Spinoza_Baruch de – what's next?

Psychotektonische Übungen

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:17:16 +0000

„Eines ist so wichtig wie’s andere: rechtzeitig zufassen und rechtzeitig loslassen können.“
Nikolaus von Kues (1401–1464)

Einfache psychotektonische Übungen sollen sich an den Meditationsobjekten der buddhistischen Satipatthāna-Sutta orientieren. Die Grundlagen der Achtsamkeit -beziehen Körperbetrachtungen ein, die für die „Geschicklichkeit im Auffassen“, dem Uggahakosalla er-forderlich sind. Im Visuddhi-Magga repetieren (wiederholen) wir die 32 Körperteile im gesprochenen Wort, repetieren wir die 32 Körperteile in Gedanken, bestimmen die 32 Körperteile hinsichtlich ihrer Farbe, ihrer Form, hinsichtlich ihrer Verortung im Zusammenhang des ganzen Körpers, hinsichtlich der genauen Körperstelle, hinsichtlich ihrer Abgrenzung und der Unterschiedlichkeit von einander.

1. CE-FAST, CISS, CORE, CSFSE, CSI, DANTE, DE-FLASH, DEFAISE, DEFGR, DESS, EPI, EPSI, FADE, FAISE, FAST, FEER, FFE, FISP, FLAIR, FLAME, GRASS, GE, HASTE, IR, IRABB, LOTA, MAST, MPGR, MP-RAGE, MSE, PCMHP, PSIF, RARE, RASE, RASEE, SE, SENSE, SMASH, SPGR, STE, STEAM, SPIR, SR, SSFP, STIR, TFL, TGSE, TIRM, TRUE-FISP, TRUFI, Turbo-FLASH, TSE, UTSE, UCS, VIBE
2. Contrast Enhanced Fast Acquisition in the Steady State, Constructive Interference in Steady State, Clinically Optimized Regional Exams, Contiguous Slice Fast-acquisition Spin Echo, Chemical Shift Imaging, Delays Alternating with Nutations for Tailored Excitation, Doppelecho – Fast Low Angle Shot, Dual Echo Fast Acquisition Interleaved Spin Echo, Driven Equilibrium Fast Grass, Double Echo Steady State, Echo Planar Imaging, Echo Planar Spectroscopic Imaging, Fast Acquisition Double Echo, Fast Acquired Steady State Technique, Field Echo with Even Echo Rephasing, Fast Field Echo, Fast Imaging with Steady State Precession, Fluid Attenuated Inversion Recovery, Fast Low Angle Multi-Echo, Fast Low Angle with Relaxation Enhancement, Fast Low Angle Shot, Gradient Refocused Acquisition in the Steady State, Gradienten-Echo, Half Fourier-Acquired Single Shot Turbo Spin Echo, Inversion Recovery, Inversion Recovery Fast Grass, Long Term Averaging, Motion Artifact Suppression Technique, slice-MultiPlexed Gradient Refocused Acquisition with Steady State, Magnetization Prepared Rapid Gradient Echo, Modified Spin Echo, Phasenkontrast-Multi-Herzphasen, Precision Study with Imaging Fast (umgedrehtes FISP), Rapid Acquisition with Relaxation Enhancement, Rapid Acquisition Spin Echo, Rapid Acquisition Spin Echo Enhanced, Spin-Echo, Sensitivity-Encoded, Simultaneous Acquisition of Spatial Harmonics, Spoiled Gradient Recalled Acquisition in the Steady State, Stimulated Echo, Stimulated Echo Acquisition Mode, Spectral Presaturation with Inversion Recovery, Saturation Recovery Sequence, Steady State Free Precession, Short-Tau Inversion Recovery, Turbo Flash, Turbo Gradient Spin Echo, Turbo-Inversion Recovery-Magnitude, True Fast Imaging With Steady Precession, True Fast Imaging With Steady Precession, Turbo Fast Low Angle Shot, Turbo-Spin-Echo, Ultra-fast Turbo Spin-Echo, Under Cover Stimulation, Volume Interpolated Breathhold Examination
Die hier aufgeführten bildgebenden Verfahren der -Magnet-Resonanz-Tomographie (MRT), zeigen im 1. -Abschnitt die gebräuchlichen Kürzel der Aufnahmeverfahren. Der 2. Abschnitt beinhaltet die ausgeschriebenen Begriffe. Mit diesen Wahrnehmungstechniken versuchen wir einen körperlichen Zustand, beziehungsweise einen innerkörperlichen Prozess, zu veranschaulichen und zu erfassen, um gegebenenfalls medizinisch eingreifen zu können oder die Salutogenese (Gesunderhaltung) zu unterstützen. Ein Unterschied zu anderen Körpern kann im Sinne Spinozas nur von dem als „eigenen“ wahrgenommenen Körper erfolgen, was die Frage nach dem Nächsten aus dieser Verfasstheit heraus stellt. Wie schon die zahlreichen bildgebenden Verfahren der Tomographie zeigen, können wir eine körperliche Verfasstheit nur bedingt erfassen. Bereits in der Menge der Verfahren steckt die Fragwürdigkeit einer existenziellen Erkenntnis über die Körperzustände, aus denen heraus wir operieren. Die Gefahr besteht darin, dass wir die einzelnen Verfahren und die damit gewonnen Erkenntnisse nicht sinnvoll verknüpfen und auslegen können. Wir gehen davon aus, dass wir nie gänzlich bei uns sind. Damit zu arbeiten macht Sinn. Eine Annäherung könnte als nächstes versucht werden. Sie halten mit beiden Händen das Buch in dem sie diesen Text lesen. Zwei Übungen kommen zur Anwendung:
Die 1. einfache psychotektonische Übung verbindet die oben genannten Abkürzungen (Abschnitt 1 oben) der Verfahren im Gesang (shirim). Singen Sie die Abkürzungen: Ce E eF A eS etc.
Die 2. einfache psychotektonische Übung ist das laute, flüssige Lesen der Verfahren (Abschnitt 2 oben)
Die PFG-NMR (Pulsed-Field-Gradient Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) zeigt nicht nur einen Zustand als Bild, sondern ermöglicht die Visualisierung von Prozessen der Ortsveränderung der beobachteten Objekte zu einer definierten und festgelegten Zeit. Fließbewegungen und Selbstdiffusionsvorgänge werden visualisiert. Hieraus können zum Beispiel vom menschlichen Gehirn oder in der Geotektonik diffuse systemische Erkenntnisse gewonnen werden. In der Neurophysiologie wurde mit diesen Messtechniken erwiesen, dass sich eine zukünftige Körperbewegung vorwegnehmen lässt, beziehungsweise, wie in den asiatischen Kampfkünsten praktiziert, die zukünftigen Bewegungen des Gegners schon vorher vom Gegenüber realisiert werden. Antizipation bedeutet hierbei, dass der Körper in der Lage ist, das Nächste, das Zukünftige wahrzunehmen und entsprechend zu Handeln. Diese Aktivitätsmuster zeigen uns, dass lineare Abfolgen wie „vorher-nachher“, Konstruktionen sind, mit denen wir versuchen, unseren -Alltag zu trivialisieren. Zunächst kommen wir damit zurecht, sind aber enttäuscht, weil Aufgaben nicht erfüllt werden oder Erwartungen nicht eintreffen. Wir konstruieren das Bild von einer Zukunft, die nicht -eintreffen kann, ahnen und haben davor Angst. Diese Angst verhindert, das voraussehende Handeln. Erkennen und Aushalten eines vielschichtigen psychotektonischen Zustandsraums hilft weiter. Der Zustandsraum ist unkontrollierbar und kann nicht beherrscht werden. Der eigene Körper ist ein Zustandsraum, der Vergangenes und Zukünftiges birgt. Der Vorteil, diese Situation zu akzeptieren und damit zu arbeiten, ist das Einbeziehende des Zustandsraums. Ein integratives System: Zukunft, Gegenwart und Vergangenheit verbinden sich im Gegensatz zu den ausschließenden Verfahren, die uns beherrschen und uns oben-unten, vorher-nachher, also falsch positionieren.

Lassen Sie das Buch fallen.

Zombies of Immaterial Labor: The Modern Monster and the Death of Death

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

Undead and abject, the zombie is uncontrollable ambiguity.¹ Slouching across the earth, restlessly but with hallucinatory slowness, it is a thing with a soul, a body that is rotten but reactive, oblivious to itself yet driven by unforgiving instinct.
It follows that if the zombie is defined by ambiguity, it cannot be reduced to a negative presence. In fact, it could be a friend. So why does it lend itself so easily as a metaphor for alienation, rolling readily off our tongues? Resorting to the zombie as a sign for mindless persistence is unfair to this particular monster, to be sure, but also apathetic and facile in the perspective of the historical space we inhabit.
My proposal, perverse or braindead as it may be, is that the zombie begs a materialist analysis with a view to contemporary culture. Such an analysis is necessarily double-edged. The zombie is pure need without morality, hence it promises a measure of objectivity; we know exactly what it wants – brains, flesh – because this is what it always wants. Abject monstrosity is naturally impossible to render transparent, but abjectness itself harbors a defined function that promises instrumentality (of a blunt and limited kind, admittedly). In this way we may proceed to address contemporary relations of cultural production, at the same time as we reflect on the analytical tools we have for doing so.
Thus the following is an attempt at a sociological reading of the zombie that draws its necessity from the pressure that the capitalization of creativity has exerted on artistic practice and spectatorship in the recent decade. But it is also the inevitable subversion of the conclusions of such an analysis, as we begin to return to artistic thinking.

1. Marxploitation of the Gothic
The zombie as a figure of alienation is the entranced consumer suggested by Marxian theory. It is Guy Debord’s description of Brigitte Bardot as a rotten corpse and Frederic Jameson’s „death of affect“; and of course what media utopianist Marshall McLuhan called „the zombie stance of the technological idiot.“² Thus zombification is easily applied to the notion that capital eats up the body and mind of the worker, and that the living are exploited through dead labor.
When Adam Smith invoked the moral operations of the „invisible hand of the market“, he had something else in mind than an integrated world economy that recalls Freud’s unheimlich: „Severed limbs, a severed head, a hand detached from the arm, feet that dance by themselves – all of those have something highly uncanny about them, especially when they are credited with independent activity.“³ Under the globalized reinforcement of capital, the independent activity of ghost limbs is increasingly only apparent, yet no less gratuitous and unsettling.
Economy and production have in this way often been dressed up in Gothic styles; just think of William Blake’s „dark satanic mills“ of industrialization. It is doubtful, of course, that Marx would have endorsed the zombie as a figure of alienation, inasmuch as it incarnates a collapsed dialectics (between life and death, productivity and apathy, etc.) that can only be recaptured with great difficulty. However, leafing through The Communist Manifesto of 1848 one finds rousing Gothic metaphor. The power of class struggle is famously likened to a ghost that is haunting Europe – the „specter of Communism“; we are also told that with the proletariat, the bourgeoisie has produced „its own gravediggers,“ and that modern bourgeois society „has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange“ that it is like „the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the netherworld whom he has called up by his spells.“⁴ The Gothic, understood as the revival of medieval styles in the seventeenth century and since, is the theatrical representation of negative affect that emanates from a drama staged around power; a pessimistic dialectic of enlightenment that shows how rationality flips into barbarism and human bondage. Thus it is puzzling (or populist, agitational) that Marx and Engels employ Gothic metaphor related to the middle ages „that reactionists so much admire.“⁵ The Gothic contraband in progressive politics is the notion that fear can be sublime. It is as if the reader of the manifesto cannot after all rely on the „sober senses,“ but needs a little extra rhetorical something to compel her to face her „real conditions in life.“⁶ How did the excess of counter-enlightenment tropes come to prominence in processes of political subjectivation? As Derrida writes in Specters of Marx, „Marx does not like ghosts any more than his adversaries do. He does not want to believe in them. But he thinks of nothing else. … He believes he can oppose them, like life to death, like vain appearances of the simulacrum to real presence.“⁷ Once it becomes clear that Marxist ghost-hunting is already corrupted by a Gothic impulse, it allows for a reconstruction of Marxist critique; a new „spirit of Marx,“ as discussed by Derrida. In terms of traditional aesthetic hierarchies, the Gothic definitely belongs amongst the underdogs of genres, to the embarrassing aesthetic proletariat. Maybe this is what spoke through Marx, like spirits inhabiting a medium, and helped shaped his formidable literary intuition?
In this perspective there is no political reason to exclude the Gothic. The New York artists collective Group Material were among the first to establish a link between the Gothic and a Marxist line of cultural critique, before the former became a curatorial trope.⁸ The flyer for their 1980 show „Alienation“ mimicked advertising for Alien, and the film program included James Whale’s Frankenstein (1931). In their installation Democracy (1988), a zombie film was continuously screened throughout the exhibition: Dawn of the Dead, „George Romero’s 1978 paean to the suburban shopping mall and its implicit effects on people.“ The film was „an especially significant presence …, one which indicated the pertinence of consumer culture to democracy and to electoral politics.“⁹
Franco Moretti makes it clear that you can’t sympathize with those who hunt the monsters. In his brilliant 1978 essay „Dialectic of Fear“ he notes that in classic shockers such as Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein „we accept the vices of the monster’s destroyers without a murmur.“¹⁰ The antagonist of the monster is a representative of all that is „complacent, stupid, philistine, and impotent“ about existing society. To Moretti this indicates false consciousness in the literature of fear; it makes us side with the bourgeoisie. But by passing judgment on the literature of fear through a dialectic of reason and affect (Stoker „doesn’t need a thinking reader, but a frightened one“), Moretti’s ideology critique joins the ranks of the destroyers of the monster and thereby, on a cultural level, of those fictitious characters he criticizes. In fact, Moretti kills the monster twice: he doesn’t question its killing in the text, and he has no need for it outside the text.
George Romero analyzes the conflict between the monster and its adversaries in a similar vein. Crucially, however, his trilogy Night of the Living Dead (1968), Dawn of the Dead (1978), and Day of the Dead (1985), reverses Moretti’s conclusion, thereby turning cultural space inside out. In Romero, antagonism and horror are not pushed out of society (to the monster) but are rather located within society (qua the monster). The issue isn’t the zombies; the real problem lies with the „heroes“ – the police, the army, good old boys with their guns and male bonding fantasies. If they win, racism has a future, capitalism has a future, sexism has a future, militarism has a future. Romero also implements this critique structurally. As Steven Shaviro observes, the cultural discomfort is not only located in the films’ graphic cannibalism and zombie genocide: the low-budget aesthetics makes us see „the violent fragmentation of the cinematic process itself.“¹¹ The zombie in such a representation may be uncanny and repulsive, but the imperfect uncleanness of the zombie’s face – the bad make-up, the failure to hide the actor behind the monster’s mask – is what breaks the screen of the spectacle.
Brian Holmes writes in „The Affectivist Manifesto“ (2009) that activism today faces „not so much soldiers with guns as cognitive capital: the knowledge society, an excruciatingly complex order. The striking thing … is the zombie-like character of this society, its fallback to automatic pilot, its cybernetic governance.“¹² Holmes’s diagnosis gets its punch from the counterintuitive tension between the notion of control and the zombie’s sleepwalking mindlessness. Even our present culture’s schizophrenic scenario of neoliberal economy and post-democratic reinforcement of the state apparatus cannot be reduced to evil. But if Holmes uses the monster trope to define a condition of critical ambiguity, he follows Marxist orthodoxy by setting this definition to work dialectically vis-à-vis an affirmative use of the manifesto format. The manifesto is haunted by its modernist codification as a mobilization of a collective We in a revolutionary Now. This code, and the desire it represents, is invariably transparent to itself, as opposed to the opacity of the zombie.

2. Monster of Mass and Multitude
What most informs metaphorical applications of the zombie is perhaps the functional dimension that its abjectness seems to lend to it. According to Julia Kristeva’s definition, the abject is what I must get rid of in order to be an I.¹³ The abject is a fantasmatic substance that must be expelled – from the body, from society – in order to satisfy a psychic economy, because it is imagined to have such a likeness or proximity to the subject that it produces panic or repulsion. This, Hal Foster writes, echoing critical preoccupations in the art of the 1980s (the abject) and of the 1990s (the „return of the real“), qualifies the abject as „a regulatory operation.“¹⁴ The obverse of the abject is a hygienic operation that promises a blunt instrumentality of getting rid of – of expulsing, excluding, severing, repressing. As we have seen, things are not so clear. The abject sneaks back in as a supplement, subverting attempts at establishing hygienic categories.
I will therefore hypothesize that the zombie’s allegorical (rather than merely metaphorical) potential lies in trying to elaborate and exacerbate the zombie as a cliché of alienation by using it to deliberately „dramatize the strangeness of what has become real,“ as anthropologists Jean and John L. Comaroff characterize the zombie’s cultural function.¹⁵ Why would one want to do such a thing? As Deleuze and Guattari had it, the problem with capitalism is not that it breaks up reality; the problem with capitalism is that it isn’t schizophrenic and proliferating enough.¹⁶ In other words, it frees desire from traditional libidinal patterns (of family and religion and so on), but it will always want to recapture these energies through profit. According to this conclusion, one way to circumnavigate capitalism would be to encourage its semiotic excess and its speculation in affect. Capitalism is not a totalitarian or tyrannical form of domination. It primarily spreads its effects through indifference (that can be compared to the zombie’s essential lack of protagonism). It is not what capital does, but what it doesn’t do or have: it does not have a concept of society; it does not counteract the depletion of nature; it has no concept of citizenship or culture; and so on. Thus it is a slave morality that makes us cling to capital as though it were our salvation – capitalism is, in fact, what we bring to it. Dramatization of capital through exacerbation and excess can perhaps help distill this state of affairs.
The zombie isn’t just any monster, but one with a pedigree of social critique. As already mentioned, alienation – a Marxian term that has fallen out of use – is central to the zombie. To Marx the loss of control over one’s labor – a kind of viral effect that spreads throughout social space – results in estrangement from oneself, from other people, and from the „species-being“ of humanity as such.¹⁷ This disruption of the connection between life and activity has „monstrous effects.“¹⁸ Today, in the era of immaterial labor, whose forms turn affect, creativity, and language into economical offerings, alienation from our productive capacities results in estrangement from these faculties and, by extension, from visual and artistic production – and from our own subjectivity. What is useful about the monster is that it is immediately recognizable as estrangement, and in this respect is non-alienating. Secondly, we may address alienation without a concept of nature; a good thing, since the humanism in the notion of „the natural state of man“ (for Marx the positive parameter against which we can measure our alienation) has at this point been irreversibly deconstructed. In other words: the natural state of man is to die, not to end up as undead.
Franco „Bifo“ Berardi describes how Italian Workerist thought of the 1960s overturned the dominant vision of Marxism. The working class was no longer conceived as „a passive object of alienation, but instead the active subject of a refusal capable of building a community starting out from its estrangement from the interests of capitalistic society.“¹⁹ For the estranged worker, alienation became productive. Deleuze and Guattari were part of the same generation of thinkers and overturned a traditional view of alienation, for example by considering schizophrenia as a multiple and nomadic form of consciousness (and not as a passive clinical effect or loss of self). They put it radically: „The only modern myth is the myth of zombies – mortified schizos, good for work, brought back to reason.“²⁰
The origin of the zombie in Haitian vodoun has an explicit relationship to labor, as a repetition or reenactment of slavery. The person who receives the zombie spell „dies,“ is buried, excavated, and put to work, usually as a field hand. In his book The Serpent and the Rainbow, ethnobotanist Wade Davis tells the story of a man called Narcisse, a former zombie:
[Narcisse] remembered being aware of his predicament, of missing his family and friends and his land, of wanting to return. But his life had the quality of a strange dream, with events, objects, and perceptions interacting in slow motion, and with everything completely out of his control. In fact there was no control at all. Decision had no meaning, and conscious action was an impossibility.²¹
The zombie can move around and carry out tasks, but does not speak, cannot fend for himself, cannot formulate thoughts, and doesn’t even know its own name: its fate is enslavement. „Given the colonial history“ – including occupation by France and the US – Davis continues:
the concept of enslavement implies that the peasant fears and the zombie suffers a fate that is literally worse than death – the loss of physical liberty that is slavery, and the sacrifice of personal autonomy implied by the loss of identity.²²
That is, more than inexplicable physiological change, victims of voodoo suffer a social and mental death, in a process initiated by fear. The zombie considered as a subaltern born of colonial encounters is a figure that has arisen then out of a new relationship to death: not the fear of the zombie apocalypse, as in the movies, but the fear of becoming one – the fear of losing control, of becoming a slave.
In pop culture the zombie is a twentieth-century monster and hence related to mass phenomena: mass production, mass consumption, mass death. It is not an aristocrat like Dracula or a star freak like Frankenstein; it is the everyman monster in which business as usual coexists with extremes of hysteria (much like democracy at present, in fact). The zombie also straddles the divide between industrial and immaterial labor, from mass to multitude, from the brawn of industrialism to the dispersed brains of cognitive capitalism.
With its highly ambiguous relationship to subjectivity, consciousness, and life itself, we may hence consider the zombie a paradigm of immaterial labor.²³ Both the zombie and immaterial labor celebrate logistics and a colonization of the brain and the nervous system. The living dead roam the world and have a genetic relationship with restlessness: they are „pure motoric instinct,“ as it is expressed in Romero’s Dawn of the Dead; or they represent a danger „as long as they got a working thinker and some mobility,“ as one zombie hunter puts it in the novel World War Z by Max Brooks.²⁴ The latter, counterintuitive reference to the zombie’s intellectual capacity may be brought to bear on the terms „intellectual labor“ and „cognitive capitalism,“ used to denote brain-dead – and highly regulated – industries such as advertising and mass media. Or, the „working thinker“ in the zombie’s dead flesh is an indication of the Marxist truth that matter thinks. As Lenin asked: What does the car know – of its own relations of production? In the same way, the zombie may prompt the question: What does the zombie’s rotting flesh know – of the soul? As Spinoza said: what the body can do, that is its soul.²⁵ And the zombie can do quite a lot.
In Philip Kaufman’s 1978 film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, a space plant that duplicates people and brings them back as empty versions of themselves spreads its fibers across the Earth as if it were the World Wide Web. The body-snatched don’t just mindlessly roam the cities in search of flesh and brains, but have occupied the networks of communication and start a planetary operation to circulate bodies, as if proponents of the great transformation from industrialism to immaterial labor, in which production is eclipsed and taken over by a regime of mediation and reproduction. This is our logistical universe, in which things on the move are valorized, and in which more than ever before the exchange of information itself determines communicative form. The nature of what is exchanged recedes in favor of the significance of distribution and dissemination. Exigencies of social adaptation, by now familiar to us, also appear in Invasion. Somebody who has clearly been body-snatched thus tells the main character, played by Donald Sutherland, to not be afraid of „new concepts“: imperatives to socialize and to reinvent oneself, shot through with all the accompanying tropes of self-cannibalization (self-management, self-valuation, self-regulation, self-consume, and so forth). Thus the body snatchers are a caricature of ideal being, incarnating mobility without nervousness.²⁶

3. „Solipsistic and asocial horror“
The necessity of a sociological reading of the modern monster derives, for our purpose, from the pressure that the capitalization of creativity has in the past decade exerted on artistic practice and thinking. Art has become a norm, in a different way than it was under the cultural order of the bourgeoisie. In short, within the „experience economy,“ art’s normative power consists in commodifying a conventional idea of art’s mythical otherness with a view to the reproduction of subjectivity and economy.
Ten years ago, management thinkers James H. Gilmore and B. Joseph Pine II launched the concept of the experience economy with their book The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage. Here they describe an economy in which experience is a new source of profit to be obtained through the staging of the memorable. What is being produced is the experience of the audience, and the experience is generated by means of what may be termed „authenticity effects.“ In the experience economy it is often art and its markers of authenticity – creativity, innovation, provocation, and the like – that ensure economic status to experience.²⁷
Gilmore and Pine advise manufacturers to tailor their products to maximize customer experience, thus valve manufacturers could profitably increase the „pumping experience“; furniture manufacturers might correspondingly emphasize the „sitting experience“; and home-appliance manufacturers could capitalize on the „washing experience,“ the „drying experience,“ and the „cooking experience.“²⁸ The „psychological premise“ of being able to „alter consumers’ sense of reality“ is a central theme.²⁹ Gilmore and Pine’s mission is to highlight the profitability of producing simulated situations. Their arguments will not be subverted by simply pointing out this fact: the experience economy is beyond all ideology inasmuch as it is their declared intention to fake it better and more convincingly. In the experience economy’s ontological displacement towards an instrumentalized phenomenology, it becomes irrelevant to verify the materiality of the experienced object or situation. Memorable authenticity effects are constituted in a register of subjective experience. In other words, one’s own subjectivity becomes a product one consumes, by being provided with opportunities to consume one’s own time and attention through emotive and cognitive responses to objects and situations. Similarly, when the experience economy is applied to cultural institutions and the presentation of art works, it revolves around ways of providing the public with the opportunity to reproduce itself as consumers of cultural experiences.
It is difficult not to see the consequences of the experience economy as the dismantling of not only artistic and institutional signification but also of social connections. Thus the syllabus for the masters-level experience economy course offered by the University of Aarhus explains how consumers within an experience economy function as „hyper-consumers free of earlier social ties, always hunting for emotional intensity,“ and that students of the course are provided with „the opportunity to adopt enterprising behaviours.“³⁰
Cultural critic Diedrich Diederichsen calls such self-consume Eigenblutdoping, blood doping. Just as cyclists dope themselves using their own blood, cultural consumers seek to augment their self-identity by consuming the products of their own subjectivity. According to Diederichsen, this phenomenon is a „solipsistic and asocial horror,“ which reduces life to a loop we can move in and out of without actually participating in any processes.³¹ Inside these loops, time has been brought to a halt, and the traditional power of the cultural institution is displaced when audiences are invited to play and participate in an ostensible „democratization“ of art. In the loop, audiences ironically lose the possibility of inscribing their subjectivities on anything besides themselves, and are hence potentially robbed of an important opportunity to respond to the institution and the exhibitionary complex where art is presented.
The zombie returns at this point, then, to stalk a new cultural economy that is necessarily already no longer current; nor is it ever outdated, because it cancels cultural time measured in decades and centuries. The time of the experience economy is that of an impoverished present.³²

4. The Death of Death
There are several reasons why we need a modern monster. Firstly, it can help us meditate on alienation in our era of an immaterial capitalism that has turned life into cash; into an onto-capitalist, forensic culture in which we turn towards the dead body, not with fear, but as a kind of pornographic curator (as testified to by any number of TV series about vampires, undertakers, and forensics). As Steven Shaviro writes, „zombies mark the rebellion of death against its capitalist appropriation … our society endeavors to transform death into value, but the zombies enact a radical refusal and destruction of value.“³³ Shaviro sharply outlines here the zombie’s exit strategy from that strangest of scenarios, the estrangement of death itself. But at the same time, one wonders whether it can be that simple. Immaterial capitalism’s tropes of self-cannibalization render it more ambiguous than ever whether the abject is a crisis in the order of subject and society, or a perverse confirmation of them. In other words, beyond the destruction of value that Shaviro discusses, it all revolves around a riddle: If, during our lifespan as paying beings, life itself has become capital, then where does that leave death?
One answer is that, in a world with no outsides, death died. We are now witnessing the death of death, of which its overrepresentation is the most prominent symptom. For the first time since the end of the Second World War there are no endgame narratives. Apocalyptic horizons are given amnesty. A planet jolted out of its ecological balance is a disaster, but not something important. In art, the mid twentieth century’s „death of the Author“ and „death of Man“ are now highly operational, and the „death of Art,“ a big deal in the 1980s, is now eclipsed by the splendid victory of „contemporary art.“ This in spite of the obvious truth that art, considered as an autonomous entity, is dead and gone, replaced by a new art (a double?) that is directly inscribed on culture; a script for social and cultural agency. There is nothing left to die, as if we were caught in the ever-circling eye of the eternal return itself. As the blurb for George Romero’s Survival of the Dead (2009) goes: „Death isn’t what it used to be.“ This ought to be a cause for worry. Endgame narratives have always accompanied new paradigms, or have negated or problematized the reproduction of received ideas.
The zombie is always considered a post-being, a no-longer-human, an impossible subject. But can we also think of it as a pre-being? Can we turn it into a child; that most poignant embodiment of the monster and the ghost (the „child-player against whom can do nothing,“ as Spinoza put it), or at least allow it to indicate a limit of not-yet-being?³⁴ That is, the lack incarnated by zombie is also present at the level of enunciation in the zombie narrative. In Romero’s films, the zombie apocalypse gradually recedes into the background and other – inter-human, social – problems become prominent during the unfolding of the plot. The zombie, always mute, is never at the center of the plot the way Dracula or Frankenstein are, hence its presence cannot be explained away as a mechanism for reintegrating social tension through fear. It is a strange, tragicomic monster that displaces evil and its concept: the zombie isn’t evil, nor has it been begot by evil; it is a monstrosity that deflects itself in order to show that our imagination cannot stop at the monster. It is irrelevant if you kill it (there will always be ten more rotten arms reaching through the broken window pane). The zombie pushes a horizon of empty time ahead of it; whether that time will be messianic or apocalyptic is held in abeyance. Or, the zombie represents the degree to which we are incapable of reimagining the future. So the question becomes: How can we look over its shoulder? What future race comes after the zombie? How do we cannibalize self-cannibalization? The only way to find out is to abstract the zombie condition.
Sooner or later, the opacity of our fascination with the zombie exhausts sociological attempts at reading of it. There is ultimately no way to rationalize the skepticism the zombie drags in. A similar mechanism is at work in art. Whereas sociology is based on positive knowledge, art is based on the concept of art and on culture’s re-imagining of that concept. Beyond the experience economy, and beyond sociological analysis of these, there lie new artistic thinking and imagining. Thus we can witness how it all falls apart in the end: sociology, zombie as allegory, even the absence of the end that turns out to be one. What is left are material traces to be picked up anew.

“Zombies of Immaterial Labor” was originally presented in the Masquerade lecture series, organized by the curatorial platform “If I Can’t Dance I Don’t Want To Be Part Of Your Revolution”, at the Piet Zwart Institute in Rotterdam, January 25, 2010.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: e-flux journal # 15, April 2010, http://www.e-flux.com/journal/zombies-of-immaterial-labor-the-modern-monster-and-the-death-of-death/ [29.5.2013].

1.) I am grateful to Brian Kuan Wood for the title of this essay.
2.) “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan,“ Playboy, March 1969, available at http://www.nextnature.net/2009/12/the-playboy-interview-marshall-mcluhan. I am grateful to Jacob Lillemose for this reference.
3.) Sigmund Freud, The Uncanny, trans. David McLintock (1899; London: Penguin Books, 2003), 150.
4.) Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, trans. Samuel Moore (1848; London: Penguin Classics, 1967), 78, 94.
5.) Ibid.
6.) Ibid., 83.
7.) Jacques Derrida, Specters of Marx: the State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International, trans. Peggy Kamuf (1993; New York: Routledge, 2006), 57.
8.) I am thinking of Mike Kelleys The Uncanny (1993; Cologne: Walther König 2004), Christoph Grunenberg’s Gothic: Transmutations of Horror in Late-Twentieth-Century Art (Boston: Institute of Contemporary Art, 1997), and Paul Schimmel’s Helter Skelter: L. A. Art in the 1990s, ed. Catherine Gudis (Los Angeles: Museum of Contemporary Art, 1992), which had the subtitle Art of the Living Dead).
9.) David Deitcher: „Social Aesthetics,“ in Democracy: A Project by Group Material, ed. Brian Wallis (New York: DIA Art Foundation, 1990), 37. (Deitcher erroneously states that Dawn of the Dead appeared in 1979; the correct year is 1978. I have corrected this in the quotation.)
10.) Franco Moretti, “Dialectic of Fear,“ in Signs Taken for Wonders: On the Sociology of Literary Forms, trans. Susan Fischer, David Forgacs, and David Miller (London: Verso, 1983), 84.
11.) Steven Shaviro, The Cinematic Body (1993; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006), 91.
12.) Brian Holmes, „The Affectivist Manifesto: Artistic Critique in the 21st Century,“ in Escape the Overcode: Activist Art in the Control Society (Eindhoven: Van Abbemuseum; Zagreb: What, How & for Whom, 2009), 14.
13.) See Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, trans. Leon S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982).
14.) Hal Foster, The Return of the Real (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996), 156.
15.) Jean and John L. Comaroff, „Alien-Nation: Zombies, Immigrants and Millennial Capitalism,“ South Atlantic Quarterly 101, no. 4 (Fall 2002): 779–805. I am grateful to Kodwo Eshun for this reference. The allegorical impulse behind bringing the zombie back to the Marxian concept of alienation derives from the dynamics of the zombie’s ruinous (lack of) existence. Thus George Romero’s famous trilogy is a sequence of allegorical variation: a critique of racist America (Night), a critique of consumerism (Dawn), and a critique with feminist overtones (Day).
16.) See Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari: Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane (1972; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983).
17.) See also my introduction in the exhibition guide A History of Irritated Material (London: Raven Row, 2010).
18.) Karl Marx, “Estranged Labour,“ in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm.
19.) Franco „Bifo“ Berardi, The Soul at Work: From Alienation to Autonomy, trans. Francesca Cadel and Mecchia Giuseppina (New York: Semiotext(e), 2009), 23.
20.) Deleuze and Guattari: Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, 335.
21.) Wade Davis, The Serpent and the Rainbow (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), 80.
22.) Ibid., 139.
23.) See also my article “Brains“ in Muhtelif no. 4 (2008).
24.) Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War (New York: Gerald and Duckworth, 2007), 96.
25.) See Berardi, The Soul at Work, 21.
26.) In the Spanish translation the body snatchers are ultracuerpos: ultrabodies, as if particularly well-adapted mutations.
27.) See also my „Kunst er Norm“ (Aarhus: Jutland Art Academy, 2008).
28.) James H. Gilmore and B. Joseph Pine II, The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1999), 16.
29.) Ibid., 175.
30.) See the Aarhus University, Faculty of Humanities website, http://studieguide.au.dk/kandidat_dk.cfm?fag=1062.
31.) Diedrich Diederichsen, Eigenblutdoping: Selbstverwertung, Künstlerromantik, Partizipation (Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 2008).
32.) Zˇizˇek discusses the zombie in terms of suffering. Of Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, he writes: „The „undead“ are not portrayed as embodiments of pure evil, of a simple drive to kill or revenge, but as sufferers, pursuing their victims with an awkward persistence, colored by a kind of infinite sadness.“ The dead make their melancholic return because they haven’t been properly buried – just like ghosts, zombies return „as collectors of some unpaid symbolic debt.“ Zˇizˇek points out that „the return of the dead signifies that they cannot find their proper place in the text of tradition,“ an insight that we can use for our own sociological ends. Similarly, the experience commodity cannot find its place in the text of tradition and culture, inasmuch as this is what the experience economy is undoing. Slavoj Zˇizˇek, Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1992), 22-23.
33.) Shaviro, The Cinematic Body, 84.
34.) Quoted from Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Qu’est-ce que la philosophie (Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1991), 70.

I think to make art is to make a break. And to make a cut. There’s a cut in the continuity of being, in the continuity of survival

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:38 +0000

CH/MH: Is there an artwork that had a lasting effect on you?
MD: The work of Samuel Beckett. I mean the importance it had for me and for the particular historic moment of the end of the twentieth century. I think he is the one who went the furthest in a certain way. There are various reasons for this, and I think one of them has to do with an enormous will to reduction. What Beckett did was to create an infinitely shrinkable world. There is never little enough. You can always take away more.
Take the “Three Novels: Molloy, Malone Dies, the Unnamable”. In the beginning, there is some sort of plot. Some sort of characters. In the second novel you have Malone, who is dying alone in his room and who invents stories as he is waiting for death. The space has shrunk, there is no more travel. And then you have the third novel, where you don’t even have this. You don’t even have a space, you don’t even have a character, you just have a voice. A voice, which just rambles on and continues, and it doesn’t matter what it says in the end. It’s just a sheer thrust of perseverance, of persistence, which carries the whole thing. So just persist. You have to go on. And you know how this ends, it ends in the most beautiful way: “I must go on. I can’t go on. I will go on“.
I think this is incredible literature, I don’t think literature has ever gone this far this radically. This is just so completely reduced. A bare minimum. And extremely powerful.

So what is art actually?
I think to make art is to make a break. And to make a cut. This would be the simplest way of answering your question.
But there are different ways of answering. One of them would go to Freud’s theory. I think what Freud conceives as drive, ‘der Trieb’, actually has to do with the transition between something natural and a creation of a separate space, and that everything he describes as the specificity of culture actually has to do with the structure of the drive. The drive is as if it were swording. Swording of a natural hang. It gets sworded towards a different sort of end.
I speak about a sort of natural need, but which in the process of its satisfaction actually gets sworded. It produces something else than merely the satisfaction of a natural need. If you look at the way Freud describes culture in the “Unbehagen in der Kultur“, he defines culture using a list.
And the first point would be the question of tools. We’re getting more and more tools in order to be the masters of nature, so that we can do all the magic things, we can look at far away distances through the telescope, we can see the invisibles in the microscope, we can talk through distance with the telephone, we can do absolutely magical things. And Freud uses the wonderful word, he says: “Der Mensch ist ein Prothesengott“. So he’s a god with prostheses. You just need some prostheses and you are god. So, you have these extensions of the body. And what actually the drive to master nature produces at the same time – something more than the simple mastering of nature – it produces prostheses, a sort of ‘in between space’, a space which elongates your body, prolongs your body into the world. The airy space between the inner and the outer is libidinally invested.

Do you have any idea of what good art is? Which art do you regard as good?
Well, this is not a subjective question. There is a strong tendency to bring art to the question of taste. And the question of taste is kind of dangerous because it always goes down to the question of narcissism. There is something profoundly narcissistic in the judgement of preference. ‘I prefer this, I drew connaissances, I prefer the late Beethoven quartets against symphonies.’ The difference which means difference as such and which means that you are distinguished and that you can distinguish yourself from the common lot of people by being the man of refined taste, to see all these differences that the others don’t see.
I have this conception of art, which is that art has to do with universality and infinity. It introduces something into the continuity of being, into the continuity of our survival. A break. Which is a universal break. A break to universality. It can speak universal. What is important in art is not a question whether it is an expression of a certain individual or whether it is an expression of a certain ethnic group or nation or of a certain age.
I think that the break is such that it turns the universal into particularities. But the problem is, how to do this within your subjective means, which are at your disposal, within the nation to which you belong, or language, or culture, within a particular type of civilisation, within this historic moment – which are all very finite things. How to produce universality and infinity out of this? And this I think is the moment of art. And this is not a production of spirit, this is a material production of the break. And I very much like this saying, which is on T-shirts like: “Art is a dirty business, but somebody has got to do it“. You have to get your hands dirty. This is a very material thing. You produce the idea with the material. With the material, with the matter, it has always been the sensual that one works with in art. And trying to immediately get to universality or the infinity of a beyond, an idea, the sublime or whatever – this is, I think, a big mistake. You cannot do this. You just have to produce it the hard way. But it depends on being able to produce a break.
And from there it has to be judged. I don’t think it can be judged from the question of taste, it’s not just a question of whether I like it or not. It has the power to produce universality. It creates a potential virtual audience, which goes far beyond this. And I think the awareness that is going beyond this, beyond my particular taste and reaction, is what makes good art.

Is art a benefit for society? Why does there have to be someone who does this dirty job?
Well, I think that in the question with which I started, the question of drawing a line, making a cut in the continuity of our animal or social being, of our finite being, that this is what defines humanity. I’m not saying that art is the only way to do this. I think thought is something which does this also, it breaks with the conditions of its own production. A sort of firm practitioner philosophy. I think philosophy similarly, but also very differently makes a perceptional break in the continuity of particular received ways of thinking.
We have one of the definitions of men, like homo sapiens as the thinking animal, but the trouble is that thought is very rare. It’s not that men think all the time, it happens very rarely. There are very few occasions when thought happens and when it does, it seriously changes the very parameters of the ways you conceive the world, yourself, whatever. There’s a handful of thinkers. This is a strange thing in the history of philosophy, there’s only a handful of thinkers with which we have to deal continually. But I don’t think – this is important – that thought is some sort of prerogative of philosophy, that philosophers are very special because they have this specialisation in thought. I don’t think that at all. I think thought can happen anywhere. In silence and …

Does it also happen in art?
Oh yes. It does most definitely. It has a different way and the question of art working with sensual, sensuous material means is very important, it’s a materialised thought. It’s the thought which works within the matter and shapes the matter. It is attached to matter. This is very important, the materiality of thought. And I think it does actually happen in a number of areas of human endeavour. And art is one of the most reflected.

Which are the others?
Do you know the work of Alain Badiou? He has made a list of four truth procedures, four areas where truth emerges.
These are: Science, completely constructed science like mathematics. It doesn’t refer to anything in the world. You just create your own entities, pure entities. Then: Poetry and art as such. Then politics. Politics not of opinions but politics of truth. I mean there’s an opposition. Democracy basically is a democracy of opinions. Anybody is free to hold any kind of opinion and then you count the votes. This is not a politics of truth. There is a sort of truth at stake in politics, which has to do with justice and equality and all kinds of things, but it has to do with an idea. And then there is the question of love, which is the emergence of a truth event somehow. A subjective truth event.
Badiou lists the four areas as the areas in which this break happens. And I don’t know if this list is the best or conclusive in some sense. Maybe this list is too neat in some way. I think things are messier in life. In many everyday situations, which actually suddenly end quite unexpectedly, people show an inventive creativity and do something very unexpected. And actually change the parameters of the situation and their own lives and the lives of others. I would leave this field open.

I just had this spontaneous thought if humour might be one of those areas, too?
Well, humour is one of the … Yes, you have an old suggestion which goes back to Aristotle, that man is a laughing animal. You have the various proposals of definitions of men, one is the thinking animal and one is the tool-making animal, which goes back to Benjamin Franklin. Marx takes this up that one defines man as a tool. And then you have Aristotle’s suggestion: Man is a laughing animal. So the only animal that can laugh – to laugh at what? To laugh, precisely, at being able to produce a certain break. The break in meaning. One way of describing this where I started – to make a break, to make a cut – is also to make a break in meaning in order to produce sense, if I may use this Deleuzian opposition between meaning and sense. And sense is the sort of unexpected thing which emerges. In order to produce this you have to cut down the usual expectation of meaning. The very horizon of meaning in which you move, in which you live your life. And this is the capacity of art.
Well, as far as humour is concerned, I would just point out that there’s a question of humour and there’s a question of ‘Witz’. Freud has written a book on ‘Witz’ and a different paper on humour and he says that those things are absolutely not to be confused. Additionally, there’s a question of comedy and there’s a question of irony. So we have four different things, which are not the same. We may laugh as a result, but there is laughter and laughter. Laughter itself does not have to be subversive. It can also be very conservative.

Who becomes an artist? What is it that makes people become artists?
I don’t think there’s a rule. There’s the capacity. The break making capacity. The way that we relate to ourselves is always conditioned by a break; This is a question of redoubling. Culture is a question of redoubling: it redoubles the normal life. It redoubles into something else.

But still there are some people who don’t become artists or intellectuals.
No no, of course. I think the capacity is there. But that is a capacity which defines humanity. And … how the hell do you become an artist? What particular things have to come together? I think what makes the greatness of art is precisely its singularity. Which means that if you could establish this rule, art would stop to be art.

But couldn’t it be that there is some reason why people start to make art? Robert Pfaller once suggested that artists might have some traumatic experience that they – all their lives – try to handle by making art.
Don’t we all have to handle some sort of traumatic experience? It’s very hard to say. I mean the question has been asked many times, so you have art schools which can precisely teach you everything except your sensuality.

Yeah, but art school starts at a moment where you already decided to go to art school. Who is likely to go to art school? So there are two aspects of this question. The one is: How do you become a good artist? The other question – which actually interests me – is: Why does someone want to become an artist? No matter if good or bad, if successful or not: what makes a person take up this way?
If you want to become an artist, what do you want to become? If I take some of the greatest musicians of all times, like Bach and Mozart or Haydn. You can see what? Who was Haydn? He was hired by the Esterhazy family as a craftsman. I mean, did he want to become an artist? I don’t think he ever thought of himself in that way actually. He was a paid craftsman. And if you look at Mozart, all the time he was trying to get hired by some court or something. If you look at Bach, who was employed by the church in Leipzig to produce a piece of music for mass every week.
It was not a question of genius or inspiration. You were hired. Because this was another craft and I don’t think anybody would look at themselves this way today. If you want to become an artist you don’t want to become a craftsman. You see yourself as a person with a special vocation, which goes beyond usual vocations.

Let’s stick to today’s understanding of art: Do you think artists are narcissistic?
The question of art and narcissism … I would say that on the one hand it’s profoundly narcissistic. It’s usually linked with a project of profound narcissism. But I don’t think that this is what makes art. As I said before: art is not expression. It’s not an expression of yourself. People may want to do it for that reason, to express themselves, but what makes the break and what makes the universal appeal, the claim of art, is not a question of whether they express themselves well or not. It’s just not the question by which art is ever judged. So on the one hand I’m sure that the motivation for doing this is in most cases narcissistic.

Did I understand you right when you said art is not an expression – could you say art is one of the ‘Prothesen’?
Yes. Oh yes.

I really like this picture.
The ‘Prothesengott’? Yes. But, well, Freud uses this in the context of technology and tool-making.

I have the feeling that it’s very good, maybe not only for tools.
Yes. It’s a good thing. It’s not just a question of tool. A tool is never a tool. It’s a libidinally invested extension of the body.

So you could also say art is a libidinal extension of yourself. Of the body.
Well, it has something to do with the libidinal extension. The way Freud introduces it, it has more to do with technology than with art. But I think it’s nevertheless a useful metaphor, also to think about art.

Could you also call it ‘object a’? Art as an extension towards ‘object a’?
Yes, of course. I didn’t want to use the heavily technical Lacanian language for this. I mean this could be described in another language, but what Lacan calls ‘objet a’ is precisely the transition object. The object of transition between the interior and exterior, neither falls into interior nor the external world out there; the objective world. I mean it’s neither subjective nor objective. In this sense it’s always in this zone of indeterminacy, in the zone, which is opened in between. And which is the zone of ‘Prothesen’ if you want, I mean the Prothesen always fill the zone: you put something between subjects and objects. You extend your body into the world, but the world extends into you.

Would you agree that artists and philosophers share similarities in the realities they live in?
Yes. I think there’s a lot of common ground. The tools with which they work are different, but I think they work on a common ground and that they can’t be clearly delineated. One way of differentiation – which I particularly dislike – is to say that artists have the passions and the feelings and they work with this and philosophers have the reason and understanding and they work with this. I don’t think this opposition is worth anything. It never works this way. I think that any human activity has both: indiscriminately has passion and reason inscribed into it.
If you look at the history of philosophy – look at Plato, look at Spinoza, look at St. Augustin, look at Hegel, Marx, Kant, Wittgenstein – there is a huge passion. This is terrible passion you have in this. They are passion-driven. These are not works of intellect. This is a completely wrong and common conception of philosophy that they just rationalise with some concepts. If it doesn’t involve the passionate attachment and the passionate involvement, then it’s not philosophy. There is very, very serious passion at work in this. And at the opposite end I think there is very, very precise thinking involved in art. If not it’s just no good art.

We were talking about passion and reason – do you think artists or philosophers can have a family? Do you think it can be organised to do such an ambitious or passionate work and to have love for people?
I think on the general level I don’t see why it should be exclusive. But this is not a question which concerns only art. I think it’s a question which concerns any sort of passionate attachment to your profession. I mean it could be a lawyer, a politician, a scientist, all kinds of things. It can be sport. It can be all kinds of things and it does produce problems, very practical problems, how the hell you deal with your family, with your love, with your private life. I think it very much depends on what kind of person you are. There are people who would somehow erase this and there are people who would always find ways, no matter how. They can work twenty hours a day but they will nevertheless find a way to have a private life.

And what can you tell me about passion? Where does it come from and what can you do to prevent its disappearance?
To prevent its disappearance?

Is there anything that can be done?
Have you ever read Ovid? “Remedia Amoris“, the remedies against love. The question that he asks is the opposite. Not how to keep the passion going but how to help from prevent it happening.
You can see through this a thousand years of antiquity: It’s not the problem how to keep your passion alive. It’s a problem of detachment. “Remedia Amoris“ are rather humorous. Ovid’s advice is: don’t go for it. Keep your mind, otherwise you go crazy. Passion is folly. This is a bad thing for you. It would completely ruin your life. So you have a history of passions. this is a stage of antiquity and then you have a certain stage of Christianity which again is very differentiated in itself. I mean the passion is the passion of Christ. So the passion worth having is the passion in this other sense. There is a passion worth having and which is this suffering you must undergo in order to be a worthy person, to be worthy of redemption. So this underscores, this gives the word passion a very different meaning. It comes from ‘patior’, ‘passus’, which means suffering. Like ‘Leidenschaft’ comes from ‘leiden’.
If I put it in this very, very reduced, simplistic way, the question of passion, which drives you, the question of passionate love is a question of romantic love, a certain conception of romantic love, which we deal with.

It’s a very interesting point that you made about the difference between trying to get rid of it or trying to keep it alive. You said before philosophy is always passionate, driven, so in this way it’s actually necessary to keep it. I didn’t only mean passion in private life, but also as an activating thing like in your work.
Yes, there has to be a passion which drives this. There’s an interesting passage in Helvetius. Helvetius, he was an enlightenment French philosopher and he has written this book ‘De l’esprit’ in 1759 and the book was actually burnt at that time and banned. He has a passage there which I always found terribly funny, he says: “Why are passionate people more intelligent than others?“ And he completely overturns this at either having intelligence – and then you can control your passions – or if you let the passions have the upper hand, then you lose your head. He puts these two together and he says: People never use their intelligence. I mean unless you are driven by a serious passion you won’t use the capacity for intelligence. It’s only the passionate people who are intelligent. Otherwise people are lazy. Come on, why use your head? You can always get along somehow. So, it’s only the passion, which actually drives you to use your reason. And this is just a funny way of putting it that you can’t see the two as being on opposed sides.

Do you have an influence on it, can you do something to keep it or to feed it?
I think passion is what drives you, drives you towards something. And it’s not that passion as such is enough. It’s not that it just drives you and you let yourself be driven. It actually demands a hell of a lot if you want to pursue this passion! It demands that you put something at stake, to risk.
To risk the usual ways of your life, the ‘bequemes Leben’, if you are lucky enough to have a comfortable social position. You have reduced yourself to the question of biological and social survival within a certain slot. And this is where the question of break comes in. The passion is what makes a break. But the break, it conditions, it demands a hell of a lot of ‘Anstrengung’ and you have to put things at risk. Sometimes drastically at risk. You risk everything for the question of passion, to pursue your passion.
What Freud names ‘Todestrieb’ (death drive) in “Jenseits des Lustprinzips“ (“Beyond the Pleasure Principle“) is too much of life. There’s too much of life, more than you can bear. So this is the excessive moment which derails the usual course of things and in order to pursue this it takes a lot of courage or persistence, perseverance. I think most people give up at a certain point. There are many ways of giving up, also as an artist. One way of giving up is to somehow be content with your role or to … ‘übereinstimmen’. So that you consent to being that role. And this is a socially assigned role which can bring glories, which can bring awards. If it started with a break – the break starts functioning as the institution of the break. The break itself gets institutionalised and highly valued.

It has a place then.
Yes, it has a place then. Freud has this wonderful phrase “people ruined by their own success“. It’s a wonderful phrase. And I think that in art many people are ruined by their own success. Precisely by succeeding in what they wanted to do and then they fit into this. They have made an institution of themselves and somehow started to believe that they are this. You have this wonderful phrase in Lacan: who is a madman? It’s not just an ordinary person who thinks that he’s a king. The definition of madman is a king who thinks that he’s a king. And you have this madness among artists who believe that they are artists. This is psychosis in a certain sense if you really think that you are what you are. You really think that you are an artist. This is the end of art, I think.

You were saying that one has to be courageous to proceed with passionate work. I have the feeling that there is another big thing, besides from missing courage, which might be a cushion for passion: The desire for containment, for feeling secure. I don’t know the best translation, I mean ‘Geborgenheit’.
Geborgenheit?

Yeah. You know Geborgenheit? Feeling secure.
Security, yes. Sicherheit.

A warm feeling.
Feeling at home. Is there a good way to feel at home? I don’t know. I think there’s always an ideological trap in this. What you mostly feel at home with is always ideology because it offers a sort of security. I mean security in the sense of providing a certain status within which you can dwell. And also security of meaning, which means it provides you with: “what does it all mean?”. ‘We live in parliamentary democracy, we’re a free society, in the era of progress and prosperity’, etc. I mean the worlds which somehow fulfil a certain horizon of meaning which situates you within a certain social moment and social structure, within a certain type of social relations. And this is always ideology, ideology is what makes this run. And I think that the break that we are talking about – the break with meaning or the break with the continuity of things – it could be described as a break with ideology. Art and ideology are at opposite ends. Art always makes a break, a cut into the ideological continuing of what you most feel at home with. I mean which is entrusted upon you. And this is not to say that art is not ideology, it can easily be turned into ideology.

At that point when you feel content.
Yes. When you feel content in your role. One could make a certain opposition between art and culture. I think culture is a sort of domestication of art. You have canonical artworks, which you are taught, at school. And it’s a question of what comes into the canon and is it a good thing to have a canon or how to include, exclude works. Of course you always have a canon. There’s no escaping this, but at the same time you have to understand that culture is always a domestification of what is dangerous or excessive in art. It domesticates things by giving them a sort of proper place and value. You can say: ‘Well, Shakespeare is the greatest dramatist of all time.’ I mean it’s quite true, but it’s also a very forced statement to somehow domesticate Shakespeare’s work.

It ends their quality of being a break by giving them a place.
Yeah. Giving them a certain continuity.

I have the feeling it’s a regressive desire.
For home?

Yeah. Isn’t it?
Yes. Ultimately yes. I think that being at home means being in the ideology and being in the meaning and having some sort of meaning secured. And I think that creating home as a way of being with yourself – or being with another person – is precisely to try to deal with the unhomely element of it. To keep the unhomely element of it alive. I think that love is keeping the non-homely element alive. It’s not to finally ‘go home’ with someone, but actually to keep this thing in the air. Keep this thing in the air. And comedy is precisely – to keep the ball in the air. Keep the ball in the air, I mean constantly.

So then I can come to my last question: How can one become happy in life?
(laughing): It beats me!

So this is why I kept it till the end. Is there a good strategy?
Ah, god knows!

Conny Habbel met Mladen Dolar on June 5, 2009 in Ljubljana.

Wiederabdruck
Dieses Interview erschien zuerst im Onlinemagazin „WIE GEHT KUNST?“ (www.wiegehtkunst.com) der Künstlerinnen Conny Habbel und Marlene Haderer.