Critical Art Ensemble analysis.

While reading the Critical Ensemble introduction I couldn't help but be reminded of the caricatures of artist that are so often portrayed. The artist who uses the art world vernacular in a way that becomes absurd and almost incomprehensible. I think that this feeling came about when the author started to describe the disdain of being called artists that the members of the Critical Art Ensemble felt. The worry of being named, and therefore being categorized, seemed to go a bit too far for my tastes. I feel like a name does not necessarily have to define a thing or a movement. It just helps those who are not apart of the movement to give a way to voice their observations of an otherwise unknown thing. The identity does not have to be a permanent and unchanging.

What I did however, find interesting about the tactical art movement is the fact that they value the work of the amateur. Many other art forms require skills that have to be practiced and honed into something that is high above what an amateur can produce, and that is one of the things that makes it stand out and worthy of the title art. Those who have studied art can be jaded, while the amateur, because they have not been trained to approach ideas in formulaic ways can bring something new to the work. In the article this idea is expressed in the quote, “Most important, however, amateurs

are not invested in institutionalized systems of knowledge production and policy construction, and

hence do not have irresistible forces guiding the outcome of their process such as maintaining a place

in the funding hierarchy, or maintaining prestige capital.” With the CAE, the only thing that one needs to bring to the table seems to be a willingness to participate in the movement. As a collective the CAE works together and it is the skills of the group, not of the individual that is important.

There is an issue of lasting documentation with the CAE since their work cannot be preserved. It can only be told in second hand mediums such as video and photographs. While this can be quite frustrating, as it deteriorates some of the experience and intended impact of the work, it can help preserve at least part of what occurred, as a record. As a photographer, I constantly find my work to be only second hand records of experiences that leave much of what occurred out of the frame. I can understand the worry that these narrowed fields of vision have an effect on how the recorded events are perceived but it is better to have a record of some sort than a completely ephemeral experience that does not reside anywhere other than memory.