Go to previous page

So can we talk about the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the event on twitter?
Hello! SO many things were brought up last night--I'm hoping that this can be a space where we continue the conversation and hash some of these things out.

My final thought from last night was that in the end we were talking about a set of questions that are very old and "pre"-digital--questions about embodiment, class, institutions, power, experience, the roles and value of art, and so on and so on... What I find to be so fascinating about this topic is the way that it serves as a hinge for posing these very issues we have been struggling with always, but seen in a new way and from a new perspective. Last night's event really drove this home for me--that these "new" problems are actually quite old ones.
Hi there, welcome to the post-event version of occupy.here! Things are still shifting around a little bit, but feel free to post here.
Forrest Nash: "when we talk about negotiating with an artist and the artist's agency in terms of who can do what, there's just a changing relationship between a viewer and an art work that makes it no longer appropriate to dictate how people interact with an artwork"
I think the issue is what is considered the default and many smaller museums, at least, still seem to have a default of no photography so if the artist or lender does not specify otherwise it will be assumed photography is not allowed. This has to change before a museum will decide that photography is a policy they will mandate for artists.

Go to next page