Post #3690545

Ars Electronica's curatorial statements says art should be a way to negotiate; a space where things aren't clear and we have to ask questions. Fine. Read closely, it's a giant piece of avoidance, cowardice and wanting the cake and eating it too. It says a festival "cannot and should not be neutral"; every invitation is a stance. Indeed. But it also demands "symmetry of understanding": treating every viewpoint with equal seriousness. You can't do both. A stance means picking a side; equal treatment means not. It wants credit for both, so it never says what its side is. That's not a position, just pretending to have one. The reveal: we need "symmetry of understanding, not symmetry of facts." The example is genocide, which is a question of fact and law. Sensing the problem, they add that we should treat views equally "without weighing them against one another". But treating two views equally is weighing them. Next paragraph: war crimes and breaches of international law "belong to legal processes and international institutions." So it's about facts after all, raised only to excuse the curators from deciding, while the rest mocks "moral certainty". The law is solid enough to defer to, but not clear enough to have consequences. Avoiding responsibility while sounding careful. https://ars.electronica.art/futurebegins/en/theme/ #arselectronica