Friday, December 13, 2013
The New Rules of Public Art
Demand new rules for public art now!
An organisation born in Bristol, UK, Situations reimagines what public art can be and where and when it can take place. We like to think and reflect on what happens when the spark of an idea is lit. We test out new ways in which to share those ideas through new commissions, events, interviews, books and blogs – just like this, The New Rules of Public Art.
Sign-up here to receive a link to download your free ‘The New Rules of Public Art’ poster or scroll down to get hold of your very own rulebook. In the meantime enjoy, share and debate The Rules.
THE NEW RULES OF PUBLIC ART
Rule no. 01
IT DOESN’T HAVE TO LOOK LIKE PUBLIC ART.
The days of bronze heroes and roundabout baubles are numbered. Public art can take any form or mode of encounter – from a floating Arctic island to a boat oven – be prepared to be surprised, delighted, even unnerved.
Futurefarmers, Flatbread Society, Oslo, 2013. Photo: Max McClure
Rule no. 02
IT’S NOT FOREVER.
From the here-today-gone tomorrow of a “one day sculpture” to the growth of a future library over 100 years, artists are shaking up the life expectancy of public artworks. Places don’t remain still and unchanged, so why should public art?
BC System, New Works Forever, Bristol, 2013. Photo: Georgina Bolton
Rule no. 03
CREATE SPACE FOR THE UNPLANNED.
Commissioning public art is not a simple design-and-build-process. Artworks arrive through a series of accidents, failures and experiments. Moments of uncertainty and rethinking are the points at which the artwork comes into focus. Let responses to the artwork unfold over time and be open to the potential for unforeseen things to happen.
Rule no. 04
DON’T MAKE IT FOR A COMMUNITY. CREATE A COMMUNITY.
Be wary of predefining an audience. Community is rarely born out of geography, but rather out of common purpose – whether that be a Flatbread Society of farmers, bakers and activists building a bakehouse or 23,000 citizens across 135 countries writing a constitution for a new nation. As Brian Eno once said, “sometimes the strongest single importance of a work of art is the celebration of some kind of temporary community.”
Alex Hartley, Nowhereisland, Mevagissey, 2012. Photo: Max McClure
Rule no. 05
WITHDRAW FROM THE CULTURAL ARMS RACE.
Towns and cities across the world are locked into a one-size fits all style of public art. In a culture of globalized brands and clone towns, we hanker after authentic, distinctive places. If we are place-making, then let’s make unusual places.
Rule no. 06
DEMAND MORE THAN FIREWORKS.
Believe in the quiet, unexpected encounter as much as the magic of the mass spectacle. It’s often in the silence of a solitary moment, or in a shared moment of recognition, rather than the exhilaration of whizzes and bangs, that transformation occurs.
Wrights & Sites, Everything You Need to Build a Town is Here, Weston-super-Mare, 2010. Photo: Max McClure
Rule no. 07
DON’T EMBELLISH, INTERRUPT.
We need smart urban design, uplifting street lighting and landmark buildings, but public art can do so much more than decorate. Interruptions to our surroundings or everyday activities can open our eyes to new possibilities beyond artistic embellishment.
Heather & Ivan Morison, Journée des Barricades, Wellington, 2008. Photo: Steven Rowe
Rule no. 08
SHARE OWNERSHIP FREELY, BUT AUTHORSHIP WISELY.
Public art is of the people and made with the people, but not always by the people. Artists are skilled creative thinkers as well as makers. They are the charismatic agents who arrive with curious ideas – a black pavilion could be barnraised in a Bristol park, a graveyard could be built to commemorate the Enrons and West India Companies of our fallen economy, the sounds of a church organ might bleed out across the city through a mobile app. Trust the artist’s judgment, follow their lead and invest in their process.
Rule no. 09
WELCOME OUTSIDERS.
Outsiders challenge our assumptions about what we believe to be true of a place. Embrace the opportunity to see through an outsider’s eyes.
Nowhereisland Ambassador, Weymouth, 2012 . Photo: Max McClure
Rule no. 10
DON’T WASTE TIME ON DEFINITIONS.
Is it sculpture? Is it visual art? Is it performance? Who cares! There are more important questions to ask. Does it move you? Does it shake up your perceptions of the world around you, or your backyard? Do you want to tell someone else about it? Does it make you curious to see more?
Rule no. 11
SUSPEND YOUR DISBELIEF.
Art gives us the chance to imagine alternative ways of living, to disappear down rabbit holes, to live for a moment in a different world. Local specifics might have been the stepping off point – but public art is not a history lesson. Be prepared that it might not always tell the truth.
Tony White, Missorts, Bristol, 2012. Photo: Max McClure
Rule no. 12
GET LOST.
Public art is neither a destination nor a way-finder. Artists encourage us to follow them down unexpected paths as a work unfolds. Surrender the guidebook, get off the art trail, enter the labyrinth and lose yourself in unfamiliar territory.
Jeppe Hein, Follow Me, Bristol, 2009. Photo: Jamie Woodley. Courtesy University of Bristol
Situations opens up the potential for artists to make extraordinary ideas happen in unusual and surprising places, through which audiences and participants are encouraged to explore new horizons.
We choose to work with artists who want to connect directly with people’s lives, creating space for them to take risks, to test limits and cross boundaries. Since 2002, artists have led us and thousands of others into unchartered territories, brought us together to build, bake, grow and marvel, transformed familiar surroundings, provoked us to ask ourselves challenging questions and told us tall tales of the future.
Demand new rules for public art now!
Join our mailing list and share in our mission, in thanks we’ll send you a link to download The New Rules of Public Art poster – join the mailing list
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
What Do We Mean When We Talk About 'Latino Art'?
When the Whitney Museum of American Art announced the , people took
to the Internet to chime in about who's been included and who's been
left out; the last biennial had been blasted for ignoring Latino
artists. But when a new show opened at the Smithsonian American Art
Museum featuring only Latino artists — — it was blasted for other reasons.
"Meaningless," in The Washington Post. In a review of the Smithsonian show, Kennicott was referring to the label "Latino art." (Yes, his word choice ticked off a lot of people, but more on that shortly.) Kennicott's point was that by grouping art by ethnicity, throwing together works by artists of different styles, periods and backgrounds, "you get a big mess."
Speaking to NPR, Kennicott defended his critique of the Smithsonian show:
These questions are at the heart of the debate ignited by Kennicott's word "meaningless."
Courtesy of the Philadelphia Museum of Art
"I was pretty stunned," says New York-based artist and filmmaker Alex Rivera. So he about Kennicott's review on his Facebook page. Rivera told NPR that he and other artists have seen these reviews before. "Every so often there's a show, kind of like the one at the Smithsonian, that gathers our work together and gives it a venue," Rivera says. "And every time that happens, there's a review that says putting our work together is a bad way to organize art." Yet, Rivera says, critics rarely review the work itself. Rivera also notes that critics do not question such equally broad categories as "American" or "European" art.
It was a lively Facebook thread with several people in the Latino arts community chiming in. Artist Judithe Hernández wrote, for example: "When was the last time the Guggenheim, Whitney or MOMA, exhibited contemporary Latino American artists?"
Even Kennicott chimed in. "I was kind of the skunk at the party in those discussions," he says. "But I was interested because it was a good conversation." Kennicott was so interested, in The Washington Post.
Someone who didn't weigh in on the volatile discussion was Smithsonian curator Carmen Ramos. It took her three years to put together "Our America." With 92 artworks by 72 artists who have roots throughout Latin America, it's an extensive survey that covers the period from the mid-20th century to the present.
Ramos fully agrees the term "Latino art" is extremely broad. It's also extremely rich, she says, yet many of the artists in the Smithsonian show — regardless of style — have been ignored by mainstream museums. "We use the term 'Latino art' as a construct, as a handle, really, to talk about an absence in the way that we think about American art and culture. That's why the word 'presence' is in the subtitle. Presence is the opposite of absence," Ramos says.
But that brings up a larger issue: Are museums doing an artist a favor or a disservice when they group shows together around ethnicity or gender rather than aesthetics? believes it's a disservice. She's a conceptual artist whose work is in the collections of major museums, including the Museum of Modern Art in New York. She recently that a film of hers be removed from a show of black performance art. Piper preferred not to be interviewed, but she sent NPR the email she sent to the show's curator. In it she wrote that "as a matter of principle," she does not allow her work to be exhibited in "all-black shows," because she believes these shows "perpetuate the segregation of African-American artists from the mainstream contemporary art world."
Sculptor and writer Barbara Chase-Riboud is equally troubled by
race-based groupings. She currently has an exhibition of work inspired
by Malcolm X at the . She's also the author of Sally Hemings: A Novel.
From her home in Paris, Chase-Riboud says these categorizations happen
not just in the visual arts, but in music and literature, too.
"I don't think people really understand the almost humiliation of being a creative person who thinks and believes he is doing something original and doing something universal, to suddenly be lumped in with anybody or everybody who has the same skin color. There's no logic to it," Chase-Riboud says.
She believes it also lets institutions off the hook. "So if they had one black show per year, they could go on doing business as usual for the rest of the year, which is why certain black writers have stopped publishing in February," she says. Black History Month might have been created "for good reasons," but Chase-Riboud says it now feels like "tokenism."
Nonetheless, some in the Latino arts community say that the show at the Smithsonian is a major milestone. New York University professor Arlene Davila says "the whiteness" in the art world exists "at all levels." So identity-based shows like "Our America" are the only ways Latino artists can stand on such a big stage.
In fact, Davila supports the ongoing campaign for a Smithsonian museum dedicated to Latino culture. "I would love to be in a universe where we don't need to have culturally specific museums because we do have a diverse museum world that represents all of us," Davila says. "But I don't live in that society right now. I don't know if we're going to be living in that society a hundred years from now, the way we are."
The Smithsonian exhibition "Our America: The Latino Presence in American Art" is on view in Washington until early March. Then it begins a national tour.
Original post
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/11/25/246139726/what-do-we-mean-when-we-talk-about-latino-art
I ALSO REALLY LIKE THIS ARTICLE
http://blogs.guggenheim.org/map/no-me-token-or-how-to-make-sure-we-never-lose-the-completely/
"Meaningless," in The Washington Post. In a review of the Smithsonian show, Kennicott was referring to the label "Latino art." (Yes, his word choice ticked off a lot of people, but more on that shortly.) Kennicott's point was that by grouping art by ethnicity, throwing together works by artists of different styles, periods and backgrounds, "you get a big mess."
Speaking to NPR, Kennicott defended his critique of the Smithsonian show:
So is there such a thing as "Latino art" or "Asian art" or "African-American art"? Are they "racial hang-ups," as African-American artist Raymond Saunders put it in his 1967 essay ""? Or are they necessary categories that force white-run museums, publishers and concert halls to recognize artists of color?"If we look at the art included in this exhibition, it includes everything from a Cuban exile who spent a lot of time in Paris and worked in a very cool, lovely, abstract style to Mexican-American artists who were doing a very political kind of art in Los Angeles. And one begins to wonder if there is, in fact, a lot in common between what they're doing."
These questions are at the heart of the debate ignited by Kennicott's word "meaningless."
Sculptor and writer Barbara Chase-Riboud is
troubled by race-based groupings. She currently has an exhibition of
work inspired by Malcolm X at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
"I was pretty stunned," says New York-based artist and filmmaker Alex Rivera. So he about Kennicott's review on his Facebook page. Rivera told NPR that he and other artists have seen these reviews before. "Every so often there's a show, kind of like the one at the Smithsonian, that gathers our work together and gives it a venue," Rivera says. "And every time that happens, there's a review that says putting our work together is a bad way to organize art." Yet, Rivera says, critics rarely review the work itself. Rivera also notes that critics do not question such equally broad categories as "American" or "European" art.
It was a lively Facebook thread with several people in the Latino arts community chiming in. Artist Judithe Hernández wrote, for example: "When was the last time the Guggenheim, Whitney or MOMA, exhibited contemporary Latino American artists?"
Even Kennicott chimed in. "I was kind of the skunk at the party in those discussions," he says. "But I was interested because it was a good conversation." Kennicott was so interested, in The Washington Post.
Someone who didn't weigh in on the volatile discussion was Smithsonian curator Carmen Ramos. It took her three years to put together "Our America." With 92 artworks by 72 artists who have roots throughout Latin America, it's an extensive survey that covers the period from the mid-20th century to the present.
Ramos fully agrees the term "Latino art" is extremely broad. It's also extremely rich, she says, yet many of the artists in the Smithsonian show — regardless of style — have been ignored by mainstream museums. "We use the term 'Latino art' as a construct, as a handle, really, to talk about an absence in the way that we think about American art and culture. That's why the word 'presence' is in the subtitle. Presence is the opposite of absence," Ramos says.
But that brings up a larger issue: Are museums doing an artist a favor or a disservice when they group shows together around ethnicity or gender rather than aesthetics? believes it's a disservice. She's a conceptual artist whose work is in the collections of major museums, including the Museum of Modern Art in New York. She recently that a film of hers be removed from a show of black performance art. Piper preferred not to be interviewed, but she sent NPR the email she sent to the show's curator. In it she wrote that "as a matter of principle," she does not allow her work to be exhibited in "all-black shows," because she believes these shows "perpetuate the segregation of African-American artists from the mainstream contemporary art world."
"I don't think people really understand the almost humiliation of being a creative person who thinks and believes he is doing something original and doing something universal, to suddenly be lumped in with anybody or everybody who has the same skin color. There's no logic to it," Chase-Riboud says.
She believes it also lets institutions off the hook. "So if they had one black show per year, they could go on doing business as usual for the rest of the year, which is why certain black writers have stopped publishing in February," she says. Black History Month might have been created "for good reasons," but Chase-Riboud says it now feels like "tokenism."
Nonetheless, some in the Latino arts community say that the show at the Smithsonian is a major milestone. New York University professor Arlene Davila says "the whiteness" in the art world exists "at all levels." So identity-based shows like "Our America" are the only ways Latino artists can stand on such a big stage.
In fact, Davila supports the ongoing campaign for a Smithsonian museum dedicated to Latino culture. "I would love to be in a universe where we don't need to have culturally specific museums because we do have a diverse museum world that represents all of us," Davila says. "But I don't live in that society right now. I don't know if we're going to be living in that society a hundred years from now, the way we are."
The Smithsonian exhibition "Our America: The Latino Presence in American Art" is on view in Washington until early March. Then it begins a national tour.
Original post
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/11/25/246139726/what-do-we-mean-when-we-talk-about-latino-art
I ALSO REALLY LIKE THIS ARTICLE
http://blogs.guggenheim.org/map/no-me-token-or-how-to-make-sure-we-never-lose-the-completely/
Monday, November 11, 2013
Neo-Mannerism?
Un articulo que me paso un amigo…. interesante para reflexionar.
ON ART’S INSIDIOUS NEW CLICHÉ: NEO-MANNERISM by Jerry Saltz
At Art Basel 2012. Don't do this. <http://tinyurl.com/ll5xr4a.
Call it Neo-Mannerism. We all know it. That ever-expanding assembly of anemically boring, totally safe artistic clichés squeezing the life out of the art world right now. Earlier this week, I called out one of them, in a review of the (very good) work of Bjarne Melgaard: bad-boy installations, reeking of transgression but not actually transgressing much. That got me thinking about a trend that's even more widespread and just as annoying.
Scads of artists are trying to be junior postmodernists. A phalanx of work has appeared that might be called "Modest Abstraction" or "MFA See, MFA Do." It's everywhere, and it all looks the same. In sculpture there's Anarchy Lite. Those post-minimalist formal arrangements of clunky stuff, sticks, planks, bent metal, wood boxes, fabric, old furniture, concrete things, and whatnot leaned, stacked, stuck, piled, or dispersed around a clean white gallery. There's usually a subtext about wastefulness, sustainability, politics, urbanism, or art history. That history is almost always straight out of sixties and seventies Artforum magazines or the syllabi of academic teachers who've scared their students into being pleasingly meek, imitative, and ordinary.
Looking at 2-D work, I'm this close to that old Carter-administration-era croak of "Painting is dead." Again. Nowadays we see endless arrays of decorous, medium-size, handsome, harmless paintings. It's rendered mainly in black, white, gray, or, more recently, violet or blue. Much of it entails transfer techniques, silkscreening, stenciling, assemblage, collage, a little spray painting or scraping and the like. There might be some smooshy blocks of color or stripes or other obvious open-form abstraction or geometric motif. A few painters are doing the same thing but with brighter colors, larger areas of paint, hints of gesture, or even drips. All this work has readymade references to preapproved, mostly male painters like Albert Oehlen, Christopher Wool, Michael Krebber, Wade Guyton, Laura Owens, and Sergi Jenson, or to the Minimalism or Pop movements, and of course it all calls up Warhol, Richter, Kippenberger, or Prince.
Then there are all the fussy collages of cut-up porn, furniture catalogues, ads, Internet screen-grabs, modernist architecture, urban wastelands, endangered species, sixties protests, or (of course) art-historical jpegs. We also see small-scale, colored, neatly framed, or cut-up photographs about photography. All of this Neo-Mannerism is an art of infinite regress. Defensive. Predictable. Safe. Well-defended. Loved by brainy magazines, websites, and curators but so far up its own ass that it can't breathe.
If art comes from everywhere and everyone thinks differently, why does so much of what we see these days look the same? Reams of artists influenced by and using the same art-history, artists, styles, and stuff. You know what that leads to. As Keith Richards wrote of a former dope dealer of his who got addicted to his own stuff, "Brad's dead now. It was the usual old story. If you're dealing in this shit, don't dabble in it." Artists making this generic work are Brad.
It's spreading, too. Even our wonderful smaller galleries on the Lower East Side, in Bushwick, and the like are awash in it. All this art is dying to be understood. And it is, instantly, by everyone, in the exact same way. Never mind that Oscar Wilde said, "The moment you think you know a work of art, it is dead to you." It fills galleries and biennials and is already so dead-on-arrival it may as well put a gun to its own head. It's all intellectual wallpaper, pricey placeholders, ham-acting, and showbiz. I know artists are facing knotty times, and I say this with love, but: Enough._NYMagazine
ON ART’S INSIDIOUS NEW CLICHÉ: NEO-MANNERISM by Jerry Saltz
At Art Basel 2012. Don't do this. <http://tinyurl.com/ll5xr4a.
Call it Neo-Mannerism. We all know it. That ever-expanding assembly of anemically boring, totally safe artistic clichés squeezing the life out of the art world right now. Earlier this week, I called out one of them, in a review of the (very good) work of Bjarne Melgaard: bad-boy installations, reeking of transgression but not actually transgressing much. That got me thinking about a trend that's even more widespread and just as annoying.
Scads of artists are trying to be junior postmodernists. A phalanx of work has appeared that might be called "Modest Abstraction" or "MFA See, MFA Do." It's everywhere, and it all looks the same. In sculpture there's Anarchy Lite. Those post-minimalist formal arrangements of clunky stuff, sticks, planks, bent metal, wood boxes, fabric, old furniture, concrete things, and whatnot leaned, stacked, stuck, piled, or dispersed around a clean white gallery. There's usually a subtext about wastefulness, sustainability, politics, urbanism, or art history. That history is almost always straight out of sixties and seventies Artforum magazines or the syllabi of academic teachers who've scared their students into being pleasingly meek, imitative, and ordinary.
Looking at 2-D work, I'm this close to that old Carter-administration-era croak of "Painting is dead." Again. Nowadays we see endless arrays of decorous, medium-size, handsome, harmless paintings. It's rendered mainly in black, white, gray, or, more recently, violet or blue. Much of it entails transfer techniques, silkscreening, stenciling, assemblage, collage, a little spray painting or scraping and the like. There might be some smooshy blocks of color or stripes or other obvious open-form abstraction or geometric motif. A few painters are doing the same thing but with brighter colors, larger areas of paint, hints of gesture, or even drips. All this work has readymade references to preapproved, mostly male painters like Albert Oehlen, Christopher Wool, Michael Krebber, Wade Guyton, Laura Owens, and Sergi Jenson, or to the Minimalism or Pop movements, and of course it all calls up Warhol, Richter, Kippenberger, or Prince.
Then there are all the fussy collages of cut-up porn, furniture catalogues, ads, Internet screen-grabs, modernist architecture, urban wastelands, endangered species, sixties protests, or (of course) art-historical jpegs. We also see small-scale, colored, neatly framed, or cut-up photographs about photography. All of this Neo-Mannerism is an art of infinite regress. Defensive. Predictable. Safe. Well-defended. Loved by brainy magazines, websites, and curators but so far up its own ass that it can't breathe.
If art comes from everywhere and everyone thinks differently, why does so much of what we see these days look the same? Reams of artists influenced by and using the same art-history, artists, styles, and stuff. You know what that leads to. As Keith Richards wrote of a former dope dealer of his who got addicted to his own stuff, "Brad's dead now. It was the usual old story. If you're dealing in this shit, don't dabble in it." Artists making this generic work are Brad.
It's spreading, too. Even our wonderful smaller galleries on the Lower East Side, in Bushwick, and the like are awash in it. All this art is dying to be understood. And it is, instantly, by everyone, in the exact same way. Never mind that Oscar Wilde said, "The moment you think you know a work of art, it is dead to you." It fills galleries and biennials and is already so dead-on-arrival it may as well put a gun to its own head. It's all intellectual wallpaper, pricey placeholders, ham-acting, and showbiz. I know artists are facing knotty times, and I say this with love, but: Enough._NYMagazine
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Presentacion del trabajo de Rodrigo.
Hola a tod@s,
Ayer decidi saltarme hablar de mi trabajo para que pudieramos ya entrar en discusión, pero les dejo aca dos links del ultimo projecto que termine justo antes de venirme a Vancouver - y en mi blog pueden ver rastros de otros de mis projectos - que como veran no son muy lineales - me apoyo mucho en emplear la potencialidad social(ble), la performatividad y la creacion de afecto/valor/conocimiento. (como aclaracion, cuando vean lo del Cultural Decenter en mi blog, este es en si un proyecto abordando la question de como el modo de entender y diseminar la cultura regula la creacion artistica (me llama mucho pensar en el proceso de crear otros espacios que den forma a otros tipos de expresion)
Entonces lo que les hubiera presentado ayer en sequencia va asi:
1. En este video la accion de inaugurar espacios otros es totalmente simbolica:
http://vimeo.com/46652177
2. En este otro la accion se lleva a un plano practico-afectivo (la potencialidad, performatividad y creacion de valor estan en juego)
Museum Without Entrance
http://culturaldecenter.net/museumwoentrance/
y un link a un ensayo de Stephanie Springgay que esta en el C Magazine 119 sobre residencias en el cual se explica desde su perspectiva de arte y pedagogia el projecto.
http://cmagazine.com/2013_119_springgay.htm
Y unas fotos tomadas durante una de las visitas:
Ayer decidi saltarme hablar de mi trabajo para que pudieramos ya entrar en discusión, pero les dejo aca dos links del ultimo projecto que termine justo antes de venirme a Vancouver - y en mi blog pueden ver rastros de otros de mis projectos - que como veran no son muy lineales - me apoyo mucho en emplear la potencialidad social(ble), la performatividad y la creacion de afecto/valor/conocimiento. (como aclaracion, cuando vean lo del Cultural Decenter en mi blog, este es en si un proyecto abordando la question de como el modo de entender y diseminar la cultura regula la creacion artistica (me llama mucho pensar en el proceso de crear otros espacios que den forma a otros tipos de expresion)
Entonces lo que les hubiera presentado ayer en sequencia va asi:
1. En este video la accion de inaugurar espacios otros es totalmente simbolica:
http://vimeo.com/46652177
2. En este otro la accion se lleva a un plano practico-afectivo (la potencialidad, performatividad y creacion de valor estan en juego)
Museum Without Entrance
http://culturaldecenter.net/museumwoentrance/
y un link a un ensayo de Stephanie Springgay que esta en el C Magazine 119 sobre residencias en el cual se explica desde su perspectiva de arte y pedagogia el projecto.
http://cmagazine.com/2013_119_springgay.htm
Y unas fotos tomadas durante una de las visitas:
Mis blogs:
PDF del Simposio Decolonial en Toronto.
Hola a tod@s!
Unas notas para continuar lo que les platique ayer...
La pagina web de la organizacion con la cual participo en Toronto es: e-fagia.org
Les envio el link para el PDF del evento Decolonial en Toronto. Contiene los abstractos de cada presentacion y bios de cada participante.
http://www.e-fagia.org/news/Decolonial_Symposium_Programme2013.pdf
Unas notas para continuar lo que les platique ayer...
La pagina web de la organizacion con la cual participo en Toronto es: e-fagia.org
Les envio el link para el PDF del evento Decolonial en Toronto. Contiene los abstractos de cada presentacion y bios de cada participante.
http://www.e-fagia.org/news/Decolonial_Symposium_Programme2013.pdf
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)