4.3 Article

Brexit, ugly feelings and the power of participatory art in Grayson Perry: Divided Britain

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CULTURAL STUDIES
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 744-760

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/13675494221126717

关键词

Affect; agonism; Brexit; Chantal Mouffe; conjuncture; Grayson Perry; nationalism; neoliberalism; populism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

"Divided Britain" is a documentary that explores the tensions in post-Brexit Britain through the perspective of artist-ethnographer Grayson Perry. The documentary provides a space for people from different camps to debate the limitations of the "post-political" formation through discussions of emotional and symbolic differences.
The polarised Leave/Remain positions offered by Brexit hampered opportunities for Britons to articulate the complexity of their affective political allegiances. Turning our focus on Grayson Perry: Divided Britain (2017, C4, Swan Films), we argue that Perry's role as artist-ethnographer enabled an exploration 'from below' of the tensions occluded by deliberative democratic debate in febrile post-Brexit Britain. Intervening in a conjuncture of which Brexit was symptomatic, Perry's arts documentary with Channel 4 provided the space to articulate newly configured affective and political affiliations in terms both of Britain as place and Britishness as identity. Drawing on Chantal Mouffe's conception of agonistic politics, we argue the programme provided a space of confrontation for groups defined as polarised 'camps' to contest and debate through their emotional and symbolic differences which exposed the limitations of the 'post-political' formation. However, while the programme visualises Perry's 'left populist' strategy of crafting two similar pots through ethnographic listening and interactions with Leave and Remain communities, we argue the focus on predominantly white communities ultimately offers a limited notion of what 'a people' with the potential to revitalise democracy in contemporary Britain could be.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据