Francois Deck: Reciprocal Expertise

Deck, François. “Reciprocal Expertise,” Third Text, 18, no 6, (November 2004): pp. 617-632.

Note about form/content: Deck's paper is divided into two parts: the first part explores the aesthetics of decision-making as a theory, a method and historically conditioned ; the second part considers examples of decision-making in Deck's practice. Punctuating the text are schematics embodying Deck's approach.

Keywords: aesthetics of decision-making, reciprocal expertise, social practices, deliberation, public, biographical, individual patronage, externalization of artistic practices

Described in the introduction as a “presentation,” this text offers a combination of social, historical and theoretical reflection on the aesthetics of decision-making within current modes of exchange conditioned by neo-liberal democracy. How do the respective roles of decision-maker and public mesh together? Is the artist a mere figure of consolation in the skewed distribution of decision-making roles? It is apt the main concerns of Deck’s discussion are formulated in the introduction as questions, as this type of rhetorical trope figures prominently in the second part of the text, where the artist considers self-conscious decision making as a method for “social practice,” form of cultural production that includes but is not limited to art.

Deck begins his discussion with a two-fold assumption: that increasingly, artists will take responsibility for the decision-making process involved in their work and that as shared exegesis, this responsibility meshes public with biographical. He then asks: “Can this intertwining of historicized subjectivity with public responsibility be considered a model of the subject and the democratic process?” (617) This question encapsulates Deck’s conviction that artists not only have duty to participate, they also have unique competencies to support the public sphere. That such a sphere even exists is certainly debatable, albeit not something I wish to pursue here. Rather, it is worth clarifying why Deck holds artists in such high esteem, why he thinks them specifically capable of “co-producing” the public sphere, and what he thinks the world will gain from the “externalization of artistic practices,” to use his turn of phrase.

To say that Deck fetishizes decision-making in art practice is inaccurate. Yet, he appreciates aestheticization as a privileged complex of processes that can, when applied to decision-making, supplement other modes of knowledge construction. Significantly, he understands the benefit of “an aesthetics of decision-making” as potentially “reciprocal” (two key terms punctuating this text): “Under [the conditions of diverse interaction], information exchange between people enrich the knowledge of everyone individually, whereas the global competency of the group increases beyond the mere juxtaposition of forms of knowledge and abilities” (622). And so the whole is greater than the sum of its parts—but according to whom? Herein lies an obvious limitation of Deck’s discussion: his failure to describe, exemplify or even allude to how “the others” others might benefit from “reciprocal expertise.” In the case of reskilled miner Marian Musial, for example, Deck is clear that her frustration over not having her proposal-making capabilities recognized evolved into a collaboratively developed idea bank. He goes on to describe this work as the inspiration for a subsequent project titled question banks. But he makes no mention of how or even if Musial used the idea bank for her own work. I suppose my very basic question is this: does Deck understand reciprocal expertise as having direct impact on the material conditions of all participants or is it about personal edification, or a combination of both? Said differently, is it about material or psychic change? Addressing these questions seems critical to coming to terms with Deck’s sense of vocation as consultancy, and idea he floats instead of a conclusion. Indeed, critically considering who really walks away with the cultural capital in Deck’s scheme provides a litmus test for ascertaining whether or not the aesthetics of decision making really do offer “…the potentiality of a double validation: within the field of art, and in the space of the a social practice” (631).

return to Practice Literature