WAR Group C COMMENT [FLOW] final posting

Challenge [FLOW] from AMS Group C:

"We feel that in contemporary times disruption is a value (esthetic, academic, performative) which is equally valid . . . How is this reflected in contemporary theatre and other arts? Now we see disruptions in traditional narrative, design and other dramatic elements as important esthetic modus."

Response [FLOW] from TAM Group C:

This is an extremely valid point, which brings to our minds the continuing tensions regarding the status of graffiti as an art among parties of differing opinions. Several years ago, it was decided that a wall on which graffiti had been officially allowed should be painted over. Here is a link to a report on the incident: http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20001031IE18

We understand that just several weeks ago, a similar incident happened, which shows the continuing negotiations, or disruptions, of the "flow" of what is considered "art".

Final COMMENT [FLOW] from WAR Group C:

The most cogent dynamic that this process drew up was the one between 'flow' and 'disruption' which was presented in the challenge from AMS Group C. It's interesting to conceive of how 'flow' (a naturally fluid, consistent, and smooth process) was naturally opposed by 'disruption' which is an immediate, active, and localized intervention. This seemed to imply that the 'flows' here are conceived as large cultural currents which can be protested by small external individual forces, not for example by a 'counter-flow'. Hence, graffiti as a method of social disobedience is an individual intervention in the form of a disruption whereas graffiti as an art form was opposed by a larger cultural flow emanating from the government which quite literally 'whitewashed' the art form.

Perhaps a question to follow on from this 'flow' thread would be to pick up on our original definition in relation to the challenge and response. We noted that 'flows' can exist on a micro and macro scale, for instance within a theatre building or across continents. In general the responses dealt with larger 'performances'; we wonder how the dynamic of 'flow' and 'disruption' would work on a smaller scale.

Many thanks to AMS Group 3 and TAM Group 3 for their insightful comments. We look forward to continuing the discussions :)
Posted by Stu, Michelle, and Keith.