DOI Heft:
Nr. 1
DOI Artikel:Rattray, Michael: Something about a face: itinerant post-spectacle practices and the work of Graham Landin
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31178#0079
3. GDA/T? Eí%%7A.'
2007. PAA.* Go^rAgy ç/ G.
D?w7A.
a theory that accounts for individual sphere(s) rec-
ognizes the multiplicity of choice and the agency
of the individual within an urban public. A part of
this critique is imbedded within the work of Landin
because, as the works attest, where is the relation of
gender? How is it deňned in the relation of the face?
In short, there is none apparent. The spectator is left
with is his or her own stereotypical association. As
such, I would argue this is apt opportunity and time to
further argue that practices such as these contribute
to a free and open form of gender association where
systemic stereotypes of gendered spaces become
variable, ultimately questioned and fractured.
To account for the theoretical dilemma encoun-
tered through the itinérant participatory nature of
Landinh work, specihcally its relational ambivalence,
an incorporation of Arendťs public realm must be
activated with a multiplicity of public sphere(s). The
invocation of a public realm triggers the systemic
kingdom of state-centrism, to which the private
interests of the elite are translated as public inter-
est, or public good. The role of the public, activated
as passive by the spectacle of a private realm mir-
DEBORD 1983 (see in note 1), pp. 6, 12.
" BILLIG, M.: London 1995, p. 127.
rored as communal, is to subsume its collectivity
to those private interests that dictate the means of
production A
Where public art cornes into play is in the sys-
temic sanctioning of art that promotes an under-
standing of what Michael Billig terms to be a
"7/ T % yôrw o/ o/
o/ 77 h g/
A %7A7 Ai* ' 7%A7<?A 7^? ^?7 7owq w77A
77^ 7o^A^7i* T77r yôfÆ? o/ h 77i? /MAwA
^77r7 h ^777 77r
7^f/Wi?yt/y7o/^/yT^^This banal
nationalism, and subsequently the art that it funds
and engenders, reinforces a dominant
to use Benedict Anderson's term. It is a
space where the nation acts as an y-oAzhz/
- - ^7 A7i?r^T7y A" This
cultural hegemony active in the public nécessitâtes
cultural constructions of an imaginary community
of banal nationalism, slyly violent yet marketed as an
open form and functional démocratie society.
Rosalyn Deutsche bas commented that the notion
of a public is generally defended hand in hand with
^ "I pvywv /A yôAwAg 7yAA?A A tA A A A?^gAA
poALA rcw^AFy — ^7 A^gAA 7AAA <%%7 jc-
y^r^Fg^." — ANDERSON, B.: A^gAA Gow^^AAv
/A OEgA ^7 3p^^7 A AlAA/M/Aw. London 2006, pp. 5-6.
73
2007. PAA.* Go^rAgy ç/ G.
D?w7A.
a theory that accounts for individual sphere(s) rec-
ognizes the multiplicity of choice and the agency
of the individual within an urban public. A part of
this critique is imbedded within the work of Landin
because, as the works attest, where is the relation of
gender? How is it deňned in the relation of the face?
In short, there is none apparent. The spectator is left
with is his or her own stereotypical association. As
such, I would argue this is apt opportunity and time to
further argue that practices such as these contribute
to a free and open form of gender association where
systemic stereotypes of gendered spaces become
variable, ultimately questioned and fractured.
To account for the theoretical dilemma encoun-
tered through the itinérant participatory nature of
Landinh work, specihcally its relational ambivalence,
an incorporation of Arendťs public realm must be
activated with a multiplicity of public sphere(s). The
invocation of a public realm triggers the systemic
kingdom of state-centrism, to which the private
interests of the elite are translated as public inter-
est, or public good. The role of the public, activated
as passive by the spectacle of a private realm mir-
DEBORD 1983 (see in note 1), pp. 6, 12.
" BILLIG, M.: London 1995, p. 127.
rored as communal, is to subsume its collectivity
to those private interests that dictate the means of
production A
Where public art cornes into play is in the sys-
temic sanctioning of art that promotes an under-
standing of what Michael Billig terms to be a
"7/ T % yôrw o/ o/
o/ 77 h g/
A %7A7 Ai* ' 7%A7<?A 7^? ^?7 7owq w77A
77^ 7o^A^7i* T77r yôfÆ? o/ h 77i? /MAwA
^77r7 h ^777 77r
7^f/Wi?yt/y7o/^/yT^^This banal
nationalism, and subsequently the art that it funds
and engenders, reinforces a dominant
to use Benedict Anderson's term. It is a
space where the nation acts as an y-oAzhz/
- - ^7 A7i?r^T7y A" This
cultural hegemony active in the public nécessitâtes
cultural constructions of an imaginary community
of banal nationalism, slyly violent yet marketed as an
open form and functional démocratie society.
Rosalyn Deutsche bas commented that the notion
of a public is generally defended hand in hand with
^ "I pvywv /A yôAwAg 7yAA?A A tA A A A?^gAA
poALA rcw^AFy — ^7 A^gAA 7AAA <%%7 jc-
y^r^Fg^." — ANDERSON, B.: A^gAA Gow^^AAv
/A OEgA ^7 3p^^7 A AlAA/M/Aw. London 2006, pp. 5-6.
73