Art is the ultimate hustler: it will sidle up to anything which promises it access to experience, knowledge, or power. For evidence, one need only look at pairings between art and law, art and the environment, or art and business. How might we evaluate the limits of art’s claims to knowledge and the political potential of its interaction with knowledges beyond?
Is the fiction of arts’s economic value now the key measure of culture? Are we now willingly econo-cultural agents? Does it matter that we don’t understand the figures?
How might we frame and/or utilise precarity and the (un)known in our research? Can we give these concepts a language and what forms do they take?
Class may be the ultimate English taboo. The understanding and signalling of class or other identity attributes may become an obstacle to classical class analysis. An entirely different political class narrative may be called for that transcends the boundaries of sociological understanding before returning to the discipline once again.
A call for interdisciplinarity: Any disciplinary practice that overlooks the fundamental epistemic ideas of its neighbours places itself at a disadvantage.
Is this what the ‘digital’ humanities look like? How might we make sense of the explosion of online activity? How can researchers account for the ‘Zoom effect’? And what data can we find online anyway?
Are art and its institutions ready to desert from the culture wars and engage with the subconscious?There are many places that need to be occupied, but the museum is not on the list.
Contemporary art’s profound paradox: the drive to become more inclusive for its audiences ultimately contributed to the inequalities experienced by its workforce.
Would Sohrab Shahid-Saless see his work succeed or fail in the cultural landscape of media, galleries and commentary today?