Public judgment

In the introduction, Rana Hamadeh interrogates the term public - not necessarily as public sphere, public space or public in the public-private dichotomy - but rather with the intention of analyzing what can be called public.

The artist outlines several questions that arise from the concept of 'public': from what position do we relate to the public? What is the notion of 'public' outside the public-private dichotomy? What are the inclusions and exclusions of this term, and under what terms can one be inscribed in what is public? Who is inscribed in the public - is the term 'public' specific to a 'we' that is in relation to citizenship? And can that which is outside this "we" be inscribed or not inscribed by the term "public"? Who has the right of entry to the public, whether we are talking here about the public sphere, the public domain or public space?

Rana Hamadeh tackles the notion of "public" in order to shake up, to cause a small earthquake around the idea, which thus receives content and possibilities of interpretation - is what is outside a walled room public? Does what is called a public institution within a state belong to the public domain?

In his text, Jürgen Habermas analyzed the first etymological reference to the public sphere. In the German language, the noun Öffentlichkeit was formed from the adjective öffentlich during the 18th century, but it was hardly used at that time, which might have led Heynatz to consider it unpleasant. As the idea of "public" did not require a specific terminology, we can assume that, at least in Germany, the public sphere emerged and took possession of its functions only at that time. One can observe a preoccupation with the representation of the "public" and the "private" in Greek antiquity, when, in the competition among equals, the best excelled and won the immortality of fame; the polis provided an open ground for honorable distinctions: citizens interacted as equals with equals, but each did his best to excel.

In the context of the historical-etymological identification of the term "public," Rana Hamadeh believes that the public was never open to all. What might this fact represent - is openness a criterion for 'public'? What implications would this openness have?

Delia Popa mentions that when something is said to be open to all it means that there are closed sectors. Lilia Mestre questions the idea of "all" - who is "all"? "All" is an impossible concept.

Rana Hamadeh brings up a film released earlier this year by Dutch artist Wendelien van Oldenborgh, whose research is focused in Brazil. There she worked with two women from different generations - one was in her 30s, the other in her 60s. The woman in her 60s was a politician and white, and the woman in her 30s was a funk singer and black. In the movie, the female politician tells the young woman that in the 1970s, the government was against her. Among other things, she recalls a certain event that everyone attended . At the same time, the singer talks about a concert that took place in the ghetto where everyone ^came1. Suddenly there is a tension - who is 'everyone'? Who is 'everyone'? They both insist that everyone from the country came. But this common body that for them represented 'everyone' consisted of the people with whom they identified at a class level. In this sense, the question of a public open to all goes beyond the level at which the state or the capitalist system proposes public accessibility to public institutions; the discourse of power in a culture of endeavor reconfigures social forces and brings forward exceptional models.

Lilia Mestre adds that accessibility is elastic, not a general condition; accessibility is variable, generating spaces that are more or less flexible. Accessibility is a tool, a space that one can claim.

Rana Hamadeh thinks that the idea of accessibility goes beyond the ability to access or not to access an institution; we can talk about accessibility to knowledge. Or accessibility to become a citizen, concludes Lilia Mestre.

Rana Hamadeh wonders whether "public" is a term linked only to accessibility.

Anca Mihuleț reflects on the condition of "public", which can represent a space of consensus, a space without competition where there is no tension for one to become better than the other.

For Lilia Mestre, the public space is a place of disagreement, a place where there is no consensus, but where there is the possibility of coexistence. This is because we are not confronted with claims, even in terms of the description of the notion, and there is no authority of common sense.

Sara Manente emphasizes the "public thing", the "res publica" - when the public interacts with the government, with the law, and this state is consensus and disagreement at the same time.

Habermas has written that during the Middle Ages, the categories of public, private, and public sphere known as "res publica" served as their own political interpretation, but also as a legal institutionalization of a public sphere that could be perceived as bourgeois. For common use, there was public access to the fountain and the central market - loci communes, loci publici. The private was opposed to the common; the special meaning of private or particular was correlated with private interests. Later in the nineteenth century, says Rana Hamadeh, cafes and teahouses were the public places where people could meet and drink tea; these activities were related to the tea trade, the discovery of tea, the bringing of tea from Asia and the attitude towards this exotic product. To a certain extent, the constitution of the public event, the moment and the space alongside the public state were conditioned by a history of trade, part of colonial history. Newspapers could be found in the tearooms, there was the meeting place of the intellectual scene, and public discussions about the politics of the state took place. The audience was both class and context.

Another aspect of how we arrive at the term 'public' is the use of transparency in relation to public life at the political and social level. Constantina Peter asks whether a government can be truly transparent, while Delia Popa sees different levels of transparency as values of the democratic state. Linking transparency to a political discourse that creates the illusion of openness and open seats for everyone, Rana Hamadeh sees transparency as a dangerous concept, while democracy can be perceived as another form of dictatorship masked by the illusion of transparency. Here, drawing on the series of interviews between Gilles Deleuze and Claire Parnet entitled Abécédaire, Sara Manente discusses the idea of jurisprudence, emphasizing the need for law enforcement on how government functions in practice. She also recalls the chapter "Tiananmen" from Agamben's book, The Coming Community, in which the author predicts that the future of our democracies is a state against the people because there will no longer be representativeness but stratified communities, and people will not be able to integrate into a community that is unanimously recognized. With these ideas in mind, Rana Hamadeh combats the idea that the public space should be identified with a space of consensus; consensus does not give the right of entry to the public domain. For the artist, the notion of 'public' defines a domain that allows for the acceptance of difference, along with the visibility of the disputes and clashes involved in the production of difference.

Lilia Mestre states that when there is no difference of opinion, there is no practice - if I am different from you, I would like to negotiate. If there is no negotiation, there is no public.

For Rana Hamadeh, negotiation generates the 'audience'. This is not a space. If we think of the public outside the space or the field, it becomes a movement, a force that breaks down norms every second. We negotiate and perform (as Delia Popa puts it) our own language to reinvent the public sphere. Public engagement can idealize what the notion of "public" really means. The social demand for public space can accelerate uncertain processes, bringing with it the institution of critique that implies openness, the right to knowledge and understanding, along with the condition of the public eye or observer.

In her introduction, Rana Hamadeh questions the term public - not necessarily as public sphere, public space or public in its dichotomy towards private but more likely trying to think about what can be public. The artist considers that several questions arise from the concept of "public": from which position do we think about public? What is public regardless the dichotomy public - private? What are not only the inclusions and exclusions from this term, but under what terms can somebody be inscribed within what can be public? Who is inscribed within the public - is the term "public" specific to an "us", which is related to citizenship? And what is outside this "us", can it be inscribed or not within this term of "public"? Who has the right of entry towards the public, be it the public sphere, the public domain or space?

Rana Hamadeh is approaching the notion of public in order to shake, make a little earthquake of the term so it receives content and the possibility of interpretation - is anything outside a room with walls public? Is anything that is called public institution within a state belonging to the public realm?

In his text, Jürgen Habermas analyzed the first etymological reference to the public sphere. In German, the noun Öffentlichkeit was formed from the adjective öffentlich during the^18th century, but it was minimally used in those days that Heynatz could consider it objectionable. As the idea of "public" didn't impose a specific terminology, it can be assumed that at least in Germany, the public sphere emerged and took on its function only at that time. Notions concerning what is "public" and what is "private" can be found in the Greek historical times, when in the competition among equals, the best excelled and gained their essence - the immortality of fame; the polis provided an open field for honorable distinctions: citizens interacted as equals with equals, but each did his best to excel. In this kind of historical - etymological tracing of the term "public", Rana Hamadeh considers that the public has never been opened to all. What would this signify - is openness a criteria for being "public", and what would this openness imply?

Delia Popa mentions that when you say something is opened to all, it means that there are a lot of areas that are closed. Lilia Mestre questions the idea of "all" - what is "all"? "All" is an impossible concept. Rana Hamadeh brings into the discussion a film launched at the beginning of this year by the Dutch artist Wendelien van Oldenborgh who has been researching a lot in Brazil. There, she worked with two women - one woman was around 30 years old, and the other one was about 60 years old. The 60 years old woman was a politician, and she was white. The 30 years old woman was a funk singer, and she was black. In the movie, the politician was telling the young woman about how in the '70s, the government was standing against her. She was talking about a specific event attended by everybody. At the same time, the singer was talking about a concert that happened in the ghetto, where everybody ^came1. All of the sudden, there was this tension - who is this "everybody"? Who is this "all"? They both insisted that everybody in the country came. But the "everybody" they thought represented "everybody" were the persons they class-wise identified with. In this sense, the question about a public opened to all surpasses the level of what the state or the capitalist system can bring forth as a positive thing - that we have public accessibility to the public institutions; the power of discourse in a culture of effort reconfigures social forces, and brings forward exceptional models.

Lilia Mestre adds that accessibility is elastic, it is not a generality; accessibility is variable, generating spaces that are more or less flexible. Accessibility is a tool, a space that one can claim.

Rana Hamadeh thinks that the idea of accessibility goes beyond whether you can access or not an institution; we can talk about accessibility to knowledge. Or accessibility to be a citizen, as Lilia Mestre concludes.

Rana Hamadeh asks herself whether "public" is a term linked only to accessibility.

Anca Mihuleț reflects upon the condition of "public" that can represent a space of consensus, a space with no competition where you don't have the tension of one becoming better than another.

For Lilia Mestre, the public space is a place of disagreement, a place where there is no consensus, but there is the possibility of coexistence. Because there is no claiming, even in terms of its description, and there is no authority of the common sense.

Sara Manente emphasizes the idea of the "public thing", "the res publica" - when public interacts with the government, with the law, and this state is consensus and disagreement at the same time.

Habermas wrote that throughout the Middle Ages, the categories of the public, private and the public sphere known as "res publica" served as the political self-interpretation, as well as the legal institutionalization of a public sphere that could be perceived as bourgeois. For common use there was public access to the fountain and market square - loci communes, loci publici. The particular was opposed to the common; the special meaning of private or particular was connected to private interests. Later on in the^19th century, Rana Hamadeh says, the café and tea house were public spaces where people could meet and drink tea; it was very much related to the trade of tea, the discovery of tea, bringing tea from Asia, and dealing with this exotic good. In a way, the constitution of the public event, moment, and space, and sitting in public were conditioned by a history of trade that was also part of a colonial history. In the tea houses there were journals, there was an intellectual scene, there were public discussions about public affairs. Public was both class, and context.

Another aspect related to how we arrive to the term "public" is the usage of transparency in relation to publicness. Constantina Peter asks if a government can be completely transparent, while Delia Popa sees the different levels of transparency as assets of the democratic state. By connecting transparency to a political discourse that has created the illusion of openness and of place available for everyone, Rana Hamadeh considers transparency as a dangerous concept in itself, while democracy can be perceived as another form of dictatorship masqueraded with the illusion of transparency. In this case, starting from the Abécédaire interviews between Gilles Deleuze and Claire Parnet, Sara Manente debates upon the idea of jurisprudence, stressing out the application of law upon the way the government functions in practice. She reminds of the chapter "Tiananmen" from Agamben's book The Coming Community, where the author foresees that the future of our democracies is a state against the people because there is no more representability, but layered communities, and the people won't be able to integrate themselves in a unanimously recognized community.

Following these ideas, Rana Hamadeh disagrees that public space should be identified with a space of consensus. She disagrees that consensus is the tool that gives the right of entry towards the public domain. For her, "public" is a domain that allows the emergence of difference, and that allows the visibility of the struggles and clashes involved in the production of difference.

Lilia Mestre states that if there is no dissensus, there is no practice - if I am different from you, I would like to negotiate. If there is no negotiation, there is no public.

For Rana Hamadeh, this negotiation generates "the public". The public is not a space. If we think about public outside space or domain, the public becomes a movement, a force that undoes the norms every single second. We are negotiating and performing (as Delia Popa puts it) our language in order to reinvent the public sphere. The commitment to the public can bring in itself the idealization of what public really means. The social demand for public space can accelerate processes that are uncertain, bringing along the institution of critique that involves openness, the right to know, and understand, and the condition of the public eye or observer.