ON PEDRO REYES ’ THE PEOPLE ’ S UNITED NATIONS ( 2013 – 2014 )
This becomes clear when one considers Sonia Livingstone ’ s work , which focuses namely on the relation between mediation and the possibility of political action . In “ On the relation between audiences and publics ” ( 2005 ), the media scholar argues that “ we need an account of the formation of public opinion and of citizens — early expressions of interest , exploration of experience , tentative trying out of viewpoints ” ( Livingstone 2005:29 ). She suggests developing such an account by focusing on the realm of the civic , which is required by political action without , however , necessarily leading to the latter . This is key in the case of pUN — an artistic engagement with an international organisation that isn ’ t open to regular forms of participation from the global citizens in whose name it speaks . The author also argues that paying attention to the civic demands an expanded understanding of citizenship — one that includes those moments in which one is confused and unsure of where one stands on specific political issues , i . e . “ a domain of pre-political consideration , of unease with states of being , rather than as a monument to specific rights , duties or identities ” ( Hermes and Stello 2000:219 cited in Livingstone 2005:35 ). As such , this understanding of citizenship is also accompanied by a redefinition of the notion of public as “ an ongoing space of encounter for discourse [...], a context of interaction ” ( 2005:62 ). I see pUN as exemplifying the potential of art practices to embody such spaces of civic interaction and pre-political encounters .
In doing so , the intervention avoided the erroneous conflation of dialogue and equality that art historian and critic Claire Bishop identifies at being at play , for example , in the work of Rirkrit Tiravanija , in which “ relations of conflict are erased rather than sustained ” ( 2005:119 ). This is particularly evident when pUN suggested the limited enactment of the Habermasian discourse theory of deliberative democracy ( 1984 , 1992 ) within the UN ’ s General Assembly . Additionally , pUN stressed the difference between the People ( referring to the category through which one becomes a citizen and acquires rights ) on the one hand , and the more mobile experience of western populations ( and hence viewers ) on the other . Indeed , as I mentioned earlier , the participants in pUN ’ s performance lived in New York , but they didn ’ t necessarily share a history or political identity .
This is why I see pUN as exemplifying the two ways how , according to Grant Kester , dialogical art practices are able to “[ retain the ] power of aesthetic dialogue without recourse to a universalising philosophical framework ” ( 2004:14 ) such as that of Habermas . On the one hand , Kester writes , they reject claims of universality . That is , such practices are
based on the generation of a local consensual knowledge that is only provisionally binding [...]. It is possible to engage in communicative interaction across boundaries of difference without the legitimating framework of a universal discursive system because the necessary framework is established through the interaction itself . ( Kester 2004:112 )
Second , the art historian writes , dialogical practices assume that “ subjectivity is formed through discourse and intersubjective exchange itself . Discourse [...] is itself intended
41