As part of an ongoing conversation on art, activism, and education, we present documentation of radical educational texts broadcast throughout Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago in the style of public orations. The orations are sited in the location of each individual Director, documented, combined and distributed in this pamphlet.

The live interventions draw on the history of the street corner soapbox as a form of sited, distributable education. The documentation presented here intends to combine the temporal, performative, educational and site-specific nature of the project in to a (re)distributable form. In particular, the remixing of the audio documentation is an assemblage of the orations in content and context, somewhat aphoristic and fragmented, this editing down attempts to create connections between both the content of the radical educational texts and the ambient aural experience of the three distinct urban locations where the oration occurred.

Also important here is the prelude conversation that led us to this experimental project. For the participating Directors, this ongoing conversation is as important as this project. As you will see from our conversation, we believe our learning process is integral in a continual praxis dedicated to emancipatory education, critical discourse, and strategies for resistance.

Download the accompanying reader: 23 Readings on Art, Activism & Education.

Radical Oration of Public Education (DICP)

Radical Oration 01: Henry Giroux, “When Hope is Subversive” (DIM)

radical oration pt 1 - paulo freire (DITE)

Radical Oration 01: Pauo Freire “Pedagogy of Freedom” (DIF)

TRANSMISSION 1
NOV 2 2007
[DIM] + [DIF],

I just finished reading this book on Anachist motivated education called “The Modern School Movement: Anarchism and Education in the US” by Paul Avrich. I was talking to DIRH about it and how it was pretty rad and he mentioned that you guys were also really interested in some of the same ideas (alternative education, “freedom schools”, etc). I often think about how art + education + activism can be merged together, but haven’t really found others having that conversation. It seems there are many talking about art and activism, and often times using methods that might be similar to those of educators, but previous to the pedagogical factory i’ve never heard them talked about in the same breath. It certainly seems to be becoming more hip, more and more I hear of artists citing freire, but I’m yet to really find someone who is attempting to articulate how we can use all three effectively as one.

I suspect by your practice and work with the Think Tank you think about art/activisms relationship to education (and I don’t necessarily mean “art education”). More and more I’ve been thinking about these types of practices that attempt to implement some kind of educational tactics as a way of communicating. I don’t know if I have specific questions about these types of practices (I guess I’m referring to work that was included in the pedagogical factory and other similar practices), but I wonder what your thoughts our about attempting to cram together art/activism/eduation all into one? Is the collective/think tank model a way of educating ourselves so that we might move forward, or shake the foundation of three fields? and how is that related to more traditional forms of education? I’m probably revealing my ignorance on the subject, but I guess that’s why I’m writing. I feel that this is an important discourse and I’d like to know what you guys think, or if you have any suggestions about where the a more complicated conversation may be happening. So far I’ve been reading stuff from all three angles, and they often seem to overlap, but never quite merge completely. Hopefully this isn’t too far out of left field.

Hope all is well with both of you! Look forward to hearing from you soon!
best
[DITE]

http://www.educationrevolution.org/modernschool.html

TRANSMISSION 2
NOV 2 2007
Hey [DITE],
Good to hear from you. Yes, [DIM] and I have been considering the conflux of art, activism and education for some time– though we are far from coming to any kind of a conclusion. I have attached a link for a writing that [DIM] and I produced a few weeks ago for a listserv called Empyre - http://thinktank.boxwith.com/2007/10/critical-spatial-practice-view/ . The list tends to be dominated by those who are densely theoretical, and few who practice– which seems common in these spheres. Regardless, after a month long web discussion about “critical spatial practice” KH asked DIM and I to contribute. We set out to talk about our experiences in Philly as artists and activists and the occasional convergence of the two. I think for a long time we had been also thinking about how to meld these two disparate practices. What came clear to us through the writing was a suggestion that perhaps this fusion was not necessary, but that our practices as artists and activists were two parallel practices that served to inform one another - as a way of grounding them, invigorating them and looking critically at them. And I think that is how we envision our Directorships within the think tank.

As far as the educational aspect, we are both very committed to teaching. I think we have both really thought of our educational practice as complimentary, and necessary to our work as artists. So again, everything intertwines and informs. Academia is the prize– the coveted tenure track job– right? But is there an educational model that lives outside of the institution? What we have not talked specifically about is what an alternative model would look like– internet based, free, socially engaged– or rather is it the creation of a model of self-education? With the readers, with pedagogical factory– I think we were thinking about how to make pointed, condensed, specific information available to people– perhaps even in a way that is instructional. Not to say that the reader is a “How to,” but that they provide a broad base of theory about the subject so that one might find themselves informed as they enter into their own artist/activist practices. They are kind of like free, hyper-specific text books. In fact, I was hoping to get started on volume three soon - perhaps it should be about alternative educational systems, art and activism? And perhaps you would like to help compile the texts, especially since it seems you are already doing that? Of course, you would have to declare your Directorship!

This week at Artivistic, I think I certainly saw more people whose work fell somewhere in between art and activism– but one of those distinct practices always seemed to dominate in the work. So I guess at this point I wonder if they can or should meld. When I think about the convergence of the three, adding activism, I think about how we could use an educational model to distribute the idea of the parallel practice. That a creative practice informs and activist practice, and an activist practice informs a creative practice. For me, this has been the more successful model so far. But I still have a hard time envisioning a form, a container for this whole thing… what ever it is?

This is all very much on the surface for me right now– and I thank you for giving me a reason to write some of it down. I have a suggestion: Perhaps we begin to gather and share text on delicious under the tag “reader3″ pertaining to alternative models of education (actually, I started this a few weeks ago under the tag Ed_Model, if you want to have a look). Non-internet texts can be scanned and distributed in PDF form. Interested?

How about you [DIM]?

[DIF]

TRANSMISSION 3
NOV 4 2007
[DIF],

thanks for responding. I found many of the things you said to be helpful, and if nothing else I’m always interested in how others view these problems. You’re e-mail made me think of a few things, many of which I was probably already sort of thinking about.

I wonder about the sort of default “alternative education” practice which is the free school or freedom school, or simple group of people meeting outside of the institution. While I’m totally supportive (I’m certainly not making a case that many of these programs don’t teach essential critical thought, that I imagine is difficult with NCLB, and state mandated textbooks, etc. etc.) and find these type of projects really exciting - I wonder if their effectiveness is all that it could be if a more creative approach was implemented. I guess in some ways I’m making the same critique of alternative education that I am of art or activism, which is that I think we could use a totally new, progressive, and creative form to push the field in a new direction and shake it up — this is sort of the case that Duncombe made in DREAM, though it was more entangled with “spectacle” and politics, but I suppose that isn’t too far off here…. I’m also interested in broadening how we think about education. I think the pedagogical factory did this, and I think the way you talk about the TT is more in line with what I sort of imagine a possible alternative art/education/activism looking like.

Obviously I’ve also been thinking about whether or not these practices can or should be merged - you mentioned they were parallel and informative to one another. This I certainly agree with, and I don’t think it is a counter-productive model by any means. Perhaps I’m hesitant to let go of the idea that it is one of the goals to successfully merge the 2 or 3 disciplines because we, or at least I, simply like them so maybe I think just desire to see them collapse into one, and this obviously doesn’t mean its necessarily a good idea - maybe it is naive , problematic, or just not that helpful. But one big question does come up for me - if we could imagine a container or forum for this practice, that we have yet to really define, but one that successfully merges 3 disciplines while simultaneously creating something new, are we also destabilizing and invigorating all three practices in a helpful way? Are we providing a new, more beneficial model for art / activism / and education to be implemented in ways that are right now unimagined but ultimately would free up all three practices and perhaps liberate them (at least a little bit) from the institution? - And this is not meant as an attack on the academia, but (obviously) if we could loosen the the stranglehold that institutions have on all three disciplines it would be helpful for those who do not have access to them, although maybe that is a bigger problem that isn’t the point here. Hopefully that thought / question makes sense.

I’d love to help compile some text for a reader one alternative ed. models! You’re right, I’m sort of already compiling some of these texts, but it’ll be good to take it a little bit more seriously now. I’ll start to pay a little more attention to some of these texts I come across and share them with you guys, and I’ll try and scan in a few things I’ve read recently that sort of energized these questions for me. I also noticed you tagged a bunch of freire books on goodreads, and I wanted to make sure you knew about this other book. It’s a book compiled of conversations between paulo freire and miles horton (the guy who started freedom school in Appalachia during the civil rights movement) appropriately titled “We make the road by walking”. I probably should take another look at it, I read it a few months ago and remember that they attempted to answer some of these questions also. Thanks again for responding, I’m excited by this conversation and look forward to continuing it with you guys!

best,
[DITE]

http://www.highlandercenter.org/a-history2.asp (miles horton’s school)
http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/804_reg.html (we make the road by walking)

TRANSMISSION 4
NOV 4 2007
[DITE],
I think your observation of the need to look critically at forms of “alternative” education is key. What kept repeating in my head at Artivistic was– these projects are excellent, but who has access to them? If academics are the only audience, what exactly are the projects doing in the world? My response to many of the projects at Artivistic, which I often thought were really thoughtful, critically significant and politically relevant was– if they only ever live here then they are impotent. They are selfishly created for an audience who already has privileged access to this information (everyone nodes their head in unison.) Ultimately, I think these artists are interested in a broader form of distribution– but perhaps there is no forum for that. Artivistic tried to be that forum, but failed by leaning too far toward academia. (and it is ok - attack academia… it really needs to be attacked!) For me, the problem is always– who has access to this education? I am reminded of DIM’s proposal for the “Office of Everyday Resistance”…

“if we could imagine a container or forum for this practice, that we have yet to really define, but one that successfully merges 3 disciplines while simultaneously creating something new, are we also destabilizing and invigorating all three practices in a helpful way?” [QUOTING DITE]

What happens in the think tank is that we try to ascribe form to a particular practice– which is what I think you seem to be interested in doing. An Example: having a dialogue about a site of contention, at the very site of contention, is a form that the Directors call a publicly held private meeting (PHPM.) What you are talking about in the quote above, nearly precisely, is what we Directors recently determined was the “space in between” (this was central to my presentation at artivistic.) Like the name, “the think tank that has yet to be named,” we have assigned the intersection of parallel practices with a name that is maliable for the user, or Director. The space in between, in our experience, has provided a location where these practices meet, but do not congeal into anything solid. And the reason for why we have chosen to create maliable, almost liquid forms, is to avoid co-optation, branding or consumption. It is to borrow from Bey, from the temporary autonomous zone. The Directors attempt to create distributable, usable forms that negate co-optation by the institution. The danger for instance: Collaborative practices, now all the rage, have only recently found their way into larger, economically driven institutions. What will happen to the practice of collaboration, a practice that was born out of the want to negate consumption, when it is made a commodity? (I am making some sweeping generalizations here, as you will learn I often do, but i think you know what I mean.) Directors attempt to create forms that make space in the world, forms that others can understand and borrow, forms that are there, then gone.

The space in between the directors is the think tank. The space in between our parallel practices (art, activism, education) is the un-named, unbranded site of convergence– another space in between. As a Director (which you have yet to self-appoint), you have the autonomy to name that form if you choose– or to use the form by creating space for the form with out naming it.

Jim Duignan from Ped Factory gave us a copy of “We make the road by walking” but I have yet to read it. I am dumping a ton of text onto goodreads as a way to begin research…
DIF

TRANSMISSION 5
NOV 4 2007
So, what is education? And, what is education for?

I recently brought out a graduate thesis written by my grad school colleague, Hillary Procknow, who was trying to plot an alternative ethics for education (at the time, it was applied to architectural education, but really only superficially). She and I shared a mentor (Steve Ross) who brought us along the critical theory / Hakim Bey route towards an understanding of critical consciousness. Her writing starts out with an account and critique of the scientific revolution, then moves through critical theory / dialectical thought (Marx and Hegel), and on into “critical pedagogy”; finally, ending with something called the “ethics of the self” as new tactic in education. I need to revisit the writing more closely, but her work lives in the same area where we are thinking about this stuff. I’m going to contact her and see what she’s up to, ask her for any updated texts and references, maybe engage her in some of this dialogue.

Here’s an excerpt: “We then moved to this category we call “education,” in which we realized that there are always politics involved; those things that we take or granted as being the constitution of education do in fact convey, perpetuate and reinforce certain ideals that are valued for whatever reason by the dominant culture. This, of course, would be true even in a “transformed” or critical classroom; but the critical classroom might admit this to itself. […] To give up the pretense of knowing in the classroom is to recognize that there is a responsibility in helping students develop their individual critical consciousness which cannot be ascertained before hand and which also requires the educator to be willing to acknowledge the different sorts of knowledge that will come to the surface in the classroom.”

I think Hillary’s research probably was primarily focused on traditional educational structures (ie. the “classroom”), but at the time she was probably invested in working within institutions (not sure what she’s up to these days, though). Where art/activism/education intersect suggests to me a productive, critical, exciting way around of this — much like many of the alternative schools are trying.

“I suspect by your practice and work with the Think Tank you think about art/activisms relationship to education (and I don’t necessarily mean “art education”). More and more I’ve been thinking about these types of practices that attempt to implement some kind of educational tactics as a way of communicating.” [QUOTING DITE]

Maybe I hadn’t considered before your e-maiL. But the TT might be entirely about educational tactics. I think we want to affect change, we want to empower people, we want to reveal their latent powers of agency, their individual critical consciousness. And not be by telling them in some sort of patriarchal approach, but rather through a dialogical project in which we are all changed together.

Yes, let’s get a reader going! Yes, let’s start planning an art/activism/education summit in Philadelphia for this summer!

[DIM]

ps. What do you guys think about publishing this great conversation in the TT web site?

TRANSMISSION 6
NOV 5 2007
[DIM] + [DIF],

You’re absolutely right, what I’m describing is the “space between” I feel like somewhere in this space there is room for us to really create exciting, important work. Perhaps my struggle with these ideas so far is that I’ve been desperately trying to grab hold of something solid, or some language and hasn’t quite been established yet. This seems contradictory to what you’re saying, which is that there isn’t (and shouldn’t be) a language to these practices so that they can avoid co-option. I totally agree with this idea, and I love the way you talk about the TT as providing opportunities for the spaces to be dived into, while constantly moving in different directions simultaneously. Maybe my problem is that in trying to articulate what this form might look like, I’m too caught up in searching for a pre-established discourse or rhetoric that doesn’t exist, and maybe we don’t want it to. Perhaps we should focus on articulating not what this container might look like (though I can’t help but be excited by it) but instead what practices and activities can we partake in to find ourselves more frequently arriving in those (in-between) spaces.

I’ve also been thinking of a few other instances where an ‘alternative’ approach was taken to education. Red76’s project the “laundry lecture series” comes to mind ( http://www.red76.com/salem.html ). These seems like a good example of what a “guerrilla” or “tactical” educator might do. I’m not really sure quite how to talk about it yet…though it gets me excited about concrete moments when these things converge. I suppose it’s possible that the idea cold be pushed further - the laundry lecture series still follow a certain protocol of educational structure - a lecture, a Q&A, etc… What would happen if this type of informal exchange became commonplace - what if every morning on the train a group of commuters recited poetry? or what if we made zines with excerpts of society of the spectacle and passed them out in times square? I wonder what you guys think of this type of project(s)…??

The more I think about it, it seems the moments when these things converge are these moments of educational tactics - so perhaps an appropriate directorship would be of tactical education. What do you think? does Dept. for the Investigation of Tactical Education (DITE) have a nice ring to it?

I’m excited to dive into some of these readings, and a summit on these topics would be very exciting! and I agree Jeremy that this is a great conversation, I think others would get something out of reading it on the TT site. look forward to hearing more!

best,
DITE

Photo by Lucas Ihlein

For the official program, the Directors of the Think Tank that has yet to be named made a presentation about our work in order to problematize the perhaps insurmountable dilemma inherent in exporting to another locale a deeply contextualized art and activist practice. Specifically, we focused on our Publicly Held Private Meetings (PHPM). These are performative and collaborative interventions, and a format that we have used frequently in our investigations of contemporary urban issues in Philadelphia. As a critical spatial practice (to borrow a term currently much in fashion), PHPMs are held in the places directly related to the focus of the given investigation, even while considering and comparing its situations to other cities. Living, working, and organizing in Philadelphia, we rely on an intimate knowledge of the city in order to initiate and faciliate these dialogical projects. This knowledge is often gained over time through research, observation, and by virtue of simply sharing and negotiating space with others.

Traveling to another place to “make work” generally falls outside of the practice of the Think Tank that has yet to be named. This raises a number of questions for us that are relevant to the conference thematic: Can a practice rooted in a rich, nuanced interrogation of an intimately known place be relocated effectively to another, unfamiliar place? To what extent does such a localized art / activist practice rely on internalized assumptions about the valorization of indigenousness and the privileging of “authentic” spatial occupation? And what is “authentic” spatial occupation anyway? Can we even precisely locate indigenous? Circumventing this apparent impasse, we intend the presentation of our practice in this setting to act as a literal form of exportation whereby audience members may realize or acknowledge their own Directorships within the Think Tank that has yet to be named. We encouraged those potential Directors then to go forth, establishing their Departments and initiating their own critical investigations in their own localities, be they PHPMs or otherwise.

This post is an accumulation of notes, sketches and responces generated between the two directors, DIUM/a and DIIs. This project will continue to receive updated submissions to this post. Please continue to revisit our progress.]

The work of two Think Tank directors, DIUM/a and DII-S, respond with this question.

What is the indigenous body?

The indigenous is rooted in the body. It is a pulse. It is a connection. The body assimilates identity as it shows up in the world. The indigenous body cannot be seen, and it certainly cannot be reproduced. The indigenous slumbers as it once did in day zero.
Day zero is prior to the world as a mediated experience. Day Zero proliferates. It has many many fingers—twenty plus. Its face revokes the notion of reducibility. Face becoming faceless or facelessness becoming a face is the paradoxical equation of the indigenous body at Day Zero.
The actual body the biological material body is a prosthetic of the indigenous body. The prosthetic body, as is the indigenous body, is modular; that is, its essence is one defined by connectivity.
What is physical of the indigenous body is its resonance as a waveform within a material world.* And as a waveform the indigenous body transgresses temporality.

*The indigenous body transmits and receives. Transmits and receives. It never negates. It transmits and receives…

statement submitted by:
DIUM/a the Director for the Investigation of UnMentionable and the for the investigation of authenticity
DII-S, the Director for the Investigation of Inter-Subjectivity

Many thanks to Markus [Miessen] and Teddy [Cruz] for their incisive posts (see this and this), for shifting this month’s conversation into more solid territory. In particular, we’ve found Teddy’s [Cruz] language to be incredibly productive in thinking about our practices as artists and activists. We’d like to contribute some very concrete examples of “critical spatial practice” which have everything to with everyday, sustained practices of citizen-activists/-artists working against violent instantiations of spatial politics on several fronts via a broad range of tactics. And this work is critical because 1) it is absolutely vital in how we make the world we want to live in and 2) it questions, challenges, negates the status quo. Also, appreciating Teddy’s work (and other’s on this list, no doubt) with border politics and the tenuous status of migratory peoples, we don’t mean to privilege “citizen” here in terms of any legal standing, but rather use it to describe invested, engaged residents of the demos, however that body comes together in common, structured spaces — er, cities.

Let’s get local, shall we? The complexities of Philadelphia’s dysfunction and pathology is a history too lengthy to relate here. It is structural, cultural, institutional, and it permeates the highest offices of civic government down to the families on our block. This pathology is chiefly characterized by a patronage style of governance whereby a small (like, really small) oligarchy of elected officials, union bosses, and heads of quasi-governmental development corporations summarily implement their own agendas to the complete exclusion of any meaningful public participation. (For example, witness the Penn’s Landing Corporation which owns a large chunk of Philly’s central riverfront property. It’s funded by taxpayers, yet decides in its secret board meetings how public land is to be developed.) The polis is repeatedly divided and pitted against itself in competition for the favors of this powerful elite. Consensus is systematically undercut, or falsely represented. There is also a strong sense of identification between Philadelphians as victims with their victimizers, resulting in an unhealthy deference to authority. Agency is an attribute unfamiliar to many of our fellow citizens. Repeatedly we see those in the citizenry who have power or the capacity to build power fail to use it or recognize it.

In the last few years, the problems inherent in the political climate just described have really come to a head around issues of large-scale urban land development, particularly along Philadelphia’s central Delaware Riverfront, which contains immense parcels of post-industrial land that has sat vacant for the previous 2-3 decades. It’s the familiar story of the post-industrial city re-branding itself as the new mecca of the leisure / creative class and all the expected accoutrements: condo towers, grand destination tourist attractions, instrumentalized arts and culture entertaiments, quaint beautification, escalated gentrification… it’s the neoliberal city and it’s magnificent! It goes without saying that this is all to the enrichment of the aforementioned cabal and to the exclusion of most Philadelphians. The disenfranchisement of citizens from any legitimate process that might ennoble self-determination has recently been exemplified by Pennsylvania’s recent foray into legalized, state-sanctioned (and subsidized) gambling on a scale and speed that is really unprecedented (eg. two 5,000 machine slots parlor casinos planned for the riverfront adjacent to residential neighborhoods). The fix has been in all along — from the passage of the gambling legislation in the middle of the night on July 4th weekend in 2004 to repeated state supreme court decisions that uphold gambling interests to the cozy alliances between elected officials, casino developers, and so-called regulators who stand to make billions.

What a gift we’ve been given! (And we’re only being partly facetious.) This casino clusterfuck has in fact mobilized hundreds across the city and served as a first trial by fire for many who had maybe not been paying attention nor ever considered themselves as activists. What started as small clusters of neighbors self-organizing in living rooms and barrooms in their respective communities to oppose this unsanctioned development on the riverfront evolved into city-wide networks of community activists and also expanded to embrace other development-related issues like eminent domain, gentrification and displacement, zoning code reform, accessible public lands, environmental protections and remediation, and open and transparent governance. The reckless process that ushered in these planned casinos is symptomatic of Philadelphia’s (and Pennsylvania’s) deep structural corruption. And more than that: it is symptomatic of the fractures that follow from neoliberal policies that our civic institutions have normalized.

It is this structural corruption, these egregious acts that together we meet head-on. And there is no doubt in our mind, or in the minds on our collaborators, that this is a battle. As Markus describes, “In war, enemy and adversary usually hold territory, which they can gain or lose, while each has a spokesman or authority that can govern, submit or collapse.” This is certainly the space we find ourselves operating in. We bind ourselves to this language of war because the acts taken by the state to determine our future are, by their nature, violent. It is structural violence, implemented by the state, to slowly strip the rights of the people to participate freely in a decision-making process about their environment and futures.

Returning to Kevin’s [Hamilton] question: “But are the military metaphors for our response really necessary, and how do they function here?” Yes, they are necessary — because of the very violent nature of conflict itself. War is conflict, and through conflict within the context of participation, change occurs. Ultimately Markus [Miessen] specifically clarifies what participation looks like by referring to it as “conflictual participation,” which is more descriptive of the kind of participation that we have experienced as activists in Philadelphia, and that we believe produces change. Linking these words “conflict” and “participation” seems obvious to us because without conflict, particiaption is rendered impotent. To quote Markus [Miessen] again, “When humans assemble, spatial conflicts arise.” In our experience, the absence of conflict within the forum of participation is a warning that participation is not actually occurring at all. Red flags go up!

When we insert ourselves into a space of conflict, we often think about thick and thin experiences of participation, or even the very notion of participatory democracy (thinking here of how that is defined in the Port Huron Statement). In our experience, thick participation occurs within smaller, more organically formed settings that have yet to coalesce into institutions. In these settings, there is usually no funding, no major backer, no particular political support — not to mention, these organizations are usually run by an all volunteer force that is very localized. Any romantic notion of cooperation (collaboration that happens with ease) is quickly dispelled by the level of conflict within the group. Thick participation is much like “conflictual participation”: it is mired in conflict; it is a slow, dirty trek through a thick slough with boots on that keep getting stuck. Although compromises and resolutions are part of the process, we have yet to see thick participation within a particular conflict come to a definitive end; it is either just that slow, or we have not been around long enough to experience it. What we are more inclined to believe is, rather, that thick participation does not end. It is a continual process that may require considerable entrenchment and longevity.

Conversely, settings for thin participation are organized by large, powerful institutions like cities, universities, large non-profits, and mainstream media outlets. These forums are generally marked by narrowly framed problems, convoluted processes for citizen involvement, pre-established controls which to limit the outcome of the participation, and the careful crafting of outcomes that ultimately benefits the institutions. Conveniently for you, busy Citizen, you need only show up on the appointed time, where we will feed you pizza and let you pick between choice A and choice B. Neither will you really find acceptable, but that is the price you pay for convenience! Thin participation is fast; your involvement in it is scant and has a defined end after which the institution “takes the reigns” so you can get back to your busy life. Thin participation is simply the veil of participatory democracy, a way for institutions to create forums for public input that ultimately legitimize projects whose outcomes have already been determined. In our experience in Philadelphia with organizing and advocating for citizen input and control in the development of the riverfront and in our neighborhoods, those in power that would do as they please rely in large part on tacit consent of citizens. (Well, to over simplify, democratic governments in general rely on tacit consent.) That is why thin participation is so insidious: via sham processes of participation, tacit consent is codified and reinscribed as explicit consent, the collective will of the people.

Our concern here is to develop some workable understanding of “critical spatial practice” from a purposefully contextualized perspective. Significantly, as we engaged in activist work, our work as artists changed too. The walls we had maintained around the citadel of Art were useless, even harmful, certainly false, and only enabling a scenario that Christiane accurately bemoans: “One could easily consider that the role of the artist has now melded with that of the court jester in our privatized realms.” (Stallabrass’ “Art Incorporated” has been helpful to us in this regard as well.) So a handful of us who are artists and had cut our teeth together “in the trenches” of this activist work in Philly formed a collaborative group called the Think Tank that has yet to be named because we understand firsthand the experience of “conflictual participation” that is essential to participatory democracy and working for change. But we also believe (selfishly?) that the language(s) of art has the power to open up spaces for meaningful discourse, critical consciousness, (dare I say it?) redemption, and perhaps even Kevin’s [Hamilton] “ethics of plenitude.”

The Think Tank formed around the recognition of a single phenomenon that we see present in each of the organizations or institutions we work in as activists: the presence of the “neutral” voice. The neutral voice is the voice of one who assumes some position of power in a group (usually the “benign” mediator/facilitator), but refuses to lead, or acknowledge his power. The neutral voice plays both sides of the field as it suits his own purpose, which is to remain a central figure in the process. The neutral voice often impedes upon any progress that might be made because the neutral voice avoids conflict. But the neutral voice is never neutral; he promotes his agenda through a series of indiscernible nudges rather than through outright leadership. In the participatory processes we are involved with this neutral voice is omnipresent.

This epidemic of neutrality informed the way in which the Think Tank organized itself. Each member (a word we use cautiously, though have no replacement for) self-appoints his own distinct Directorship. A Director’s title exposes biases, revealing the Director’s position in the context of an investigation. So we immediately declared our own respective agendas and made it a prerequisite of participation that any other self-appointed Directors do so as well.

One of the forms we created was the Publicly Held Private Meeting (PHPM). These are performative and collaborative site-specific interventions, and a format that we have used frequently in our investigations of contemporary urban issues in Philadelphia. Living, working, and organizing in Philadelphia, we rely on an intimate knowledge of the city in order to initiate and faciliate these dialogical projects. This knowledge is often gained over time through research, observation, and by virtue of simply sharing and negotiating space with others.

In these investigations we are also careful to implicate ourselves as artists, if necessary. For example: the current Directors all live in or around a gentrifying neighborhood in Philadelphia called Fishtown. In addition to the claimed “organic” process whereby artists are “pioneers” in the process of gentrification, there is also a formal mandate by the City of Philadelphia to transform the neighborhood of Fishtown into an “arts corridor.” So whether we came here because it was affordable, or because there were other artists we knew here, does not matter. We are implicated in the process, and it is certain that our presence will be used by the city to further its project (here we are back at the neoliberal city). So the investigation that occurs during a PHPM is understood through the exposure of each Director’s agenda via their title, but also through the implication of our presence in this neighborhood as both newcomers and artists. Teddy [Cruz] writes, “Since when are we all not implicated in the power structure?” The Directors understand this question and use self-exposure as an attempt not to diffuse power but to acknowledge and make visible the power and privilege we each wield and benefit from.

As activists, Teddy’s [Cruz] conception of “critical proximity” describes our point of entry into situations and institutions where we engage directly with “conflictual participation,” where we challenge power head on, where we expose the “power inscribed on the territory.” But this notion of “critical proximity” is also employed in our art practice, via our Directorships, to dissect the structure of power and the ways in which institutions manage space and populations. By examining spatial issues in a PHPM, at the site of contention, via a model of self-exposure, we hope to generate constructive dialogue that might bring to light new forms of action. But we also hope that our physical occupation of a site, and our engagements with those on or near the site, might create a spatial and psychic tear that exposes the very structures that orchestrate spatial injustice. Occupying the space in between our art and activist practices, we have found these onsite conversations, the PHPM, instrumental in reciprocally illuminating the strengths and weaknesses of each practice taken on its own. Perhaps, ultimately, art and activist practices need not be fully integrated, but exist, too, in “critical proximity” to one another so that we might create “counter procedures that can generate new models of possibility.”

Best.

Director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Failure (DIF)
Director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Meaning (DIM)

On September 9, 2007, a “Town Hall Meeting” was hosted at the Painted Bride in Philadelphia called “Culture, Creativity and the City.” The event has been deemed a great success by its organizers stating that “a rousing and important community dialogue began. At the heart of this dialogue were many of the core questions and ideas about how we, as Philadelphians, can harness the energy of the Creative Sector to consolidate Philadelphia revitalization and create the conditions to drive the economy.” This event related directly to this Directors previous investigation called “Scrutinizing the Cartography of Talent.”

DIF, DIM and DIMetA attended the meeting. This Director drafted a series of questions that were printed and distributed on notecards at the event. Examples of questions: What is the fundamental ideological purpose of art? How do we create a space for cultural freedom? Can art cause harm? The stack of questions was passed to the moderator during the panel discussion and the last question, regarding harm, was asked of the panelists. The questions themselves were conceived of while this Director listened to author Julian Stallbrass being interviewed on Against the Grain. The questions are derived from his thoughts on the subject of art and commerce.

Listen to the moderator ask the question here.

At the “Culture, Creativity and the City” event, an audience member passed in a comment that “Philadelphia should become the Creative Capital of the East Coast.” When read to the crowd, it was followed by a bolstered cheer. But Philadelphia is already the murder capital of the East Coast. Doesn’t that count for anything? If there is a direct correlation between the well-being of a city and the amount of public art made available to its citizenry, then how it is that Philadelphia, who boasts to have more public art than any other city in the nation, is also leading the nation in murder? Either the correlation is false, or the art that is being implemented for this purpose is a failure. Is the notion of the “creative economy” nothing more than a scrim? What hides behind that scrim, who is directing the backstage? Who benefits from the thin veil of our city’s arty surface? And what is really happing in Philadelphia when you peek behind the art to see the city for what she is?

A Meeting Report:

August 21st 2007
4:30pm, NW corner of E. Susquehanna and Frankford Ave.

Directors present:

Managing director:
DIUM director of the Department for the Investigation of the Unmentionable along its subdirectorships:
DI-ACB director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Authentic Community Benefit
DILG director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Land Grabbing
DISP director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Slowed-down Progress.

Participating directors:
DIF director of the Dept. of the investigation of Failure
DI-IS director of the Dept. of the Investigation of Inter-Subjectivity
DIM director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Meaning
Di-Meta director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Metaphorical Agency

Participating temporary directors:
DIIL director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Intelligent Life
DIRP director of the Dept. for the Investigation of the Reversal of Positions
DIPA director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Performance Anxiety
DICU director of the Dept. for the Investigation of the Confused and Unheard
DIMC director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Mean Crocodiles
DICBA director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Cost Benefit Analysis.

Meeting Introduction:

DIUM offered warm beverages, Stocks Bakery pound cake and shelter from the rain under a portable canopy.

DIUM gave a brief introduction to the history of the think tank and an explanation of its structure, including the purpose and intention behind the think tank made-up of solely directors.

All participating directors were asked to name themselves from a list of names presented by DIUM. Those names were: “native,” “non-native,” “non-indigenous,” “exotic,” “alien,” “invasive exotic,” “indigenous,” and/or any combination of the above.

DIUM invited several members of the community to the meeting. Each introduced themselves and announced their temporary self-appointed directorship. DIRP announced the unofficial, but much welcomed, attending temporary director-the green grasshopper responsible and actively investigating the white canopy. The core members introduced themselves, as well. All the directors were asked to give their position on the topic at hand.

DIUM passed out an agenda and reviewed the topic of discussion

A review of the topic of discussion:

“A Picnic with the Natives,” the sixth publicly held private meeting (PHPM06), continues to scrutinize the cartography of talent, by locating its meeting on an actual site where the “lure of talent” is implemented for the hoped and assumed economic benefit of the community. New Kensington Community Development Corporation, located in the “up and coming” neighborhood of Fishtown/Kensington, Philadelphia PA, has proposed a project to replace an established green-space in the neighborhood with a black box theatre. This green-space, planted with native and local trees, was initially instituted by residents in the community. Seven years ago it was purchased as a green-space and continues to be maintained by the CDC today. Due to budget constraints and high speculation prices of surrounding property (the reasons given by a NKCDC employee, who was present at the meeting) the NKCDC is now considering removing the green-space and replacing it with a theatre and a parking lot. This project hopes to spur economic growth on the city-appointed “Frankford Avenue Arts Corridor”.

Initial questions presented by DIUM:

How does this proposed project benefit the community?
Is one person or one organization’s understanding of benefit enough to make the claim that it is beneficial?
Can there be a shared understanding of what community benefit means, in order for it to be critically accessed to be beneficial?
Is it enough to institute a project based on hope?

Key themes presented by DIUM:

Places in Transition-temporary spaces for conversation about the future.
The Appropriation of the Native for the Growth of a Nation.
Is the creative class the new-indigenous terrain? - A recourse of talent ripe for exploitation.
The Privatization of the Public Commons
Now that time has passed, whom does it belong to anyway?
Theatre and the Culture of the Spectacle.
The role of the spectator in the transformation of a community?
Tree Phobia meets Tree Mania in the global world of warming.

Excerpts from the meeting agenda notes:

You can view more research details and links on anartblog

“A place between is temporal, it pays attention to time, to the ways in which we locate the then from the now, the now from the yet-to come, for in our writings of history, our placing of the past in the present, we are already positioning possibilities for the future.” A PLACE BETWEEN, Art, Architecture and Critical Theory, Jane Rendell

“Public Green poses questions about ownership of land, and suggests the transfer of property from private to public use. Viewers are asked to rethink their local landscape, and to physically transform their environment.” PublicGreen.com, Lize Mogel

“It is not only First Nations people that stand to benefit from a just outcome to the Six Nations standoff, says Horn. Native and non-native people alike are suffering from a system that is destroying the environment.”
Home On Native Land, the people of Six Nations are repossessing their land, by Hillary Bain Lindsay

“Just as we can change the political landscape with our vote, we can improve the environmental landscape with our actions.” The Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education, Spring Issue ’07, by Dennis Burton

A synopsis of the discussion:

The directors presented several points of view. Each contributed to each other’s train of thought. After a brief history of the site and how and why it came to be a green-space the discussion opened up about the increase in prices of property and land holding due land speculation. DISPA noted the space had many histories and suggested that it will have many more. The term a “face lift” was mentioned to describe the cleaning up efforts on Frankford Ave. The investigation of what a “face lift” does, and questions about the integrity of its underlying structure behind a “face lift” was discussed. DIM mentioned the trend of cities to build “signature buildings” to invite economic growth. Notions of interiority (the private theatre vs. exteriorly (the public green-space) were mentioned. DIF pointed out how a community benefits from a project depends largely on what takes place within its parameters. DICU expressed that in order for a theatre to succeed it must have the investment from the community. DIMC wondered about the use of the words “native” and the “local” that had emerged in the conversation. Is someone who has lived here a longtime more authentic than one that has recently moved in? The cyclical nature of events, movements, and neighborhoods was discussed. DI-IS suggested a metaphor of a dying forest and equated this with the cycles of a neighborhood. DIM cautioned that the analogy was problematic because the reasons in which a neighborhood “dies” or goes into decline is not part of its natural cycle but often instigated by external forces that do not have an interest in the overall maintenance or well being of the place. DIM also suggested spaces could be re-negotiated and constituted as temporary. Could a theatre exist along side the trees perhaps as a simple platform? DIAP mention the successful Open Air Circus Theater in Somerville MA, the experience of gentrification that grew around it and the theater’s eventual de-centralized mutation to other places in the city. DIUM mentioned what was note worthy about the space was that of all the spaces along Frankford it was one of the ones that “works” and benefiting the community. DIRP, DIIL and DIUM all expressed concerns and questions about the future of the trees. DIRP argued that parking was a poor use of prime property on Frankford. DISPA shared the hope that the allocated lot for parking would be temporary as our society becomes less dependent on cars. DIUM re-presented the question: “Is it enough to institute and develop a project based on hope?” There was a general skepticism that this hope could be used to justify the use of the space for a parking lot.

Success of the Project:

The conversation widened as we all shared our experiences and points of view. This provided for a more complex and rich experience of the place and it’s surrounding social and economic circumstances.

Failure of the Project: No one present had lived in the area for over five years.

This was the first documented SPCC (Spontaneous Public Critical Conversation) that presented itself to the Directors during a conversation at sidewalk cafe in the Wicker Park neighborhood of Chicago, IL. Newly self-appointed temporary Director of the Department for the Investigation of Re-Humanization (DIRH) hosted DIM and DIN for a cup of coffee and the SPCC ensued. The conversation topic started with DIRH’s suggestion of the idea of Re-Humanization. Through this we discussed dehumanization, how our experiences in the world are mediated, consumerism, the violence of some of our everyday experiences (like cars), and how we might find ways around that mediation to re-humanize ourselves.
The conversation lead from there to notions of representation and art. Why paint? Can paint be an effective way to communicate specific ideas, or instead, do we choose a medium that best meets the need for our specific line of communication? DIM and DIN talked about their “stack of failures” as painters and how they struggled to communicate in the confinement of that medium. We also talked about the invasive history of representation and painting, which spills into the work.
Finally, we discussed the T.A.Z (Temporary Autonomous Zone) and whether or not the T.A.Z. might be a strategy for our work both as artist and activists. DIN talked about the potential for spontaneous moments or outburst, a movement that goes viral. DIM asked how that differed from terrorism. We talked about the representation of history and the difference between terrorism and resistance.



Two Directors were invited to participate in “Pedagogical Factory: Exploring Strategies for an Educated City” at the Hyde Park Art Center, organized by Jim Duignan of the Stockyard Institute (and realized with the help of many others). Working with other artists, collaboratives, and groups, the project will transform the gallery space into a temporary factory that will design and implement an extensive series of programs and events throughout the two month project. From this collaborative stage, “Pedagogical Factory” will interrogate the overlap between education, economics, art, and activism, creating a venue to explore alternatives to traditional notions of education and social art.

For the exhibition, the Think Tank created a Prototype for a Pedagogical Furniture to contain and present Volumes I and II of the reader series. As a prototype, the piece begins an exploration of small-scale, mobile furniture which might be deployed in various contexts to assist arts education. The readers were offered as an example of sustained, critically-focused compilations of texts which might lead the reader along a course of study.

Some other groups and individuals participating in Pedagogical Factory include:

• AREA Chicago
• Artlink
• Center for Urban Pedagogy
• Counter Cartographies Collective
• Daniel Tucker
• Experimental Sound Studio
• Just Seeds
• Mess Hall
• Neighborhood Writing Alliance
• Redmoon Theater
• rum46
• Temporary Services
• And many, many more…

View a few photos from the opening event

Volume II in the Think Tank reader series compiles several texts which discuss issues of artists, gentrification, the urban environment, and the so-called Creative Class. As Directors in the Think Tank that has yet to be named, these issues are important to our understanding of our relationship to the place where we live (Philadelphia) and the effect we (un)intentionally have on this place as artists, activists, citizens. We offer this reader as a resource for others who are interested in exploring these issues with us.

DOWNLOAD THE READER (PDF, 11.6M)

Volumes I and II of the reader series will be publicly presented as part of the exhibition/education project “Pedagogical Factory: Exploring Strategies for an Educated City” at the Hyde Park Art Center in Chicago from July 22 - September 23, 2007. Organized by the Stockyard Institute, “Pedagogical Factory” will critically explore the intersection between art, education, and the city. Working with other artists, collaboratives, and groups, the project will transform the gallery space into a temporary factory that will design and implement an extensive series of programs and events throughout the two month project. From this collaborative stage, “Pedagogical Factory” will interrogate the overlap between education, economics, art, and activism, creating a venue to explore alternatives to traditional notions of education and social art.