The University is dead, don't consume it's corpse:

An argument for the dissolultion of the University of Aesthematics

I have requested that the members of the University of Aesthematics abandon the institution and align themselves with another Trajectory of Desire. Some have already come over, others are intent on defending it, and still others suggest compromise and reform. This is a lengthy description of the reason why dissolution of the University is necessary and imminent [as opposed to the concise Task-based iteration of the argument, which continues to be an entertaining act of Praxis.]



A Task is a written directive which is interpreted and executed creatively by an individual. The idea of prescribing action for others to carry out creatively is an art practice of Dada and the Situationists [and other groups throughout history], and has consistently been a popular mode in this century - all the way up to Miranda July. Because the interpretation of Tasks are left open, and therefore incomplete until the player invokes it, the Praxis belongs to the realm of creativity. SFZero, while being categorized as a game, is undeniably an extensive archive of artistic actions [though the quality of said artworks is sometimes lacking, they are artworks nonetheless].

In the University's Trajectory of Desire, it specifically lists as it's domain the following ideas: painting, discourse about experts, signatures, neighborhood appropriation and gentrification, museums, fashion, workplace art, drawing, anti-art, multimedia, "rediscovering" the body, depoliticization, illegality, personality, ambivalence. While it's Trajectory is based on the trio of Technique, Appearance and Product, it also claims to encompass the entire gamut of Art. All Tasking, therefore, is within a single group called "Aesthematics," and all the other groups are simply sub-categories of this group:

The U of A claims specific domain over anti-art: BART-PA is the study of psychogeography, which was born out of Situationist International, one of the more notable "anti-art" movements. The exploration of the city as a living organism, or a Biome, is a direct extension of this perspective. In addition, the U of A claims possession of "the body," which is the building block of the Biome, and "neighborhood appropriation," which is its primary motion. The U of A infers domain over Activist Art, and specifically over the topics of "depoliticization, illegality, personality and ambivalence." While it is clear that the goals of the Humanitarian Crisis are broadly socio-political - which is not exclusively artistic - Tasking for social change is a purely artistic action [to be differentiated from the entirely non-artistic realm of public policy, which the format of SFZero has no affect on]. The only group who's Trajectory isn't specifically targeted by the University's Trajectory is EquivalenZ, which simply calls for the patterning of the real on the virtual, or a proposition which is realized by an individual, which is the digital manifestation of "directed artistic action," as described above.

The placement of the University of Aesthematics within SFZero has been recognized as a preposterous assumption, because the domain of all of SFZero cannot belong to a single group while also leaving room for other groups.

It has been proposed that the University be re-imagined in a more restricted form. The limitations would necessarly modify the types of Art that the Aesthematics could claim as their own. The Aesthematics would be cut up into smaller, more manageable sub-groups. One easy sub-group would be those dedicated to the manufacture art-objects, encompassing painting, drawing, sculpture, etc. This would emancipate all artists who work in other media, including sound, video, text - and successive groups would be fashioned for these topics. If the Aesthematics choose to exclude clothing, then there must be a separate group as well for Fashion. There would need to be a group based on Food - undeniably the oldest of the creative arts. The boundaries drawn around the University would be fairly arbitrary, and discipline-based. The Interdisciplinary Artist, of course, would have their own group [a very weak idea, from my personal experience]. This tactic is already difficult, and it does not even begin to address the problem that all these sub-groups continue to claim potential domain over psychogeography, environmental and political activist art.

The attempt to define the Aesthematics by their discipline is most significantly problematic because the other groups are defined by their Desires, not their Modes. Every other group is driven by a rationale for why to take action, having no concern for how, or in what medium, that action is conducted. To define a group by its mode, medium, or manner of technique is not within the spirit of a Trajectory of Desire. The University of Aesthematics, as it currently exists, is not without a Desire, and it is thus: the need to make Art. This need can take several forms:

Firstly there is the desire to manufacture Art that plays into the construct of the "art discourse," which defines the Art World, which is fueled by the Art Market [the art discourse, of course, is unsustainable without the system of the Art Market, which is the conundrum of every artist working within the capitalist system]. This is the system which the University of Aesthematics is mockingly patterened after. Thankfully, SFZero is categorically opposed to this construct of consumerism.

It is possible to create art outside of this system, of course, as in the case of art-for-art's-sake, or the isolated cathartic experience of the artist. This therapeutic act is incredibly beneficial and healthy, but it is an act that has a specific audience: the artist themselves. An outside observer often enjoys the experience of the artist and the artwork, creating a meta-audience, which creates a value for the art outside of the original situation, thus introducing it into the Art Market. The only way to keep this art-for-art's-sake pure is to not display it outside of its original situation - especially not on SFZero.

The third option is to create art for a purpose outside of the Art Market [no art-for-art's-sake], meaning that the Trajectory of the artwork goes beyond simple existence within the Art World. In other words, art-for-a-cause: Biome, EquivalenZ, Psychogeography, and Humanitarian Crisis [as well as Chrononautic Exxon, S.N.I.D.E., and potentially other future Desires] are perfect examples.

To summarize, the University of Aesthematics can be interpreted as a Desire or a Mode. If it is a Desire, it encompasses all of SFZero, because Tasking is a machine of creative action. If it is a Mode, it is a group entirely different from all other groups, which makes it arbitrary in definition. The University of Aesthematics is therefore not necessary within SFZero. The Aesthematics should move to pursue other, more appropriate Trajectories without fear of abandoning Art-making - there is nothing to lose by this, only that Desire will be imposed over the act of creation. If the existing groups do not offer an appropriate Trajectory of Desire, then new groups, based on Desire, should be proposed.

The University should then be dissolved.

Sincerely,
The Revolutionary