Michael Week 10: Ticktin

            The aspect of Ticktin’s book that I feel I can apply to my own work is the concept of “armed love”. She says, “The danger is that in pretending to be outside power, ‘unarmed,’ power is wielded without acknowledging it and therefore often without accountability. In this sense, I think of these moral struggles or ‘moralisms’ as forms of ‘armed love,’ often instituting repressive measures in the name of care” (20). Organizations and the state can carry out projects and policies that are reminiscent of Orwellian doublespeak. In claiming to be a source of care, liberation, or reform, many projects can be far more pernicious than their rhetoric would seem on the surface.

            I feel like this applies to my work, because we have seen a growing interest in the use of public, cultural and community art. Art is discussed as a way for communities to express themselves, a way for individuals to take pride in themselves and their communities, opportunities for beautification, and extracurricular activities for youth. On the surface, no one could argue against all these positive aspects of community arts. By taking Ticktin’s methodological approach, we might be able to see how arts can be a form of antipolitics. If we look at “beautification” particularly, we can see how this seemingly positive project can actually be a part of a system of oppression.

For example, the public art in Pilsen is meant to showcase the “culture” of the neighborhood, but it also serves as a tool to attract new residents, further contributing to gentrification. Much of the art in Pilsen is a form of antipolitics, because it attempts to be apolitical by just focusing on aesthetics. Beautification projects attempt to be apolitical, because critical, political artwork would make prospective residents uncomfortable. Instead of having art that connects historical forms of displacement of poor and working-class residents to current gentrification, murals will be some form of decontextualized Mexican cultural aesthetics or murals completed by artists from outside the neighborhood.

            I think it’s interesting to think about the antipolitics of art. Ticktin says, “[A]s we will see, increased policing and criminalization of immigrants takes place in the name of care and compassion, along with a reproduction of gendered and racial inequalities” (21). How can displacement, increase surveillance and criminalization of poor communities of color, and marginalization of Latinos be carried out in the name of art?

Question for class:

Throughout the book, Ticktin is walking many lines. “Recognizing suffering and fetishizing it as a fundamental and only basis of common humanity” (24) “This book is not about getting rid of care” (223). We often have to contend with binarisms that tend to stifle a nuanced critique of our own communities (Naber) or humanitarian/”progressive” causes (Ticktin). What binaries do you have to deal with? What have you taken from Ticktin’s approach in order to better assist your own work?