Art and politics are not two terms that would be linked through some form of representation. They are constituted as such in the same knot of the visible, the sayable and the thinkable, in the same framing of a common space where some practices appear to be named "arts" and some matters to be viewed of as "political".
Art is not political owing to the messages and feelings that it carries on the state of social and political issues. It is not political owing to the way it represents social structures, conflicts or identities. It is political by virtue of the very distance that it takes with regard to those functions. It is political as it frames a specific space-time sensorium, as it redefines on this stage the power of speech or the coordinates of perception, shifts the places of the actor and the spectator, etc.
The first point to understand is as follows: there is art, in general, to the extent that there is a specific regime of identification. I call a regime of identification of art an articulation between three things: modes of production of objects or of interrelation of actions; forms of visibility of these manners of making and doing ; and manners of conceptualizing these practices and these modes of visibility. These modes of conceptualization are not simply added interpretations. They are conditions of possibility of what artistic practices can produce and what aesthetic gazes can see.
Art is "political", in the aesthetic regime of art, insofar as it is identified within an autonomous form of experience. This regime sets the relationship between the forms of identification of art and the forms of the political community in a way that dismisses in advance any opposition between an autonomous and a heteronomous art, art for art’s sake and art committed to politics, art in the museum and art in the street. Because the "aesthetic autonomy" is not, as the "modernist" paradigm has it, the autonomy of the work of art as such. It is the autonomy of a form of experience. And this autonomous form of experience appears as the principle of the self-formation of a new humanity.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
"Sanella ist Backen - Backen ist Liebe" - "Sanella is Baking - Baking is Love"
Another nice example for abusive use of meaning is the advertising campaign of the German margarine company "Sanella": "Baking is Love - Sanella is Baking" (www.sanella.de), very interesting because it uses the structure of a classical syllogism in philosophy (the conclusio would be that Sanella is Love, though, obviously, the premises are wrong; or, as Stalin eqauls Peace, Stalin equals everything that is Peace).
Political Tomato
But that's what I mean - I just replaced "political" by "tomato soup", I coulsd have replaced, "art" by "tomato soup". If everything is called political, you have to eat it, if you like it or not. So you can not have a shit whithout being political. The word loses meaning because it has no definition. Political becomes the overwhelming everything and you can not act politically anymore, it becomes an art market fancy (therefore I found the "overidentification" discussion quite interesting). I repeat, every word changes meaning in its history, but allround use is loss of meaning. I join an image to illustrate abusive use of words (if Stalin is peace, what is peace? If bombs on Iraq are freedom and democracy, what are freedom and democracy?) . I think it is a danger to fall in the trap of authoritarian political discourse by not reflecting words - though the authoritarian discourse does it on purpose.
For me, "political" continues to mean a strategy to defend or regulate a group's or individual's interests inside a given society - whitout any evaluation on the first level -, it means purpose, interest, pragmatics; doing things for political reasons means not doing them for their own sake (political sex could be "make children for the Führer", not for the pleasure of love making, though an also political "love in" is maybe the adequat form of protest against moral restriction).
I also mention that one the most influent artists of the 20th century, Joseph Beuys, did not consider art as political ("Political art is illustration"), though he was kicked off the academy for a political action. He, on the other hand, brought up the the very idealistic "erweiterter Kunstbegriff" - "the enlarged conception of art", which should have been considered in the discussion (what doesn't mean that I would subscribe that) - and which kind of caused the abusive use of the word "art". One should beware of misunderstanding his mostly wrong quotated "every human is an artist" by omitting "of the social sculpture".
Sunday, June 1, 2008
REPLY TO THE TOMATO
Hopefully not everything is so easy to define. What a wonderful world when words can save us from confusion. I think this a very an interesting question though. But so if there is no possible game between words and possibilities what would we discuss about and challenge? The tomato soup will be there no matter what, whether one likes it or not, one eats it. Isn't it better to consider it? Or is it just enough to state it?
Artist plans takeover of BP
Maybe this is some political art? If you want to know more, you can look at:
http://www.take-over-bp.com/
Or see a wonderful exhibition with many, many artists in "Voorkamer" in Lier (www.voorkamer.be), H. Geeststraat 7 (open Fr- Sun, 2-6 pm)
http://www.take-over-bp.com/
Or see a wonderful exhibition with many, many artists in "Voorkamer" in Lier (www.voorkamer.be), H. Geeststraat 7 (open Fr- Sun, 2-6 pm)
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Everything is Tomato Soup
If everything is art, nothing is art, if everything is political, nothing is political; Being a linguist, I think that words have given meanings, that can always change, develop or be modified. But as soon as you apply a word to everything, or even its opposite, it entirely loses its meaning. As, e.g., "freedom and democracy", nowadays mean "bombs on Iraq", a very popular strategy of mistreating words in political discourse. Another strategy of abusing words is the one employed by believers in astrology or psychoanalysis, to stretch the meaning to make a controverse reality fit in their systems.
So why not call everything a tomato soup? Campbell's would be very glad about that.
And if art is joy, sensuality, pleasure, aesthetics, thought, criticism, dialogue etc. , what I think it is, why label it with the term that has the sex appeal of an income tax declaration? That is like the mania in psychology where everything is labeled "work" the last decades, maybe it is the desire to give value to something considered as worthless, such as emotions? Or trading up art?
I.E.
So why not call everything a tomato soup? Campbell's would be very glad about that.
And if art is joy, sensuality, pleasure, aesthetics, thought, criticism, dialogue etc. , what I think it is, why label it with the term that has the sex appeal of an income tax declaration? That is like the mania in psychology where everything is labeled "work" the last decades, maybe it is the desire to give value to something considered as worthless, such as emotions? Or trading up art?
I.E.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
I think therefor I am political
Well I would say art is political because it expresses and offers different readings and perceptions of reality, it does defend the qualities of the poetic, of the useless, of the dialogue, of the impossible to say, it enhances the not-said, it disturbs, it can even make one laugh, It strives for participation…
Art asks continuously questions, it is on the reformulation level a production of possibilities on how to be governed in another way. It asks one to position her/himself, in relation to what is reality, It makes one think. Now this is not about propaganda but about the sensible.
It’s not creating rules, it’s not structuring society but it is reflecting aesthetics meaning designing and proposing formally a critical sense.
It is a place in its construction and in it’s sharing for opinion, awareness and consciousness. This is not particularly about the “political” in an explicit way but in an implicit way.
Art practice comes together with a life practice; it defines and designs itself by the specific way it relates autonomously with the world.
If there were the necessity of explicit political content in artwork I would say it is often because there is a necessity to break open some nasty strategies that can’t be put out there without a certain dose of passion and craziness. It is often because other social classes are ready to join a cause that is not visible yet. It is because one gets very hungry.
I mention this because I don’t believe in anything outside of its context. I don’t think it’s interesting to see art as political or not political as a black or white statement. I’m also not so interested in the concept of truth or in boxing it for eternity.
My interest is thought in what does art do in terms of participation and changeability in the present time. What are the strategies that allow its communication and visibility? I’m interested in the visibility of the invisible and how does that interfere and react with the environment.
I also think that in the present time it is extremely difficult to inscribe other ways of looking because there is a global formatting that allows extreme diversity, transformation, flexibility, failure, etc, components that are inherent to art.
May be it is all becoming a big art project based on cynical distance..(ah, ah, ah)... Or what are the artistic possibilities to question the boundaries of what we already know?
So long.
Lx
Art asks continuously questions, it is on the reformulation level a production of possibilities on how to be governed in another way. It asks one to position her/himself, in relation to what is reality, It makes one think. Now this is not about propaganda but about the sensible.
It’s not creating rules, it’s not structuring society but it is reflecting aesthetics meaning designing and proposing formally a critical sense.
It is a place in its construction and in it’s sharing for opinion, awareness and consciousness. This is not particularly about the “political” in an explicit way but in an implicit way.
Art practice comes together with a life practice; it defines and designs itself by the specific way it relates autonomously with the world.
If there were the necessity of explicit political content in artwork I would say it is often because there is a necessity to break open some nasty strategies that can’t be put out there without a certain dose of passion and craziness. It is often because other social classes are ready to join a cause that is not visible yet. It is because one gets very hungry.
I mention this because I don’t believe in anything outside of its context. I don’t think it’s interesting to see art as political or not political as a black or white statement. I’m also not so interested in the concept of truth or in boxing it for eternity.
My interest is thought in what does art do in terms of participation and changeability in the present time. What are the strategies that allow its communication and visibility? I’m interested in the visibility of the invisible and how does that interfere and react with the environment.
I also think that in the present time it is extremely difficult to inscribe other ways of looking because there is a global formatting that allows extreme diversity, transformation, flexibility, failure, etc, components that are inherent to art.
May be it is all becoming a big art project based on cynical distance..(ah, ah, ah)... Or what are the artistic possibilities to question the boundaries of what we already know?
So long.
Lx
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
POURQUOI JE NE SUIS PAS UNE ARTISTE POLITIQUE ET QUELLE EST LA DIFFERENCE ENTRE L'ART POLITIQUE ET LA POLITIQUE CULTURELLE
POURQUOI JE NE SUIS PAS UNE ARTISTE POLITIQUE ET QUELLE EST LA DIFFERENCE ENTRE L'ART POLITIQUE ET LA POLITIQUE CULTURELLE
La politique est – par sa définition –une stratégie qui défend les intérêts d'un groupe ou d'un individu. Ce qui est, en principe, une stratégie légitime. La politique doit sa mauvaise réputation au fait que les méthodes préférées d'un bon nombre de ses représentants sont le mensonge, la corruption et la violence, ou, que beaucoup d'individus déclarent leurs intérêts particuliers comme intérêts communs, surtout au niveau parti ou état.
Mais ici, il n'est pas question de cela: légitime ou non, honnête ou pas – ici, il est question d'INTERETS – la politique est avant tout quelque chose d'INTERESSE, la poursuite d'un INTERET – et cela ne m'intéresse pas dans le domaine de la création .
Je ne poursuis pas d'intérêts dans mon art (ni de ma personne, ni d'une classe sociale quelconque) - et je n'y vois pas la tâche de l'art en général. ici, il n'est ni question de "montrer qqc du doigt" (HORREUR DE CELA!!!) ni d'avoir un message "If you're looking for the message, go ask the postman". Je me considère entre autre comme "homo ludens" – l´humain qui joue, le jeu étant la chose la moins intéressée possible.
Puisque mon champ de travail préféré - mais de loin exclusif - est la parole, le signe linguistique et sa visualisation, et le signe linguistique a plus d'évidence que le signe visuel, on pourrait parfois me prendre pour une artiste politique, une classifiaction que je refuse catégoriquement.
Je me demande même si l'art par sa nature PEUT avoir des fonctions politiques ou s'il est uniquement à même de toucher des sujets politiques, ou, au pire, illustrer des buts politiques ou faire de la publicité pour des idées, quoiqu'il réflète dans la majorité des cas l'état d'âme de la société actuelle. Bref, l'art ne peut être un moyen de défendre un intérêt tel que la grève, la résistance non violente, la violence, le pouvoir économique etc.
L'art, peut-être, embrasse des phénomènes de l'existence et met en question la perception de cette première avec les moyens de cette dernière. S'il n'y a plus d'esthétique, il n'est plus question d'art, dans la mise en question métaartistique du conceptualisme, il y a de l'esthétique. C'est vain de définir l'art dans une époque où la question "Qu'est-ce que l'art?" est posée à chaque instant, mais c'est là la définition: la question est la réponse (tout comme la question essentielle de la philosophie "Quel est le sens de la vie?" est toujours posée sans jamais trouver de réponse.
Tout en ne pas faisant de l'art politique je peux, d'un autre côté, très bien faire de la politique culturelle: mes intérêts matériels et judiciaires/légaux s'alignent avec ceux de la minimaliste ou du peintre de pots de fleurs (ce qui n'est pas le cas au niveau intellectuel, en ce qui concerne les pots de fleurs).
En tant qu'individu, l'artiste est soumis/e aux intérêts économiques: au premier plan, comme personne physique qui doit vivre de qqc, puis au deuxième plan, en créant des artefaits/produits qui seront soumis aux intérêts du marché. La production artistique à l'heure actuelle est sujette à une spéculation outrancière, tandisque la très grande majorité des artistes plasticien/ne/s ne vit pas de son travail et meurt appauvrie. Economiquement parlé, on a un passe temps assez couteux, tandisque le marché d'art consiste dans un pays comme la Suisse (mon pays de résidence actuelle) un des plus importants secteurs économiques, remportant autant que le marché des montres et bijoux de luxe, domaine pour lequel la Suisse est mondialement connue, avec un chiffre d'affaires de plusieures milliards de dollars par an.
Ainsi, une main d'œuvre est exploitée au maximum (même si ce n'est pas les contemporains qui sont vendus le plus cher, les contemporains d'aujourd'hui seront en partie les classiques de demain). La propreté intellectuelle devient objet de spéculation et est réduite à un objet de luxe quelconque. Ceci provoque l'avènement de l'artiste économique, l'artiste qui produit directement pour le marché (personnage qui ne date pas d'aujourd'hui, à vrai dire – et je suis loin à préconiser l'idylle kitsch de l'artiste pauvre), le discours artistique a lieu dans les foires; pour l'acheteur, l'art est un "event", un objet sexy, un "must have" (ça peut être, évidemment, un objet d'art "politique", le politique vend très bien en ce moment). Ce qui constitue, à mon avis, le plus grand paradoxe dans le monde de l'art visuel de nos jours.
La politique est – par sa définition –une stratégie qui défend les intérêts d'un groupe ou d'un individu. Ce qui est, en principe, une stratégie légitime. La politique doit sa mauvaise réputation au fait que les méthodes préférées d'un bon nombre de ses représentants sont le mensonge, la corruption et la violence, ou, que beaucoup d'individus déclarent leurs intérêts particuliers comme intérêts communs, surtout au niveau parti ou état.
Mais ici, il n'est pas question de cela: légitime ou non, honnête ou pas – ici, il est question d'INTERETS – la politique est avant tout quelque chose d'INTERESSE, la poursuite d'un INTERET – et cela ne m'intéresse pas dans le domaine de la création .
Je ne poursuis pas d'intérêts dans mon art (ni de ma personne, ni d'une classe sociale quelconque) - et je n'y vois pas la tâche de l'art en général. ici, il n'est ni question de "montrer qqc du doigt" (HORREUR DE CELA!!!) ni d'avoir un message "If you're looking for the message, go ask the postman". Je me considère entre autre comme "homo ludens" – l´humain qui joue, le jeu étant la chose la moins intéressée possible.
Puisque mon champ de travail préféré - mais de loin exclusif - est la parole, le signe linguistique et sa visualisation, et le signe linguistique a plus d'évidence que le signe visuel, on pourrait parfois me prendre pour une artiste politique, une classifiaction que je refuse catégoriquement.
Je me demande même si l'art par sa nature PEUT avoir des fonctions politiques ou s'il est uniquement à même de toucher des sujets politiques, ou, au pire, illustrer des buts politiques ou faire de la publicité pour des idées, quoiqu'il réflète dans la majorité des cas l'état d'âme de la société actuelle. Bref, l'art ne peut être un moyen de défendre un intérêt tel que la grève, la résistance non violente, la violence, le pouvoir économique etc.
L'art, peut-être, embrasse des phénomènes de l'existence et met en question la perception de cette première avec les moyens de cette dernière. S'il n'y a plus d'esthétique, il n'est plus question d'art, dans la mise en question métaartistique du conceptualisme, il y a de l'esthétique. C'est vain de définir l'art dans une époque où la question "Qu'est-ce que l'art?" est posée à chaque instant, mais c'est là la définition: la question est la réponse (tout comme la question essentielle de la philosophie "Quel est le sens de la vie?" est toujours posée sans jamais trouver de réponse.
Tout en ne pas faisant de l'art politique je peux, d'un autre côté, très bien faire de la politique culturelle: mes intérêts matériels et judiciaires/légaux s'alignent avec ceux de la minimaliste ou du peintre de pots de fleurs (ce qui n'est pas le cas au niveau intellectuel, en ce qui concerne les pots de fleurs).
En tant qu'individu, l'artiste est soumis/e aux intérêts économiques: au premier plan, comme personne physique qui doit vivre de qqc, puis au deuxième plan, en créant des artefaits/produits qui seront soumis aux intérêts du marché. La production artistique à l'heure actuelle est sujette à une spéculation outrancière, tandisque la très grande majorité des artistes plasticien/ne/s ne vit pas de son travail et meurt appauvrie. Economiquement parlé, on a un passe temps assez couteux, tandisque le marché d'art consiste dans un pays comme la Suisse (mon pays de résidence actuelle) un des plus importants secteurs économiques, remportant autant que le marché des montres et bijoux de luxe, domaine pour lequel la Suisse est mondialement connue, avec un chiffre d'affaires de plusieures milliards de dollars par an.
Ainsi, une main d'œuvre est exploitée au maximum (même si ce n'est pas les contemporains qui sont vendus le plus cher, les contemporains d'aujourd'hui seront en partie les classiques de demain). La propreté intellectuelle devient objet de spéculation et est réduite à un objet de luxe quelconque. Ceci provoque l'avènement de l'artiste économique, l'artiste qui produit directement pour le marché (personnage qui ne date pas d'aujourd'hui, à vrai dire – et je suis loin à préconiser l'idylle kitsch de l'artiste pauvre), le discours artistique a lieu dans les foires; pour l'acheteur, l'art est un "event", un objet sexy, un "must have" (ça peut être, évidemment, un objet d'art "politique", le politique vend très bien en ce moment). Ce qui constitue, à mon avis, le plus grand paradoxe dans le monde de l'art visuel de nos jours.
Friday, May 16, 2008
SOME RANCIERE LINKS
"Le malaise esthétique" by Elie During on JR, art and politics, in Art Press (2004
http://ciepfc.rhapsodyk.net/article.php3?id_article=77
in Multitudes: ea. interview rancière about le partage du sensible
http://multitudes.samizdat.net/_Ranciere-Jacques_.html
Discussion on Rancière's Politics of Aesthetics:
http://www.16beavergroup.org/monday/archives/001881.php
From Aesthetics to Politics: Rancière, Kant and Deleuze:
http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=382
_
http://ciepfc.rhapsodyk.net/article.php3?id_article=77
in Multitudes: ea. interview rancière about le partage du sensible
http://multitudes.samizdat.net/_Ranciere-Jacques_.html
Discussion on Rancière's Politics of Aesthetics:
http://www.16beavergroup.org/monday/archives/001881.php
From Aesthetics to Politics: Rancière, Kant and Deleuze:
http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=382
_
Thursday, May 8, 2008
cynicism beyond critique
"Cynicism, now complicity, tastes like pink spun sugar. In a culture where needs appear to be embodied in objects, where fantasies of the imaginary are deflected by their surfaces, it seems more than likely that the materiality of arts has the potential to heighten its political and social effectivity. At one level, the new irony is problematical; will the cynical self-knowledge of the position art faces against the entertainment and advertising industries ultimately construct an alternative which centers upon a different sense of desire? Will irony ultimately shatter the sense of closure and futility that is concomitant with cynicism? In other words, will art resist a facile compliance in order to gain communicational power?"
Sarah Morris, linguist and visual artist.
Sarah Morris, linguist and visual artist.
If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution!
If I Can’t Dance… is a rolling curatorial project based on performative practices, which departs
from a spirit of open questioning and a long term enquiry with artists.
Currently it focuses on the legacies and potentials of feminism(s) in relation to art today. Inspired by the quote of Emma Goldman, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your
revolution”, the project explores the critical and celebratory implications of this statement in artists’ work.
http://www.ificantdance.org/
from a spirit of open questioning and a long term enquiry with artists.
Currently it focuses on the legacies and potentials of feminism(s) in relation to art today. Inspired by the quote of Emma Goldman, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your
revolution”, the project explores the critical and celebratory implications of this statement in artists’ work.
http://www.ificantdance.org/
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
MOVIES about education IN CINEMA NOVA
'cinema nova in residentie bij OFF OFF Cinema Gent'
Tijdens de maand mei slaan Art Cinema OFFoff en de Brusselse Cinema Nova (www.nova-cinema.org) de handen in elkaar.
Nova selecteerde voor OFFOFF een reeks schoolfilms uit zijn programma dat vragen stelt bij verschillende bestaande vormen van onderwijs.
Deze zullen worden vertoond op 5, 19 en 26 mei in OFFoff.
19 mei: Frederick Wiseman / High School USA, 1968, zwart-wit, 75’, dvd, Engels gesproken, Frans ondertiteld
26 mei: Jean-Michel Carré, On n’est pas de minus, Frankrijk , 1984, kleur, 50’, dvd, Frans gesproken
Olivier Smolders, Point de fuite, België, 1987, kleur, 10’, dvd
Jean-Marie Straub en Danièle Huillet, En rachâchant, Frankrijk , 1982, zwart-wit, 7’, dvd, Frans gesproken
Johan van der Keuken, Het leesplankje, Nederland, 1973, kleur, 10’, dvd
Aline Moens en Laure Marganne, DAS, België, 2002, kleur, 3’, dvd [meer...]
Monday, May 5, 2008
Interview with Alix Lambert
The american artist Alix Lambert is filmmaker, writer, producer, photographer, conceptual artist. As filmmaker she had feature length documentary 'The Mark of Cain', that was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award and aired on Nightline.
http://www.pinkghettoproductions.com
1) How does your art approach the question of non verbal communication and do you think there is a political dimension in non-verbal communication?
I’ve done a number of projects that I feel deal with the subject of non-verbal communication – from my marriage project; an institution that announces certain beliefs and feelings to the world, to Male Pattern Baldness, where the dress and movement of a basket ball coach project to the players and viewers his emotional state as well as his position on the team, to a more literal exploration of non-verbal communication with The Mark of Cain, where actual drawings comprise a complete language by which prisoners are able to communicate with each other.
2) How does your documentary on the art of prison tattoo relate to the work in which you personally practice tattooing?
In addition to my interest in non-verbal communication, many of my projects deal with a “learning curve” – or what one learns by personally acquiring a new skill. In this case (as well as in the marriage project) an enormous amount of trust is involved – the people allowing me to tattoo them knew that I was inexperienced and were interested in the experience anyway for a variety o reasons.
3) Can you elaborate on the political dimension of the documentary 'The Mark of Cain' and more specifically about the body as a mean of radical cultural subversion?
I’m not exactly sure what you are asking – I was certainly interested in what was happening in Russia at the time. The enormous amount of change was illuminated by what was happening within the prison walls and I wanted to document the change in Russia. As far as the use of the body – a prisoner has nothing left that is his own – except his/her body. Marking one’s body in such a way, not only enables the prisoner to communicate his status but also says – here is what you cannot take away from me.
4) Tattooing was a painful way through which the prisoners could affirm themselves as subjects. Can we perceive in the new generation a loss of symbolical means to construct identity?
I think that might be too simple of a conclusion to come to. I am more inclined to think that symbolic means change rather than disappear.
5) How was the visibility you gave to the deterioration of the prison system received by the Russian audiences?
How is this subculture perceived?
I have been very moved by the response to the film, especially by the response from Russians who had family members or loved ones in prison – or who themselves served time in prison. People felt it was their story and have gone out of their way to express their appreciation to me for telling it. Of course, this means a lot to me.
7) Is according to you documentary a privileged art form to make a political statement, and to raise consciousness? How do you view your conceptual and editorial work in this regard?
Any way in which one can encourage others to ask questions and be aware, informed, and engaged in the world, I think is a productive thing to do.
8) Interviewing is a common form in your art. Could you tell how that form influences your perception of reality and motivates your work?
I am interested in the stories that people have to tell. If you listen to enough people of very different backgrounds and with very different sets of experiences, you start to notice patterns of similarity that speak to a commonality that trumps our differences.
9) In the book “Crime” you interviewed very different people with different experiences and approaches to the theme. The spectrum goes from fiction to reality. Could you speak about your interest in relating these two?
I tried to explain in my introduction the organic way in which art and crime have touched my life and overlapped with each other through the years. As an artist I am always interested in how we represent “true” events through our work. What is actually true? – if anything can be – what is the most productive / useful definition or understanding of “truth”. I am paraphrasing, but I think it was Robert Coles who said that in documentary you try to present what you believe to be the truth of the situation to the best of your ability, as you understand it …
In drama one’s story should stand for the truth rather than be the truth.
The moment you make a decision – what camera you are using, whether you are lighting your subject, who you want to talk to, what part of their interview you choose to use in your film, whether you make it black and white or color, every decision you make influences the viewer and ultimately tells your story as well as the story of your subject – which is why the best you can do is to try to honestly portray what you believe to be the truth of what you experienced.
Here are some words from my dear friend Jason Shinder who is no longer with us :
« When I am watching a film and I see something acted out, there is a release that my behavior is being attended to. They feed some primal level of our own fear and anger and rage that life doesn’t give you much opportunity for because most of us are trying to negotiate it. Are trying to live with it. How do you act on it? What do you do with it? You make something, maybe. Or you steal bubble gum. I think everything is governed by psychological laws. There’s a host of things, and I don’t know if you ever get to work them out. »
- Jason Shinder, excerpted from an unpublished conversation we had about crime and art.
http://www.pinkghettoproductions.com
1) How does your art approach the question of non verbal communication and do you think there is a political dimension in non-verbal communication?
I’ve done a number of projects that I feel deal with the subject of non-verbal communication – from my marriage project; an institution that announces certain beliefs and feelings to the world, to Male Pattern Baldness, where the dress and movement of a basket ball coach project to the players and viewers his emotional state as well as his position on the team, to a more literal exploration of non-verbal communication with The Mark of Cain, where actual drawings comprise a complete language by which prisoners are able to communicate with each other.
2) How does your documentary on the art of prison tattoo relate to the work in which you personally practice tattooing?
In addition to my interest in non-verbal communication, many of my projects deal with a “learning curve” – or what one learns by personally acquiring a new skill. In this case (as well as in the marriage project) an enormous amount of trust is involved – the people allowing me to tattoo them knew that I was inexperienced and were interested in the experience anyway for a variety o reasons.
3) Can you elaborate on the political dimension of the documentary 'The Mark of Cain' and more specifically about the body as a mean of radical cultural subversion?
I’m not exactly sure what you are asking – I was certainly interested in what was happening in Russia at the time. The enormous amount of change was illuminated by what was happening within the prison walls and I wanted to document the change in Russia. As far as the use of the body – a prisoner has nothing left that is his own – except his/her body. Marking one’s body in such a way, not only enables the prisoner to communicate his status but also says – here is what you cannot take away from me.
4) Tattooing was a painful way through which the prisoners could affirm themselves as subjects. Can we perceive in the new generation a loss of symbolical means to construct identity?
I think that might be too simple of a conclusion to come to. I am more inclined to think that symbolic means change rather than disappear.
5) How was the visibility you gave to the deterioration of the prison system received by the Russian audiences?
How is this subculture perceived?
I have been very moved by the response to the film, especially by the response from Russians who had family members or loved ones in prison – or who themselves served time in prison. People felt it was their story and have gone out of their way to express their appreciation to me for telling it. Of course, this means a lot to me.
7) Is according to you documentary a privileged art form to make a political statement, and to raise consciousness? How do you view your conceptual and editorial work in this regard?
Any way in which one can encourage others to ask questions and be aware, informed, and engaged in the world, I think is a productive thing to do.
8) Interviewing is a common form in your art. Could you tell how that form influences your perception of reality and motivates your work?
I am interested in the stories that people have to tell. If you listen to enough people of very different backgrounds and with very different sets of experiences, you start to notice patterns of similarity that speak to a commonality that trumps our differences.
9) In the book “Crime” you interviewed very different people with different experiences and approaches to the theme. The spectrum goes from fiction to reality. Could you speak about your interest in relating these two?
I tried to explain in my introduction the organic way in which art and crime have touched my life and overlapped with each other through the years. As an artist I am always interested in how we represent “true” events through our work. What is actually true? – if anything can be – what is the most productive / useful definition or understanding of “truth”. I am paraphrasing, but I think it was Robert Coles who said that in documentary you try to present what you believe to be the truth of the situation to the best of your ability, as you understand it …
In drama one’s story should stand for the truth rather than be the truth.
The moment you make a decision – what camera you are using, whether you are lighting your subject, who you want to talk to, what part of their interview you choose to use in your film, whether you make it black and white or color, every decision you make influences the viewer and ultimately tells your story as well as the story of your subject – which is why the best you can do is to try to honestly portray what you believe to be the truth of what you experienced.
Here are some words from my dear friend Jason Shinder who is no longer with us :
« When I am watching a film and I see something acted out, there is a release that my behavior is being attended to. They feed some primal level of our own fear and anger and rage that life doesn’t give you much opportunity for because most of us are trying to negotiate it. Are trying to live with it. How do you act on it? What do you do with it? You make something, maybe. Or you steal bubble gum. I think everything is governed by psychological laws. There’s a host of things, and I don’t know if you ever get to work them out. »
- Jason Shinder, excerpted from an unpublished conversation we had about crime and art.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Jakob Jakobsen at SPA
Jakob Jakobsen who ran Copenhagen Free University spoke to SPA on Monday night. He outlined two major concepts for his processes:
Self organisation: The act of producing your own tools, so that you produce the means of production within the production. He presented the analogy of workers in a factory who operate machines that are made and owned by others so that the wealth of their labour is filtered away from them, so that their productivity is making money for others. Conversely, Jakobsen promotes a system of producing your own ‘machines’ so that the productivity is your own.
Autonomy: The act of producing your own system of laws and values.
Power: Power is productive and you must be productive yourself. So, rather than fight the power, take power. The key is to produce a new kind of subjectivity that can take power and once you have claimed power, don’t accumulate it.
Jakobsen set up the Info Centre in London called The Institution for Human Life, with an explicit view to operating for only one year. The info centre provided a space for information exchange and represented various networks, including the Association of Autonomous Astronauts.
On his return to Copenhagen, he and his partner wanted to create another alternative space. They had reflected on the fact that strikes had been the traditional weapon of the worker but considered how it could be possible to produce resistance in the new socio-economic landscape. The idea came easily, start at the core of knowledge production: Universities. The Copenhagen Free University/ University of the Everyday operated out of their home for six years.
Self organisation: The act of producing your own tools, so that you produce the means of production within the production. He presented the analogy of workers in a factory who operate machines that are made and owned by others so that the wealth of their labour is filtered away from them, so that their productivity is making money for others. Conversely, Jakobsen promotes a system of producing your own ‘machines’ so that the productivity is your own.
Autonomy: The act of producing your own system of laws and values.
Power: Power is productive and you must be productive yourself. So, rather than fight the power, take power. The key is to produce a new kind of subjectivity that can take power and once you have claimed power, don’t accumulate it.
Jakobsen set up the Info Centre in London called The Institution for Human Life, with an explicit view to operating for only one year. The info centre provided a space for information exchange and represented various networks, including the Association of Autonomous Astronauts.
On his return to Copenhagen, he and his partner wanted to create another alternative space. They had reflected on the fact that strikes had been the traditional weapon of the worker but considered how it could be possible to produce resistance in the new socio-economic landscape. The idea came easily, start at the core of knowledge production: Universities. The Copenhagen Free University/ University of the Everyday operated out of their home for six years.
EuroMayDay
EuroMayDay is a political day of action against precarity promoted by a network of feminist, and anti-capitalist and migrant groups and collectives in mostly Western Europe. EuroMayDay has been promoted as an attempt to "update" the traditional May Day by focusing on flex and temp workers, migrants and other "precarious" people living in Europe.
http://www.euromayday.org/The Revolution of Everyday Life
Along with Guy Debord, the voice of Raoul Vaneigem was one of the strongest of the Situationists. Counterpoised to Debord's political and polemic style, Vaneigem offered a more poetic and spirited prose. The Revolution of Everyday Life (Traité de savoir-vivre à l'usage des jeunes générations), published in the same year as The Society of the Spectacle, helped broaden and balance the presentation of the SI's theories and practices.
Here a link to access of full version of the book:
http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/5
Here a link to access of full version of the book:
http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/5
buzzing questions
Here is a extract of the book “Partage du sensible / esthetique et politique” by Jacques Ranciére just to open up the concept of “politics”:
“Politics is about what we see and what we can say about it, about who has the competence to see and the quality to tell, the attributes of space and the possibilities of time.”
And here are some questions that are buzzing us:
a) How do view the relationship between art and politics?
b) How can you inscribe your work in a political dimension?
c) Do you think a context like the one of « some political art » can give impulse to deepen or consider this issue?
d) How do residence projects influence your creation process? Do you think they are useful to define your own practice?
e) How do you address the notions of “autonomy”, “responsibility” and “resistance”?
More later!!
Cheers
L&C
“Politics is about what we see and what we can say about it, about who has the competence to see and the quality to tell, the attributes of space and the possibilities of time.”
And here are some questions that are buzzing us:
a) How do view the relationship between art and politics?
b) How can you inscribe your work in a political dimension?
c) Do you think a context like the one of « some political art » can give impulse to deepen or consider this issue?
d) How do residence projects influence your creation process? Do you think they are useful to define your own practice?
e) How do you address the notions of “autonomy”, “responsibility” and “resistance”?
More later!!
Cheers
L&C
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
How To Disappear Completely And Never Be Found
When making the decision to disappear, it is very important to understand that this is not a process that can be successfully accomplished overnight. For best results under normal circumstances, a minimum of four months is really necessary to successfully carry out the heroic actions necessary to leave your old life behind. This is certainly not an undertaking to be entered into lightly - be completely sure of yourself before you commit to this.
Destination
The first thing to do upon deciding to carry out this transformation is to determine where you plan to go. Your city of previous personal preference may not be the best choice if you have spoken to others about your love for it. Your destination should be outside of your current province/state. Do some research on it, figure out what you will do when you get there. Most importantly, decide on it and stick with this decision.
Once you have chosen a destination, you are ready to proceed with your disappearance. The first three steps should be accomplished simultaneously over the course of four months.
Step One
Cut personal ties with everyone who knows you. Drop out of every group, organization, social circle, bingo table and car pool that you are a part of. The most important thing to remember here is to accomplish this slowly: pull out too abruptly and your friends and associates will become immediately suspicious. Carrying out this step should require several months of missed meetings and unreturned phone calls. Build your absence up gradually until you no longer do anything with the people who knew you.
Step Two
Liquidate all your assets. Divest yourself of all stocks, property and possessions, except for a week's worth of clothes and other necessities (please note: a desktop computer is NOT a necessity). Sell your house if you are single and own one. Your house should be the last thing to be sold. Please note that if you are married, do not attempt to sell anything that is your spouse's or is jointly owned. This may mean that you won't be able to sell the house, but this can't be helped. Selling things that aren't totally yours brings all sorts of nasty consequences that will dog your disappearance, such as law enforcement and private investigators. They should be avoided at all costs. Get cash for everything you sell, and withdraw everything from your bank account, waiting as long as possible before actually closing it. Be very critical when deciding what to keep: everything has to fit into a suitcase (or two at the very most) by the time you leave, so keep only what is absolutely necessary. All these sales should close within as small a timeframe as possible; having them all close on the same day would be perfect but unlikely. Finally, do not sell your car, as you will need it for the early stages of your physical disappearance.
Step Three
Acquire false identification. While this isn't listed until step three, this really should be the first thing you do. Do not leave this until late in the process, as it will require a substantial length of time to acquire GOOD forgeries. These will be fairly expensive, but the cost and resulting quality is absolutely essential. A twenty dollar driver's license bought downtown is just not going to cut it. You will need a driver's license, a valid social security number, and a birth certificate. In some countries, you may need other pieces of identification, such as health cards. You will need two sets, two separate identities. By the time you have completed the two steps above, you should have your two new identities, the first of which should reside in a neighbouring city / county to your present home.
Step Four
Sell your car to the first of your fake identities. To achieve this, you need to open a post office box in the name of this false identity in their home city/county. Register the car with the DMV in this county, and get insurance. The rates are not a concern, as you will not be paying them.
Step Five
In the week before your departure, you should make a point of seeing each of your good friends once. When asked about where you've been, answer vaguely but reassuringly. This should be sufficient to keep them from becoming overly concerned about your absence for at least a couple of weeks. Once the last sale of your previous property has closed, destroy all your current identification. This means thoroughly burning it. Place in your wallet the identification that you registered your car with, along with one hundred dollars of your cash. Place the rest of your cash in a briefcase or other suitable container. Load your remaining belongings into your car. Now back out of your garage and DRIVE.
Step Six
Sell your car in a different state/province, using the identification under which you registered it. Choosing a near opposite path to the one you will eventually take to your chosen destination will help throw off anyone who decides to attempt to follow your footsteps. Now get rid of this set of identification (once again, fire will do the trick). Place your second set of identification in your wallet. There is now nothing to tie you to your old life. Get on a bus and ride it to your destination. Do not fly there directly, as airlines keep much more thorough records than bus lines. If flying is essential (your eventual destination happens to be a Carribean island) then take a bus somewhere else first. Carry your briefcase of money with you at all times. Do not put it in a luggage compartment or leave it unattended anywhere. This is your future life. Have this stolen, and you'll have disappeared, sure, but you'll be begging on the street instead of living it up in your new condo.
Step Seven
You're free. Build a new life and enjoy it this time.
Based on an article of the same name, by Chris Bethea.
one + one is not two
After an introduction to the thinking of Guy Debord, we saw an extract of his movie "La societé du spectacle". We therafter screened a Godard film made in 1968, "One+One", that he considers as his first attempt to politically make political films.
In these scenes of "One+One", Eve Democracy is harassed by an interviewer...
In these scenes of "One+One", Eve Democracy is harassed by an interviewer...
Monday, April 28, 2008
"Future Farmers" strive for social and political awareness through art
Hello L,
We have some great friends in California with shared interests:
San Francisco-based art collective "FutureFarmers" strive for social and political awareness through art.
From June 5-7 2008 they organize a (2nd) bio-diesel bus tour through Silicon Valley:
"... Free Soil would like to use this years gathering of artists and practitioners to think about how we learn......."
an investigation on alternative learning, open/free universities, ...
More information on the bus tour program here: http://www.futurefarmers.com/tour2/
I send the info on the upcoming lecture of Jakob Jakobsen to Stijn who will post it
on www.free-soil.org
www.futurefarmers.com
Ciao,
C
We have some great friends in California with shared interests:
San Francisco-based art collective "FutureFarmers" strive for social and political awareness through art.
From June 5-7 2008 they organize a (2nd) bio-diesel bus tour through Silicon Valley:
"... Free Soil would like to use this years gathering of artists and practitioners to think about how we learn......."
an investigation on alternative learning, open/free universities, ...
More information on the bus tour program here: http://www.futurefarmers.com/tour2/
I send the info on the upcoming lecture of Jakob Jakobsen to Stijn who will post it
on www.free-soil.org
www.futurefarmers.com
Ciao,
C
Is it enough to use the word “political” to activate a political approach?
Davis Freeman raised this question when invited to participate in “some political art” research group.
In my point of view people indeed become politically concerned or resistant when the word “political” is put out there. Something happens in your mind. A question is raised and one searches to integrate his/her way of acting, dealing with the situation with a certain awareness on its the political self and point of view.
The example of the political garden event can be seen as an experience of the political in terms of a non-hierarchical structure. After the description and explanation of the plans, collaboration and autonomy were the only two pre-established points on how the participants could proceed to accomplish the garden, improvise music or eat.
Isabelle Pauwelyn made a garden design inspired on a diagram of Schlemmer (Bauhaus artist 1926) using the notions of autonomy and algorithms. One can never pass the same point twice.
Niko Hafkenscheid displayed musical instruments, microphones and proposed an improvisation format to accompany the garden makers.
Rosa and Zé took in charge the barbecue.
During a 5 hours period a group of people of all ages constructed a “generic city garden”, played music and eat.
It definitely designated a certain way of living.
Triadic Ballet – Oskar Schelemmer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMDtwC76HjA
In my point of view people indeed become politically concerned or resistant when the word “political” is put out there. Something happens in your mind. A question is raised and one searches to integrate his/her way of acting, dealing with the situation with a certain awareness on its the political self and point of view.
The example of the political garden event can be seen as an experience of the political in terms of a non-hierarchical structure. After the description and explanation of the plans, collaboration and autonomy were the only two pre-established points on how the participants could proceed to accomplish the garden, improvise music or eat.
Isabelle Pauwelyn made a garden design inspired on a diagram of Schlemmer (Bauhaus artist 1926) using the notions of autonomy and algorithms. One can never pass the same point twice.
Niko Hafkenscheid displayed musical instruments, microphones and proposed an improvisation format to accompany the garden makers.
Rosa and Zé took in charge the barbecue.
During a 5 hours period a group of people of all ages constructed a “generic city garden”, played music and eat.
It definitely designated a certain way of living.
Triadic Ballet – Oskar Schelemmer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMDtwC76HjA
Friday, April 25, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Davis Freeman invites Isabelle Pauwelyn to make a political garden
Davis Freeman invited Isabelle Pauwelyn to create a political garden in Bains Connective and participate in his project in "Some political art". Here listen to the explanation and see the plan of Isabelle called "GENERIC CITY GARDEN". The project started the 20th of April 2008 with a barbecue and a political improvisation session led by Niko Hafkenscheid .
Thursday, April 17, 2008
LINKS!
Dear Spa friends,
here are some links:
Copenhagen Free University
http://www.copenhagenfreeuniversity.dk/menuuk.html
16 Beaver
http://www.16beavergroup.org/
Dieter Lesage
http://bavo.janvaneyck.nl/AG/htm/mf_2.htm
http://summit.kein.org/node/233
Guy Debord
http://www.ubuweb.com/film/debord_spectacle.html
Alix Lambert
www.pinkghettoproductions.com
Johanna Kirsh
www.schrik.info
Antonio Negri
http://www.generation-online.org/t/metropolis.htm
APT - Advanced Performance Training
http://www.popok.org/apt.php?cwPage=home
Ilse Ermen
www.ilse-ermen.com
Davis Freeman
http://www.randomscream.be/
Deuffert & Plischke
http://www.artistwin.de/
others
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_&_Politics
here are some links:
Copenhagen Free University
http://www.copenhagenfreeuniversity.dk/menuuk.html
16 Beaver
http://www.16beavergroup.org/
Dieter Lesage
http://bavo.janvaneyck.nl/AG/htm/mf_2.htm
http://summit.kein.org/node/233
Guy Debord
http://www.ubuweb.com/film/debord_spectacle.html
Alix Lambert
www.pinkghettoproductions.com
Johanna Kirsh
www.schrik.info
Antonio Negri
http://www.generation-online.org/t/metropolis.htm
APT - Advanced Performance Training
http://www.popok.org/apt.php?cwPage=home
Ilse Ermen
www.ilse-ermen.com
Davis Freeman
http://www.randomscream.be/
Deuffert & Plischke
http://www.artistwin.de/
others
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_&_Politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)