Greeting Terrorists,

The goal of this project was to allow the IMC to do what it can do, be an open space for ideas to be discussed openly. Therefore, we felt it important to make no selections, trust the viewers to make their own informed decisions. Are you suggesting that allowing people to think for themselves is a bad idea? What sort of standard would you propose to decide what is art and what isn't. We tend to think that this sort of decision is ussually tied to some hierarchical selection that was inappropriate to the IMC format.

What I do think is appropriate is trusting viewers to make informed and intelegent distinctions. While it is not my position to defend any of the included work, i would just ask you to think about the forum that the IMC allows for.

PS> OY, everyones a critic.

An easy way to hide a hierarchy is to start spouting democratic and anarchist rhetoric about how bad hierarchies are. The choices the "curator" made in who to contact about/involve with this project immediately established a hierarchy. Which is fine. Except when you try to pretend it's otherwise. And when you use anarchist rhetoric to defend bad art and the freedom to criticize it as such (while claiming you're not defending it).

Hey Pouy,

I never asked you not to criticize the art, I asked you think about your criticism of the project.

since when do anarchists have a monopoly on the word hierarchy?

What is they system that was used to gather the work?

It involved talking to IMC folk, looking through the web for art work, talking to gallery artists. There seems to be a relatively broad range of stuff here in no particular order.

So, if one piece insults you you call the whole project stupid. Fact is, thats a pretty clear sampling of the world, some things you like some things you dont like. And art, if anything, should be a space of open discourse where all matters are discussed.

What forms of visual culture where absolutely neglected?

And back to the hierarchy comment, anarchists as well as capitalists are as guilty of your critique of the word hierarchy. Only an incredibly well networked individual who is able to contact every sub-culture in the world would not be subject to this criticsm.

Or am I wrong, do anarchists have a little "out" that gives them a go to heaven for free card because they own the critique of hierarchy?

The letter, Greeting Terrorists: Inappropriate Responses, posted in the IMC Art Gallery, is creative writing.

I was thinking about the globalization movement, especially Vandana Shiva. Shiva writes that the movement against global capitalism is the voice for all things- human, inhuman, small, large, etc., not the singular voice of hegemonic privilege. RHETORICALLY, I was wondering if Shiva’s movement could include “terrorists” as well?

I wrote the piece before the US air war in Afghanistan. In LA, at that time, there was a tremendous sense of fear and anxiety. Anti-war meetings were a confused mix of voices: one mourned all political violence whether perpetrated by imperialists or "terrorists” (however they understood that violence is symptomatic...); another perspective was one which was shaken by the horror, but was tickled by the attack on the pentagon, and resigned to the fact that those in the WTC probably deserved it anyways. In the end, like the successful coalitions of the globalization movement, all perspectives worked together and compromised. As per Shiva, they understood that the many voices of dissent were together against the greater enemy of the, then impending, US war. A protest, demanding peace happened.

As an art exercise, I wrote the letter. I imagined that a delegate from this meeting attempted to contact the "terrorists." In the spirit of that meeting they would try to define common ground (a dislike of capitalism) and define terms of the collaboration (consensus decision making). Also in the spirit of that meeting, I had the letter writer outline what he thought he could offer "terrorists" (having a “skillshare”).

Ultimately the writer of the letter sounds lame. No matter how open he is to the multiplicity of political tactics he sounds naïve. His definition of a radicalized multiple movement, encompassing all voices of dissent, cannot encompass the "terrorist"- whose protest is never symbolic (although it depends on a huge symbolic afterlife)- nor targeted.

The piece Greeting Terrorists: Inappropriate Responses- is not an "artists statement" defining a pacifist's positions as some have claimed. The voice of the author in the letter is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. As a piece of writing, I hoped that, among other things, it would define an inability for activists to respond in the strategic and rationalized ways which we’ve grown accustomed to, when faced with the reality of random violence.

okay, I get it now! It's Conceptual. That's neat! And per your suggestion I have given some thought to my criticism of the piece and the whole project. I have even given some thought to giving some thought to my criticism.