I do feel left out so, feel free to write this off as a losers complaint, but I just don't understand TEZA, I've read your media releases, and I am lead very carefully around in circles that I fail to grasp the relevance of.. and I want to grasp it!
I really really love the energy and effort of Letting Space and most of the artists they work with, with your recent fame postings of artists spotted with politicians, I really got the sense that something is going on here but I don't get what it is.
The question ''How can artists establish a collective environment outside of galleries and institutions which allows for the genuine exchange, development and banking of ideas?' Hinges on the idea of 'genuine" and to me falls into a brutal and blatant trap of suggesting that what goes on inside galleries and institutions is not genuine and therefore not as real.
That's a big call, a major line drawn in the sand of such, what kind of hierarchy of authority is being established here, that is visible, transparent, that enables this kind of dialogue , between the genuine and the un-genuine to be true and real. Because I am looking for it and I can not see it. Can i ask for some help? Some clarity?
In Mudoch's essay on TEZA it is asserted that "art is love", that smacks to me of enormous white privileged, and a perpetuation of the propaganda of a ruling class who know better than the rest of us... but wait, right, don't jump to conclusions, TEZA intends to do something different... as it "pairs art to the indigenous, and people to a place".
The presence of a politician, here on site, begs me to ask, does this make TEZA real, more genuine, than those other artist. galleries/ institutions? Some how yes, i think so, but then because they've been presented here in a dangerously vacuous context: I know it's called an "autonomous zone" I just don't know what that is, is it a meeting between anti-capitalists and the bourgeois? Isn't Brownlee the anti-democratic dictator of Chch? Is now TEZA smoothing over trouble like any good gentrification with a round of faux radicalism, with support from 'real star' spotting?
"Art might be the most contentious of omissions from SEZs. How far can we stretch the definition of art to include the practices of SEZs?"
I'll say it again, in my experience, ask what is art? and you'll get an expert robbing you of your power to articulate the answer with their own. Ask what is it the art of? and you perhaps can begin to separate phenomena into categories, relative to your self. At the very least begin to interact with what is.
This is a critical project that I'm missing the criticality of. I see only an out an out celebration of capitalism's adaptability. Parody I feel has been missed and reality is simply being reproduced. Perhaps I just miss the frame of reference or the perspective that positions this so... which to that end, just who is the audience for this work, can the general public respond to such a fuzz? Will so much public funding be felt by the general populace, or is this really just about another round of shifting chess pieces around Nzzzzzzzzzzz's art board. A dedicated socialist's perspective, too locked into it's own privileged to risk waking those whose shoulders it stands on...
And I know I'm biting the hand of the mouth that is trying to bite the hand that feeds. I'm starving.