off the chains give that talk / Lets talk: ART AS POLITICAL EMANCIPATION 
CABELLO/CARCELLER: SI YO FUERA…
MATADERO MADRID: 21/01/11-13/03/11 (artículo original publicado en 'arte10.com': http://www.arte10.com/noticias/index.php?id=385
)
En una sociedad tan paralizada ante lo que vendría a ser la sana confrontación política, el deseado y fundamental debate social, el arte, visto lo visto, trata de ganar terreno y proponerse como instancia política preeminent. However, we must say, this is not the art itself. Along with this clear indication of contemporary art, the strategies used by him are the most seen ces, ideological heirs in a way that has already left behind in a strange continuum its rationale: Bury, show the savage injustice, immediately afterwards, calling the insurgency and the guilt of the spectator.
Cabello / Carceller , however, proposes an art as political as anyone else whose modus operandi is based more on the 'allowed to speak' that the 'give to talk about. " Following Rancière theories, and in connection with the exceptional work of these two artists can be seen these days in Madrid Slaughterhouse, the following is to clarify the guidelines to be followed by an art you want truly be further qualified as political.
If there is one word that feel real fondness art that is the word 'politics'. It's just saying 'political art', and one is comes to mind almost immediately, a lot of subversive strategies collapse of the prevailing system.
And, as a counterpart to the autonomy of art, politics has been awarded the work to devote to art in its concept and reach the dream beaches of freedom. Perhaps we know that certainly there are no beaches of freedom, that words such as justice and fairness work only as noumena ideals whose mission is to regulate the precise distance to not burn as much reality goes wrong avenue, but not-and perhaps even be fair so, compromise on our mission.
Politics understood as closely linked to ethical issues, joined since Kant the earliest stirrings of aesthetics as a prominent branch of learning. Tucked into a multitude of paradoxes do not find common ground between the praxis and theory, between necessity and freedom, between the particular and universal, Kant took the path of beauty to make the disinterested view the missing link linking the supposed autonomy of the subject illustrated with a theory of rationality where the role ethics policy would ensure a project where the subject is not nipped in the bud saw the promise of autonomy.
Sin embargo, lo que en Kant es una simple ecuación que vincula el gusto estético con la cultura moral, pronto, en menos de una década, el recién nacido arte ilustrado prestó más atención al segundo aspecto –operar como campo práctico donde el sujeto potencializase sus cualidades emancipadoras- y trajo para sí la promesa de la redención. Schiller , promoviendo un arte como única vía de emancipación de la humanidad, puso las bases como lugar privilegiado donde alcanzar las promesas que la Ilustración no supo, desde el principio, hacer factibles.
Y es que, a fin de cuantas, un arte ilustrado solo podía funcionar como eso, as illustrated art criticism: the snake biting its tail or the first effects of the dialectic of desartización pure. Thus, Romanticism is not-or less-than aesthetic criticism the first to enlightened reason.
And this dialectic is where we still move: from an autonomous art, entire of itself and bound by any aesthetic experience bourgeois taste with a normative claim of universal validity, and between an art-heir of the first Romantic school, whose work is constantly putting obstacles to the perfect illation is between universal norms and moral imperative and a praxis aesthetic that understands itself as a real opposition to a given regime of things and where feasible a truly human and redemptive.
Thus, romantic babbling Schiller to the aesthetics of resistance Hal Foster only half one thing: a self-reflection of art itself carried as far as you might think, and knowing that , are made as is set, there is no solution, ie, no emancipation, to be achieved. If for Schiller the libertarian impulse was inherent to aesthetic experience, Foster settle for less, with much less: their resistance does not know of the existence of limits to transgress, nor, even less so, is deal with a hypothetical release. Simply raises the resistance struggle in terms of semiotics, making the redefinition and re-encoding the two most powerful weapons for an art, contemporary, whose processes desartización not mean more than a long list of defeats so bucolic that 'an art for life and a life for art. "
is this sense that political art has to stop and play the loser victimhood known before to run and change, perhaps radically, their strategies. Once it is already clear and meridian neovanguardias vanguards and failed to try to reduce the art of life (even knowing full well that any halo of triumph is followed immediately by a staggering neutralization grant mercy to the dialectic / subversion as a set pattern Art industry), is not it time, say, to repeat the play.
Because, perhaps they are the embers of the failure of the avant-garde project that erected in the main leitmotif, but even today, more than ever, the art still looks extremely comfortable carrying the fecund promise an art more resounding doomed to failure.
Jacques Rancière, perhaps the philosopher most time and effort has been devoted to plants is related art and politics in new ways, in keeping with the times, gives us, if not the solution, if at least the path to that point.
If desartización processes that Adorno could see in contemporary art, Rancière the undecidability results in states that functions as a basic structure of modernity at the time of opting for the autonomy of art or fold to the dictates of life and politics, it does so only to, immediately afterwards, saying that any of the ways art can substitute for politics and the weakening of political conflict (the average citizen perpetual siesteo than surrender any conflict) generated by the dominant consensus can not be occupied by art.
In this regard, the strategies followed so far by the political art, taking for himself the Marxist dialectic Hegel moments of truth and untruth, they give up due to being built under the dictation a continuum that, at all, produces more than drowsiness and epater le bourgeois that has nothing to do with the supposed emancipation and the artistic experience. In this regard, it is not only the strategies that have become invalid per se, but the reality becoming a spectacle, has won many areas of power, as McLuhan said, "the show marks the moment when the goods has reached the total occupation of social life. " That is, against a social and political field devastated by performing post-ideology, political strategies corseted in old paradigms are totally invalid. And, in the limit, and making this case Baudrillard, "if the transgression was over is because the same things have transgressed their own limits"
To Rancière, simplifying its position to the maximum, the mission of contemporary art is eminently political, but not in the interest of pursuing a complaint, to publicize the injustices of the world or anything similar. The art is political because it has to challenge the existing distribution of the sensible. Thus, the true story of pirouette Rancière is significantly enough to move the field of dialectical struggle. Until then la dialéctica arte/vida, autonomía/política, había sido erigida basándose en tales polos argumentales, para el francés se trataría sin embargo más de lucha dialéctica entre dos políticas de la estética en tensión que de una dialéctica pura entre arte y vida (entre arte y no-arte). A este estado de cosas, a esta nueva dialéctica que opera siempre como lucha entre políticas estéticas, Rancière lo llama ‘régimen estético de la modernidad’.
Es decir, ya no el arte ha de jugar la baza política para convertirse en momento contrario al de su pretendida autonomía, sino que ha de comprenderse, art as a continuous mode to enter the mess in the order and break the distribution of the sensible.
Rancière To achieve this disdains most subversive strategies that have been given so far. It does for its low value, but because, after completing the boundary of art to the edge of the 'anything goes' policy strategies 'to use' have finally rest with a recoding and reconfiguration, so call it, visibility common as widely and as valid as the consensus of the vast majority plebiscite. Thus, Rancière puts finger in the yaga and claims that, as the educational model of the effectiveness of art strangely still in vogue, "we still like to believe that the representation of a particular resin advertising idol we rise up against the media empire of entertainment or a photographic series on the representation of the colonized by the colonizer will help us to unravel today, the pitfalls of the dominant representation of identities. "
This ideological phantasmagoria which art reveals root weighting is that, as Rancière continues own "the problem is not then in the moral or political validity of the message conveyed by the representative device, but on the contrary, the problem "is more on the device itself." And is that the effectiveness of art is to convey messages with moralizing or provide role models but "above all sewn for in provisions of bodies in space and cuts time defining unique ways of being together or separate year in the middle front of, inside or outside, near or distant. "
is, or pedagogy of representation supported by the contemplation of beauty, nor pedagogy ethical immediacy. Between them lies the real efficacy aesthetics: suspending any continuity between the intentions of the artist and the eye of a viewer who looks exactly know what is going to find. Benjamin holding something very similar: "a form of art can never be determined according to the effects produced by"
Here Rancière is clear: political art at the height of the circumstances must "blur the boundaries between those who act and those contemplating." In this sense, such as performance theater "intend to teach your audience means to stop being spectators to become actors in a collective practice. " Against the common practice of political art that simply offers a place of shelter from which to become a mirror image of the ruling regime, Rancière argues that art has to use their distance-the tension that always works inside-to eliminate .
Thus, theater, performance, offers something else that the show avoids: he proposes to break away, a continuum to put at stake. In the show, in the passive contemplation of what has become pre-eminent reality, the subject was subtracted his essence: in the show the viewer is alienated alienated in their own essence turns against him.
Just then, the opposite happens in a good theater, good art. Justus, and finally gives us the opposite is part Hair and Carceller can be seen in Madrid Slaughterhouse until 13 March.
Its title, "If I were ..." accurately referred to the primary distance, one that mediates between us, our destiny, and that dream, that-who know-torn. Political distance than most, the part of these artists are faced with the possibility of breaking the almost impossible: the distance that operates as disciplining regime and condenses all the strategies of inclusion / exclusion.
For them, as we insist Rancière, understand that art is not as highly political as it is in itself a chance to show the injustices of the world or the ability to make us think, but because means that any distance is essentially a political distance.
If the show blesses those liabilities, if dysneilanización the worlds of life that consumes and rewards that flow faster if, in short, the staging of our daily phantasmagoria that compensates the silent and grants, Hair Carceller and strive to return to art mission that should never have left: to the possibility of asking and talking, breaking the distance between the expected and possible, to break the disciplinary regime presents the future as always-already-given.
Thus, if the work functions as both gives voice to those who do not, if it carries out its policy of raising, even today, with some irony, one might despair however, is its ability to close the distances, to fly the flag and we got on together well on stage, in a word, to make us not only spectators but also actors, where lies all the political potential of the piece.
"If I were ..." da talk about and can talk, tell a story and can tell others. And, as you know Rancière, "an emancipated community is a community of writers and translators."
