I await part two of your proposal with bated breath. What I enjoyed most in reading your (nicely written) post is that the strategies you mention entail displacing rather than merely reproducing or (worse still) expanding what you call the "existing artistic lexicon." I've written about similar collaborative endeavours in a like-minded way:
The trick is to draw attention to the "double ontology" of these "redundant" initiatives without bolstering their deliberately impaired coefficients of artistic visibility, thereby reframing them as "just art" and betraying their very thrust. (I say "redundant" inasmuch as they are what they are and propositions of that exact same thing.) This is why I at times avoid giving examples. Yet I realise that if we are to accompany the paradigm shift in artworld practices that such practices seem to be pushing for, we need to show the critical mass of the likes of Feral Trade and Headless.
...and artist
I await part two of your proposal with bated breath. What I enjoyed most in reading your (nicely written) post is that the strategies you mention entail displacing rather than merely reproducing or (worse still) expanding what you call the "existing artistic lexicon." I've written about similar collaborative endeavours in a like-minded way:
http://danm.ucsc.edu/~lkelley/wiki_docs/ThirdText/713998320_content.pdf
The trick is to draw attention to the "double ontology" of these "redundant" initiatives without bolstering their deliberately impaired coefficients of artistic visibility, thereby reframing them as "just art" and betraying their very thrust. (I say "redundant" inasmuch as they are what they are and propositions of that exact same thing.) This is why I at times avoid giving examples. Yet I realise that if we are to accompany the paradigm shift in artworld practices that such practices seem to be pushing for, we need to show the critical mass of the likes of Feral Trade and Headless.