A hundred years ago, Dadaists made prankish, confrontational “anti-art” to protest an increasingly nationalistic and fractured Europe that was hurling itself into World War I. Their art was meant to reveal and criticize things as they were, not to be distracted from them. While the jarring effects of modernism as a whole was their muse, they also had a knack for precision strikes, as when Marcel Duchamp famously signed a urinal and submitted it to the Society of Independent Artists exhibition. It was never displayed, but that was sort of the point: The works were meant as an antagonism, not an ends in themselves. “One cannot understand Dada,” wrote Richard Huelsenbeck in 1920. “One must experience it.”
This Tuesday at CAC Woodside I'll be one of several presenters at the monthly Pecha Kucha:
Holding Things in Common: One Small Step towards an Alternative to Capitalism
Typically when we hear something has fallen to the "Tragedy of the Commons" we imagine a lack of structure or regulation, when in fact the real tragedy that befell the English commons and similar institutions was one of too much control by too few people. How can we build new organizations that hold resources in common and what sorts of metrics can we use to measure our success?
More information here.