piece together fragmented perceptions, cognitively participating in the very production of the work. This formal innovation will also be echoed in the format, with the texts wrappring around or looping from last to first page, making for a book with no formal beginning or end, in which heterogeneous materials and divergent perspectives circulate and, with the participation of the reader, enter into new synthetic dialogues with one other.

Florian Hecker, Susanne Gaensheimer, Robin Mackay and Miguel Wanschneider, 2016

Paperback: 224 pages

[galleryexit]

Duchamp was not only here first, but staked out the problematic virtually single-handedly. His question “Can one make works which are not ‘of art’” is our shibboleth, and the question’s resolution will remain an apparition on the horizon, always receding from the slow growth of practice.  One suggestion comes from the philosopher Sarat Maharaj, who sees the question as “a marker for ways we might be able to engage with works, events, spasms, ructions that don’t look like art and don’t count as art, but are somehow electric, energy nodes, attractors, transmitters, conductors of new thinking, new subjectivity and action that visual artwork in the traditional sense is not able to articulate.” These concise words call for an art that insinuates itself into the culture at large, an art that does not go the way of, say, theology, where while it’s certain that there are practitioners doing important work, few people notice. An art that takes Rosler’s as-if moment as far as it can go.

Seth Price, Dispersion

[noritual]

The Visual Culture Reader

Nicholas Mirzoeff

Ten years after the last edition, this thoroughly revised and updated third edition of The Visual Culture Reader highlights the transformed and expanded nature of globalized visual cultures. It assembles key new writings, visual essays and specially commissioned articles, emphasizing the intersections of the Web 2.0, digital cultures, globalization, visual arts and media, and the visualizations of war. The volume attests to the maturity and exciting development of this cutting-edge field.

Fully illustrated throughout, The Reader features an introductory section tracing the development of what editor Nicholas Mirzoeff calls "critical visuality studies." It develops into thematic sections, each prefaced by an introduction by the editor, with an emphasis on global coverage. Each thematic section includes suggestions for further reading. Thematic sections include:

Expansions

War and Violence

Attention and Visualizing Economy

Bodies and Minds

Histories and Memories

(Post/De/Neo)Colonial Visualities

Media and Mediations

Taken as a whole, these 47 essays provide a vital introduction to the diversity of contemporary visual culture studies and a key resource for research and teaching in the field.

**Contributors:*** *Ackbar Abbas, Morana Alac, Malek Alloula, Ariella Azoulay, Zainab Bahrani, Jonathan L. Beller,Suzanne Preston Blier, Lisa Cartwright, Dipesh Chakrabarty, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Beth Coleman, Teddy Cruz, René Descartes, Faisal Devji, Henry Drewal, Okwui Enwezor, Frantz Fanon, Allen Feldman, Mark Fisher, Finbarr Barry Flood, Anne Friedberg, Alex Galloway, Faye Ginsburg, Derek Gregory, J. Jack Halberstam, Donna Haraway, Brian Holmes, Amelia Jones, Georgina Kleege, Sarat Maharaj, Brian Massumi, Carol Mavor, Tara McPherson, Nicholas Mirzoeff, Timothy Mitchell, W. J. T. Mitchell, Naeem Mohaiemen, Fred Moten, Lisa Nakamura, Trevor Paglen, Lisa Parks, Sumathi Ramaswamy, Jacques Rancière, Andrew Ross, Terence E. Smith, Marita Sturken, Paolo Virno, Eyal Weizman

[aucklandbasedspace]

... a marker for ways we might be able to engage with works, events, spasms, ructions that don’t look like art and don’t count as art, but are somehow electric, energy nodes, attractors, transmitters, conductors of new thinking, new subjectivity and action that visual artwork in the traditional sense is not able to articulate.”

 Sarat Maharaj, 

[adrianrshaw-blog]

Sarat Maharaj - The World Turned Upside Down

http://www.khm.lu.se/en/event/sarat-maharaj-the-world-turned-upside-down http://www.khm.lu.se/sites/khm.lu.se/files/oethe_world_turned_upside_down1.pdf