Rahel Puffert: What is “In Common” Here?
What is “In Common” Here?
(S. 217 – 239)

Rahel Puffert

What is “In Common” Here?
Transformed Relationships Between Art and Education on the Path to (Digital) Commons

PDF, 23 Seiten

  • Commons
  • Urheberrecht
  • Digitale Kultur
  • Autorschaft
  • Ästhetik
  • Kunst

Meine Sprache

Aktuell ausgewählte Inhalte
Deutsch, Englisch, Französisch

Rahel Puffert

is a cultural theorist and Professor for Art and Education at the Hochschule der Künste, Braunschweig, Germany. She taught art and its mediation at Carl von Ossietzky Universität, Oldenburg, between 2012 and 2019 and is co-founder and artistic director of Werkhaus Münzviertel since 2013. The focus of her research is the educative and social function of art, and art in public space, for example in schools. Rahel worked in art mediation for Städtische Galerie Nordhorn and Kunstverein Springhornhof Neuenkirchen and as advisor for “ÜberLebenskunst. Schule,” Bundeskulturstiftung/ Freie Universität Berlin; she collaborated with the projects “target: autonopop,” the archive for art and social movements and FRONTBILDUNG and was editor and founding member of the Internet platform THE THING, Hamburg. She works, publishes and researches on the diverse transitions between artistic, educative and (cultural-)political practices.
Shusha Niederberger (Hg.), Cornelia Sollfrank (Hg.), ...: Aesthetics of the Commons

What do a feminist server, an art space located in a public park in North London, a ‘pirate’ library of high cultural value yet dubious legal status, and an art school that emphasizes collectivity have in common? They all demonstrate that art can play an important role in imagining and producing a real quite different from what is currently hegemonic; that art has the possibility to not only envision or proclaim ideas in theory, but also to realize them materially.

Aesthetics of the Commons examines a series of artistic and cultural projects—drawn from what can loosely be called the (post)digital—that take up this challenge in different ways. What unites them, however, is that they all have a ‘double character.’ They are art in the sense that they place themselves in relation to (Western) cultural and art systems, developing discursive and aesthetic positions, but, at the same time, they are ‘operational’ in that they create recursive environments and freely available resources whose uses exceed these systems. The first aspect raises questions about the kind of aesthetics that are being embodied, the second creates a relation to the larger concept of the ‘commons.’ In Aesthetics of the Commons, the commons are understood not as a fixed set of principles that need to be adhered to in order to fit a definition, but instead as a ‘thinking tool’—in other words, the book’s interest lies in what can be made visible by applying the framework of the commons as a heuristic device.