Tuesday, April 21, 2009

What Can You Use Instead Of A Rizla

OPENINGS Opening I Small Format Art Exhibition 2009, Contemporary Painting and Mixed Media ART SPACE

Artists and groups in the sample
The Awards
the winning works
Works by artists from various provinces
Mixed various
Second Prize Award of Mariel Trill Guillot
Candioti Along with Vera Lucia First Prize
Selected Works
Selected Works
Another view of the exhibits
On Friday April 24 at 20 pm, the space opened in AR Art, Exhibition of Small Format I, Contemporary Art 2009, Painting and Mixed Media, where he delivered the Diplomas, Awards and Prizes to the participating artists. JURY acted as the artist and curator FLORENCE SALAS (Buenos Aires) http://www.florenciasalas.com.ar/
were Selected:

ETCHEVERRY 1-MARTA-
V.TUERTO-2-STA FE DE RIOJA FUNES NORA MARTINEZ-BS-3-AS
TARTAGLIA ADOLFO MARTINEZ-BS-4-MARIEL
AS TRILL GUILLOT-FUNES-STA FE
5 ROSELL, JULIETA V.TUERTO-STA-FE
6-VERA LUCIA CANDIOTI V.TUERTO-STA-7-LEOPOLDINA BOYLE
FE-FE-STA V.TUERTO
8-ST-BEATRIZ ADRIANA V.TUERTO
FE-STA-9-Nelida Barrull V.TUERTO-STA FE
10-MARIA ELENA MOLINA biological V.TUERTO-STA FE
11-CLAUDIA ZANCHETTA V.TUERTO-STA-12-NADIA Menego
FE-FE-STA V.TUERTO
13-BEATRIZ NANNINI V.TUERTO-STA-FE
14-PABLO-URSOMARSO V.AMERICA-CORDOBA
15-CLAUDIA Rivero-C.RIVADAVIA-CHUBUT
16-FLORENCIA Santinelli V.TUERTO-STA-FE-
17-LUCIANA Bergaglio SANCTI Spiritu-STA FE
18-ABIGAIL Bergaglio - SANCTI Spiritu-STA FE
19-JOSEPH-OF ALICIA GUATIMOZIN
20-UNDER-CORDOBA-RODRIGUEZ-CORDOBA GUATIMOZIN
21-ELENA TORRES-CORDOBA
GUATIMOZIN-22-NELLY-OF JOSEPH GUATIMOZIN-CORDOBA 23-SANTIAGO
SOMOZA-Guatimozin-CORDOBA-Guatimozin
24-PATRICIA-CORDOBA ZANINI
BECCARIA-25-ANA-CORDOBA Guatimozin

26 - CORRAL DE BUSTOS ELIZABETH CARPI-CORDOBA
27 - GABRIELA Tinari CORRAL DE BUSTOS-CORDOBA
28-GONZALEZ, PASTOR HUGO-THE-SANTA CRUZ HERAS
Winners:
First Prize: Vera Lucia Candioti "Nomad," where you? (mixed media on canvas)
Second Prize: Mariel Trill Guillot White, broken for you "(mixed / mosaic)
Third Prize: Marta Ines Etcheverry "Searching" (acrylic on canvas)
Honorable Mention: Claudia Rivero "Untitled" (digital image)
Honorable Mention: Rio meek "(oil on canvas)
The closing of the exhibition will take place on May 9.

Brazillian Wax Gential Warts

Subjectivity and universalization of rights. Interview with Alain Touraine Critique of Culture



Subjectivity and universalization of rights. Interview with Alain Touraine * Ariel Ruiz Mondragón



The widespread and profound changes that have experienced the world and the societies in recent decades have led to having to produce new ways to understand and explain the phenomena, as old theories, categories and concepts have come to be, to say the least, inadequate.

One of the concepts to observe and analyze today's society has been the cultural, which has been exposed by the French sociologist Alain Touraine in various texts, particularly in his book A New Paradigm (Cambridge, Polity Press, 2005) where you make a claim of individualism as a way to overcome the gross inequalities and injustices of the present.

On some of the ideas expressed in this volume we had a conversation with the author: The above concepts with which the company previously thought and its links, changes that require a new paradigm, the proposal of individualism, social movements and the role of schools in shaping the social actor subject.

Touraine is one of the foremost sociologists of our time: he studied at L'École Normale Superiore in Paris and at the universities of Columbia, Chicago and Harvard. He founded the Laboratory of Industrial Sociology, which later became the Center for the Study of Social Movements. He was director of L'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, and is the author of at least 15 books.

Ariel Ruiz (AR): You raise that we have reached a conception of society that is no longer social therefore proposes a new cultural paradigm. What distinguishes it from previous paradigms about society, especially religious, political and social?

Alain Touraine (AT): We have a natural tendency to consider that has always thought in terms of the target company, which is totally false. Including, for example, national liberation movements of the English colonies of the British colonies or were political movements. Political philosophers, from Machiavelli, who is the great founder, and later Hobbes and Rousseau, spoke of society in political terms.

socioeconomic vision began actually mid-nineteenth century, almost at the same time in France and in England the problem was how to move from political to social. In the British case was a movement called Chartism was a political movement and became a labor movement. In France, the thing was more dramatic: in February 1848 there was a revolution, ie a political issue, four months later, in June, the workers, those without work and the state to pay something, they had no that payment and there was an uprising, formed barricades and the army attacked, thousands were killed. Then, four months went from a political to a social vision of society. I think it could also be said of other parts of the world.

So, first accept the idea that the world in which we lived in the past two centuries is not the normal or the end of history, as someone said. The issue is not easy, because it is the passing of social movements which I call cultural movements, or society that thinks all in cultural terms. The reason is as follows (and is something that is happening now): During the two centuries of industrial society, the main issue is that of workers, more and more numerous, and the owners, employers. If you consider the life of Europeans in the nineteenth century in the life of a man had almost no change until the end of the century began to manufacture on an industrial scale. He started a cultural transformation at the time, when the policy was geared largely to favor or not of workers.

What happened first in the U.S., then Europe and other countries? That, by mass production, we developed a mass consumption, a system of mass communications, the creation of images through the media, and so on. Then a nineteenth century workers felt threatened. We are now in a globalized world, mobilized, in which I, an individual, I feel lost, attacking me everywhere: I lose my identity, I'm not a global experience, but a series of pictures of myself, of incidents. The problem is that I am only at the present time, talking and listening to a television, and there is no relationship between the two: I am ten, then I am not anything.

The issue before us is that everywhere we are losing our unity in difference, and then we are still trying to maintain civil rights, civil and social, but we also have cultural, religious, linguistic, food.

thing is we do not have a personality, if any part of our particular experience, defined in terms of social struggle, we have no solid-family issues, traditions, food, etcetera. No, we processed everywhere, there is no core, no soul, no God, of course.

What can we do? There is a fundamental change, in my opinion, you see, because I'm not trying to make a theory, but trying to define what is happening, "the individual is aware of having the right to be an individual, and when individual speaks for itself, an individual right to be individual, we are talking about the definition of the subject.

As an individual, yes I am attacked by everywhere, but I will defend my right to a universal, because obviously I will recognize the same right to every individual, "against globalization is somewhat higher, which is the universalization of rights. Then when the subject is essentially defined as a being who has the right to have rights "here I return to the formula of Hannah Arendt. Cultural

means linking everything with my overall experience with the same dangers as before the organization of citizens may be terminated at the French Terror, the labor movement can end in Leninism. Then, cultural rights can become aggressive communitarianism, a kind of ethnic cleansing where there are no minorities, which I think is a new totalitarianism.

AR: What kind of events or processes can clearly show this cultural change?

AT: Just look at the sixties in America and in France, basically. In Paris there was a lot of sex, youth, and everything is basically cultural. The difficulty, in French and American cases, 68 is that this motivation, this movement, this fundamental concern has no vocabulary, no party, no political expression, and uses the vocabulary that existed before: the Marxist or anarchist discourse . It was new wine in old bottles. Despite rapidly disappear; this cultural movement, type Nanterre, La Sorbonne, has had an impact on almost all aspects of French life, except to the university, which was left out.

If we see today the agenda of parliament in France, first prepare the budget becomes law European decisions in France, and the rest of the time talking about gays, minorities, how to give more autonomy to the cultures while maintaining a citizenship for all, and so on. I would say that while the industrial society is the central problem of worker-employer, the problem of our society is majority-minority.

AR: You also made a claim of individualism, term that is resented by many.

AT: I use a lot of individual words, but please!, Avoid a misunderstanding: individualist does not mean "I'll stay here on my couch, watching TV, and all go to hell." No, it's quite the opposite. Today humanitarian movements realize that there are hundreds of thousands, millions of people who are abandoned because of such as ethnicity or region, and the old idea of \u200b\u200bhuman rights, which had been abandoned in the nineteenth century because they were "rights bourgeois "- is back: Everyone talks about individual rights, but universal. The big debate today is: do you believe to be maintained this idea that there is a universal issue? There is the multiculturalism. The English, who may have been the most multicultural, when someone from one of the other cultures dropped bombs on the London Underground, they thought better.

I think the problem is quite simple, there are two ideas that have to be completely reformulated: the first is that modernity, reason, universalism belong to a country or a group of countries, we, Americans, Frenchmen, are what universal-you, individuals, come, we'll educate and meanwhile we will have to rule his own house.

The other is the vision of multiculturalism unbearable total: if you are swahili Norwegian and me, we can not talk, because it is obvious that you're going to kill.

I would say, more generally, any approach, any theory to increase the polarization is completely inconsistent with the current trend in which the problem is that we can combine the unity of the citizenry with the plurality of cultures. That is only possible if we are at least polarized, at least opposite to each other. This indicates the great importance of the issue of communication with others.
AR: Is the cultural approach of society contradicts previous views of society, is it more egalitarian?

AT: The idea is that there is a cultural approach to see social life as there was a time with a focus on socio-economic and one political. But it maintains the general base. These paradigms are not opposite to each other completely, because whenever political power, economic power, cultural power have many linkages between them.

That's the idea. I add one thing, but it is not the same level: there is a large resistance that we've all seen for 50 or 70 years, major feminist movements eliminated to some extent, inequalities, lack of women's rights, with idea of \u200b\u200bequality.

Is there more equality? I'm not so convinced, because the large inequalities persist and sometimes increases outcasts, the marginalized, who are foreigners and migrants. But nevertheless, what I think, because I have seen great progress in equality, is that it has something different: women have not been entitled to subjectivity. A Muslim woman, who told me his life story, which was very dramatic, "he finally said to her:" Look, I realize that today, now for the first time in my life, I told myself. "

That means that individualism is the way to find within the individual subjectivity. Then there is a desire to create a culture not a woman, but a culture where you have the right to subjectivity, and women just imagine-in Castoriadis gives meaning to the word-a society that is defined by its willingness to reinstate the items that were polarized by the five centuries of male domination. That seems fundamental, because educational level, a level of moral ideas, the big issue is how you can build a society that is able to unite and not separate, integrate and not disintegrate. And the women with whom I worked, I was told one fundamental thing: for us not to choose between privacy and public life, but to combine personal and public life. This division of reintegration has been, in my opinion, significant progress, and rather than try to approach women to men, men who try-with difficulties but not hostility, to approach women. So I say that there is a movement towards equality: a society of men there, but now, I'm sorry "is a society of women, but not necessarily unmasculinity-which would be ridiculous.

I wrote a book on women, precisely where he said that this trend that I had studied at the global level, this cultural model rather than a purely social paradigm is expressed in terms of actors, more in women than in men . In my opinion 50 years ago said the woman is a victim, must be protected, what is absolutely true- but I must say that women are doing more for it. That is only a part, but that is extremely important.

AR: In addition to women, what other social categories are important?

AT: A problem of the same type of youth, the poor, the very poor, the elderly, the very old. I hope and believe that the age disappears, it is a very important issue in terms of social policy, but it is a form of segregation. I believe that these categories of sex or gender, social origin, etc., have to lose out to the individual's ability to transform themselves into a subject.

AR: Today we commemorate the forty years from 68 in France and Mexico. In that sense, you are the author's classic social movements. How do you see today, broadly speaking, social movements?

AT: When I said "no more social movements" because they were social and political movements, socio-economic and sociocultural. What I think is that one can not consider the labor movement today as grassroots as it was for so many years, as it was in industrial society, when that movement was central. But today is not so, particularly Mexico, where I believe there is little enthusiasm for unionism manipulated by the State. Then we should talk more of cultural movements.

AR: In the book there are some notes about the school. What changes should be in it to form the individual social actor and personal subject that you said?

AT: The school and the family. Problems are immense. We must move from a school that transformed the young in a city, school socialization, to a school that tries to be young people capable of autonomous action. That means not only freedom, but internalize the authority.

What is difficult in the educational systems in general is that they are oriented toward society, his social role does not give them the ability to help young people build through their religion, their sexual behavior, language, etc.. This is where we see that the old system is going down, and that many young people who are lost. That's a problem.

Education needs to be rethought. There are some cases where it has, of course, but the results are very uncertain. One thing is very frustrating for me: in many countries is quite easy to find methods of contraception. Explain to the youth in schools, has created the morning after pill, everything is easy, and if you have a little trust there is no error, but there are, and many which do not decrease, which means that passing the freedom to control itself is not so easy.

The great thing we've learned in terms of education, actually discovered by sociology, is that the type of communication between teachers and students creates more or less inequality, but has larger effects that social origin, for example, if a history teacher or chemical which is a direct relationship, the results will be very bad, but if the teachers say "we are a group that has to communicate with another group, and we have to communicate with us so that we help the building one by one student, the results change greatly. I'm talking about the studies done in public schools, in a fairly homogeneous region of Bordeaux. This indicates that the differences between methods of communication are more objectifying effects of this idea of \u200b\u200bwhether you are born rich or poor.



* This interview appeared in Metapolítica , Vol 13, no. 63, January-February 2009. Reproduced with permission of the director.