–> You’re part of it! Actually it all started in Champaigne-Urbana…. See ya sometime soon I hope….

in fact, in my opinion, they are related: but probably not in the lineal, consecutive, progressive sense that classical historiography is used to stablish – i mean, one can throw the hypothesis that the formal inventions of the historical avant-gardes have survived through several paths, underground and not underground, despite the fact that art history has always attempted to silence the formal/political achivements of the avant-gardes, reconsidering them under a totally different focus that was never at all political – or under a focus where the “politics of the forms” were mostly understood under the modernist paradigm -

most of us who have been into punk culture and produced our own fanzines when sixteen, only later on knew how much that was aesthetically indebted to dadá – you dont need to read greil marcus or – i remember all the 80s industrial culture and the international musical exchange network was pretty much intertwined with the “matrix” of 50s-60s mail art… which in its turn was so much rooted in dadaism and other avant-garde practices -

probably the path to follow backwards towards russian constructivism is a bit more complicated – but – i guess that the more or less contemporary emphasis on networking *as a productive* collective experience – is pretty much connected to the ideas of leaving the art institution to step into *production* as an art-social practice…- and the emphasis that certain trends of later constructivism were to put on the relationship between the usefulness/communicative aspects of the “artwork”, might be seen as one of the origins of recent activist/communicative/network experimentations… -

You probably don’t even understand what this means, because you’re nothing but a fart faced kid: By contrast to the formalism of the often de rigueur relational aesthetics, French theorist Jacques Ranciere enlists an ontological argument to…