"writer" "political activist" "Palestinian" "Haifa" "Paris"

Result #1

"writer" "political activist" "Palestinian" "Haifa" "Paris"

Result #2

"writer" "political activist" "Palestinian" "Haifa" "Paris"  - and the artist, as if to imply that the work, not the subject, is the point. The artist thus takes on a role that is both political and literary, and one that is presented in a rather superficial way. It is the work that is shown, not the subject, and it is a work that is shown as such. As a result, the artists gesture becomes an exercise in postmodernist pretension. In the same way, the work becomes the subject of the piece, and the presence of a work of art is not a prerequisite, but only a point of departure. The work, then, is the work and the subject is the work, which is to say that the work is not a sign of an idea but a sign of a certain idea, a sign of the work of art. The work becomes the work as such, and the subject is the subject of the work.

Result #3

 are the names of the artists included in this show, but there is no trace of the Palestinian Authority in their faces. Perhaps this is a reference to the fact that the Palestinians and the Israelis are not represented by any recognizable artists. The absence of representation may have become a feature of the exhibitions title, as well: It is impossible to tell whether this is an ironic result of a lack of familiarity or a matter of fact. The irony is that such familiarity and facture can be used to neutralize the pain of the Palestinian experience and the Israelis. Is it possible to see the work of Palestinian artists as an extension of the Israeli occupation? That is the question raised by this exhibition, and one that we can only hope to answer.

Result #4

vernacular. The best part of the show, which was curated by Ugo Rondinone, was that it wasnt the best art—it was the best thing. The curators, in their catalogue essay, have a great deal of freedom with the works they choose, and the installation here was very much the curators imagined. They seem to think that the best way to make a work at this scale, with such a high degree of technical control, is to have a good design and a good mind. But the curators also seem to think that they can influence the quality of the work by imposing their will on it. This is not the case with the work of such widely known artists as Robert Ryman, Elizabeth Murray, or Vija Celmins. They have been very good in making exhibitions that have been historically significant—and they know how to do that. But they have also been very good in making works that are also aesthetically significant, and that are not so much political as they are artistic. The curators have had a lot of fun with the art that is already here and with the work that is already here, and they have even more fun with the art that is already here.The biggest mistake they have made is to put all of their eggs in one basket. They have given themselves an enormous amount of work to do. But they have not been able to do it. The artist who is the most important is none of them. They are all here. The problem is that they dont have the courage to do more than that. In the end, it is the other artist who has the most to offer them.

Result #5

"writer" "political activist" "Palestinian" "Haifa" "Paris"  (The artist, the critic, the scholar) The title of Haifas most recent exhibition, Rhetoric of Authority, refers to the struggle of the Palestinian Authority to gain legitimacy within the international arena. The show was divided into two sections, one consisting of a film loop, the other of a series of works on paper. Haifa has always been fascinated with the ways in which the quotidian objects of daily life are subjected to a collective imagination, and his work is also informed by the artistic practice of the contemporary artist as activist. In this case, Haifa has been invited to create a conceptual film that examines the effects of occupation and the ways in which the nation-state is subject to a collective imagination. In Haifas work, the act of writing becomes a means of demonstrating the reality of the situation and raising awareness about it.The film is divided into two parts. In the first part, Haifa examines the post-1967 era through a series of interviews with artists, writers, and activists. He examines the ways in which the quotidian object is transformed into a political sign, in which everyday objects become political symbols. In one of the interviews, Haifa refers to the work of the artist as the sign of his identity as a Palestinian, a citizen of a state, and that of a nation. He also refers to the art he does as a Palestinian artist as a political act. Haifa concludes his interview with a question that is answered by the artist: Is this the real issue? Haifa nods in agreement, and, after a pause, adds: Well, that is not the real issue. The real issue is that the occupation has not been renewed, and the question that remains is: What will the future of Palestine look like? Haifa questions the question and then goes on to discuss with the artist the political situation in France. The film ends with Haifa speaking in Arabic, and the artist in English.