Get Down and Party. Together. - Democracy at its best? Maybe.

Joseph Beuys pointed out the idealism of the situationist aims in “I Am Searching for a Field Character,” when he said, “...Social Sculpture/ Social Architecture – will only reach fruition when every living person becomes a creator, a sculptor or architect of the social organism.” I suppose in some ways we already all form the “social organisms” that we take part in. Yet, the equality or democracy that is the crux of the artworks in question does not exist in our social structures. Of the pieces included in our readings, there was really only one that may have gotten close to forming a democratic social organism. This was The Baudouin/ Boudewijn Experiment. Although, it would be interesting to know what actually occurred in the room meant for serious inactivity. Did certain people become the center of attention and thus performative while others became spectators? Or was there really democracy through inactivity? Should we forget about the meaning in the duty of the person whose role it was to lock the door to the outside? I guess what I am driving at is the inherent idealism in these projects. Don’t get me wrong. I think that it is one of the roles of the artist to drive society towards ideals. And it seems that some change is initiated through the attempts to create situations in which true democracy is the goal. Adrian Piper’s piece seemed the most successful in creating social change through action and learning. However, this was not at first a true democratic system. She was initially acting somewhat in the manner of a dictator leading people through an experimental process meant to “transmit and share a physical language that everyone was then empowered to use.” Eventually people began to interact and the situation took on a life of its own, but it was not a situation arrived at through a democratic basis. The situation was chosen by a single person and others followed. Thus, the situationist framework could be used for good and bad. Regardless, Piper’s lessons did lead to a diminishing in the passivity of the public. On the other hand, Beuys’ “Bureau for Direct Democracy” only led to interaction with 35 visitors out of the total eight hundred and eleven. This kind of ratio seems closer to the one that I think we will have at UC Santa Cruz. While our re-speaking only bears some resemblance to the aims of the situationists – it involves the audience for one thing – it differs in some ways as well – there will be a hierarchy inherent to the process, for example in the use of lab coats. But, the archival material we are using draws attention to past events of importance in a way that will hopefully involve everyone by calling attention to characteristics of our larger social organism. Idealistically this would in turn cause those involved to become a creator of that social organism in at least some small way.