Heidegger_Martin – what's next?

Gesteigerter Realismus

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:17:15 +0000

1. Seit Nietzsche vom Tod Gottes sprach, aber natürlich schon viel früher und eigentlich immer schon, hat sich Philosophie auf eine Negativität oder ein Absolutes bezogen, das sich als Leere auftut.
2. Als Leere oder als Abgrund.
3. Als Entzug des gegebenen Sinns.
4. Als Verschwinden der Realität inmitten der Realität oder als Realität.
5. Die Realität, die in sich verschwindet, hat Jacques Lacan mit dem Begriff des Realen markiert.
6. Es handelt sich um ein immanentes Außen; nicht um eine externe Äußerlichkeit.
7. Zu abstrahieren heißt, von der Äußerlichkeit abzusehen, um auf ein Außen zu blicken, das innen ist.
8. Weil das nicht leicht ist, überspannt die Philosophie oft den Bogen und die Sehne reißt.
9. Das Denken zerreißt in dieser Überspannung und fällt in sich zusammen.
10. Aber es gibt kein Denken, das dieser Gefahr ausweichen könnte.
11. Zum Denken gehört, dass es sich nicht auf sich verlassen kann.
12. Es muss sich von sich selber lösen, um Denken zu sein.
13. Ein Denken, das sich nicht selbst verließe, wäre nichts als Rekapitulation des bereits Gewussten und -Adressierung des bloß Wissbaren.
14. Es erstreckte sich auf nichts Neues.
15. Ohne Neugierde bliebe es ganz bei sich.
16. Denken aber heißt Weiterdenken, heißt, nicht aufhören zu denken, heißt, sich und seine Ergebnisse in Frage zu stellen.
17. Aber das Denken kann nur Fragen stellen, indem es welche beantwortet.
18. Es muss sich eingestehen, dass jeder Frage Antworten vorausgehen und dass die Frage selbst bereits eine Antwort darstellt.
19. Hierin kommen Wittgenstein und Derrida überein: Dass es ein Ja gibt, das jedem Nein vorausspringt, dass jede Frage auf eine Antwort antwortet, indem sie sie in Frage stellt.
20. Weiterdenken bedeutet, aus der Enge der sozialen, kulturellen und akademischen Doxa auszubrechen, um ins Offene zu gehen, wie man in eine Wüste geht.
21. Wer weiterdenkt, kommt nicht an seinen Ausgangspunkt zurück.
22. Es gibt Denken nur als katastrophisches Denken.
23. Das griechische Wort katastrophé meint den Umschlag oder die Umwendung.
24. In seiner Interpretation von Platons Höhlengleichnis taucht zwar das Wort katastrophé nicht auf, dennoch spricht Heidegger in ihr von der Umwendung.
25. Sie sei das „Wesen der paideia“.¹26. Paideia übersetzen wir gewöhnlich mit Erziehung und Bildung.
27. Was also haben Bildung und Erziehung mit der Katastrophe zu tun?
28. Dass Bildung und Erziehung wesenhaft katastrophisch sind, heißt zunächst, dass sie vom Subjekt, das kein Kind (pais) mehr sein muss, eine Umwendung -fordern.
29. Im Höhlengleichnis impliziert diese Umwendung die Zuwendung zum Eigentlichen, das die Ideen sind.
30. Voraussetzung dieser Zuwendung ist die „Wegwendung des Blickes von den Schatten“.²31. Heideggers Pädagogik setzt mit Platon die Möglichkeit der Unterscheidung des Wahren vom Unwahren voraus.
32. Ist es so einfach?
33. Derselbe Heidegger, der das „Wesen der ‚Bildung‘“ im „Wesen der ‚Wahrheit‘“³ gründen lässt, sagt von der Wahrheit (aletheia = Unverborgenheit), dass sie in die lethe (Verborgenheit) zurückreicht: „Das Unverborgene muß einer Verborgenheit entrissen, dieser im gewissen Sinne geraubt werden.“ ⁴34. Aber Heidegger sagt an anderer Stelle auch, dass das „Feld der lethe […] jede Entbergung von Seiendem und also Geheurem [verwehrt]. Die lethe läßt an ihrem Wesensort, der sie selbst ist, alles verschwinden.“⁵35. Man verfehlt Heideggers Katastrophenpädagogik, solange man sie nicht mit diesem Verschwinden konnotiert.
36. Die lethé, so scheint es, gleicht einem schwarzen Loch.
37. Sie absorbiert nicht nur das Seiende, sie bringt noch sein Erscheinen oder seine Unverborgenheit zum Verschwinden.
38. Das ist die eigentliche Katastrophe: der Umschlag des Seienden ins Nichts.
39. Dieser Umschlag verweist auf das, was Heidegger als „Kehre im Ereignis“ mit der Gegenwendigkeit der Wahrheit assoziiert.
40. Der Begriff der Gegenwendigkeit ist einer der Kernbegriffe von Heideggers Hölderlinvorlesung Der Ister.
41. Er verweist auf die inhärente Spannung im Sein selbst, das mit dem Ereignis zusammenfällt, mit dem Begriff also, der, wie Giorgio Agamben sagt, „zugleich Zentrum und äußerste Grenze von Heideggers Denken nach Sein und Zeit darstellt.“⁶42. Agamben hat den Begriff des Zeitgenossen mit einer Dialektik von Licht und Dunkelheit assoziiert: „Der Zeitgenosse ist jener, der den Blick auf seine Zeit richtet, indem er nicht die Lichter, sondern die Dunkelheit wahrnimmt.“⁷43. Wie die Aufklärung und die Les Lumières und die Enlightenment genannten Momente des westlichen und außerwestlichen Denkens, hat die belichtete Realität die Tendenz ihre dunklen Seiten zu verdunkeln. Realität ist Realitätsverdunkelung.
44. Was Agamben Zeitgenossenschaft nennt, markiert eine gegenüber der Realität genannten Realitätsverdunkelung kritische Position.
45. Realistisch zu sein, heißt folglich, statt sich an Realitäten zu klammern, um sich ihrer Konsistenz und Kohärenz zu versichern, sich von ihnen zu lösen, um ihre Dunkelheit zu erspähen.
46. Ich will diesen um die Wahrnehmung der Irrealität von Realität erweiterten Realismus gesteigerten Realismus nennen.
47. Es ist ein Realismus, der – statt realitätsgläubig zu sein – realitätskritisch ist.
48. Er versagt sich die Option der Unterwerfung unter die Tatsachenautorität.
49. Es ist diese Versagung, die Agamben zu denken gibt, indem er den Zeitgenossen als Resistenzfigur evoziert.
50. Wirkliche Zeitgenossenschaft verweigert sich den Zeitgeistimperativen.
51. Sie stellt noch ihre Infragestellung in Frage, die oft zu kulturkonservativem Elitismus führt.
52. „Der Zeitgenosse“, schreibt Agamben, „ist der, der die Dunkelheit seiner Zeit als eine Sache wahrnimmt, die ihn angeht und ohne Unterlass interpelliert …“.⁸53. Das macht aus ihm einen Zeitdiagnostiker, der den Diagnosen seiner Zeit misstraut.
54. Seiner Zeit zu misstrauen, ohne aufzuhören, sein Verhältnis zu ihr zu intensivieren, ist, was man die Idee der Bildung nennen kann.

1.) Martin Heidegger, Platons Lehre von der Wahrheit. Bern 1954 (2. Aufl.), S. 30.
2.) Ebd.
3.) Ebd.
4.) Ebd., S. 32.
5.) Martin Heidegger, Parmenides, GA 56. Frankfurt/M. 1982, S. 176.
6.) Giorgio Agamben, Kindheit und Geschichte. Frankfurt/M. 2004, S. 150.
7.) Giorgio Agamben, Qu’est-ce que le contemporain?, Paris 2008, S. 14.
8.) Ebd., S. 22.

Artistic Activism and Agonistic Spaces

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:16:51 +0000

Can artistic practices still play a critical role in a society where the difference between art and advertizing have become blurred and where artists and cultural workers have become a necessary part of capitalist production? Scrutinizing the “new spirit of capitalism” Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello¹ have shown how the demands for autonomy of the new movements of the 1960’s had been harnessed in the development of the post-Fordist networked economy and transformed in new forms of control. The aesthetic strategies of the counter-culture: the search for authenticity, the ideal of self-management, the anti-hierarchical exigency, are now used in order to promote the conditions required by the current mode of capitalist regulation, replacing the disciplinary framework characteristic of the Fordist period. Nowadays artistic and cultural production play a central role in the process of capital valorization and, through “neo-management”, artistic critique has become an important element of capitalist productivity.
This has led some people to claim that art had lost its critical power because any form of critique is automatically recuperated and neutralized by capitalism. Others, however, offer a different view and see the new situation as opening the way for different strategies of opposition. Such a view can be supported by insights from André Gorz for whom “When self-exploitation acquires a central role in the process of valorization, the production of subjectivity becomes a terrain of the central conflict … Social relations that elude the grasp of value, competitive individualism and market exchange make the latter appear by contrast in their political dimension, as extensions of the power of capital. A front of total resistance to this power is made possible. It necessarily overflows the terrain of production of knowledge towards new practices of living, consuming and collective appropriation of common spaces and everyday culture.”²To be sure the modernist idea of the avant-garde has to be abandoned, but that does not mean that any form of critique has become impossible. What is needed is widening the field of artistic intervention, by intervening directly in a multiplicity of social spaces in order to oppose the program of total social mobilization of capitalism. The objective should be to undermine the imaginary environment necessary for its reproduction. As Brian Holmes puts it, “Art can offer a chance for society to collectively reflect on the imaginary figures it depends upon for its very consistency, its self-understanding.”³I agree that artistic practices could contribute to the struggle against capitalist domination but this requires a proper understanding of the dynamics of democratic politics; an understanding which I contend can only be obtained by acknowledging the political in its antagonistic dimension as well as the contingent nature of any type of social order. It is only within such a perspective that one can grasp the hegemonic struggle which characterizes democratic politics, hegemonic struggle in which artistic practices can play a crucial role.

The political as antagonism
The point of departure of the theoretical reflections that I will propose in this piece is the difficulty that we currently have for envisaging the problems facing our societies in a political way. Contrary to what neo-liberal ideologists would like us to believe, political questions are not mere technical issues to be solved by experts. Properly political questions always involve decisions which require us to make a choice between conflicting alternatives. This incapacity to think politically, is to a great extent due to the uncontested hegemony of liberalism. “Liberalism”, in the way I use the term in the present context, refers to a philosophical discourse with many variants, united not by a common essence but by a multiplicity of what Wittgenstein calls “family resemblances”. There are to be sure many liberalisms, some more progressive than others but, save a few exceptions, the dominant tendency in liberal thought is characterized by a rationalist and individualist approach which is unable to grasp adequately the pluralistic nature of the social world, with the conflicts that pluralism entails; conflicts for which no rational solution could ever exist, hence the dimension of antagonism that characterizes human societies. The typical liberal understanding of pluralism is that we live in a world in which there are indeed many perspectives and values and that, due to empirical limitations, we will never be able to adopt them all, but that, when put together, they constitute an harmonious ensemble. This is why this type of liberalism must negate the political in its antagonistic dimension. Indeed, one of the main tenets of this liberalism is the rationalist belief in the availability of a universal consensus based on reason. No wonder that the political constitutes its blind spot. Liberalism has to negate antagonism since, by bringing to the fore the inescapable moment of decision – in the strong sense of having to decide in an undecidable terrain – antagonism reveals the very limit of any rational consensus.

Politics as Hegemony
Next to antagonism, the concept of hegemony is, in my approach, the other key notion for addressing the question of “the political”. To acknowledge the dimension of the political as the ever present possibility of antagonism requires coming to terms with the lack of a final ground and the undecidability which pervades every order. It requires in other words recognizing the hegemonic nature of every kind of social order and the fact that every society is the product of a series of practices attempting at establishing order in a context of contingency. The political is linked to the acts of hegemonic institution. It is in this sense that one has to differentiate the social from the political. The social is the realm of sedimented practices, that is, practices that conceal the originary acts of their contingent political institution and which are taken for granted, as if they were self-grounded. Sedimented social practices are a constitutive part of any possible society; not all social bonds are put into question at the same time. The social and the political have thus the status of what Heidegger called existentials, i. e. necessary dimensions of any societal life. If the political – understood in its hegemonic sense – involves the visibility of the acts of social institution, it is impossible to determine a priori what is social and what is political independently of any contextual reference. Society is not to be seen as the unfolding of a logic exterior to itself, whatever the source of this logic could be: forces of production, development of the Spirit, laws of history, etc. Every order is the temporary and precarious articulation of contingent practices. The frontier between the social and the political is essentially unstable and requires constant displacements and renegotiations between social agents. Things could always be otherwise and therefore every order is predicated on the exclusion of other possibilities. It is in that sense that it can be called “political” since it is the expression of a particular structure of power relations. Power is constitutive of the social because the social could not exist without the power relations through which it is given shape. What is at a given moment considered as the “natural” order – jointly with the “common sense” which accompanies it – is the result of sedimented hegemonic practices; it is never the manifestation of a deeper objectivity exterior to the practices that bring it into being.
Every order is therefore political and based on some form of exclusion. There are always other possibilities that have been repressed and that can be reactivated. The articulatory practices through which a certain order is established and the meaning of social institutions is fixed are “hegemonic practices”. Every hege-monic order is susceptible of being challenged by counter-hegemonic practices, i. e. practices which will attempt to disarticulate the existing order so as to install another form of hegemony.
What is at stake in what I call the “agonistic” struggle,⁴ which I see as the core of a vibrant democracy, is the very configuration of power relations around which a given society is structured. It is a struggle between opposing hegemonic projects which can never be reconciled rationally. An agonistic conception of democracy acknowledges the contingent character of the hege-monic politico-economic articulations which determine the specific configuration of a society at a given moment. They are precarious and pragmatic constructions which can be disarticulated and transformed as a result of the agonistic struggle among the adversaries. Contrary to the various liberal models, the agonistic approach that I am advocating recognizes that society is always politically instituted and never forgets that the terrain in which hegemonic interventions take place is always the outcome of previous hegemonic practices and that it is never an neutral one. This is why it denies the possibility of a non-adversarial democratic politics and criticizes those who, by ignoring the dimension of “the political”, reduce politics to a set of supposedly technical moves and neutral procedures.

The Public Space
What are the consequences of the agonistic model of democratic politics that I have just delineated for visualizing the public space? The most important consequence is that it challenges the widespread conception that, albeit in different ways, informs most visions of the public space conceived as the terrain where consensus can emerge. For the agonistic model, on the contrary, the public space is the battleground where different hegemonic projects are confronted, without any possibility of final reconciliation. I have spoken so far of the public space, but I need to specify straight away that, we are not dealing here with one single space. According to the agonistic approach, public spaces are always plural and the agonistic confrontation takes place in a multiplicity of discursive surfaces. I also want to insist on a second important point. While there is no underlying principle of unity, no predetermined centre to this diversity of spaces, there always exist diverse forms of articulation among them and we are not faced with the kind of dispersion envisaged by some postmodernist thinkers. Nor are we dealing with the kind of “smooth” space found in Deleuze and his followers. Public spaces are always striated and hegemonically structured. A given hegemony results from a specific articulation of a diversity of spaces and this means that the hegemonic struggle also consist in the attempt to create a different form of articulation among public spaces.
My approach is therefore clearly very different from the one defended by Jürgen Habermas, who when he envisages the political public space (which he calls the “public sphere”) presents it as the place where deliberation aiming at a rational consensus takes place. To be sure Habermas now accepts that it is improbable, given the limitations of social life, that such a consensus could effectively be reached and he sees his ideal situation of communication as a “regulative idea”. However, according to the perspective that I am advocating, the impediments to the Habermasian ideal speech situation are not empirical but ontological and the rational consensus that he presents as a regulative idea is in fact a conceptual impossibility. Indeed it would require the availability of a consensus without exclusion which is precisely what the agonistic approach reveals to be impossible.
I also want to indicate that, despite the similar terminology, my conception of the agonistic public space also differs from the one of Hannah Arendt which has become so popular recently. In my view the main problem with the Arendtian understanding of “agonism”, is that to put it in a nutshell, it is an “agonism without antagonism”. What I mean is that, while Arendt puts great emphasis on human plurality and insists that politics deals with the community and reciprocity of human beings which are different, she never acknowledges that this plurality is at the origin of antagonistic conflicts. According to Arendt, to think politically is to develop the ability to see things from a multiplicity of perspectives. As her reference to Kant and his idea of “enlarged thought” testifies her pluralism is not fundamentally different from the liberal one because it is inscribed in the horizon of an intersubjective agreement. Indeed what she looks for in Kant’s doctrine of the aesthetic judgment is a procedure for ascertaining intersubjective agreement in the public space. Despite significant differences between their respective approaches, Arendt, like Habermas, ends up envisaging the public space in a consensual way. To be sure, as Linda Zerilli has pointed out,⁵ in her case the consensus results from the exchange of voices and opinions (in the greek sense of doxa) not from a rational “Diskurs” like in Habermas. While for Habermas consensus emerges through what Kant calls “disputieren”, an exchange of arguments constrained by logical rules, for Arendt is a question of “streiten”, where agreement is produced through persuasion, not irrefutable proofs. However neither of them is able to acknowledge the hegemonic nature of every form of consensus and the ineradicability of antagonism, the moment of “Widerstreit”, what Lyotard refers to as “the differend”. It is symptomatic that, despites finding their inspiration in different aspects of Kant’s philosophy, both Arendt and Habermas privilege the aspect of the beautiful in Kant’s aesthetic and ignore his reflection on the sublime. This is no doubt related to their avoidance of “the differend”.

Critical artistic practices and hegemony
What kind of link can we establish between this theoretical discussion and the field of artistic practices? Before addressing this question I want to stress that I do not see the relation between art and politics in terms of two separately constituted fields, art on one side and politics on the other, between which a relation would need to be established. There is an aesthetic dimension in the political and there is a political dimension in art. This is why I consider that it is not useful to make a distinction between political and non-political art. From the point of view of the theory of hegemony, artistic practices play a role in the constitution and maintenance of a given symbolic order or in its challenging and this is why they necessarily have a political dimension. The political, for its part, concerns the symbolic ordering of social relations, what Claude Lefort calls “the mise en scène”, “the mise en forme” of human coexistence and this is where lies its aesthetic dimension.
The real issue concerns the possible forms of critical art, the different ways in which artistic practices can contribute to questioning the dominant hegemony. Once we accept that identities are never pre-given but that they are always the result of processes of identification, that they are discursively constructed, the question that arises is the type of identity that critical artistic practices should aim at fostering. Clearly those who advocate the creation of agonistic public spaces, where the objective is to unveil all that is repressed by the dominant consensus are going to envisage the relation between artistic practices and their public in a very different way than those whose objective is the creation of consensus, even if this consensus is seen as a critical one. According to the agonistic approach, critical art is art that foments dissensus, that makes visible what the dominant consensus tends to obscure and obliterate. It is constituted by a manifold of artistic practices aiming at giving a voice to all those who are silenced within the framework of the existing hegemony.
In my view this agonistic approach is particularly suited to grasp the nature of the new forms of artistic activism that have emerged recently and that, in a great variety of ways, aim at challenging the existing consensus. Those artistico-activist practices are of very different types, from a variety of new urban struggles like “Reclaim the streets” in Britain or the “Tute Bianche” in Italy to the “Stop advertising” campaigns in France and the “Nike Ground-Rethinking Space” in Austria. We can find another example in the strategy of “identity correction” of the Yes Men who appearing under different identities – for instance as representatives of the World Trade Organization develop a very effective satire of neo-liberal ideology.⁶ Their aim is to target institutions fostering neo-liberalism at the expense of people’s well-being and to assume their identities in order to offer correctives. For instance the following text appeared in 1999 in a parody of the WTO website: “The World Trade Organization is a giant international bureaucracy whose goal is to help businesses by enforcing ‘free trade’: the freedom of transnationals to do business however they see fit. The WTO places this freedom above all other freedoms, including the freedom to eat, drink water, not eat certain things, treat the sick, protect the environment, grow your own crops, organize a trade union, maintain social services, govern, have a foreign policy. All those freedoms are under attack by huge corporations working under the veil of free trade, that mysterious right that we are told must trump all others.”⁷ Some people mistook this false website for the real one and the Yes Men even managed to appear as WTO representatives in several international conferences where one of their satirical interventions consisted for instance in proposing a telematic worker-surveillance device in the shape of a yard-long golden phallus.
I submit that to grasp the political character of those varieties of artistic activism we need to see them as counter-hegemonic interventions whose objective is to occupy the public space in order to disrupt the smooth image that corporate capitalism is trying to spread, bringing to the fore its repressive character. Acknowledging the political dimension of such interventions supposes relinquishing the idea that to be political requires making a total break with the existing state of affairs in order to create something absolutely new. Today artists cannot pretend any more to constitute an avant-garde offering a radical critique, but this is not a reason to proclaim that their political role has ended. They still can play an important role in the hegemonic struggle by subverting the dominant hegemony and by contributing to the construction of new subjectivities. In fact this has always been their role and it is only the modernist illusion of the privileged position of the artist that has made us believe otherwise. Once this illusion is abandoned, jointly with the revolutionary conception of politics accompanying it, we can see that critical artistic practices represent an important dimension of democratic politics. This does not mean, though, as some seem to believe, that they could alone realize the transformations needed for the establishment of a new hegemony. As we argued in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy⁸ a radical democratic politics calls for the articulation of different levels of struggles so as to create a chain of equivalence among them. For the “war of position” to be successful, linkage with traditional forms of political intervention like parties and trade-unions cannot be avoided. It would be a serious mistake to believe that artistic activism could, on its own, bring about the end of neo-liberal hegemony.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: Art&Research: A Journal of Ideas Contexts and Methods, 1 (2), 2007, www.artandresearch.org.uk/v1n2/mouffe.html [18.10.2014].

1.) Luc Boltanski, Eve Chiapello, The New Spirit of Capitalism. London 2005.
2.) Interview with André Gorz, Multitudes, 15, 2004, p. 209.
3.) Brian Holmes, “Artistic Autonomy”, www.u-tangente.org.
4.) For a development of this “agonistic” approach, see Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox. London 2000, chapter 4.
5.) Linda Zerilli, Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom. Chicago 2005, chapter 4.
6.) See for instance their book “The Yes Men. The True Story of the End of the World Trade Organization” published by The Disinformation Company Ltd, 2004
7.) The Yes Men Group website, www.theyesmen.org [29.9.2014]
8.) Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London 1985, 2nd edition 2001.

lost after infancy, too

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:16:16 +0000

I never knew if it mattered what I did artistically. In any case I stopped producing works as objects – what were they anyway? – at some point and looked for alternative ways of artistic practice, focusing on a collaborative approach, because most of what I had done so far was to some extent done collectively. What was I to do? In order to not get lost I had to restrict myself first I thought; to start by looking at what constituted my direct surroundings and continually broaden the perspective from there.
It became apparent pretty quickly, that the internet as universal tool played a big part in my daily life and still does. Sometimes it even feels like I live online, when I barely leave the house. And when I do, I still have my phone in my pocket, right? But why has it become such a big part of me? How come I love records, but listen to a lot of music online? Maybe because I can also read the news, go shopping and chat with friends all at the same time there. For all those activities I use dedicated services. I have a main twitter-, facebook-, soundcloud-, skype-, youtube-, tumblr- and a mail-account, as well as several secondary/spam/fake monikers for similar sites, a handful of different bulletin boards and instant messaging log-ins, shopping sites, news-portals, I regularly visit – the list goes on and on, and yet I feel far away from being up to date in that respect.
Now all before-mentioned services ask for a username to login with and most of them make you choose a profile picture, too. Up until the rise of the web 2.0, and later specially Facebook and Twitter, usernames were usually nicknames, sometimes funny, often randomly chosen, mostly inside jokes or boring combinations of ASCII characters in the form of “m4giC41337666” and profile pictures, if used at all, showed avatar-like fantasy images, a pre-defined generic image, obscenities or your favorite pet. Anonymity was the key ingredient for creating accounts to a utopian playground for phreeks, geeks, hackers and those who wanted to become one of them. By contrast, the introduction of social networks went hand in hand with a decisive shift: The accepted and expected usage of real names and real pictures, calling for one visibly unified identity. In return it’s become relatively easy to compare profile pictures of any given person on different platforms today. Those images – even though they do at best depict the same human being, rather try to emphasize the qualities of their respective role in that social network, the brand we try to market and our obligation to self-design. Petra Löffler finds the longing for maximum visibility of all involved sounds suspiciously like the fulfillment of Baudrillard’s theory of connectivity; the alliance between everyone’s permanent desire for seeing and being seen “establishes a new order of seeing. […] Today, it is no more that the few see the many ([Foucault’s] panopticon), or the many see the few (popular stars) – today, because of the multiplication and connectivity of screens in public and private spaces, the many see the many.”¹ For a graphic example just image search user profiles of (geo)social networking services and compare the results to those of job related communities: Where the focus lies on physicality, fitness and appeal in the dating sphere, business oriented profiles tend to represent seriousness, reliability and professionalism, against suggestions to keep the same picture throughout all platforms for the sake of recognition and respectability.
In the end all profiles might share traces of the same source but what they mirror are whitewashed versions and in extreme cases altogether different personalities. Roy Ascott farsightedly declares in 1994 that in our hyper-connected times we’ll be “only interested in what can be made of ourselves, not what made us. As for the sanctity of the individual, well, we are now each of us made up of many individuals, a set of selves.”² It is very important to understand, that this divisibility of the self, is in turn as much symptomatic as it is a fundamental trait indispensable for partaking in our networked world today. As a consequence, when the dichotomy between one and many, original/fake, real/virtual or private/public dissolve into fluid planes of meaning, the border between the two will be displaced and eventually put into question. Simultaneously we become not only hybrids of a set of selves, but also, knowingly and deliberately or not “chimeras, theorized and fabricated -hybrids of machine and organism; in short, we are cyborgs.”³ Hence the distinction between man and machine or more generally put between human and non-human cannot be sustained anymore, which also means problems (and the solutions they call for) cannot be only social, excluding technological, linguistic, media or any other aspects, or vice versa – they, too become hybrids.
Interestingly enough, one of the keynotes during this year’s transmediale titled “Art as Evidence”, delivered by Trevor Paglen, Laura Poitras and Jacob Applebaum, revolved around the same term – visibility – and posited the question: What if art today is about exactly that: visibility? Can the same ambiguous visibility be implied? Being visible, which requires standing out, making something visible for as many as possible, to be visible at all, and also being able to see? As set out above this is a social problem, as it is also a question of media, technology, philosophy, biology, and so forth but to begin with it’s the former that I want to pursue by asking: How can artists play that role in society? Is there not already a movement that is using exactly the tactics of visibility to introduce social change: activism? Can art do this better, differently, worse, not at all? To be able to discuss this, I want to have a quick look at where the areas of art/artist and activism/activist overlap today, what capacity utopian politics take up within this intersection and if visibility really is a valid approach how it can be ensured that not only a lot of people are reached in the end, but also how visually difficult, yet important content can be equally represented in the system without running into the risk of becoming mere spectacle. “Only rarely do we think about our dreams as possibilities necessary to our present.”⁴ It seems to be out of question, that art and activism share some common ground today. So trying to tell both apart proves difficult. Asking those who lay claim to having sufficient cultural importance produces a wide spectrum of possible answers and scenarios, that would not only be boring to elaborate, but also go well beyond the scope of my intent. McLuhan will have to serve as one example of many. When “art is what you can get away with”, reversely, could activism be defined as “what you can be thrown in jail for”? But seriously how can we agree upon definitions, when the mere proclamation of affiliation – the more often and the louder the better – to one or the other seems to suffice itself? Does it make sense to subsume art under aesthetics and activism under politics? Are those fields mutually exclusive? Do we have to make a distinction at all? The answer, to amplify with Rancière, what has already been said about the binary notion of dichotomies before, can only be no. Such allegories of inequality have to be dismissed as superimposed oppositions and the question should rather be reformulated: Can there be non-political aesthetics today, art without activism? “[For] aesthetics and politics […] overlap in their concern for the distribution and sharing out of ideas, abilities and experiences to certain subjects – what Rancière calls ‘le partage du sensible’. In this framework, it is not possible to conceive of an aesthetic judgement that is not at the same time a political judgement”⁵. While this argument could also be used to validate l’art pour l’art, or argue aestheticism’s -social functionlessness away, it can be seen equally as a reminder of the political obligation of aesthetic/artistic practice and a farewell to the imperative of a distinction. With this in mind Rancière describes possible modes of such an artistic production: the inventory, where the artist is “… at once an archivist of collective life and the collector”⁶; the invitation, creating unexpected situations that lead to relational encounters, the mystery, juxtaposing the incompatible, suggesting “-co-presence” and being with otherness and the game, humor as move from critical to ludic, to suspend, in a society working towards the accelerated consumption of signs, the meaning of the protocols of reading those signs; turn the protocols on their head. All involve to some degree a utopian impulse: “The general idea that art could actively participate in the process of building a just society.” ⁷But can an artistic self-conception after the politics of aesthetics still utilize the aforementioned formulas even though art today no longer needs to respond solely to -itself or the excess of commodities and signs (as showcased for instance by 1960’s conceptual art and its successors), nor only to the lack of connections (the 90’s, -relational aesthetics), but to an abundance of hyperconnected excess? Boris Groys has suggested that this new era leads to a spectacle without spectators because the immeasurable quantity of artistic production could not be grasped by a spectator anymore resulting – who would have thought – in a struggle for visibility, in relation to the common experience of a permanent shortage of time, because art still needs an understanding spectator (or participator, collaborator), who verifies art as art. So when everything is information, everything becomes material and “everything is up for grabs”⁸ does it not seem more appropriate to “hit hard, then hope for the best. Repeat” ⁹ to arrest the spectator’s attention? Does the artist accordingly not play along similar rules as everyone else – distinction and conformity? Hal Foster criticizes a general tendency of those formulas to rather hit hard and focus on “happy interactivity”, which may be driving art towards a “post-critical” self conception, art that ultimately works to “aestheticize the nicer procedures of our service economy” by positing dialogue, -sociability, and collaboration as good for their own sake all while leaving “contradiction out of the dialogue, and conflict out of democracy.” On the other hand, -Metahaven reappropriate the famous slogan of 60’s -movements and transform it into “the personal is geo-political”¹⁰ to show that conflict and contradiction are far from disregard or exclusion. Unfortunately, the exchange of information today is not as straightforward as it appears to be at first glance. Most of the traffic on the internet today is created not by humans, but by bots.
According to a study conducted by Pew Internet back in 2011, Americans between 18 and 29 already sent and received an average of nearly 88 text messages per day, compared to 17 phone calls. Hence texting, or more generally written communication as a medium, has left the traditional call or talk in the dust to become the most common form of communication in a hyper-networked western world today. Against the backdrop of the developments after the Summer of Snowden it’s almost unbearably ironic that the written word once started out as one of the earliest forms of cryptography in times where literacy was reserved to an elite few. I’ll come back to that later, first let’s not forget about the rest of the world: One could argue that, with about 897 million illiterate people in the world allocated mostly in the global south, literacy still acts as a great barrier to proper education and self-determination. Universal -access to the internet, which is now a fundamental human right, follows closely: more than 60% of the world’s population and 85% of Africans lack information and communications technology as of 2013. Along those lines the global digital divide is, though in steady decline, reinforcing the already disastrous economic circumstances, not least because of the apparent interdependencies of both fields. Nonetheless that is just the first rung on a figurative ladder, with each succeeding step being by definition more complex for the individual, harder to comprehend and therefore seemingly -further and further apart the higher you climb and eventually remaining beyond the majority’s reach very quickly.
At the same time “the value of knowledge […] is degrading constantly and expanding the experience of not-knowing correspondingly. The more the world is -becoming interconnected, the more we realize how important interconnections are, the more we realise we actually know less than we thought we knew.” ¹¹So the question is clearly not about the existence of a lack of balance anymore but: has this ever been as obvious as it is today? And far more pressing: How can we change that and find useful workarounds? The solution seems equally at hand: Every one of us. Everywhere. Connected.
As a start the generous decision to reach back down, to help others on their ascent might prove useful. Use the power and intelligence of the collective: Get creative together, communicate and give each other a leg-up, like we used to as kids playing in the back-yards, trying to climb walls together, that were just too high for us alone.
The more complex a task, the farther away from your individual knowledge, the more you have to rely on the network’s collective intelligence and collaborate.
Thus access to the network equals access to information/intelligence equals self-determination equals ultimate solution. So far, so good. Would this utopian tale of solidarity still not leave too many important variables out of the equation, we’d be happily living the dream of hyper-connectivity. But we already know better. At least we should be aware after various revelations that, as Ned Rossiter condensed, “acts of communication are now, by definition, acts of surveillance meshed within an economy that aggregates even the affective, non-representational dynamics of relation” ¹²; all of a sudden being connected has gained quite a negative connotation, the telematic dream of cyberception seems to have shattered, or turned against itself: “all the data flowing through any access node of a network are equally and at the same time held in the memory of that network: they can be accessed at any other interface through cable or satellite links, from any part of the planet, at any time of day or night.”¹³ Now by our very living “under the cloud”, we constantly generate data beyond our control, even if we are not online: Smart Cities relentlessly monitor their inhabitants, who themselves incessantly fidget with their smartphones along the way, checking in at their favorite bar, uploading the latest geo-tagged selfie, tracking their jogging trail, calorie input/output/consumption and their brainwaves while meditating, or they might just be plain texting, talking or googling;
“I was here” is not reserved to an act of vandalism or graffiti writing, a tag on sights, walls, trains or public restrooms anymore, if anything it’s the monotonous message we are invariably feeding into the cloud – if you will the bread crumbs in our private Hansel and Gretel fairy-tale, except we ignorantly scatter them most of the time. All those bits and pieces of information amount to an almost incomprehensible volume of big data attached to each and everyone of us, our personal profile. The less you are able to control your data, the more others know about you by your data.
More and more people start to realize how severe the entanglement has already become, how far they are immersed in their filter bubble , to what degree they are what they search to algorithms and thus can only find what they are. That produces a fear of heteronomy, because of a failure to comprehend and adapt to a new reality, or rather the realization thereof. The notion of individual privacy as public invisibility we had in the 2000’s is passé and concurrently no sufficient frame of reference anymore. Actually privacy has been long gone even before the revelations of Snowden and other whistleblowers insofar as ”in the networked context, [it] entails less the possibility of retreating to the core of one’s personality, to the true self , and more the danger of disconnection from a world in which sociability is tenuous and needs to be actively maintained all of the time because it is based on explicit acts of communication. Otherwise, the network simply reconfigures itself, depriving one of the ability to develop one’s individuality.”¹⁴ But what should be our starting point until then, if individual privacy is no more a safe basis from where we decide what is to become visible? Can we still uphold the paradigm of visibility under these circumstances? We have to find a different way to become invisible in order to stay in control over what is visible, as paradox as it may sound. “The desire for anonymity is not (only) a result of the simultaneous disappearance of privacy and the public. It is, above all, an indication of the growing interest in self-determined uses of social production and technologies of the common that may have been developed and distributed across commercial infrastructures, but whose modes of relation already outgrow the imaginative scope of economies of scarcity and rival goods.”¹⁵ And I assume this is Theaster Gates’ concern about art, when he says: “It is a moment when things don’t stay secret long enough, are not allowed to grow quietly. One can’t do anything without people saying, ‘Look at that person.’”¹⁶Anonymity is not to be confused with confidentiality or irresponsibility, but the ability to communicate ad libitum without leaving clues to one’s identity or being spied upon, which in a nutshell enables a new kind of agency. But what does that mean? Wikipedia says: “The capacity of an agent (a person, collective, any living being in general) to act in a world.” ¹⁷ This capacity, as we have seen, requires visibility (availability) of information, so it can integrate moral judgments and ethical considerations; a good example why we probably have to let go of the copyright as an obsolete relic from times where genius and god were still alive because it often hinders said availability. So are we stuck in a constant feedback loop? How can artists cope with anonymity, when names, titles and authorship still seem so important? Where does it leave us in relation to the initial reflection that art is supposed to make things visible, which as we already found is not supposed to be itself, but at the same time needs to be identifiable as such by a spectator?
It’s fundamentally paradox. As Graham Harman explains we have to go back a bit to untangle this paradox enmeshment of what’s visible on the surface, what’s visible at all and what can be made visible: With Heidegger’s tool-analysis, this visibility cannot be about a complete representation of things – to bring to mind by description as in making things visible – because no one, neither in theory nor praxis, because both operate on the surface, exhausts the objects he/she encounters, and can therefore never describe them sufficiently. Marshall McLuhan likewise famously propagates “the medium is the message,” which denies the foreground any meaningful content.¹⁸ But the foreground is exactly where the action takes place, where the change for the structures that dwell in the depths happens and is made possible, because a medium itself cannot change, just as for Heidegger Being is incapacitated without our Dasein on the face of the earth. In Harman’s view, this is the first revenge of the surface that helps us untie this knot a bit. The second is showing, that the background must not be mistaken for a unity, instead it is as hybrid, as manifold as the surface is also allowed to have depth. As a consequence the invisible underlying structures are not only the message, as the surface content gets back some of its lost capacity. Thus it’s a work on the surface to permeate and transform the structures beneath. Accordingly the task of artists should be described as a matter of allowing for agency by means of visibility: “Those who cannot perceive the network cannot act effectively within it, and are powerless. The job, then, is to make such things visible.”¹⁹ To eliminate potential elites, that demand complex skill-sets from their few members, by openly providing those skill-sets to the public. Open new paths. Establish alternative networks. Empower people. Enable DIY culture. But how can this be achieved without coming across didactic, without consolidating unequal conditions without the implicit presupposition of a good knowledge that is to be transferred onto ignorants? First of all by insisting on what we already found: The insufficiency of dichotomous thinking.
We have to remember our hybridity, the absence of a subject/object relationship and an absoluteness, that has been undone and then turn to Rancière once again, who claims everyone could learn continually and mutually from one another by collective emancipation from the principle of inequality. For him the classic teacher/student relationship not only represents this unequal distribution of intelligence by teaching the student what he does not know, but also that he is unable to understand it by himself, reaffirming this very principle endlessly – Jacotot’s process of stultification. Emancipation however is “the process of verification of the equality of intelligence”²⁰ and therefore begins with rejecting dichotomies, not reversing them. “We have not to turn the ignorant into learned persons, or, according to a mere scheme of overturn, make the student or the ignorant the master of his masters.”²¹ Because that still implies not only that there is something to be identically transferred from A to B, but also that this transmission is possible without losing something along the way; in the distance between A and B.
Instead the paradox of the ignorant master shows how the student can learn what his master does not know by separating cause (teaching) and effect (learning) through emancipation into a process of bilateral translation. After all, Rancière posits, we should appreciate what gets lost in translation, and implement that in our practice by refusing the borders between disciplines and translating between them – unfolding the invisible mechanisms and methodologies on the way. This actually requires spectacle as the site of verification and mediation of said translation, analogical to Harman we could speak of a revenge of the spectacle: “In the logic of emancipation, between the ignorant schoolmaster and the emancipated novice there is always a third thing – a book or some other piece of writing – alien to both and to which they can refer to verify in common what the pupil has seen, what she says about it and what she thinks of it.”²² As a result, or more readily as a foundation, we have to reconsider the way we talk and think about society and art as well as the ways of producing and making a living: A new sensibility of openness has to be fostered, that provides the tools for making reasonable choices all while embracing our hybrid identity and declaring not a fear-fueled war against them but solidarity with all its components – the machine and the rest – on the one hand and everything else, both human and non-human objects in society on the other. An attempt to bridge the gap between skepticism towards and receptiveness to exchange and innovation requires a leap of faith, that admittedly is often more difficult put into practice as on paper, but we cannot shy away from this challenge.
K-hole even claim it’s a new freedom. And this freedom expresses itself exactly through this new sensibility, whether meant as a tongue in cheek comment on coolness and fashion or not, being normcore means letting go of the omnipresent (and worn-out) desire of our times for differentiation, for being something special. More-over the resulting acts of solidarity that a new sensibility could bring about, require new organizational scaffolds. Felix Stalder draws up four combinable forms of infrastructures of agency, that are still “very much in their infancy”²³ yet seem applicable and have already proven so: Commons, organised, long term processes by which a group of people manages a physical or informational resource for joint use – most famously Wikipedia, Wiki-Leaks or The Pirate Bay; Assemblies, “non-hierarchical, usually physical gatherings focused on consensus-based decision making; Swarms, ad hoc, self-steering collective actors; and Weak Networks, groups constituted by extensive, yet casual and limited social interaction.”²⁴ Grassroots directly democratic decision-making has its limits, and even in smaller groups it can be quite a hassle. Partly delegating your vote because of inexperience in certain fields or just because you can’t be everywhere at the same time, while concentrating on personal strengths and keeping the whole processes transparent, is of course not a brand-new concept – Lewis Carroll already described the idea of Delegated Voting back in 1884. The open-source project “Liquid Feedback” however incorporated these ideas and offers a free tool to easily establish such structures at whatever scale in the field. Ilja Braun recently proposed we have to bear the consequences of creativity’s democratization by letting all those, who contribute to a networked commons, participate in the profit of those, who economize those contributions. The question remains how? Jaron Lanier however envisions a different approach in his book “Who Owns the World” that utterly abandons open-access and notions of free sharing, because in practise “it only makes matters worse”²⁵. All the users, who individually produce readily accessible content – raw sources – for free, play right into the hands of the few who have the biggest computers and or control over the data; happy EULA accident they are the only ones to make profit. Instead he proposes an inter-user based micro-payment system, that roughly speaking makes sure everyone gets paid for their content by those who access it. He argues this would guarantee for the survival of a solvent middle class that in return is crucial for a functioning capitalist system as we know it.
I have come from me, to you to everyone we know, to everyone, which is the public at large, that has changed, because its participants are multiplicities, everythings; why communication needs to change, to change society and how art can be part of this process, through – invisibly or not – making things visible to enable agency. We in turn have to emancipate ourselves to allow us to see things differently. Give a little, take a little, lose a little, gain a little – translate; embed ourselves in a new openness to the benefit of a society that takes manifold objects seriously. Our identity obligates us to social com-mitment; after all we cannot bite the hand that feeds us. But is this really the case?
Federico Campagna conceives an approach that sheds a totally different light on social obligations and the public as such: When he refers to the public or society as spooks, he invokes Max Stirner’s definition in “The Ego and Its Own” to describe the immanent risks of collective acts of emancipation in support of a greater good, e. g. humanity, country, ethnicity, revolution or class – here: society, claiming that such abstractions will only exploit their supporters to further solidify its domineering existence. Anyone’s choice to not identify with society of any kind whatsoever (think also convenient decisions like shopping non-organic) would amount to an act of treason, which would be “met not only with the reprobation of those who believe in the abstraction, but with […] active persecution.”²⁶ He further compares the Public with the crowd, insofar as both know no boundaries, aim at continuous expansion and once expansion ends, begin disintegrating – either annihilating or winning over anyone who stands in the way. After showing how the economic system, namely capitalism fails to focus on the individual, despite its claims of doing so, Campagna concludes: “Certainly, no individual is ever in the position to tell another what is to be done. Thus, it is to myself that I address this question: what am I to do, in the face of the Public? If the Public is a measureless, insatiable mouth, eternally hunting through the deserts and cities of the world for ever more prey, I should tell myself to ‘live in hiding’ – laze biosas, as Epicurus succinctly put it. To hide oneself from the mouth of Public means, first of all, to shield one’s eyes from the eyes of the Public, not to return the gaze that the Public casts on one. Like Medusa, the Public’s stare is powerful and terrible enough to transform any individual into yet another lifeless rock, in the stone garden of Society.”²⁷
Therefore hiding implies to swear off the religion of sacrifice which sees representation as the only way to existence: “either the physical representation of certain types of politics, or the semiotics of a life lived in the name of something ‘bigger than oneself’.”²⁸ It does however not connote living in isolation, dodging conflicts with others or with society, there can even be collectives of people in hiding, but those defy any societal or public manifestation; if anything they are temporary, opportunistic alliances with only one intention: achieving the aims of their members, that have realized their mortality and do not pussyfoot around: “Whenever they speak, they describe a plan. Whenever they stop talking, they put it into practice. And whenever they act, they do not expect to be thanked: indeed, ‘the pleasure is all theirs’. They do not indulge in any form of altruism, not of hatred for others, but out of love for themselves. They are all they can ever have, and so they be-lieve it to be true for others. This is the true meaning, and the true practice of emancipation.”²⁹Is that the radical solution? I don’t know.
But whatever the true nature of emancipation might be I quite agree with Campagna on the inescapability of choice; we all have to decide individually , whether to live in hiding – with all its consequences – or to try and transform something collectively that may never permit to be changed because the level of complexity has long outrun our ability of comprehension.
Luckily, we still have one decisive advantage in this game of transformation and understanding insofar that we are able to be nonsensical, as Chus Martínez describes the term: “Nonsense is far from meaningless, far from incapable of engaging with one’s historical time or one’s society. In this sense, ‘nonsensical’ means being capable of suspending our conventional notions of time (in particular, historical time), to blur the question of origin, to be unoriginal and therefore free to be attentive, to be able to perceive the equivocal as a manifestation of the possible as a way of bypassing essentialism. In short, to be able to be more than a reflection of the world.”³⁰ Reverberating Rancière again in this manner we – and this we cannot be limited to artists – are permitted to disturb accepted forms of knowledge, by uncovering their inherent hierarchies and limits and help construct the “site of the production of a different knowledge (…) knowledge that is equally ambivalent, incommensurable, and singular.”³¹ If everything makes a difference, because difference is the conditio sine qua non for being at all, nonsense helps displace the ubiquitous questions of what and how much to the more important how? With this in mind, please excuse my nonsense.

Wiederabdruck
Der vorliegende Text ist die gekürzte Version des gleichnamigen Textes. Zuerst hier veröffentlicht: http://lost.jeffjaws.com.

1.) Petra Löffler interviewed by Geert Lovink at NECSUS, 2013 via www.necsus-ejms.org/the-aesthetics-of-dispersed-attention-an-interview-with-german-media-theorist-petra-loffler [12/27/2014]
2.) Roy Ascott, Telematic Embrace. Berkeley, 2003, p. 320.
3.) Donna Haraway, “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century”, in: Idem, Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, New York 1991, p. 150.
4.) Pliny the Elder as cited in: Hans Ulrich Obrist, “UNREALIZED ART PROJECTS. The Potential of the Incomplete Idea”, in: Christian Gether, Utopia & Contemporary Art, Ostfildern 2012, p. 80.
5.) Claire Bishop, Artificial Hells: participatory art and the politics of spectatorship. London 2012, p. 27.
6.) Jacques Rancière, “Problems and Transformations in Critical Art”, in: Idem, Malaise dans l’esthétique, ed. and trans. Claire Bishop, London/Cambridge, MA, 2006, p. 83ff.
7.) Rachel Weiss, The Body of the Collective, in: Gether 2012, op. cit., p. 139 ff.
8.) Theaster Gates in: Cathy Lebowitz, “Sensibility of our Times Revisited”, in: Art in America, 2012 www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/magazine/sensibility-of-the-times-revisited [10/3/2014]
9.) Ibid.
10.) Metahaven, Black Transparency, s. l. 2013, vimeo.com/80041817; script via http://pastebin.com/UMNv2EXf [10/3/2014]
11.) Felix Stalder, Digital Solidarity. London, 2013, p. 16.
12.) Ned Rossiter, Soehnke Zehle, Privacy is Theft. On Anonymus Experiences, Infrastructural Politics and Accidental Encounters, s. l. 2013, http://nedrossiter.org/?p=374 [10/3/2014]
13.) Roy Ascott, Telematic Embrace: Visionary Theories of Art, Technology, and Consciousness. Berkeley a. o. 2007, p. 333.
14.) Stalder 2013, p. 24ff.
15.) Rossiter/Zehle 2013.
16.) Theaster Gates in Lebowitz 2012.
17.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)
18.) Graham Harman, “The revenge of the surface: Heidegger, McLuhan, Greenberg”, Paletten 291/292, 2013, pp. 66–73, https://dar.aucegypt.edu/handle/10526/3640 [10/3/2014]
19.) James Birdle, Under the Shadow of the Drone, s. l. 2012, http://booktwo.org/notebook/drone-shadows/ [10/3/2014]
20.) Jacques Rancière, The Emancipated Spectator. London 2009, p. 10ff.
21.) Ibid.
22.) Ibid.
23.) Stalder 2013, p. 57.
24.) Ibid., p. 31ff.
25.) Jaron Lanier in: Maximilian Probst, „Nutzer, profitiert vom Netz!“, Die Zeit, 8, 2014, www.zeit.de/2014/08/jaron-lanier [10/3/2014]
26.) Federico Campagna, Hiding From The Gods: on Emancipation and the Public, Dec 7, 2012, http://th-rough.eu/writers/campagna-eng/hiding-gods-emancipation-and-public [10/3/2014]
27.) Ibid.
28.) Ibid.
29.) Ibid.
30.) Chus Martínez, “Unexpress the Expressible”, in: Gether 2012, op. cit., p. 11.
31.) Kathrin Busch, “Artistic Research and the Poetics of Knowledge”, AS – Visual Culture Quarterly, 179, 2007.

Kunst und Epistēmē

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:43 +0000

Als Grundlage des wissenschaftlichen Wissens gilt die Sprache, der Diskurs – jene ‚Medien’ der Philosophie, die sich in der strikten Verknüpfung zwischen epistēmē und Sprechen selbst feiern. Bilder, Töne, Dinge kommen darin nur am Rande vor: als Bezugsobjekte oder Illustrationen, und auch nur dann, wenn sie sich ‚diskursivieren’ lassen. Die ‚Maschinerie’ der Untersuchungen, der Einsatz experimenteller Apparaturen, die Aufbereitung der Resultate oder die Strukturen der Archivierung und deren Reste, der Ausschuss nicht verwendbarer Daten, das ‚Übriggebliebene’ sowie die Formen ihrer Dokumentation sind bestenfalls ‚parergonal’: Sie tragen nichts zur ‚Wahrheit’ bei, vielmehr ist das Kriterium des Wissens die Methode, die Ordnung des logos unter Ausschluss jeglicher Materialität und Vermeidung jeder schmückenden Poesie. Die Wissenschaft verfährt anästhetisch; ihre Darstellungsweise ist die glanzlose Aussage, die ‚Proposition’. Deren allgemeine Gestalt lautet ‚S ist p’, mit ‚S’ als Subjekt und ‚p’ als Prädikat – sonst nichts: keinen Zusatz, keine Nuance, keine Färbung, keine Brechung. Der Ausdruck ‚Proposition’ gründet im Lateinischen propositio, was im Wortsinne das ‚Vor-Setzen’ oder ‚Hinstellen’ bedeutet und dem griechischen thesis entspricht, das gleichfalls ein ‚Hinsetzen’ oder ‚Vor-Stellen’ im Sinne einer ‚Behauptung’ meint. Interessanterweise entstammen beide Begriffe der Rechtssphäre, sodass aus der Logik der Aussage ein Rechtssystem des Denkens wird, die das ‚Rechte’ im Sinne des ‚Richtigen’ ausspricht, das sich, soweit als möglich, noch zu ‚rechtfertigen’ hat. Richtigkeit und Begründung erweisen sich darüber hinaus an den ‚Satz’ als Grundeinheit der Sprache geknüpft, sodass in der Epistemologie der Wissenschaften alle drei ‚Positionen’ zusammengehören und einen Knoten bilden: Das ‚Sichrichten’ wie gleichermaßen die Strategien der Legitimierung und die Sprache, die sie ihrerseits in Stellung bringt. Die Künste, die sich im Wahrnehmbaren orientieren, sei es in Form von Bildern, Installationen, Körpern oder Klängen, bleiben darin buchstäblich ‚ent-stellt’; sie finden sowenig zur Begründung einen Zugang wie zur Sprache, denn ihre Ausdrucksform ist das ‚Nichtpropositionale’, das, was jenseits der Aussage bleibt und sich dem klaren und eindeutigen Urteil widersetzt. Vor allem bei Platon, aber auch später in der Geschichte der Philosophie ist sie darum durchgängig dem Raum des Alogischen und Irrationalen zugeschlagen worden. Die Künste betreffen den Schein, die simulatio oder dissimulatio, wie ebenso das Spektakel, die Illusion oder die Produktion von Einbildungen, nicht die Idee, die exakte Bestimmung und ihre Zeichen.

Die traditionelle Konkurrenz zwischen Ästhetik und Rationalität, wie sie vor allem für die frühe Neuzeit relevant wurde, liegt darin beschlossen: Die Künste partizipieren nicht an Erkenntnis und Wahrheit; bestenfalls bewegen sie sich in deren Vorhof, an dessen unterem Rand, und sie scheinen auch nur dort der philosophischen Betrachtung würdig, wo sie paraphrasierbar und in die nüchterne Sprache der Vernunft übersetzbar sind. Ihre Funktion ist eine andere als zu wissen: Sie soll gefallen oder erschüttern, gelegentlich auch überraschen und mit dem konfrontieren, was wir noch nicht erfahren haben oder nie erfahren werden. Allein Alexander Baumgarten dachte dem aisthēton, dem aus dem griechischen aisthēsis hergeleiteten Begriff der Sinnlichkeit, eine gewisse, allerdings schwache Erkenntnisleistung zu. Das Zentrum der Ästhetik bildet nach ihm eine epistēmē des Singulären, die durch „Empfindung“ (sensatio) ‚wissend’ wird und, soweit in der Wahrnehmung immer nur ein ‚Dieses’ oder ‚Jeweiliges’ adressiert wird, allein auf die Gewahrung der existentia kath’exochen geht.¹ Viel Aufwand verwendete Baumgarten darauf, den Kreis des Ästhetischen einzuschränken – eine Operation, die noch bis ins 19. und 20. Jahrhundert anhält und die Künste in Bezug auf ihre spezifische Weise des Wissens hartnäckig unter Kontrolle zwingt. So anerkannte zwar Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel wie auch nachfolgend die Romantiker die Teilhabe der Künste am Absoluten, doch gleichfalls nur als unterste Stufe, um durch den Begriff, die philosophische Bestimmung überwunden und „aufgehoben“ zu werden. Der Hegelsche Topos vom „Ende der Kunst“ hat diesen Sinn²: Wo die Aussage, der Diskurs die Künste überflügelt, wo die ‚Wahrheit’ der Kunst in die Rationalität des Begriffs übergegangen ist, büßt sie ihre eigentliche Funktion ein, von der nichts weiter bleibt als ein Schatten, eine zu Asche verstreute Vergangenheit: Denn „nur das Wahrhafte vermag das Wahrhafte zu erzeugen“³. Noch die Kunstphilosophie Arthur Dantos hält, wenn auch mit anderen Vorzeichen, an dieser Devaluation fest⁴: Concept art oder Andy Warhols Brillo Boxes (1964) seien nichts anderes als eine Überführung von Kunst in Philosophie, deren Philosophischwerden sich vor allem darin zeige, dass das Künstlerische der Kunst nicht in der Erscheinung, sondern im Gedanken liege, der des „sinnlichen Scheinens“ (Hegel) nicht mehr bedürfe. Seither sei alles möglich: Die Künste entfesseln sich und verstricken sich in ihre eigene Wiederholung, die nie mehr sein kann, als ihr abermaliger Aufgang in Philosophie. Allerdings haben Martin Heidegger wie auch Theodor W. Adorno und Jacques Derrida diesem, in der Kunsttheorie immer noch virulenten Hegelianismus widersprochen, wenn auch mit zweifelhaftem Resultat. Im Ursprung des Kunstwerks knüpft Heidegger zunächst an die Hegelsche Verbindung zwischen Kunst und Wahrheit an, um letztere in Richtung einer „Entdecktheit“ oder „Unverborgenheit“ (alētheia) zu verschieben und im gleichen Atemzug erneut an „Dichtung“ (poiein) und damit an die Sprache als ausgezeichneter Weise des ästhetischen Wahrheitsvollzugs zu koppeln.⁵ Die Kapriziosität dieser Privilegierung weist den Ort der Künste der Metapher zu, die Bild und Wort zusammen denkt und damit am Primat sprachlicher Weltauflschießung festhält – ein Schluss, der zwar für Adorno und Derrida so nicht gilt, der aber zuletzt unwidersprochen bleibt, weil beide das Verhältnis von Kunst und Sprache entweder in die Dialektik des „Nichtidentischen“ oder in die Skripturalität von „Schrift“ und „Spur“ auflösen. Demgegenüber wäre an ihrer spezifischen Differenz festzuhalten: Die Künste beruhen auf einem „anderen Denken“, ein Denken des Anderen oder ein Anderes des Denkens, das zugleich etwas anderes ist als Denken, dem daher auch nicht derselbe Begriff, dieselbe Praxis zugemessen werden darf. Dennoch besteht im Unterschied zu aller vorhergehenden und zum Teil auch nachfolgenden Kunstphilosophie der Beitrag der drei und insbesondere Heideggers darin, das „Dichterische“ – oder auch die ‚Kompositionalität des Ästhetischen’ – auf keine Weise einem Raum unterhalb der Philosophie zuzuweisen, sondern ihr gleich- oder nebenzuordnen, indem beide, wie Heidegger sich ausdrückt, im „Dunkeln“ einer engen „Nachbarschaft“ zueinander wohnen.⁶ Das bedeutet eben nicht – im Unterschied zum Vorwurf Heideggers an die Adresse der Wissenschaften – dass die Künste nicht dächten, sondern dass ihr Bezug zur Wahrheit ein anderer als die philosophische Eröffnung von ‚Sinn’ ist. Deswegen trennt Heidegger „Denken“ und „Dichtung“, wobei letztere auf der ‚Gabe eines Zeigens’ beruht, das anders nicht vollzogen werden kann.⁷ Dieser ‚Gabe des Zeigens’ entspringt zugleich auch eine andere epistēmē, d. h. ein Wissen, das gegenüber dem wissenschaftlichen inkommensurabel bleibt und zu ihm Abstand hält. Im wörtlichen Sinne klafft zwischen beiden ein ‚Unter-Schied’, eine wesentliche Alterität, die ihre wechselseitige Unverständlichkeit oder Unübersetzbarkeit markiert. Das lässt sich dahin gehend radikalisieren, dass das Ästhetische weder ein Denken – im Sinne des logos – noch nicht ein Denken ist, sondern etwas Drittes, Offenes oder noch Unbestimmtes, das sich den üblichen Registern der Unterscheidung und Bezeichnung nicht fügt.
Ganz offensichtlich ist es zu wenig, den Künsten eine eigene ‚Sprache’ zuzuerkennen, die vor der Sprache der Wissenschaften läge und sich mit ihren Vokabularien berühre; die Kunst,spricht’ nicht, selbst die Lyrik und die Literatur bedienen sich nur der Sprache, um sie von Innen her aufzubrechen, sie umzulenken oder gegen sich zu wenden, bis ihre Splitter anderes zur Erscheinung bringen: den Atem, ihren Rhythmus, das im Gesagten Ungesagte, den Klang verhallender Laute, die Stille. Das Ästhetische unterläuft die Diskurse und ihre Ordnungen, es unterwandert sie bis zu dem Punkt, an dem sie ihre Bodenlosigkeit preisgeben und ein ‚Wissen’ hervorspringt, das deren latente Kontingenz demaskiert. Dann besteht die Frage weniger darin, was die Künste wissen – eine Fragestellung, die ihre eigene Inkonsistenz schon darin beweist, dass sie auf ein Wissen zielt, das sich einerseits vom diskursiven Wissen unterscheiden soll, andererseits aber im Diskursiven zu beantworten sucht, was sich der Diskursivität per definitionem zu verweigern scheint, sodass den Künsten von neuem ihr Eigenes entzogen und dem Begriff der Sprache wieder zugeschlagen wird. Vielmehr geht es darum, wie die künstlerische Wissensproduktion erfolgt, um eine ‚Forschung’ eigenen Rechts, die weder einer anderen Beglaubigung noch anderer Mittel bedarf. Nicht die Objekte oder Resultate interessieren, sondern jene explorativen Praktiken, die sich jenseits der klassischen Oppositionen von Bestimmtheit und Unbestimmtheit, Klarheit und Unklarheit oder Rationalität und ‚Un-Sinn’ bewegen, die in Wahrnehmungen, deren Erscheinungen, Rahmungen und Materialitäten experimentieren, um im selben Maße mit ihnen und gegen sie ‚Er-fahrungen’ zu statuieren, die nirgends anderes als durch ihre ‚Durcharbeitung’ in der literalen Bedeutung von ex-pedere ‚herausgebracht’ oder ‚befreit’ werden können. Wenn daher heute das Künstlerische und das Wissenschaftliche im Zeichen einer ‚künstlerischen Forschung’ oder eines artistic research wieder einander angenähert wird, dann kann es nicht darum gehen, dass sich die Künste der Wissenschaften bemächtigen und ihre Methoden aneignen oder einen ähnlichen Status beanspruchen, um sich als Teil einer globalen Wissensgesellschaft zu verstehen, sondern dass beide unterschiedliche Wissensräume besetzen, die sich partiell fremd und verständnislos gegenüberstehen. Und wenn dabei der Experimentbegriff als scheinbar gemeinsamer Nenner eine tragende Rolle spielt, dann darf nicht vergessen werden, dass im Metier künstlerischer Arbeiten das Experimentelle selbst einen völlig anderen Sinn bekommt und gerade keine systematisch angelegte ‚Probe’ darstellt, sowenig wie eine nachprüfbare Ermittlung empirischer Daten, sondern – im ursprünglichen Sinn von ex-periens – ein anhaltsloses ‚Herantasten’ leistet, das, als ein Versuch ohne Rückkehr, etwas ‚herauszustellen’ sucht, das sich nicht wiederholen lässt. In dieser Hinsicht sind die Durchführung, die expeditio, und die experientia, die Erfahrung, sowie ebenfalls das Experimentelle miteinander verwandt, wobei in allen drei Formen das Präfix Ex-, das ‚Herausstehen’ und Zum-Vorschein-bringen maßgeblich ist, sowie ebenso das Per-, das, wie im Begriff des Performativen, auf ein Mediales verweist,⁸ ohne das sich nichts zeigen lässt.
Die Künste vollziehen dadurch eine epistemische Praxis sui generis; sie bleiben, in dezidierter Differenz zur Wissenschaft, mit dieser unvergleichlich – nicht, weil sie sich nicht zur Diskussion eigneten oder keine ‚Aus-Sage’ träfen, weniger auch, weil sie von anderen Gegenständen handelten, sondern weil sowohl die Form ihrer Praxis als auch die Form ihres Denkens eine andere ist. Sie stellt anderes zur Schau, macht anderes offenbar, enthüllt auf andere Weise, selbst wenn sie ähnliche Felder bearbeitet oder sich vergleichbarer Instrumente und Methoden bedient. Was sie von der wissenschaftlichen Praxis trennt, ist vor allem ihr Verhältnis zum Modell, das im wissenschaftlichen Kontext zu einer Heuristik von Zusammenhängen gehört, die gleichsam en miniature ein Gesetz oder eine Theorie formulieren und dafür eine paradigmatische Allgemeinheit behaupten – Modelle haben eine exemplarische Funktion, während die Künste lauter singuläre Paradigmata erstellen, die nicht als Beispiele fungieren, sondern sich in jedem einzelnen Fall neu generieren. Darum bezeichnen sie – der Ausdruck des ‚singulären Paradigmas’ birgt an sich schon eine contradictio in adiecto – solche Verfahrensweisen, die einzig sind und nur einmal vorkommen, die folglich auch nicht für etwas anderes stehen können, sondern sich selbst genügen, insofern sie auf ihre Wahrnehmbarkeit, ihre besondere Strukturalität, ihre kontextuelle Bedingung, ihr Verhältnis zur Produktion und Ähnliches verweisen. Dann kommt es allein auf die ‚Kon-Figuration’ der Elemente an, ihre jeweilige ‚Kom-Position’ oder ‚Zusammen-Stellung’, wobei jedes Detail und jede Nuance eine Rolle spielt und nichts ausgelassen werden darf, nicht einmal der ‚Zu-Fall’. Wir sind sozusagen mit einem dichten Knoten konfrontiert, dessen entscheidende Merkmale die spezifischen Modalitäten des Kon- oder Kom- darstellen, durch die er sich schürzt. Sie beziehen sich auf die Besonderheiten der ‚Position’ oder Stellungnahme, die eine ‚Konstellation’ im wörtlichen Sinne eines con stellare, einer Gruppe von Erscheinungen oder Gestirnen eröffnen, um in ihrer ‚Jeweiligkeit’ gemeinsam – con – etwas zu erkennen zu geben. Sie ‚de-monstrieren’ dabei durch die Art und Weise ihrer Fügung, denn was bedeutet ein ‚Paradigma’, seinem Wortsinne nach, anderes als etwas, das sich implizit ‚mit-zeigt’, was daher offenbart, was sich der expliziten Bezeugung versperrt. Darin besitzen ästhetische Prozesse ihre außerordentliche epistemische Kraft: Nicht die Aussage, die Synthesis des Urteils ‚gibt’ die Erkenntnis, sondern die Singularitäten des Kon- oder Kom-, wie es in den Konstellationen, den Konfigurationen oder Kompositionen zu Ausdruck kommt, die eine Synthesis im Sinnlichen beschreiben.
Was im Ästhetischen ‚Denken’ heißt, hat darin seinen Ort. „Prototypisch für die Kunstwerke“, heißt es analog bei Adorno, „ist das Phänomen des Feuerwerks […]. Es ist apparition kath’ exochen; empirisch Erscheinendes, […] Menetekel, aufblitzende und vergehende Schrift, die doch nicht ihrer Bedeutung nach sich lesen lässt.“⁹ Entsprechend erweisen sich ihre Mittel als verschieden von denen des Diskurses oder der Wissenschaften, denen überhaupt das Exoterische, das ebenso öffentlich nachvollziehbare wie methodisch strukturierte Vorgehen wesentlich ist, während im Falle der Künste das ‚Methodische’ im Nichtmethodischen, dem Widerständigen oder Nichtaufgehenden liegt. Weit mehr als um die Erzeugung positiver Resultate geht es daher der künstlerischen Praxis um die Auslotung des Brüchigen, der schlecht verfugten Stellen oder einer Manifestation des Unzugänglichen, sogar Kontradiktorischen, und zwar nicht um ihrer selbst willen, sondern weil sich zwischen ihren Reibungspunkten etwas ereignen kann, das eine andere Klarheit schafft: gewissermaßen eine Abzeichnung von Konturen, wie sie der amethodischen, beständig hin und her laufenden (discursus) Reflexion entspringen.
Das bedeutet auch: Kunst basiert auf einer Weise des Denkens, die nicht der Sprache folgt, sondern sich der Singularität des Kon- oder Kom- hingibt, um vorzugsweise solches auszustellen, worin sich eine Unruhe, eine Spannung oder ein Nichtaufgehendes ereignet, das ein bis dahin Ungedachtes oder Unerhörtes aufzudecken vermag. Sie machen sich besonders durch Aporien kenntlich. Zu sprechen wäre deshalb von konträren Konstellationen, die auf der Produktion von Kontrasten, dem contrastare oder ‚Gegen-Stehenden’ beruhen, die die Eigenschaft besitzen, reflexive Effekte zu induzieren, die buchstäblich aus dem Innern des Kon- oder Kom- aufsteigen. Was im Ästhetischen also eine Erkenntnis auslöst, ist dieser Ereignung von Reflexivität geschuldet. Sie geschieht nicht als Sagbares, als Satz oder Statement, sowenig wie als Urteil oder Aussage, sondern als ‚Sprung’. Heißt es bei Heidegger über den Aussagesatz lapidar: „Der Satz macht einen ‚Satz’ im Sinne eines Sprungs“¹⁰, bedeutet ein Denken im Ästhetischen die Multiplizierung solcher Sprünge, indem sie inmitten der Konstellationen eine andere Ordnung evozieren – eine Ordnung der Kontrastierung, der Opposition, die weniger Bedeutungs-, denn Reflexionssprünge auslösen. Gleichzeitig induzieren sie einen Abstand, eine Spaltung oder Disparität, die eine Diastase, ein ‚Auseinander-Stehen’ bzw. eine ‚Durch-Trennung’ implizieren, aus deren Lücken das ‚heraus-bricht’, was im künstlerischen Prozess das Epistemische eigentlich erst ausmacht. Wenn mithin von einem ‚Wissen’ im Ästhetischen die Rede ist, dann in diesem Sinne, dass sie ihre Erkenntnis ‚diastatisch’ hervorbringt. Die Künste stellen nicht nur einfach etwas hin, sie lockern vielmehr die Oberflächen der Dinge, durchbohren ihre opake Hülle, falten sie auf immer neue Weise ein, um sie mit sich uneins werden zu lassen und dadurch zur Erscheinung zu bringen, was sich ebenso der Erscheinung entzieht wie sie allererst ermöglicht. Dazu bedarf es allerdings einer Praxis der Differenz, die die Klüfte und Zäsuren im Zentrum der kulturellen Formationen, zu denen gleichermaßen die Wissenschaften wie die Institutionen der Reproduktion und das Politische gehören, noch vergrößert, statt sie zu schließen, um ihre Willkür, ihre latente Gewaltsamkeit oder Illegitimität herauszufordern, ihnen ihre Masken zu entreißen und damit deren Risse, ihr ‚Nichtidentisches’, hervortreten zu lassen.
Keine diskursive Ordnung, sowenig wie die praktische, kann je geschlossen werden: Ihre Nichtschließbarkeit wie deren ästhetische Reflexion ist die nachhaltige Quelle künstlerischer epistēmē. Ihr Aufweis kann nur zeigend erfolgen, indem Ränder, offene Stellen oder Unvereinbarkeiten im Gewebe unserer Erfahrung von Wirklichkeit in Augenschein genommen werden, was ebenso das Zeigen des Zeigens und seinen Ort im ‚Mit’ der Konstellationen einschließt. Der Weg dorthin besteht in der Forcierung von Paradoxa. Für sie gibt es weder eine Anleitung noch einen Kanon oder verbindliche Verfahren, sondern sie müssen in jedem Einzelfall stets wieder neu erfunden werden. Die Arbeit der Künste besteht in solchen Erfindungen. Paradoxa erweisen sich dabei als Reflexionsstrategien par excellence. Sie dichten nicht ab, sie verhindern nicht, sowenig wie sie Verwerfungen oder Blockaden der Darstellung erzeugen – dies gilt allein im Medium des Diskursiven, der strikten Logik des Entweder/Oder –, vielmehr eröffnen sie neue Blicke, um das Ungesehene oder Unsichtbare sichtbar zu machen oder den Klang im Nichtton, der Stille, lauten zu lassen. Tatsächlich kann man dann nicht eigentlich von einem ‚Wissen’ im klassischen Sinne des Wissbaren sprechen, das mit ‚Richtigkeit’ oder ‚Falschheit’ assoziiert ist, eben weil das Paradoxe nichts ‚weiß’, wohl aber Grenzen oder Unmöglichkeiten zu erkennen gibt. Auch haben wir es nicht mit der Manifestation eines ‚Sinns’ oder einer ‚Wahrheit’ zu tun – Kunsttheorien, die, wie bei Hegel, Heidegger und durchaus auch bei Adorno, auf den Wahrheitsvollzug der Künste beharren, orientieren sich weiterhin am Inhalt der Werke’, an der Idee ihrer ‚Welterschließungsfunktion’, wohingegen die ästhetischen Praktiken der Paradoxalisierung auf indirekte Weise reflexive Evidenzen erzeugen, die am Einzelnen, Singulären ansetzen, gleich wie unscheinbar es sich auch kundtun mag. Darum enthüllt sich das Epistemische ästhetischer Praxis vielleicht am klarsten in einem Bild, dessen Klarheit gerade verwischt wird, indem durch die Scharfstellung der Unschärfe sein Grund, seine Materialität sichtbar wird – oder bei einem Text, in dessen Fluss Hindernisse einfügt wurden und der zu stottern oder zu stammeln beginnt. Solche ‚Aufweisungen’ lassen sich als ‚sich zeigendes Zeigen’ charakterisieren. Sie bedeuten die Selbstreferentialität des Sichzeigens als Ereignis. Die Formulierung gemahnt an Hegels Wort von der philosophischen ‚Arbeit im Begriff’, die dort den Prozess dialektischer Selbstreflexion betraf, deren Motor oder ‚Energie’, wie Heidegger sich ausdrückte, die ‚Negativität’ darstellte.¹¹ Sie bedingt gleichzeitig das, was sich als eine ‚Zerarbeitung’ beschreiben ließe. Wenngleich im Modus des Zeigens jede Negativität fehlt, gibt es hier doch etwas Verwandtes. Denn das selbstreferentielle Sichzeigen, ihre ‚Reflexivität im Zeigen’, betreibt zuletzt eine ‚Zerzeigung’. Sie verläuft quer zur ‚Zerarbeitung’ des Begriffs.
Um jedoch eine solche ästhetische ‚Zerzeigung’, eine ‚Reflexivität im Zeigen’, zu leisten, ist die Aussetzung des Urteils, mithin probeweise auch die Auslöschung der Referenz, des Bezugs auf ein Phänomen oder auf einen konkreten ‚Fall’ vonnöten, wie sie für die wissenschaftliche Praxis konstitutiv erscheint. Sie geschieht durch die systematische Deplatzierung oder ‚Ver-Stellung’ bzw. ‚Ver-Störung’ des Zeigens und lässt dabei dessen monstrare – wie auch das demonstrare – ‚monströs’ werden. Der Akt der Reflexivität entspringt dieser Monstrosität. Darum haben künstlerische Projekte im Auge oder Ohr des Rezipienten oft etwas Monsterhaftes. Ihre Monster sitzen der negativen Selbstreferenz auf, die von sich her bereits zu Paradoxa neigen. Sie bilden das Kernstück einer Epistemologie des Ästhetischen. Denn die künstlerische Arbeit, insbesondere die reflexive Bildpraxis wie ebenfalls die dystonalen Kompositionen Neuer Musik, ist von dieser Art. Wenn es ihr um die oblique Selbstdemonstration der Wahrnehmung im Wahrnehmungsakt, des Klangs im Raum, der Rahmung des Gerahmten oder des Medialen im Medialen geht, greift sie bevorzugt auf die Bildung solcher Paradoxa zurück. In der Tat umfasst der Ausdruck ‚Bildung’ hier beides: die Gestaltung wie zugleich die unwillkürliche – d. h. passierende – Paradoxierung, die Evokation eines Anamorphotischen, einer Ungestalt.¹² Ihre gegenseitige Verschränkung fällt mit der ‚Spiel-Stätte’ künstlerischer Kreativität zusammen. Immer neue Arten von Paradoxien produzieren, auf immer neue Weise das Sichverbergende zum Vorschein kommen lassen, auf ständig anderen Wegen das gewöhnlich sich Nichtzeigende zu ersuchen und zeigend zu machen – darin erfüllt sich heute immer noch die Eigenart der künstlerischen Praxis, nur so, dass es nicht mehr um vollendete ‚Werke’, nicht einmal mehr um deren Fragmentierung oder „Verfransung“ (Adorno) geht, sondern um die Kraft des Performativen selbst.
Allerdings ist am Begriff des Performativen weniger das Prozesshafte maßgeblich, auch nicht die Identität von Intentionalität und Handlung, wie sie gängige Performativitätstheorien von John Austin, John Searle und anderen postuliert haben, sondern gerade das ‚Diastatische’ der Durchtrennung oder Zerreißung, durch die das hervorgerufen wird, was man ‚epistemische Ereignisse’ nennen könnte. Ihre Hervorrufung entspricht den Verfahren der ‚Zerzeigung’. Sie machen wiederum die spezifische Produktivität ästhetischer Reflexionen aus, deren Grundlage Praktiken sind, die auf Grund der Ubiquität des Ästhetischen eine unbegrenzte Streuung erfahren können. War das Kriterium der Reflexivität einst in den Avantgarden normativ besetzt und für die Frage nach der Kunst selbst reserviert, avanciert sie heute zur universellen ästhetischen Strategie. An ihr bemisst sich die immer noch ausstehende Möglichkeit künstlerischer epistēmē. Ihr kann im Prinzip ‚alles’ zum Thema werden. Die Reflexivität der Künste beschränkt sich deshalb nicht nur auf ihre eigenen Parameter, wie die verschiedenen Facetten der Avantgarden sie durchgeführt haben, auch nicht auf die eigene Medialität als Bedingung ihrer ‚Mit-Teilung’, sondern sie erstreckt sich gleichermaßen auf die ‚anderen’ Ordnungen des Symbolischen, auf die Strukturen der Kommunikation, die Diskurse und ihre Dispositive wie die Systeme der Sammlung, die duplizitäre Logik der Repräsentation zwischen Macht und Stellvertretung bis hin zu jenen Räumen der Wissenschaften und ihrer Ökonomien, die darin ihre Latenz oder Unabgegoltenheit besitzen, dass sie einsinnig in ihrer Linerarität und Rahmung gefangen bleiben. Ihnen vermögen die Künste durch ihre Strategien ihre eigene Alterität vorzuführen. So zeigt sich in ihnen ein ‚Wissen’, das ein ‚anderes Wissen’ ist, welches das weiß, was andere nicht zu wissen wünschen. Doch wird es künftig darauf ankommen, es in seiner besondere Formation zu schärfen und dem wissenschaftlichen Wissen, den Daten und Informationen der ‚Wissensgesellschaft’ als ihre verdrängte Seite entgegenzuhalten. Dann stünde sie nicht länger im Schatten einer Kultur, die sich rückhaltlos den Exzessen der Technosciences verschrieben hat, sondern bildete ihre notwendige andere Seite, den Ort ihrer Kritik, um gleichsam der Welt ihre ‚Geräusche’ abzuhorchen.

1.) Baumgarten, Alexander: Ästhetik, 2 Bde, Hamburg 2009, § 1 sowie ders.:, Metaphysica, in: ders.: Texte zur Grundlegung der Ästhetik, Hamburg 1983, § 533, S. 17.
2.) Hegel, Georg Friedrich Wilhelm: Vorlesungen zur Ästhetik 1, in: Werke in 20 Bden, Bd. 13, Frankfurt/M. 1970, S. 23–25 passim.
3.) Ebenda, S. 17.
4.) Vgl. Danto, Arthur: Kunst nach dem Ende der Kunst, München 1996.
5.) Heidegger, Martin: Der Ursprung des Kunstwerks, in: ders.: Holzwege, Frankfurt/M. 5. Aufl. 1972, S. 7–68, hier: S. 46ff. sowie S. 59ff.
6.) Ebenda, S. 61. In einem späten Text mit dem Titel Das Wesen der Sprache heißt es entsprechend, dass Denken und Dichten „aus ihrem Wesen durch eine zarte, aber helle Differenz in ihr eigenes Dunkel auseinander gehalten“ werden. Ders.: Unterwegs zur Sprache, Pfullingen 6. Aufl. 1979, S. 196.
7.) Ders.: Der Ursprung des Kunstwerks, a. a. O., S. 62.
8.) Vgl. meine Überlegungen in Meta / Dia. Zwei unterschiedliche Zugänge zum Medialen, in: Zeitschrift für Medien- und Kulturforschung, Bd. 2 (2010) Hamburg, S. 185–208.
9.) Adorno, Theodor W.: Ästhetische Theorie, Frankfurt/M. 7. Aufl. 1985., S. 125f.
10.) Martin Heidegger: Der Satz vom Grund, Pfullingen, 5. Aufl. 1978, S. 96, 151.
11.) Ders.: Hegel, in: Gesamtausgabe Bd. 68, Frankfurt/M. 2. Auflage 2009, vor allem S. 17ff.
12.) Vgl. Barthes, Roland: Kritik und Wahrheit, Frankfurt/M. 1967

A Plea For Realism

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:41 +0000

Die folgende Rede wurde am Symposium ‚contemporary art excludes the 99 percent’ am 18. Mai 2012 in Hong Kong gehalten.¹

Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe: We all share the same dream. The dream that one day 100% of humanity will take an interest in, enjoy and sometimes be thrilled and moved by contemporary art – that every major town will have its own major contemporary art institution. That everyone will buy and collect some kind of contemporary art, maybe printed off the internet, maybe bought from art car boot sales. And that art will become a kind of intelligent mass entertainment. In my ideal world a cross between Baywatch and Heidegger.
Yes we are on our way! Millions more people are interested in art than were once! There are plans announced every day it seems for big new art institutions. But we are not there yet. Not 100% not even 98%. Far from it. The vote today in this house is actually between those of us who live in a utopian dreamworld – and those of us who can acknowledge reality. I am pleading for realism today. Ladies and Gentlemen, I love contemporary art but I do not believe in it. Art is not Jesus. It will not rise on the third day and be the salvation of mankind. Art is not a God to worship, or a religion to follow, OR a political programme to believe in. At the moment it is a cultural and commercial activity conducted by a tiny minority of human beings.

I was scared
Ladies and Gentlemen, when I was invited to speak in favour of this motion, my first thought was No Way. I’d spent the day queing for an hour to get into a Biennale or the Pompidou or Frieze or something, and inside you could hardly see the art there were so many people. And I thought I can’t argue this. 1% that’s tiny! Couldn’t they have made the motion like ‘excludes the 75%? I thought: I remember the eighties. It was a cultural desert. Galleries and art show are twice as full today as they were thirty years ago. Do you remember, sir? And then I picked up a newspaper. And the headline said World’s population – seven billion – doubled since 1970. And I thought – oh yes that’s why! And I got out my calculator and I thought what is 1% of seven billion, and it’s – any guesses – seventy million – that’s quite a lot. I’ve never seen seventy million people at an art gallery – and it’s a hundred time more than the number of subscribers to all the world’s art magazines combined.
This isn’t really a motion about concrete figures, of course, it’s about the spirit, about the idea that really very very few people today are interested in contemporary art.

Inequality today
I know you probably think I am going to start with criticising the elitism of the art market, and I will soon, I promise I will try to make you all squirm in your seats. Particularly you sir! I made a documentary in 2008 called ‘The Great Contemporary Art Bubble’ which followed the art market from its peak in May 2008 until the crash, and revealed the way it was stage-managed by tiny elite. But that is not the only reason why I have a perspective that qualifies me to talk to you here now. For the past two years I have been making another documentary about the opposite of the art market – about poverty, an animated history of poverty, and my words to you tonight are based on what I have learnt making these two radically different – but connected – films.
Ladies and Gentlemen in 2010, the renowned economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote an article which defined the economics of the age in which we are now living. Riffing on the famous line from the American constitution it was called “For the One Per Cent. By the One Percent. Of the One Percent.’ Stiglitz’s complaint is that we are living in an ever more unequal society, where 1% of Americans own 25% of the wealth, and controll 40% of it. In 2010, China’s Gini-coefficient – a measure of how wealth is distributed in a society – stood at 0.47 (a value of 0 suggests total equality, a value of 1 extreme inequality). In other words, inequality in China has now surpassed that in the United States. Today 45% of the world lives on less than two dollars a day. Everywhere we look we see inequality on the rise. There are exceptions, Brazil, India, countries which had far greater inequality than anywhere else, are getting a bit less unequal.
Today contemporary art is for the one per cent by the one percent and of the one percent.

Contemporary art doesn’t exclude
But Let me tell you a few things that I think a few ways that contemporary art does NOT exclude 99%. Personally, I don’t think contemporary art is difficult to understand. Most of it is not much more difficult to understand than a movie or rap video. Some of it is as exciting – Omer Fast film. Some of it even looks like a graphic novel or cartoon. Art is not as complicated as people in the art world like to think it is
Also I don’t think all art excludes 99% of people. There are big figures today for people going to museums and modernist exhibitions – some art only excludes say 75% of people. My point is not that poor people don’t understand art, it’s that the nature of contemporary art today as a social system is what is excluding.
Many of you will be latching on to the verb ‘excludes’. Contemporary art you will say does not exclude anyone – the institutions or the market does. Contemporary Art is free you will be thinking. Yes Ladies and Gentlemen, that is because if they charged for it, it wouldn’t be 1% of went – it would be 0.0000001%. Yes there may be queues for the latest show by Damien Hirst in London and it costs a tenner to get in. But imagine if it cost the same as a show by a rockstar, like Prince or Bowie – $100. How many people would go then?
Some artists participate in this exclusioon – creating inflated luxury objects – the shiny stuff – others don’t. But the point is the 99% don’t experience contemporary art as something purely offered up by artists – for them it is the bigger experience
Once they are inside these exhibitions, the experience often has little to do with art. The big new museums built by Starchitects like Gehry and Herzog and De Meuron are experiences of space not art – thrilling cavernous temples, often offering funfair like experiences on a scale that could not be obtained anywhere else – Carsten Höller’s slides, Murakami’s cartoons, Anish Kapoor’s crazy mirrors. Even if you think that 7% of humanity – a huge half a billion people go to art exhibitions, then I would argue few of them are there for an artistic experience.
In fact it is in the way the art experience is structured now that we can understand exclusion. First the thrill of empty spaces, awe at scale, then a funfair ride … then the exhibitions… Most of us wander round these institutions like serfs in Tsarist Russia, mud-spattered peasants, gazing at over-sized trophies funded by banks and billionaires. Appropriately, the most famous works of art today are actually the ones that carry messages about wealth and exclusion – of which Hirst’s £50m diamond skull is one obvious example. This art offered by the nought-point-one-per-cent for the voyeuristic titillation of the one percent.
Why do we feel that? The art market and its record-breaking prices – that keep on rising and rising, while the 99% get poorer and poorer. Let me introduce you to Lewis’s Law, a bit like Moore’s law. – the more unequal the society, the higher the prices paid for art.
Most of us wander round these institutions like mud-spattered serfs in Tsarist Russia, gazing at over-sized trophies funded by banks and billionaires. Appropriately, the most famous works of art today are actually the ones that carry messages about wealth and exclusion – of which Hirst’s £50m diamond skull is one obvious example. This art is offered by the nought-point-nought-nought-one-per-cent for the voyeuristic titillation of the one percent.
Perhaps, ladies and gentlemen, contemporary art could have profound meanings, or even raise interesting issues in the minds of the all those art lovers who see it. But the puffed-up market has overshadowed all those possibilities with a new almost repulsive meaning, that obliterates all the other subtler ones are could have, used to have – and that meaning is that we are living ever more in a society of emperors and slaves.
And that brings me onto my main point. Contemporary art today does not just exclude the 99%, it actually embodies their exclusion.
All these new art institutions, all these incredible prices paid for works of art, all these spaces so full of art – they are all made possibly economically because of the concentration of wealth in the top one per cent of humanity. The growth of art today is based on the exclusion, economic and social, of the 99%. It is significant that the guy who paid a record price for Warhol’s green car crash in 2007 was a Greek shipping billionaire. Now when I think about the suffering of the Greek people, I think how the art world today is built on exclusion.
That is the tragedy of art today. The more inflated the market, the richer the art world becomes, the more the majority art excluded. We need to reverse that.

Wiederabdruck
Die Rede erschien zuerst online unter http://www.benlewis.tv/artcrit/contemporary-art-excludes-99/ [29.01.2013].

1.) http://www.intelligencesquared.asia/hong-kong-debates/contemporary-art-excludes-the-99-percent.html

Auf dem künstlerischen Holzweg

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:40 +0000

SG: Johannes, was macht die Kunst?
JH: Der geht es ganz gut. Ich komme gerade recht vergnügt von der documenta in Kassel zurück, wo ich ein paar schöne Entdeckungen gemacht habe. Zudem hat es mich auch selbst bestätigt, sowohl als Künstler wie Forscher.

Wie unterscheidet sich dein Blick als Künstler auf die Gegenwartskunst von deiner Sicht als Forscher?
Eigentlich gar nicht so stark. Seit bald 20 Jahren erklärt mir zwar immer mal wieder ein Galerist, Kurator oder sonstiger Experte, dass ich mich für die eine oder andere Seite entscheiden müsse. Aber a) gibt es nicht nur zwei Seiten und b) ergeben mehrere Perspektiven auch mehr Dimensionen und Komplexität. Mit einer gezielten Tiefenbohrung käme man vermutlich schneller zum sogenannten Ziel. Ich bin aber ein Anhänger des Breitwandhorizontes und der transdisziplinären Vielstimmigkeit.

Was bedeutet das genau?
Wer Umwege geht, wird ortskundig! Je länger man unterwegs ist, desto mehr kommt alles zusammen, ergibt mehr Sinn. Natürlich ist das schizophren, aber produktiv. Künstlerische Praxis, Forschung, Lehrtätigkeit, Vermittlung, Gespräche wie dieses hier und das Leben überlagern sich bei mir ständig.

Du hast gesagt, du seiest «vergnügt» aus Kassel zurückgekommen. Warum?
Die Kuratorin Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev hat anders als ihre drei Vorgänger weder an die postkoloniale Debatte angedockt, geopolitische Missstände aufgedeckt, noch formaltheoretische Seminare abgehalten. Auch die in der Kunst ständig wiederaufgekochten Theorien und Philosophien der Postmoderne wurden höflich verabschiedet. Man experimentiert und blickt neugierig in die Zukunft, das ist sehr erfreulich.

Konkreter?
Die documenta-Chefin pfeift auf Codes und Diskurstheorie, verschickt lieber Hundekalender, mischt scheinbar kunstferne Positionen aus Quantenphysik bis Agrarwirtschaft ins Teilnehmerfeld und versteht die documenta als Ort «kollektiven und anonymen Gemurmels». Statt Programm ist Prozess angesagt, Christov-Bakargiev fordert einen offenen, urteilsfreien Umgang und propagiert den «degrowth», eine Wachstumsrücknahme, sowie den «kognitiven Kapitalismus». Sie habe kein Konzept, kokettierte Christov-Bakargiev wiederholt – und dieser Plan geht ziemlich gut auf. Bei der «documenta 13» stehen politisches Engagement und das Laissez-faire der Natur unverkrampft nebeneinander. Zudem hatte ich noch bei keiner der vier letzten Ausgaben so sehr das Gefühl, endlich mal in Kassel zu sein und nicht auf einer x-beliebigen, globalen Biennale oder Kunstmesse.

Woran lag das?
Vielleicht an einer weiteren Tendenz der Gegenwartskunst: anstelle des ausgestellten Objektes rückt wieder vermehrt der Betrachter in den Fokus. Ein Trend, der wegführt vom Artefakt und Referenziellen, hin zum Aktionistischen, Situativen, ja vielleicht gar zum Romantischen, Auratischen und Einzigartigen. Nach 40 Jahren Video und 20 Jahren Internet hat die Gegenwartskunst eine Wende hin zum Realen und zur Natur eingeleitet. Die Erfahrung des Betrachters wird zunehmend wichtig. Und ohne nun allzu sehr Schiller und Kant zu reanimieren: Der Mensch darf endlich wieder Mensch sein.

Einen ähnlichen Turn habt ihr selbst mit eurer künstlerischen Arbeit mit Com&Com vollzogen, als ihr vor rund drei Jahren das postironische Manifest veröffentlicht habt. Um was geht es und wie kam es dazu?
Eine ironische Haltung steht seit ihrem letzten Höhepunkt in der Postmoderne nur noch dafür, Wahrheiten zu verschleiern, Problemen aus dem Weg zu gehen und jeden Schwachsinn damit zu rechtfertigen, dass es ja nicht ernstgemeint sei. Ironie verkam mehr und mehr zu einer Art Haftungsausschluss oder Fluchtmanöver angesichts jeder denkbaren Verantwortung. Ironie spielte Ende der 1990er Jahre eine wichtige Rolle in unserer Arbeit, aber wir wurden bald mal müde, ständig mit den Augen zu zwinkern, kunstvoll zu zweifeln und alles mindestens im zweiten Grad zu dekonstruieren. Viele Menschen wollen heute wieder ungebrochen, direkt und positiv bejahend durchs Leben gehen, die Dinge sehen, wie sie sind, Nähe und Emotionalität zulassend Wahrheiten suchen und Verantwortung übernehmen. Mit dem distanzierenden Gestus der Ironie ist dies nicht machbar. Postironie ist eine Haltung, ein Statement, eine Positionierung.

Wie ironisch ist das gemeint: Kann Com&Com überhaupt ohne Ironie auskommen?
Postironie heisst nicht todernst. Unsere neuen Arbeiten sind nicht komplett ironiefrei, auch der Humor bleibt, nur geht es weniger um Dekonstruktion, sondern um das aktive, neugierige Erforschen von Unbekanntem bzw. um das Zusammenbringen von verschiedenen Welten und Kontexten. Nachdem wir uns jahrelang hinter dem industriellen und oft digital hergestellten Werk verbergen konnten, nehmen wir nun selbst Stift, Pinsel oder Messer in die Hand. Für uns war «Postironie» eine Befreiung, eine Neuausrichtung unseres Kunstbegriffes, ein Paradigmenwechsel. Seit 2009 steht praktisch der gesamte Output unter diesem Verständnis, sowohl die einzelnen Kunstwerke als auch die mehrteiligen Projekte, Texte, Vermittlung etc. Zuerst war Postironie nur ein Name, eine Behauptung. Heute ist es eine gelebte Realität, auch wenn wir diese teils erst schaffen mussten. Oder mit Walter Benjamin: «Es ist von jeher eine der wichtigsten Aufgaben der Kunst gewesen, eine Nachfrage zu erzeugen, für deren volle Befriedigung die Stunde noch nicht gekommen ist.»

In eurem aktuellen Projekt «Bloch» reist ihr mit einem Baumstamm um die Welt. Um was geht es und wo seid ihr auf eurer Reise?
«Bloch» ist ein Projekt, das Volkskultur und zeitgenössische Kunst verbindet und auf einem alten Appenzeller Fastnachtsbrauch basiert, bei dem der letzte im Winter gefällte Fichtenstamm in einer eintägigen Prozession zwischen zwei Dörfern hin- und hergezogen und am Ende an den Meistbietenden versteigert wird. Meistens wird der Baum von Einheimischen gekauft und zu Schindeln oder zu Möbeln verarbeitet. Diesmal hat jedoch Com&Com das Bloch – so nennt man die unteren fünf astlosen Meter eines Baumes – erworben und geht mit ihm auf eine Weltreise mit Stationen auf allen Kontinenten. Nach ersten Stops in Bern und Berlin bereiten wir uns derzeit auf die Reise nach China vor, wo Bloch im Rahmen der kommenden Shanghai Biennale auftreten wird.

Einen Baum um die Welt reisen lassen? Das kann nicht die ganze Idee sein …
Der Baum ist Bindeglied und Kristallisationskern. An jedem Ort wird dann in Zusammenarbeit mit lokalen Künstlern eine völlig neue Bloch-Aktion entwickelt, die auf lokalen Traditionen und Bräuchen basiert. Dadurch wandelt sich der ursprüngliche Brauch und seine Bedeutung, Kulturaustausch findet statt und etwas Neues wird geschaffen. Die künstlerischen Aktionen werden teils von Gesprächen, Ausstellungen und gesellschaftlichen Veranstaltungen sowie einer Website und einem Dokumentarfilmteam begleitet.

Exportiert ihr den Brauch oder den Baum, quasi ein «Ready Made 2.0»?
Es geht nicht darum, kulturimperialistisch eine fertige Produktion oder einen bestehenden Brauch rund um den Globus zu senden, sondern einzig diesen Baum. Das alleine löst bei jedem eine eigene Assoziationskette aus. Daran können dann neue Geschichten und Dialoge andocken. «Bloch» ist ein offenes, unfertiges Werk. Wir wissen heute noch nicht, wie es in China oder in zwei Jahren aussieht. «Bloch» ist eine Einladung, eine Bühne und Experiment. Man könnte auch den Begriff «Postproduktion» verwenden: Ein durch den ursprünglichen Brauch bereits aufgeladenes Kulturobjekt wird mit Hilfe vieler weiterentwickelt. Im Zuge dieser Bedeutungsaufladung werden wir zu Kuratoren, Stichwortgebern, Regisseuren und Produzenten. «Bloch» ist eine Inszenierung mit vielen Kapiteln und einem offenen Ende. Am Ende der Tour soll das Bloch zwar wieder in die Heimat zurückkehren, eventuell stellen wir es gar wieder in den Wald, woher es kam. Vielleicht wird «Bloch» aber auch nie fertig sein, ewig reisen oder in der Antarktis verlorengehen.

Der Baumstamm wiegt rund zwei Tonnen. Was bedeutet das für eure Reise nach China?
Reisen und arbeiten mit «Bloch» entschleunigt. Es ist relativ umständlich, mit zwei Tonnen Übergewicht eine Weltreise zu planen. Da gibt es viele Probleme, von denen man teils erst an der Grenze erfährt. Fast jedes Land hat unterschiedliche Zollauflagen oder verlangt ein anderes Schädlingszertifikat, Australien lässt theoretisch gar kein Holz ins Land, das ist nun eine Herausforderung. In Europa reisten wir mit einem Anhänger und eigenem Zugfahrzeug auf der Strasse, nach Asien wird Bloch samt Anhänger im Container verschifft. Dieser Anhänger ist nun aber in China wieder nicht zugelassen usw. – Solche Prozesse formen die Arbeit unweigerlich. Und nicht selten führen logistische oder andere Zwänge zu ästhetischen Entscheidungen. So hat uns etwa die Schädlingsproblematik dazu genötigt, das Bloch zu schälen.

Ist so eine administrative Einschränkung künstlerisch produktiv?
Ja. Es gibt einen Punkt, an dem dich das Material in eine Richtung führt, die du nicht kontrollierst. Auf einem bestimmten Level macht das Ding, das du machst, dich. Selbst bei immaterieller Arbeit. Das ist gut so.

Man kann in euer «Bloch»-Projekt investieren und «Bloch Shares» kaufen. Wo seht ihr den Return on Investment?
Zu Finanzierungszwecken gründeten wir die internationale Bloch- Gesellschaft IBG und gestalteten eine auf 100 Exemplare limitierte, nummerierte und handsignierte Bloch-Kunstedition. Mit dem Erwerb erhält der Käufer ein Wert-Papier im doppelten Sinne: einerseits ein Kunstwerk von Com&Com mit dem ihm eigens zugeschriebenen Wert, andererseits einen Anteilsschein am Bloch. Wird Bloch dereinst nach seiner Weltreise verkauft, erhält der Inhaber einen Hundertstel des Verkaufserlöses. Die Kunstedition darf auch nach Auszahlung behalten werden.

So finanziert ihr auch die Weltreise des Stammes?
Nur teilweise. Die reinen Produktions- und Betriebskosten werden sich am Ende auf weit über 200 000 CHF belaufen, unsere Arbeit nicht miteingerechnet. Nicht zu vergessen die bis heute rund 40 Kollaborateure, die Bloch nicht nur mit Energie, sondern auch mit Wert aufladen. Eigentlich ist Bloch heute schon fast unbezahlbar. (lacht)

Ihr präsentiert aktuell in St. Gallen eine Auswahl eurer jüngsten Arbeiten unter dem Titel «Holzweg»: Auf welchen Holzwegen ist Com&Com unterwegs?
Holzwege sind scheinbar zufällige, von Holzfällern und Jägern geschaffene Wege im Wald, die oft unvermittelt abbrechen oder sich im Dickicht verlieren. Der Titel der Ausstellung verweist zudem auf eine Sammlung von Schriften Martin Heideggers, die uns lehren, die gewohnten Wege zu verlassen und uns auf Holzwege zu begeben, wenn wir in den Wald des Seins eindringen möchten. Es gibt eine Anekdote, wonach Martin Heidegger und Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker auf einem Spaziergang durch den Stübenwasener Wald feststellten, dass sie sich auf einem Holzweg befinden. Erstaunt stellen sie fest, dass sie an der Stelle, an welcher der Weg endet, auf Wasser gestossen waren. Da soll Heidegger gelacht haben: «Ja, es ist der Holzweg – der führt zu den Quellen!»

Passt diese Geschichte tatsächlich zu eurer künstlerischen Arbeit?
Das «Postironische Manifest» markierte für uns einen solchen Weg ins Ungewisse, der uns letztlich zu einer Quelle führte. Ohne diesen radikalen Bruch, alles Alte hinter uns zu lassen, wären wir nie auf ein Projekt wie «Bloch» gekommen. Auch dass wir seit ein paar Jahren vermehrt mit Bäumen und Holz arbeiten, klingt im Titel an.

Verfolgt ihr eigentlich mit eurer Kunst einen bestimmten Zweck?
Persönlich glaube ich, dass Kunst autonom ist gegenüber dem praktischen Zweck. Der einzige Zweck von Kunst sollen die Aufrechterhaltung geistiger Freiheit und die Herstellung von Kommunikation sein. Dazu zähle ich auch ästhetische Erfahrung. Das Kunstwerk als Körper ermöglicht dabei eine praktische Form von Erkenntnis. Es ist aber nicht mein Ziel, die Erwartung an Kunst vollständig neu zu programmieren; das wäre nur ein Aufguss aller Avantgardevorstellungen. Mit der teile ich allerdings den Wunsch, Gewissheiten zu erschüttern.

Wie kann ich mir das konkret vorstellen?
Mich interessiert, wo ich die Bilder oder Objekte finde, die nicht nur auf eine Vergangenheit verweisen, sondern formal wie inhaltlich auf der Höhe der Zeit sind; die eine Autorität haben, die über den Moment hinausragt und die Fähigkeit hat, Sinnhaftigkeit, Gegenwartsanalyse und Massenappeal in sich zu vereinen. Dafür schaffen wir Laboratorien voller kreativen Dilettantismus – wie Bloch. Das Projekt scheint als Ganzes sinnlos, ist aber in seiner Art abgeschlossen, ganz im Sinne von Kant: zweckhaft, ohne Zweck.

Wie wird sich deiner Meinung nach das Kunstsystem in Zukunft weiterentwickeln?
Im Zuge der Globalisierung wurde Kunst grenzüberschreitend und zu einer lingua franca, die einem gemeinsamen Anliegen auf eine Weise entgegenkommt, wie es den an Sprache gebundenen kulturellen Äusserungen kaum möglich wäre. Alte Bindungen wie Religion, Dorfstruktur usw. sind weitgehend aufgebrochen. Die metropolitane Gegenwartskunst ist im Begriff, eine Weltreligion zu werden. Kunstevents schaffen ein Gemeinschaftsgefühl quer über soziale Schichten hinweg. Systemisch wird uns der Kunstmarkt noch eine ganze Weile erhalten bleiben – und noch mächtiger werden. Aber es formieren sich Gegenmodelle, neue Formate, Methoden, Schauplätze und Akteure entwickeln sich. Der Kreationsprozess und der Autorenbegriff wird noch weiter gedehnt, Gattungen und Künste noch stärker gemischt, Ordnungen und Formate durchbrochen und mit dem Leben verschränkt.

Wenn du den Kunstbegriff derart erweiterst, wird Kunst dann nicht beliebig?
Vielleicht brauchen wir die Disziplin namens Kunst gar nicht. Die documenta-Chefin spricht denn auch nicht mehr von Künstlern, sondern Teilnehmern: «Wir brauchen nur einen Haufen Teilnehmer, die tun, was sie wollen, und diese Sorte Kultur produzieren.» Der amerikanische Kunstkritiker Jerry Saltz gab dieser Sorte im «NY Magazine» denn auch bereits einen Namen: «Post Art».

Wiederabdruck
Das Interview erschien zuerst in: Schweizer Monat, Ausgabe 999 / September 2012. S. 64–67. Was macht die Kunst?

What’s Next? Translating Time, Transforming Objects in the Conservation of Multimedia

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:40 +0000

Identifying the Question
The question of “what’s next?” has temporal underpinnings. It pertains to time and how we engage with this concept. “What then is time? If no one asks of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not” confesses Saint Augustine in the eleventh of thirteen books he wrote in the fourth century titled Confessions.¹To be sure, time is one of the most mysterious aspects of the world we live in. Thinkers have been struggling with questioning the nature of time for centuries, yet the ultimate theory of time still seems to be lacking. With the end of modernism and confronted with the lack of perspective for the new beginnings, thinking about time was allegedly ignored and went out of focus in everything other than secondary literature.² “In a sense, it is always too late to talk about time,” posited French philosopher Jacques Derrida.³ Korean video artist Nam June Paik, in turn, having acquired a vast number of books devoted to the topic of time, realised that he had absolutely no time to read them.
And although the aim of this short digression is not to be a continuation of a major philosophical debate on the nature of time, it is worth trying to realise where we stand. Facing the impossibility of extricating ourselves from the linear structures and the inheritance of the clock-time discipline of capitalist modernity, we may find ourselves, not surprisingly, in a temporal limbo.

The Question’s Relation to Conservation
What especially interests me in this regard, and what I wish to convey in the following is that in the conservation of both the most recent and older art – a discipline that is most proximate to my professional background as conservator – the aspects of time have not been scrutinised sufficiently.⁴ The sequential, chronological experience resulted in the understanding of time merely as a method of its measurement, time of clocks, machines, industry and labour. Yet, while critical theory, philosophy and art practice have long been engaged with anachronistic and heterochronic interpretations of history – the belated and the put-of-synch, seriality and repetition to name but a few⁵ – conservation remained attached to the linear patterns. How can we, then, understand and care for art that is con-temporary and that in many ways incorporates and/or processes time through and by means of its media?⁶ Can we intellectually retreat from our attempt to rethink time in conservation?
Asking “what’s next” thus imposes on those conceptualising conservation a profound engagement with the aspects of time that goes beyond the methods of its measurement and observation of cyclicality in nature. The “next” would signify a turn towards the understanding of time in what we conserve and in how we perform conservation. It is, all in all, time to think about time in conservation – a challenge that this essay will attempt to introduce.

Locating the Crisis
Now that the main problem has been formulated and the direction of what follows has become clear, there still remains a question of what, in the field of conservation, could be identified as a crisis. A crisis, which – perhaps implicitly – is one of the crucial thoughts that lies at the conception of this volume, signifies a certain situation that negatively affects those involved and often indicates that the system in question is functioning poorly.
It may be said that conservation’s crisis occurred with the realisation that traditional conservation principles and doctrines cannot be applied to the dynamic, evolving, changeable artworks that commenced being created in the middle of last century. Much of these media were conceived during the 1960s and 1970s, marked by social, cultural and political transformations. During the heyday of Fluxus, and the rise of new forms of artistic expression, technology-based media, conceptual art and performance, possibilities emerged for artworks to be re-performed, reproduced, repeated, recorded and replayed. This not only introduced a new temporal awareness, but also the necessity to develop new attitudes in conservation and, equally, a new way of thinking about the “conservation object.“
Before this, as an inheritance of the Enlightenment, and coming with it the belief in the objectivity of scientific analysis, the assumption that an artwork may be stabilised in one specific condition was wide-spread.⁷ Artworks became static in their attempt to arrest change; the notion of the “original object” being, at times, in an “original condition” was widely established. This reflected the idea of the conservation of artworks as related to the museums’ mandate to safeguard works in their custody, which leant on a certain kind of ontological assumption about their permanence. Conservation, so it seemed, was preoccupied with the material preservation of the “past” for the “future.” Conversely, it was precisely that apparent connection with the past that valorised the heritage in the numerous discussions on authenticity.
Yet in a vast number of artworks created in the second half of last century up to the present day, their “objectification” signalises a reduction to a particular material “state” or “condition” discernable by observation, measurement and analysis. Clearly, the scientific analysis is of great importance; however, if considered alone, it is insufficient in the quest for understanding the ontology of works of art with which we engage.
Artworks, rather than being “objects” are products of humans and their culture; they are dynamic entities, the materiality of which can only be defined in an entangled network of relations and under the consideration of social and temporal structures.⁸ In grasping the nature of artworks and their networks, the more recent conservation theories strive to convey this shift.⁹

The Problem With the “Object”
Interestingly, the establishment of a “conservation object” and its reduction to a specific condition that is anchored in a certain moment in time reactivates the temporal problem. For instance, if an artwork, say, a multimedia installation, occurred in a different shape during various re-exhibition procedures, while designing strategies for its future shape, conservation tends to select a singular “condition” or “instance” that is extracted from its trajectory. Such a condition is often referred to as “original” or “authentic.” Importantly, it lies (remotely) in the past, often close to a work’s conception and/or first realisation. I believe that this connection to an earlier instance derives from conservation’s understanding of time in terms of its measurement on a chronological timeline and the observations of the linearity of decay and alteration. But how could this have become a non-plus-ultra, a definitive concept?
Let us, for a moment, reflect on how time became linear.

Thinking Time
There is no universal definition of time; attitudes towards the understanding of time occupied thinkers of different persuasions over centuries and resulted in a variety of approaches. Today, too, we find ourselves facing the unsolved and ubiquitous paradigm of time. What do we think when we think of “time”? In the words of Hans Castorp, the main protagonist in Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain:
“… What is time? – Now is not then, here is not there – for in both cases motion lies in between. But since we measure time by a circular motion closed in on itself, we could just as easily say that its motion and change are rest and stagnation – for the then is constantly repeated in the now, the there in the here …”.¹⁰Time occurs within a range of various intensities and velocities while reading an interesting book or watching a play; it may turn into a painful expectation when we wait for someone or something that we long for, a lover or beloved, an important message or delayed train.

Time as a Method of its Measurement
The omnipresence of the common sense definition of time as a method of its measurement – a clock – was first introduced at the end of the thirteenth century. This also marks the inception of modern homogenous time, which replaced traditional methods of time measurement based on unequal intervals calculated by the length of daylight. Mechanical clock time was initially applied in monastic life and belonged to God. Early clocks were able to remind the monk of his obligation to announce the hours; the towers became houses for clocks and all announcements of religious festivities, warnings of danger and marking the beginning and end of the working day. French philosopher Michel Foucault saw in the religious orders the establishment of discipline and a chronological way of thinking that was linked with the application of timetable.¹¹It was only later that the clock entered secular life to announce the hours from the town hall’s tower and to regulate work in the textile towns of Flanders and Northern France.¹² It is striking that, until the sixteenth century, clock time remained a European phenomenon and was perceived in China merely as a curiosity, despite the long-standing Chinese tradition of mechanical water clocks. The modern science and refinement of the theory of entropy (second law of thermodynamics) confirmed time as a linear entity and its tightness to irreversible direction. Time became regulated with the appearance of the railway and telegraph, and was soon standardised. In 1884, during the International Meridian Conference in Washington, the world changed to twenty-four hour time with Greenwich as the zero meridian, and the first regulating time signal was emitted from the Eiffel tower in Paris in 1914. This division was only stable until the appearance of the global electronic network. The rise of capitalism and the expanding economy that tied the attachment of the employee and employer to clock time was manifest in the control over the cycles of labour and leisure. It was philosopher, economist and sociologist Karl Marx who delineated the exact measure of time as a value in capitalistic society. This standardised time led to the rise of ethical problems related to cultural and racial difference according to a linear, developmental notion of progress and amplified by the colonial imperative to conquer other than own time and space. This modern time consciousness, according to the media theorist Bliss Cua Lim, became gradually natural and incontrovertible – a sort of ready-made temporality – and obscured the plurality of our existence in time.¹³

Conservation’s Clock Time
It occurs to me that in conservation, as an Aristotelian inheritance of linearity, we have too easily accepted this ready-made temporality manifest in mechanical follow up of instances in the manner of replacement rather than organic continuity. Although, admittedly, the temporal irreversibility of decay and alteration (leading to entropy) implies a certain type of linearity, this concept is not sufficient to encompass the complexity of the existence of artworks in time.
The concept of reversibility, for instance – a much contested conservation theorem that, for a considerable time, was one of the main rules in conservation – presumes that a process or treatment can be reversed. It also somewhat approximates the idea of the return to an earlier condition of an artwork reflected in the term of re-storation, which, from an etymological point of view, already involves the notion of “redoing.”¹⁴Paradoxically, the return to the “ideal” or “original condition” contradicts the linear progress of time. It is precisely the impossibility of the return to the original condition that the very idea of reversibility is based on. Why would we wish to return to something, if we have not lost it already, as in Origen’s Garden of Eden?¹⁵ So this understanding of time as linear, in various attempts to restore an object, in other words, is predicated on the notion of reversibility, which does not change the fact of its misinterpretation (as one cannot turn back entropy).
“World-withdrawal and world-decay can never be undone” – contends German philosopher Martin Heidegger.¹⁶ “The works are no longer the same as they once were. It is they themselves, to be sure, that we encounter there, but they themselves are gone by.”¹⁷ This could be understood as a reference not only to time, but also to the “world.” Even if we could restore the object to its original condition (which is not possible, as I have argued), we would not be able to restore its world, so it will always be different from “how” (rather than “what”) it was. This also signalises an attempt to impose our own concept of timelessness¹⁸ and uniqueness of a temporal context, in which artworks are accessed.

Multimedia and Beyond
Although this critique can be applied to many art forms, both traditional and non-traditional, I will narrow its scope to multimedia installations.
Multimedia installations are heterogeneous, compound entities created from a range of materials and elements rather than in a singular medium. Due to their characteristics, they introduce aspects of dispersal and reassembly following the repeated cycles of their materialisation. These works, unlike traditional painting or sculpture, do not exist in an assembled form beyond the duration of an exhibition or a technical test-run. The ontological shift between the appearance and disappearance, a series of iterations characterised by the potentiality for change occurring throughout their lifespan, places them in a discursive realm of authenticity. This realm leans on the presence of the material evidence on the one hand (physical, performative object) and, on the other, the possibility of an authentic experience created in the course of the artwork’s re-performances with entirely or partially new components under the exclusion of its material origins (performed work). In museums, it also causes tension with regard to the aforementioned ontological assumption about permanence of artefacts.

Changeability
One of the main characteristics of multimedia works of art is changeability. Encompassing extrinsic and intrinsic change, and independently of its desirability and the questions of judgement (good or bad), changeability goes beyond any reference to some kind of a mean value and may involve a fundamental change as a historical practice. Changeability places an artwork in a universe of the already realised but also potential transformations. The key to understanding these transformations lies, I believe, in offering a conception of time that is different than the conventional, sequential one and that may supplement the certain linearity of decay and ageing.

Towards Alternative Conceptions of Time
In response to these new characteristics introduced by multimedia, in what follows, I propose supplementing the temporal irreversibility of decay and alteration with an alternative conception of time. I suggest that the key to the acknowledgement of changeability of multimedia works of art expressed in the variety of their instantiations lies in the recognition of the temporal equivalence of the plurality of their occurrences.
The privileging of one instance over another and thus freezing of a changeable artwork in the gesture of its conservation that accords with the conventions of a particular epoch and its ruling set of values reflects the understanding of time as progress, as succession from one point to another. Here, progress may be understood in a twofold manner: as the progress of time that enables the conservator to employ the newest technological and scientifically informed methods to obtain the preferred result, but also – and relevant for this argument – the progress from the “then” as the object’s “most precious” and “original” state to its changed reality. To be sure, instead of turning back to an object’s assumed state that has been but is no more, restoration/conservation is adding new values that result in manufacturing historicity and is actually producing something new.¹⁹

Bergsonian Duration as a Survival of the Past
To fully understand the durational character of artworks and acknowledge the continuity of change that they undergo, it occurs to me that the conception of time as durée of the French philosopher Henri Bergson’s (1859–1941) may be helpful. The Bergsonian conception is but first of all a critique of time of natural sciences conceived on the basis of specialised, fragmented time. Rather, it is the movement of time itself, the permanent, unstoppable changing of things. The concept of duration rests on the idea of there being a present involving a past and the anticipation of a future – an idea that I propose applying to the understanding of time in conservation that contradicts the fragmentation of an object’s identity into externally related moments.
Although my argument is based mainly on Bergsonian theory, it is difficult today to think about Bergson without including his most significant interpreter, the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. In fact, Bergsonism as I understand it, is, nowadays, barely separable from Deleuze’s contribution.²⁰ In his book Bergsonism (1961), Deleuze provides us with a comprehensive insight into Bergson’s method, including his own ideas about the ontology of things. One insight is Deleuze’s assumption that “things must, of necessity, endure in their own way,” which reconfirms Bergson’s assertion that “…we do not endure alone, external objects, it seems, endure as we do.” This is based on Bergson’s argument that duration was from the start defined as multiplicity, and qualities exist in things no less than they do in consciousness.²¹ Bergson’s assumption of duration outside the “self” elaborated by Deleuze introduces a dimension that may have further consequences for the “object of conservation.” One possible way of its interpretation may suggest a horizon of time not only inherent to the subject (psychological time), but a time that enables objects and artworks to have their own duration. Artworks will thus cease to be “screens that denature duration,” a form of exteriority as it were, and will become temporal multiplicities on their own.
Bergsonian visualisation of the idea of the contemporaneity of the past in the form of a cone metaphor may be helpful for rethinking time in conservation.²² The cone is divided into three sections AB, A’B,’ A’’B’’ symbolising a state of coexistence of all layers of the past with the present. The past AB would coexist with the present S under the inclusion of all the sections A’B’ and A’’B.’’ The sections are virtual, symbolically representing the distance of the past in relation to the present, yet including the entirety of the past rather than its particular elements. The identity of duration is presented as an ever-growing image of the past in the present and “the conservation and preservation of the past and the present.”²³ Every following moment contracts and condenses with the former and, simultaneously, “always contains, over and above the preceding one, the memory the latter has left it.”²⁴ Deleuze maintains:

We are too accustomed to thinking in terms of the “present.” We believe that a present is only past when it is replaced by another present. Nevertheless, let us stop and reflect for a moment: How would a new present come about if the old present did not pass at the same moment as it is present? How would any present whatsoever pass, if it were not past at the same time as present? The past would never be constituted if it had not been constituted first of all, at the same time as it was present. There is here, as it were, a fundamental position of time and also the most profound paradox of memory: The past is “contemporaneous” with the present that has been. … The past and the present do not denote two successive moments, but two elements that coexist: One is the present, which does not cease to pass, and the other is the past, which does not cease to be but through which all presents pass.²⁵So in the contemporaneity, the past and the present that has been coexist, but the past also preserves itself endlessly in itself, while the present passes. Following this line of thought, would an artwork’s present preserve all its pasts?

Bergson speaks of the acting, abiding, actual past:
Like the universe as a whole, like each conscious being taken separately, the organism which lives is a thing that endures. Its past, in its entirety, is prolonged to its present, and abides there, actual and acting. How otherwise could we understand that it passes through distinct and well-marked phases, that it changes its age – in short, that it has a history?²⁶This duration of the past is crucial when rethinking the notion of time in conservation that is preoccupied with searching for the past authentic condition of an artwork as the one that ceased to be present. The past, for Bergson, is alongside the present – a concept distinct from conventional ways of thinking about past, present and future as separable realms.²⁷ Duration is the survival of the past, an ever-accumulating ontological memory that is wholly, automatically and ceaselessly preserved. In duration, the current moment does not depose that which came before. Following the Bergsonian conception of time and its Deleuzian interpretation, I propose that in changeable multimedia works of art, the present is the survival of the past. In the process of conservation, the past is actualised in the present, the latter being the only status we are able to analyse from our inhabited temporal perspective.²⁸ Duration is, I argue, crucial for understanding the continuity of artworks and essential to divorcing conservation from its traditional views of time. A possible consequence of the application of durée to works characterised by change is that their changeability expressed by the multitude of instances may unrestrictedly exist in a continuum of duration. In other words, each instantiation of a changeable artwork preserves, as it were, the former.

Preserving the Present
In sum, the orientation of conservation towards the past is a gesture reassembling back-and-forth movements between abstract times, or at best a misinterpretation of linearity – we allegedly “take care of the past” and “pass it over to the future.” If the past is exactly as contemporary as the present, then we do not need to “preserve the past” in the traditional meaning of the word, but preserve the present. In fact the present seems to be the only reality given, and the only one to be preserved. In the case of multimedia installations, conservation could thus be defined as a process that shapes the changeability of artworks, yet does not prevent it. If anything, it could contribute to the reduction of the degree of changeability, if desirable. So in my thinking – and following Bergsonian durée – artworks that undergo transformation abide in their present (and only) “condition,” which is constituted by their many different pasts. In other words, they are constructed by their “present” as much as by their “past conditions.” This may not only result in abandoning the search for authenticity somewhere in the remote past, but may also shift conservation from its attempt to manage change (measured in an artwork’s former conditions) to a process intervening in the artwork’s temporality. Furthermore, it will unquestionably release conservation from the drive to “recover the past” and “the original” or “give back the authentic object,” which, in my view, are misguided approaches based on an incorrect conception of time.
The applicability of this proposition may not only offer conservation the possibility to overcome the aforementioned too easily accepted ready-made temporality and the difficult relation with its ‘object,’ but also reach beyond the conservation of multimedia works. If taken seriously, it could have an impact on traditional art.
Whether related to traditional art or multimedia, it should not be left unmentioned that conservation may by no means claim to be neutral. Each intervention is a process that transforms the work of art. Furthermore, conservation is, according to the Italian conservation theoretician Cesare Brandi, a moment of the methodological recognition of a work, an instantaneous appropriation in which the consciousness of the observer recognises an object as a work of art.²⁹ In discussing the significance of the past and opposing the idea of permanence, the British heritage theorist David Lowenthal holds that “every act of recognition alters what survives.”³⁰ He adds to it a positive value – the past can be used fruitfully when it is “domesticated,” “to inherit is to transform.”³¹

1.) Saint Augustine, Confessions, transl. by Edward Bouverie Pusey (Kindle Edition: Evinity Publishing Inc., 2009 (397–398)).
2.) Frederic Jameson, “The End of Temporality,” in Abstraction: Whitechapel Documents of Contemporary Art, ed. Maria Lind (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2013), 121.
3.) Jacques Derrida, Marges de la philosophie (Paris, 1972), 47, quoted in Jameson, “The End of Temporality,” 121.
4.) For a study on the concepts of time in the context of conservation, see Hanna Hölling, “Re: Paik: On Time, Identity and Changeability in the Conservation of Nam June Paik Multimedia Installations” (PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2013).
5.) Amelia Groom, ed., Time: Whitechapel Documents of Contemporary Art (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, forthcoming), book overview available at https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/time.
6.) I use the expression “con-temporary” to expose its plural meaning that is related to the question of time: something may be con-temporary with something else in terms of synchronous existence (which nota bene implies a relation), and, equally, it may have a temporal characteristic pointing to the present. Online Etymology Dictionary, s. v. “contemporary,” accessed 10 August 2013. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=contemporary. For a brilliant discussion of the “contemporary” in art, see Richard Meyer, What Was Contemporary (Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 2013).
7.) Cf. Pip Laurenson, “Authenticity, Change and Loss in the Conservation of Time-Based Media Installations” Tate Papers 6 (2006), accessed December 12, 2011, www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/7401; Salvador Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation (Oxford: Elsevier, 2005). 3.
8.) For the “social” in conservation, see Miriam Clavir, Preserving What is Valued: Museum, Conservation and First Nations (Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press, 2002); Miriam Clavir, “Social Contexts for Conservation: Time, Distance, and Voice in Museums and Galleries,” Journal of the Canadian Association for Conservation 34 (2009); Glenn Wharton, “Heritage Conservation as Cultural Work: Public Negotiation of a Pacific Hero” (PhD diss., University College London, 2004).
9.) See, for instance, Laurenson, Muñoz Viñas, Clavir and the recent international initiatives such as the research project New Strategies in the Conservation of Contemporary Art (http://www.newstrategiesinconservation.nl/) and its outcome in several doctoral dissertations that are being written on this subject matter.
10.) Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain: A Novel, trans. John. E. Woods (New York, 1995 (1924)), 339.
11.) Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison, translated by Allan Sheridan (New York and Toronto: Random House, 1995 (1975)).
12.) J. J. A. Mooij, Time and Mind: The History of a Philosophical Problem (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005), 105.
13.) Bliss Cua Lim, Translating Time: Cinema, the Fantastic, and Temporal Critique (Duke University Press, 2009), 11.
14.) “Re-” word forming element; C. 1200; from Old French and also directly from Latin re- “again, back, against.” Online Etymology Dictionary, s. v. “re-,“ accessed April 24, 2013, http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=re-&allowed_in_frame=0.
15.) Alessandro Conti refers to the story of the Garden of Eden as a wish “to return to a primitive state that is better that the present one.” According to him, rooted in mythology and Western religious tradition, this vision becomes dangerous in restoration when it induces to pass over the ageing of materials and impose the concept of the return to the original at all costs. Alessandro Conti, The History of the Restoration and Conservation of Works of Art, trans. Helen Glanville (London: Elsevier, 2007), 1.
16.) Martin Heidegger, “The Origin of the Work of Art,” Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. Albert Hofstadter (New York: Harper and Low, 1975), 40.
17.) Ibid.
18.) Albert Albano, “Art in Transition,” in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, eds. Nicholas Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust, 1996), 183.
19.) See, for instance, David Lowenthal, “Fabricating Heritage,” History and Memory 10/1 (1998): 5–24.
20.) I have in mind his books Bergsonism and Cinema 1 and 2.
21.) Gilles Deleuze, Bergsonism, transl. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam (New York: Zone Books, 1991 (1966)), 48.
22.) Ibid., 59–60.
23.) Duration, according to Deleuze, is essentially memory, consciousness and freedom. Ibid.
24.) This is also expressed in the illusion of the difference between recollection and perception – the image cannot actualise a recollection without adapting it to the requirements of the present. Deleuze refers to contraction and recollection memory. Deleuze, Bergsonism, 51.
25.) Ibid., 58–59.
26.) “How otherwise could we understand that it passes through distinct and well-marked phases, that it changes its age – in short, that it has a history?” Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution, trans. Arthur Mitchell (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc, 1998 (1911)), 15. For the Deleuzian view on the virtual past, see Deleuze, Bergsonism, 55. This matter is also discussed in Suzanne Guerlac, Thinking in Time: An Introduction to Henri Bergson (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2006), 187–188
27.) According to David Lowenthal, the differentiation of past and present is a rather recent development and can be associated with a chronological time scale. The past as a state of things no longer existing emerged during the Renaissance when the remoteness of ancient Rome and unlikeness of recent medial times became apparent. David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 390.
28.) Much of my thinking here and in the subsequent section is inspired by Bliss Cua Lim and her book entitled Translating Time: Cinema, the Fantastic, and the Temporal Critique. Drawing from Bergson’s (and Deleuze’s) philosophic project, she takes on the discussion of time in relation to fantastic cinema. Cua Lim, Translating Time.
29.) Cesare Brandi, Theory of Restoration, trans. Cynthia Rockwell (Nardini Editore: Florence, 2005), 48. For coherence, I replaced the originally used “restoration” with “conservation.”
30.) Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country, 390.
31.) Ibid., 412.