Reassembling Musicality

Transfers ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-134
Author(s):  
G Douglas Barrett
Keyword(s):  
Contemporary Art ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Open Borders

Reassembly, curated by G Douglas Barrett and Petros Touloudi Tinos, Greece 5 July 2017 to 31 October 2017 The free movement of bodies and objects once considered critical for the smooth functioning of contemporary art has appeared, especially since 2017, increasingly uncertain in this era marked by new forms of nationalism, xenophobia, and economic isolationism. Indeed, many artists working in this environment have found it difficult or impossible to cross once unquestionably open borders, or to ship works to and from exhibitions held across a requisitely international stage. As an attempt to respond to this crisis, I, along with Petros Touloudis, curated Reassembly, an exhibition held in the summer of 2017 on the island of Tinos, Greece. The exhibition came out of an annual residency program organized by Touloudis’s Tinos Quarry Platform and was held at the Cultural Foundation of Tinos. Overall, we wanted to ask if there is a critical role for music can play in the field contemporary art, especially as its plagued by new forms of border policing and geopolitical conflict.

Economic Objections to Open Borders

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bas van der Vossen ◽  
Jason Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Domestic Workers ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Basic Case ◽  
Open Borders

The chapter discusses an important set of economic objections to the case for open borders. These objections focus on protecting the wages of domestic workers, maintaining a welfare state, and the effects of admitting migrants who come from illiberal societies. All these objections are shown to be insufficient to overcome the basic case for free movement. They either rely on false empirical claims, or assume—rather than establish—that countries can close their borders to immigrants. As a result, the presumption in favor of free movement, established in the previous chapter, remains undefeated. This concludes the case for open borders.

Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Friedlander
Keyword(s):  
Contemporary Art ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Trompe L'oeil ◽  
Aesthetic Politics ◽  
The Way ◽  
Aesthetic Forms

Drawing upon Jacques Lacan’s insight that fiction paves the way for an encounter with the truth, and Jacques Rancière’s conception of an “aesthetic politics,” this introduction explores realism’s complicity with deception. It addresses contemporary aesthetic forms of trompe l’oeil, illusion, virtuality, simulation, and hypervirtuality with a view to destabilizing the conservative force yielded by the illusion of metalanguage. It lays the foundation for examining ways in which realist forms of contemporary art and media may constitute motors for subversion and develops an account of the critical role that realism can play in a provocative form of radical aesthetic politics.

The Moral and Economic Case for Free Immigration

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bas van der Vossen ◽  
Jason Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Common Sense ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Economic Models ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Prima Facie Case ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Open Borders ◽  
Moral Case

The chapter makes a prima facie case for open borders. It argues that there is a strong common-sense moral case for free movement because migration restrictions coercively interfere with people’s freedom of movement. Such restrictions generally stand in need of justification. Second, there also exists a strong economic case for free movement. Economic models and history suggest that freeing up migration will be an enormous benefit to both migrants and receiving populations. The chapter concludes by suggesting that even though it does not offer a conclusive case for open borders by itself, the burden of proof squarely lies with those who would oppose immigration.

Culture, Free Movement, and Open Borders

2010 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patti Tamara Lenard
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Preservation ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Full Account ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Open Borders ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Exclusive Focus ◽  
Do So

AbstractCommunitarians are derided for their commitment to closed borders. According to their critics, if we balance the claims of cultural preservation (deployed primarily by wealthy countries) against the claims of economic betterment (deployed primarily by the very poor), the correct moral ordering will prioritize the claims of economic betterment, and thus support claims for open borders over closed borders. Yet, this standard way of framing the debate ignores the deep connection between cultural claims and freedom of movement. In the near-exclusive focus on the relationship between cultural preservation and the alleged importance of closed borders, free movement advocates have lost sight of how frequently culture bolsters claims in favor of freedom of movement. I argue that cultural claims should not be ignored in discussions of free movement. To do so fails to give a full account of the reasons we have to favor free movement, oftentimes across borders.

scholarly journals Art as Critique under Neoliberalism: Negativity Undoing Economic Naturalism

Arts ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 11
Author(s):  
Alexander Gawronski
Keyword(s):  
Contemporary Art ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Art World ◽  
Real Nature ◽  
Political Critique ◽  
Individual Enterprise ◽  
Neoliberal Economics ◽  
Art And Culture ◽  
Contemporary Artist

This essay considers the possibilities of contemporary art as a viable medium of socio-political critique within a cultural terrain dominated by naturalised neoliberal economics. It begins by considering the centrality of negativity to the historical project of critical theory most forcefully pursued by Adorno as ‘negative dialectics.’ Subsequent varieties of postmodern critique fairly dispensed with dialectics variously favouring complexity and an overriding emphasis on textuality. With the birth of neoliberalism and its burgeoning emphasis on ‘the contemporary’, economic values begin to penetrate every aspect of contemporary life and experience, including art and culture. Contemporary capitalism dematerialised as financialisation now comprises a naturalised ambience that is both everywhere and nowhere. Capitalist ambience is echoed in contemporary art that suggests criticality and yet seems to side with the imagery, values and logics of the prevailing financial order. The naturalisation of the neoliberal order is further internalised by artists online. Exacerbated contemporary emphasis on the ‘self as entrepreneur’ coincides with the biopolitical transformation of the contemporary artist into an individual ‘enterprise unit’. This is particularly observable online on social media where an artist’s whole life is simultaneously the subject and object of art. Criticality in art does not disappear but becomes ‘self-annulling’: it acts as a conduit questioning the commodity-identity of art while pointing to phenomena and affects outside the art world. With the recent appearance of the COVID-19 virus, added to the unignorable impact of global climate change, ‘real nature’ assumes a critical role, undermining neoliberalism’s ideological naturalisation while laying-bare the extent of its structural contradictions. Art criticality is revivified by divesting from art contexts saturated with neoliberal imperatives. Criticality is negatively practiced as an ‘un-’ or ‘not-doing’, defining modes of exodus while, crucially, not abandoning art’s institutional definition altogether.

scholarly journals Free Movement, Open Borders, and the Global Gains from Labor Mobility

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 783-808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Dustmann ◽  
Ian P. Preston
Keyword(s):  
Labor Mobility ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Welfare Gains ◽  
Free Mobility ◽  
Open Borders

Straightforward economic arguments point to the potential for large global output gains from the movement of labor from less to more productive locations. Yet the politics of receiving countries seems resistant, characterized rather by efforts to limit migration or to stop it altogether. In this article we examine the foundations of claims of large welfare gains through free mobility, studying implications of liberalizing migration for world welfare under a variety of models, paying attention not only to overall gains but also to how gains are distributed and reviewing attempts to quantify the benefits. We conclude by asking how far considerations beyond economics motivate keenness to impose restrictions on migration.

scholarly journals Is Free Movement a Natural Right? Between Modern State and Aristotelian-Thomist Utopias

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-159
Author(s):  
Dario Mazzola
Keyword(s):  
Natural Law ◽  
Alasdair Macintyre ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Western World ◽  
Short Article ◽  
Natural Right ◽  
Michael Dummett ◽  
Open Borders ◽  
Special Relations ◽  
Natural Law Theory

In these times of walls and razor-wires, open borders appear to be more utopian than always. Nonetheless, philosophers like Joseph Carens and, similarly but earlier, Timothy King and James L. Hudson, famously argued that the major philosophical perspectives in the Western world—libertarian, egalitarian, and utilitarian—would support a right to freedom of international movement of people. What would be the relative default position from the standpoint of natural law theory? In this article, I present a general introduction on natural law theory and its role in and outside philosophy, before presenting claims specific to the migration debate. I then recall the defence of a right to free movement by two authors sympathetic to the natural-law tradition, Ann and Michael Dummett: a defence which is grounded in principles of fairness and reciprocity and develops elements belonging to international law. I also outline John Finnis’s more critical and nuanced position. Finnis is eager to legitimize state authority and the “special relations” binding fellow countrymen: however, I claim that the classic Thomist perspective in which he situates these claims ensure his respect of a right to international movement which could be characterized as a version of “open borders,” with some definitional restrictions and qualifications of this latter phrase. Finally, I deal with the theory of Alasdair MacIntyre. Trying to infer MacIntyre’s attitude toward migration from the classic but short article on patriotism, might turn out to be no less dif ficult than potentially misleading, especially if that article is not read in its details. Complementary elements are offered in MacIntyre’s account of natural law “as subversive.” On these grounds, I claim that, contrary to simplistic misreading of MacIntyre’s alleged “communitarianism,” MacIntyrean Aristotelian Thomism would endorse a theory of migration more compatible with reasonably conceived open borders. I conclude my chapter with a presentation of Aquinas’s concise intervention on the subject, and I show that it further supports my reading of the natural law tradition.

Three Mistakes in Open Borders Debates

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam B. Cox
Keyword(s):  
Free Movement ◽  
Philosophical Work ◽  
Early American ◽  
International Borders ◽  
Open Borders ◽  
Persuasive Argument

What might justify laws that restrict the free movement of people across international borders? This chapter corrects three common mistakes made by those who try to answer this question. First, debates about open borders often conflate three quite distinct questions—about whether border restrictions are permissible, when they are permissible, and who gets to decide. Second, the early American immigration jurisprudence often cited by legal scholars was not about open borders arguments as many have supposed. Third, it will be very difficult to make a persuasive argument in favor of border restrictions without simultaneously tackling the question of what principles of equality require for those who are admitted into a state’s territory. These twin questions are typically segregated in philosophical work on immigration, but they are tied together in ways that are too often overlooked.

Inclusion and exclusion

1996 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 343-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Goodin
Keyword(s):  
Social Support ◽  
Social Exclusion ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Open Borders

Many familiar political projects—among them, demands for participation, for citizenship and for free movement and open borders—have been recently subsumed within a larger crusade against ‘social exclusion’. But each of these political projects seems better understood, and better pursued, in its own original terms. Furthermore, inclusionist appeals logically backfire: explicitly they are expansionist, urging the stretching of boundaries of membership so as to include those who were previously excluded; but every inclusion implies an exclusion (there can be no ‘inside’ without an ‘outside’); so indusionist appeals are implicitly consenting to a closed community, albeit one with a rather broader catchment. We ought to be striving instead for different kinds of communities, ones less internally inclusive and less externally exclusive. This amounts to a call for multiple overlapping jurisdictions, with many places where one can seek social support and many places where one might lodge a demand or file an appeal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document