We Issue 5 Journal editors meet together at this brown kitchen table, often with wine or beer. Sometimes in the middle of our meeting, we go outside for cigarette breaks. We talk to explore ways of action and to agree on what is worth printing for you. It is difficult to schedule meeting times. With jobs, childcare, social lives and private time, it seems like we are always finding that one shelf spot behind the raisins to place this project. We frequently disagree on the simplest of terms (language and exchange); when disagreeing we try hard not to see conflict as a problem. We’ve all shared significant experience. We share a desire for social change and visions of the many ways in which it may or may not occur. When speaking and listening to one another we remember collective histories. We seek contexts to make use of these histories. We try embracing differences, either bridging gaps or gaping at the chasms. Ultimately, we now try to appreciate whatever we have between us.
How do we say we?
Arguably, today the act of social networking is commodified more visibly and materially than ever before, so we are not here lightly focusing on ourselves.
This commodification shoudn't hinder us to work in relation ship to one another and in a social and political context. Social memory with a sense of history and political demands seems to have undergone an accelerated and profound erasure. This rapid memory loss is facilitated by media consolidation and the plundering of public education programs to fund global mercenary actions.
In art production the commodification of the social and the erasure of the political is expressed as relational aesthetics, a pseudo-democratic practice that often is reflective of the values of global capitalism.
However, there is some value to the art world's focus on social relations and community. Collaboratively writing this forward, relational aesthetics came up with the magazine’s content. Situating ourselves into a social context is difficult because one is dealing with people's complexities. Recently, the Journal had the opportunity to collaborate with people whose actions we feared might alienate our readership. We faced a tough decision- piss on an opportunity or piss off our community. We decided to check in with our community; asking them, “what do you think about this situation…”, thus choosing to act as though someone holds us accountable. In printing our magazine the important thing is the relationship- building up and maintaining value in the trust that others put in each other toward shared ideals.
How can we work together?
