The Edinburgh Companion to Poststructuralism, page 57
these issues for another time and other poststructuralist lenses, to Kristeva, Irigaray and Cixous and to the wider work of Guattari and Deleuze such as
Anti-Oedipus ([1972] 1977) or Difference and Repetition ([1968] 1994).
I use artist-as-process here, to clarify that it is not the concept of an artist as a creative ‘self ’ that is at issue, rather that it is in the processes of creative construction that de-regulation can occur. Guattari says: ‘its ways of operating will be more like artists’ [ways of operating]’ (2000: 35). Genosko suggests, ‘ecosophic activism “resembles” the work of artists in extracting details that serve as path-breakers for subjective development and as guidance in responsibly negotiating refrains’ (2008: 110). As such, the artist-as-process has ways of operating that identify dominant transmissions and in
acts of creativity (also one of the ways of operating that ‘resemble’ that of the artist) of imagining, of generating a new idea, of creating and making a difference, disrupting the forces of mass-transmission. The artist-as-process
represents a re-singularisation of subjectification, one that is constant to itself and not to the ‘deathly refrain’ of IWC. This artist-as-process is
therefore not particular to the artist as ‘self ’, but can be found, according to Guattari, in ‘everyday life’ (2000: 46) since, as he claims, such processes can be found anywhere. However, I would also argue that it is the manifestation of the abstract into the real that is at issue here and why I believe Guattari selects the model of artist as the champion of change for the following reason: to interrupt mass-transmission and create a new refrain is not simply
to deconstruct the codes, conventions and significations therein, but to
re-signify, re-codify and invent new signification. This means that to create a new refrain is the act of creativity in making a difference, the very act of being an artist. In these terms, despite the potential for the artist-as-process Untitled-2 370
16/10/2013 16:40:10
tHe museum of now
357
to be found everywhere, the concept of the artist is not an accidental choice, since it embodies the notion of pure difference represented by individuated subjects that create the new in the real.
From ecosophical activism, developed through re-singularisation, one
can begin to see the clear and interrelated connections with social ecosophy.
Using the metaphor of the subject as transit station, one may consider how
the ecosophic ‘registers’ interweave. If each re-singularisation necessarily involves the reception of dominant social refrains (like radio frequencies) within any constructed subject, then these frequencies have to be interrupted by the subject in order to divert from the norm, the frequency must
be altered, and a new and different frequency transmitted back into the
social domain. Guattari suggests that, ‘social ecosophy will consist in developing specific practices that will modify and reinvent the ways in which we live … through existential mutations driven by the motor of subjectivity’
(2000: 34). It is therefore the interruption through re-singularisation that will both inform and be informed by the creation of new social practices
– the ecosophic ‘to and fro’ that combine to shift the dominant refrain and habituated frequency in relation to the environmental. As such one might
consider not just the subject to be an artist, but social practice as artist or in this context museum practice as artist.
Towards the end of The Three Ecologies, Guattari draws together re-singularisation and social practices within the play of machinic ecosophy. Again Guattari’s approach is not simply to criticise mass media and technology
but bring a positive critique that offers a potential alternative, wherein social media and networking become themselves potential disruptors as much as
the transmitters of a mass refrain ‘in which the media will be re-appropriated by a multitude of subject groups capable of directing its re-singularisiation’
(2000: 61). I shall return to this later, but let us travel there by addressing key questions that arise from the challenges set out by Guattari.
The Responsibility of Learning in the Museum
Throughout The Three Ecologies, Guattari pulls focus from the theoretical and abstract to the practice-led and material. He states:
I have invoked ethical paradigms principally in order to underline the
responsibility and necessary engagement required, not only of psychia-
trists but also of those in the fields of education, health, culture, sport, the arts, the media and fashion, who are in a position to intervene in individual and collective physical proceedings. (Guattari 2000: 39)
Untitled-2 371
16/10/2013 16:40:10
358
tHemes: form and institution
If one takes this as a real call to responsibility in order to develop ecosophy then it raises some complex questions for any institution and necessarily
challenges those within them to make explicit the machinic, mental and
social constructs of their own specific practices. But here are some ques-
tions: first, how does an institution begin to address the need for all subjects to identify the dominant refrain? As O’Sullivan (2007) suggests, ‘it is …
important to point out that breaking with habit requires first and foremost that one becomes aware of such habits, which is to say one must attend to
ones already existing reactions and responses’. Is the institution therefore also responsible for making individuals aware of their own construction as
subjects? Secondly, how does one not only achieve the capacity for subjects to identify the refrain, but create contexts that enable their interruption and for subjects to be able to see and create difference both individually and as groups? Thirdly, how does one ensure that these differences are given a
frequency within the institution that enables a wider communication of new
refrains? And lastly, how, in the event that one is able to create difference, do we ensure that these refrains are understood/read as new frequencies and
not simply as arbitrary new signification systems devoid of meaning, other
than to themselves?
We return to the initial question of how one invents a museum of the
future without articulating or forming as a basis that which we understand
as ‘now’. These questions are, for those of us working in institutions, a real challenge; especially if put to the test of practice. Often limited by short contact time with the public, existing within complex networks of relationships across and between the institution/s, working to the demands of internal
and external economic systems and understanding the pragmatics of daily
activity, a variety of forces all conspire to make the construction of difference a very tricky enterprise.
Question 1: How does an institution begin to address the need for all subjects to identify the dominant refrain? Is the institution therefore also responsible for making individuals aware of their own construction as subjects? I think it would be fair to say that any attempt to give a fixed answer to these questions would be somewhat foolhardy. However, I would also argue that there are practices and approaches that can be employed that engage with these issues in an
attempt, at the very least, to draw them into institutional play. This first question may therefore be responded to in terms of applying theory through
the creation of a new practice within museum learning and educational
teams, a practice that is based on making learning itself visible. Most learning programmes or educational activity within the art museum and galleries
Untitled-2 372
16/10/2013 16:40:10
tHe museum of now
359
has, traditionally, been based on activity that looks to create a variety of ways in which to engage with art objects and ideas. In doing so, it does not necessarily, and I would argue, very rarely, make explicit to its participants that they are in a process of learning. The act of doing so, I would suggest, generates a meta-cognitive approach to practice that necessarily encourages professionals and practitioners as well as the general public to reflect on the nature of learning itself, what is being learned and crucially, how and why.
Such questions require subjects to reflect on their own learning and give rise to questions concerning the construction of values and perspectives, the ‘for me’ aspects of interpretation that emphasise the contingency of perspective and the concept of ‘self ’ that can then be explored. But how do we make this as explicit as possible?
I begin with the institution and the subjects (within the learning and educational teams for the purposes of this chapter) as the crucial starting point, much as Guattari developed iterative and developmental practices of re-articulation within his own institutional domain. It appears clear that unless those whose responsibility it is to construct meaning understand how and why they are
doing so, it seems inevitable that the dominant refrain will never be interrupted intentionally, as it will never be recognised (as O’Sullivan so clearly explained). To create a practice that achieves this means that time must be made within any institution for interrogating the practices of the professional subjects as transit stations themselves. In reality this entails a lot of organised time in which shared talk, reflection and learning must take place for staff to become aware of and have made visible what O’Sullivan (2007) describes as
‘not just being about institutional and ideological critique, but as involving the active production of our own subjectivity’. This implies what he goes on to explain as a need for creative pedagogy:
teaching practices that involve student participation, workshops, labora-
tories, and other teaching models that do not mimic top down structures
in existence elsewhere. Such pedagogical practices can contribute to the
active and practical involvement of individuals in determining their own
intellectual and creative projects and indeed their wider lives. (O’Sullivan 2007)
For ‘students’ one can replace ‘staff’ and ultimately, I would argue, within carefully constructed learning programmes, the participating public. This
process (a creative pedagogy) is in itself an interruption of the dominant
professional practice, which tends, for obvious reasons of practicability, time and capacity, to be left unattended. It demands that a creative pedagogy
Untitled-2 373
16/10/2013 16:40:10
360
tHemes: form and institution
be part of the value-base of a learning department and that the languages
developed within this be formed into new emergent refrains, refrains that
can then be taken by staff-subjects both into the organisation, and to the
social and machinic registers. ‘It amounts to a call to creativity, a call to become actively involved in various strategies and practices that will allow us to produce/transform, and perhaps even go beyond, our habituated
selves’ (O’Sullivan 2007). If we do not take responsibility from the point of re-construction, of the subjects that are tasked with transmission, then how else are we ever to change the refrain?
Question 2. How does one not only achieve the capacity for subjects to identify the refrain, but create contexts that enable their interruption and for subjects to be able to see and create difference both individually and as groups? In ‘Signposting Creative Learning’ (Cutler 2006) I argued that the process of creative learning was itself interchangeable with the process of artists’ practice. Not all artists, of course, but those who seek to worry over an idea, work out problems, test, trial and hypothesise. Those that have divergent and imaginative thinking, stretch themselves to make ideas manifest in new ways, spend time refining their
practice and do so towards a valued goal – the making of a material difference.
I posited the view that artists were, in this interpretation, effectively professional creative learners and the processes of their practice were synonymous with the practice of creative learning. In this context, therefore, I suggest that the artist-as-process can be articulated as creative learning itself; that is, the process of interruption, of decentring the refrain as well as reconstructing and re-creating a new refrain. This perspective helps clarify Guattari’s suggestion that it is not just the notion of ‘artist’ that ruptures and re-singularises, but the practices of creative learning make possible the idea that they can happen anywhere within any human subject based on both deconstruction and reconstruction. Taking creative learning as the potential for re-singularisation, and this within the context of an art museum, full of singularised objects and ideas, would, one might suggest, be an ideal site for Guattari’s ecosophy to thrive.
How then, to translate this into practice through the design and delivery of a learning programme within the art museum?
The role of learning and education departments in art museums do
vary, although all would, I imagine, articulate their work in relation to the public and in terms of engagement. How deep the engagement and how
profound the learning involved depends on the values and understandings
of learning held within the institution. Designing a programme that opens
up an awareness of one’s own construction and that of the programme itself
is central, but it also relies on framing structured activity that generates Untitled-2 374
16/10/2013 16:40:10
tHe museum of now
361
creative learning – the very practice that may enable/be rupture. Developing a programme that is based on creative learning practices is, at its best and with art as its subject and content, a highly effective way of inviting participants, in a co-constructed manner, to be able to explore and make visible
the interruptions of artists themselves, demonstrating, as well as practically applying through an activity, the very nature of resisting dominant refrains and the material manifestation of making a difference. This can be done in
many ways and working with artists to help co-construct such programmes
is one way that can amount to a genuine attempt to interrogate these ideas
with the additional benefit of working with those who are already practising resistance through their ideas, their divergent thinking and making.
For example, a summer school was run at Tate Modern that worked with
both artists and teachers as participants. Planned and facilitated by artists working with the Learning staff, they based the course on the idea and
structure of The Art School, creating the environment of such a school,
whilst simultaneously making visible its construction: ‘this is the common
room’ a space read, ‘you are the student body’ the artists declared. The week consisted of the participants reflecting on and making work for, their designated ‘art school’, and in doing so, the artists leading the course took the participants through the process of deconstructing the codes, conventions
and significations of the arts school as well as asking that they re-signify, re-codify and invent new signification within their own practices within their own schools after the course – the act of creation as making a difference
– this time through their processes as much as in the making of art-objects.
Question 3. How does one ensure that these differences are given a frequency within the institution that enables a wider communication of new refrains? Any institution of scale is based on many different transmissions that arise from many different sources. Which frequencies are heard loudest depends on
the requirements of the paradox at any given time: it might be a focus on
an exhibition or a focus on partnerships, and so on: maintaining balance is complex given economic imperatives and institutional values. One way to
strike this balance is to have designated strands of programme within the
institution. Although full of their own complexities as terms, having strands of work such as ‘community’ or ‘early years’, ‘young people’ or ‘access’ does give visibility to the needs of having such voices as part of the institution. To take one example, there is much contention around the concepts of ‘community ‘and ‘access’, particularly in terms of the idea that one might ‘target’
those whom the institution feels ‘fit in’ to these categorisations. However, is it more problematic to remove such terms entirely? If one has no language
Untitled-2 375
16/10/2013 16:40:11
362
tHemes: form and institution
to speak, or signal to divergent groups to say that the institution is open for dialogue, then how will this be known? Perhaps with a shift in emphasis the terms can be used to invite voices into institutions (not to be transmitted at by the institution’s own refrains, but to receive from) in an act of creative learning within the institution that attends to the differences that already exist and have value. This might be one way of ensuring that the refrain
of differences is always a potential and communicated as such. Currently
the un-departmentalisation and incorporation of learning and education
teams into broader departments of cultural institutions is becoming more
prevalent, but this is a trend that is only likely to be positive if it means that the lesser-frequency of learning and diverse audiences is actually a feature of re-transmission rather than the submersion into micro-hegemonies. One
must be mindful that integration is the equal interweaving of parts and not the assimilation of difference into the dominant refrain.
This issue is very much present in Guattari’s The Three Ecologies wherein he defines the need for individuals to become ‘both united and increasingly different’ (2000: 69). The platform for such potential could exist within the model of mass-transmission. With the emergence of Facebook and Twitter,
Blogs and Messaging where the production and control of the content is
Anti-Oedipus ([1972] 1977) or Difference and Repetition ([1968] 1994).
I use artist-as-process here, to clarify that it is not the concept of an artist as a creative ‘self ’ that is at issue, rather that it is in the processes of creative construction that de-regulation can occur. Guattari says: ‘its ways of operating will be more like artists’ [ways of operating]’ (2000: 35). Genosko suggests, ‘ecosophic activism “resembles” the work of artists in extracting details that serve as path-breakers for subjective development and as guidance in responsibly negotiating refrains’ (2008: 110). As such, the artist-as-process has ways of operating that identify dominant transmissions and in
acts of creativity (also one of the ways of operating that ‘resemble’ that of the artist) of imagining, of generating a new idea, of creating and making a difference, disrupting the forces of mass-transmission. The artist-as-process
represents a re-singularisation of subjectification, one that is constant to itself and not to the ‘deathly refrain’ of IWC. This artist-as-process is
therefore not particular to the artist as ‘self ’, but can be found, according to Guattari, in ‘everyday life’ (2000: 46) since, as he claims, such processes can be found anywhere. However, I would also argue that it is the manifestation of the abstract into the real that is at issue here and why I believe Guattari selects the model of artist as the champion of change for the following reason: to interrupt mass-transmission and create a new refrain is not simply
to deconstruct the codes, conventions and significations therein, but to
re-signify, re-codify and invent new signification. This means that to create a new refrain is the act of creativity in making a difference, the very act of being an artist. In these terms, despite the potential for the artist-as-process Untitled-2 370
16/10/2013 16:40:10
tHe museum of now
357
to be found everywhere, the concept of the artist is not an accidental choice, since it embodies the notion of pure difference represented by individuated subjects that create the new in the real.
From ecosophical activism, developed through re-singularisation, one
can begin to see the clear and interrelated connections with social ecosophy.
Using the metaphor of the subject as transit station, one may consider how
the ecosophic ‘registers’ interweave. If each re-singularisation necessarily involves the reception of dominant social refrains (like radio frequencies) within any constructed subject, then these frequencies have to be interrupted by the subject in order to divert from the norm, the frequency must
be altered, and a new and different frequency transmitted back into the
social domain. Guattari suggests that, ‘social ecosophy will consist in developing specific practices that will modify and reinvent the ways in which we live … through existential mutations driven by the motor of subjectivity’
(2000: 34). It is therefore the interruption through re-singularisation that will both inform and be informed by the creation of new social practices
– the ecosophic ‘to and fro’ that combine to shift the dominant refrain and habituated frequency in relation to the environmental. As such one might
consider not just the subject to be an artist, but social practice as artist or in this context museum practice as artist.
Towards the end of The Three Ecologies, Guattari draws together re-singularisation and social practices within the play of machinic ecosophy. Again Guattari’s approach is not simply to criticise mass media and technology
but bring a positive critique that offers a potential alternative, wherein social media and networking become themselves potential disruptors as much as
the transmitters of a mass refrain ‘in which the media will be re-appropriated by a multitude of subject groups capable of directing its re-singularisiation’
(2000: 61). I shall return to this later, but let us travel there by addressing key questions that arise from the challenges set out by Guattari.
The Responsibility of Learning in the Museum
Throughout The Three Ecologies, Guattari pulls focus from the theoretical and abstract to the practice-led and material. He states:
I have invoked ethical paradigms principally in order to underline the
responsibility and necessary engagement required, not only of psychia-
trists but also of those in the fields of education, health, culture, sport, the arts, the media and fashion, who are in a position to intervene in individual and collective physical proceedings. (Guattari 2000: 39)
Untitled-2 371
16/10/2013 16:40:10
358
tHemes: form and institution
If one takes this as a real call to responsibility in order to develop ecosophy then it raises some complex questions for any institution and necessarily
challenges those within them to make explicit the machinic, mental and
social constructs of their own specific practices. But here are some ques-
tions: first, how does an institution begin to address the need for all subjects to identify the dominant refrain? As O’Sullivan (2007) suggests, ‘it is …
important to point out that breaking with habit requires first and foremost that one becomes aware of such habits, which is to say one must attend to
ones already existing reactions and responses’. Is the institution therefore also responsible for making individuals aware of their own construction as
subjects? Secondly, how does one not only achieve the capacity for subjects to identify the refrain, but create contexts that enable their interruption and for subjects to be able to see and create difference both individually and as groups? Thirdly, how does one ensure that these differences are given a
frequency within the institution that enables a wider communication of new
refrains? And lastly, how, in the event that one is able to create difference, do we ensure that these refrains are understood/read as new frequencies and
not simply as arbitrary new signification systems devoid of meaning, other
than to themselves?
We return to the initial question of how one invents a museum of the
future without articulating or forming as a basis that which we understand
as ‘now’. These questions are, for those of us working in institutions, a real challenge; especially if put to the test of practice. Often limited by short contact time with the public, existing within complex networks of relationships across and between the institution/s, working to the demands of internal
and external economic systems and understanding the pragmatics of daily
activity, a variety of forces all conspire to make the construction of difference a very tricky enterprise.
Question 1: How does an institution begin to address the need for all subjects to identify the dominant refrain? Is the institution therefore also responsible for making individuals aware of their own construction as subjects? I think it would be fair to say that any attempt to give a fixed answer to these questions would be somewhat foolhardy. However, I would also argue that there are practices and approaches that can be employed that engage with these issues in an
attempt, at the very least, to draw them into institutional play. This first question may therefore be responded to in terms of applying theory through
the creation of a new practice within museum learning and educational
teams, a practice that is based on making learning itself visible. Most learning programmes or educational activity within the art museum and galleries
Untitled-2 372
16/10/2013 16:40:10
tHe museum of now
359
has, traditionally, been based on activity that looks to create a variety of ways in which to engage with art objects and ideas. In doing so, it does not necessarily, and I would argue, very rarely, make explicit to its participants that they are in a process of learning. The act of doing so, I would suggest, generates a meta-cognitive approach to practice that necessarily encourages professionals and practitioners as well as the general public to reflect on the nature of learning itself, what is being learned and crucially, how and why.
Such questions require subjects to reflect on their own learning and give rise to questions concerning the construction of values and perspectives, the ‘for me’ aspects of interpretation that emphasise the contingency of perspective and the concept of ‘self ’ that can then be explored. But how do we make this as explicit as possible?
I begin with the institution and the subjects (within the learning and educational teams for the purposes of this chapter) as the crucial starting point, much as Guattari developed iterative and developmental practices of re-articulation within his own institutional domain. It appears clear that unless those whose responsibility it is to construct meaning understand how and why they are
doing so, it seems inevitable that the dominant refrain will never be interrupted intentionally, as it will never be recognised (as O’Sullivan so clearly explained). To create a practice that achieves this means that time must be made within any institution for interrogating the practices of the professional subjects as transit stations themselves. In reality this entails a lot of organised time in which shared talk, reflection and learning must take place for staff to become aware of and have made visible what O’Sullivan (2007) describes as
‘not just being about institutional and ideological critique, but as involving the active production of our own subjectivity’. This implies what he goes on to explain as a need for creative pedagogy:
teaching practices that involve student participation, workshops, labora-
tories, and other teaching models that do not mimic top down structures
in existence elsewhere. Such pedagogical practices can contribute to the
active and practical involvement of individuals in determining their own
intellectual and creative projects and indeed their wider lives. (O’Sullivan 2007)
For ‘students’ one can replace ‘staff’ and ultimately, I would argue, within carefully constructed learning programmes, the participating public. This
process (a creative pedagogy) is in itself an interruption of the dominant
professional practice, which tends, for obvious reasons of practicability, time and capacity, to be left unattended. It demands that a creative pedagogy
Untitled-2 373
16/10/2013 16:40:10
360
tHemes: form and institution
be part of the value-base of a learning department and that the languages
developed within this be formed into new emergent refrains, refrains that
can then be taken by staff-subjects both into the organisation, and to the
social and machinic registers. ‘It amounts to a call to creativity, a call to become actively involved in various strategies and practices that will allow us to produce/transform, and perhaps even go beyond, our habituated
selves’ (O’Sullivan 2007). If we do not take responsibility from the point of re-construction, of the subjects that are tasked with transmission, then how else are we ever to change the refrain?
Question 2. How does one not only achieve the capacity for subjects to identify the refrain, but create contexts that enable their interruption and for subjects to be able to see and create difference both individually and as groups? In ‘Signposting Creative Learning’ (Cutler 2006) I argued that the process of creative learning was itself interchangeable with the process of artists’ practice. Not all artists, of course, but those who seek to worry over an idea, work out problems, test, trial and hypothesise. Those that have divergent and imaginative thinking, stretch themselves to make ideas manifest in new ways, spend time refining their
practice and do so towards a valued goal – the making of a material difference.
I posited the view that artists were, in this interpretation, effectively professional creative learners and the processes of their practice were synonymous with the practice of creative learning. In this context, therefore, I suggest that the artist-as-process can be articulated as creative learning itself; that is, the process of interruption, of decentring the refrain as well as reconstructing and re-creating a new refrain. This perspective helps clarify Guattari’s suggestion that it is not just the notion of ‘artist’ that ruptures and re-singularises, but the practices of creative learning make possible the idea that they can happen anywhere within any human subject based on both deconstruction and reconstruction. Taking creative learning as the potential for re-singularisation, and this within the context of an art museum, full of singularised objects and ideas, would, one might suggest, be an ideal site for Guattari’s ecosophy to thrive.
How then, to translate this into practice through the design and delivery of a learning programme within the art museum?
The role of learning and education departments in art museums do
vary, although all would, I imagine, articulate their work in relation to the public and in terms of engagement. How deep the engagement and how
profound the learning involved depends on the values and understandings
of learning held within the institution. Designing a programme that opens
up an awareness of one’s own construction and that of the programme itself
is central, but it also relies on framing structured activity that generates Untitled-2 374
16/10/2013 16:40:10
tHe museum of now
361
creative learning – the very practice that may enable/be rupture. Developing a programme that is based on creative learning practices is, at its best and with art as its subject and content, a highly effective way of inviting participants, in a co-constructed manner, to be able to explore and make visible
the interruptions of artists themselves, demonstrating, as well as practically applying through an activity, the very nature of resisting dominant refrains and the material manifestation of making a difference. This can be done in
many ways and working with artists to help co-construct such programmes
is one way that can amount to a genuine attempt to interrogate these ideas
with the additional benefit of working with those who are already practising resistance through their ideas, their divergent thinking and making.
For example, a summer school was run at Tate Modern that worked with
both artists and teachers as participants. Planned and facilitated by artists working with the Learning staff, they based the course on the idea and
structure of The Art School, creating the environment of such a school,
whilst simultaneously making visible its construction: ‘this is the common
room’ a space read, ‘you are the student body’ the artists declared. The week consisted of the participants reflecting on and making work for, their designated ‘art school’, and in doing so, the artists leading the course took the participants through the process of deconstructing the codes, conventions
and significations of the arts school as well as asking that they re-signify, re-codify and invent new signification within their own practices within their own schools after the course – the act of creation as making a difference
– this time through their processes as much as in the making of art-objects.
Question 3. How does one ensure that these differences are given a frequency within the institution that enables a wider communication of new refrains? Any institution of scale is based on many different transmissions that arise from many different sources. Which frequencies are heard loudest depends on
the requirements of the paradox at any given time: it might be a focus on
an exhibition or a focus on partnerships, and so on: maintaining balance is complex given economic imperatives and institutional values. One way to
strike this balance is to have designated strands of programme within the
institution. Although full of their own complexities as terms, having strands of work such as ‘community’ or ‘early years’, ‘young people’ or ‘access’ does give visibility to the needs of having such voices as part of the institution. To take one example, there is much contention around the concepts of ‘community ‘and ‘access’, particularly in terms of the idea that one might ‘target’
those whom the institution feels ‘fit in’ to these categorisations. However, is it more problematic to remove such terms entirely? If one has no language
Untitled-2 375
16/10/2013 16:40:11
362
tHemes: form and institution
to speak, or signal to divergent groups to say that the institution is open for dialogue, then how will this be known? Perhaps with a shift in emphasis the terms can be used to invite voices into institutions (not to be transmitted at by the institution’s own refrains, but to receive from) in an act of creative learning within the institution that attends to the differences that already exist and have value. This might be one way of ensuring that the refrain
of differences is always a potential and communicated as such. Currently
the un-departmentalisation and incorporation of learning and education
teams into broader departments of cultural institutions is becoming more
prevalent, but this is a trend that is only likely to be positive if it means that the lesser-frequency of learning and diverse audiences is actually a feature of re-transmission rather than the submersion into micro-hegemonies. One
must be mindful that integration is the equal interweaving of parts and not the assimilation of difference into the dominant refrain.
This issue is very much present in Guattari’s The Three Ecologies wherein he defines the need for individuals to become ‘both united and increasingly different’ (2000: 69). The platform for such potential could exist within the model of mass-transmission. With the emergence of Facebook and Twitter,
Blogs and Messaging where the production and control of the content is
