Velázquez_Diego – what's next?

Bildung, Medialität und die Kunst der Transgression

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:16:39 +0000

Bildung im nachfolgend fokussierten Sinne, nämlich als prozessuales Geschehen, ist nicht Bildung von oder über „etwas“, wie es beim Lernen der Fall ist. In bildungstheoretischer Einstellung geht es primär um die Beobachtung von Prozessen der Entstehung und Transformation von Selbst- und Weltverhältnissen.¹ Bildungsprozesse sind zunächst solche, in denen sich eine – immer in kulturelle und soziale Praktiken eingebettete, von diesen in ihrer Form prästrukturierte, initiierte, dem Individuum aufgetragene – selbstreflexive Beziehung zu sich herausbildet. Der Beobachter wird zum Selbstbeobachter. Dies ist jedoch eine Struktur, die in ihren historisch variierenden Formen, wie sie etwa und vor allem Michel Foucault herausgearbeitet hat,² als Ergebnis von Praktiken erkennbar ist. Es geht hier mithin nicht um eine abstrakte, gar ein kognitiv reduzierte Beobachterinstanz, sondern um Praktiken, die jeweils unterschiedliche -Formen eines konstitutiven und transformativen Selbstbezugs, also Formen von Reflexivität, darstellen. In solchen prozessualen Praktiken, die also nicht als von einem autonomen Subjekt ausgehen, sondern es konstituieren, und die mithin als Prozesse der Subjektivation³ verstanden werden müssen, werden die verschiedenen historisch beobachtbaren kulturellen Formen von Subjektivität herausgebildet.⁴ Bildung ist also vor diesem Hintergrund differenztheoretisch zu denken; sie ist nicht in einem Outputmodell oder einem Kompetenzkatalog „feststellbar“. Nicht ein vorgängig vorhandenes Subjekt „setzt“ sich Bildungsziele in einer je schon vorhandenen Welt (oder bekommt solche von außen vorgegeben); nicht ein vorgängig vorhandenes Subjekt „eignet“ sich Welt an; vielmehr gehen aus Bildungsprozessen Formen von Subjektivität und Weltbezügen immer wieder neu hervor, die zudem als historisch und kulturell veränderlich gedacht werden.
Wie aber lässt sich dieses Moment des „Neuen“ an -Bildungsprozessen begreifen, wie man mit Christoph Koller⁵ fragen muss? Diese Frage ist zunächst eine Frage der Prozessform. Das Entstehen von Neuem kann zum Beispiel, wie Koller aufzeigt, als a) Prozess der Negation, als b) emergente Abduktion, als c) hermeneutische Bewegung oder als d) disseminative Dekonstruktion verstanden werden. Diese vier Figurationen ließen sich nun als deskriptive, sozusagen heuristische Hilfsmittel betrachten, mit denen sich dann etwa Bildungsprozesse des Typs a), b), c) oder d) empirisch beobachten und -qualifizieren lassen. Oder aber sie lassen sich als nor-mative – sozusagen strukturnormative – Prozesstypen betrachten, so dass man etwa von „Bildung“ nur dann sprechen solle, wenn ein reflexiver Prozess zu einer -Dekonstruktion vorhandener Erkenntnismuster führt, wohingegen eine bloße Negation (eine bloße theoretische „Falsifikation“ einer Sichtweise), eine bloße Abduktion („Erkenntnisblitz“), eine bloße Kette von Auslegungen noch nicht als Bildung verstanden werden sollen. Interessant ist in beiden Perspektiven der Gedanke, dass man zwischen unterschiedlichen Strukturqualitäten von Bildungsprozesstypen differenzieren kann – und wohl auch muss.
Es ist hier nicht zu vertiefen, aber vor diesem Hintergrund unschwer nachvollziehbar, dass ein in Bildungsprozessen entstehendes „Orientierungswissen“⁶ selbst von entscheidend unterschiedlicher Qualität sein wird, je nachdem, ob es innerhalb eines paradigmatischen Rahmungsgefüges („Weltsicht“), dieses transformierend oder gar dessen Grundlagen auflösend prozessiert. Das Erste bezieht sich auf das Was der Erkenntnis, das Zweite auf das Wie und das Dritte auf die Ebene Kontexte und Bedingungen, also etwa auf die Praktiken der Erkenntnis. Am Beispiel der für die moderne Bildungstheorie so maßgeblichen Biographieforschung wäre ersteres die rekonstruierbare Veränderung einer Sichtweise (z. B. auf Lebensereignisse; eine oft vorzufindende Transformation von Deutungsmustern), das Zweite wäre die Kritik der Grundlagen dieser Sichtweisen (z. B. eine Kritik des eigenen Habitus als Gegenstand der biographischen Betrachtung), das Dritte etwa die disseminierende Kritik der Kontexte (z. B. praktische Kritik bedeutungskonstitutiver Kontexte kulturell-kommunikativer Beobachtungsschemata, so etwa von Gendermodellen in der biographischen Erzählung, durch deren Subversion; praktische Kritik des Interview-Kontextes als biographisierendes Wahrheitsspiel mit performativen, subjektivierenden Wirkungen durch Taktiken des Entzugs; praktische Kritik der medial normativen Festlegung von Biographie auf sprachliche Äußerungen durch ästhetische Inszenierungsmomente etc.).

Bildung und Transgression
Die Frage nach dem „Neuen“ von Bildungsprozessen und den unterschiedlichen Qualitäten von Reflexionsprozessen soll nachfolgend erstens auf einen besonderes dekonstruktives Moment – nämlich das der Differenz von Ästhetik und Medialität – und zweitens innerhalb dieses Zusammenhangs auf einen besonderen strukturellen Aspekt von Kunst bezogen werden, der im Diskurs als „Grenzüberschreitung“ oder „Transgression“ bezeichnet wird.⁷ Transgression ist dabei nicht etwa im Sinne der „transgressive art“ gemeint, sondern als bildungstheoretisches Moment der Überschreitung von Rahmungen, die als Zusammenhang erworbenen Erfahrungs- und Orientierungswissens betrachtet werden können – und damit zugleich auch als charakteristische Begrenzungen von Sichtweisen auf die Welt und auf sich selbst gelten müssen.
Jede „Transformation“ im Sinne einer Aufhebung alter Muster und Etablierung neuer, komplexerer Muster geht daher notwendig mit einer Überschreitung der durch die alten Rahmen gesetzten Grenzen von Sichtweisen einher. Überschreitung lässt sich bildungstheoretisch in diesem Sinne als Negation des Überschrittenen, also als Einklammerung erworbener Rahmungen oder auch als grundlegendes Um-Lernen verstehen. Ein besonderes Erkenntnismoment der Überschreitung liegt darin, dass die Grenzen in diesem Prozess – im Sinne des oben genannten dritten, „dekonstruktiven“ Modus von Orientierungswissen, als solche sichtbar und potenziell reflexiv thematisierbar werden. Wissensförmig geht dies oft nur, wenn Paradoxie als kognitiver Operator verfügbar ist, wenn man etwa hinter oder unter den binären Strukturierungen, aus denen die eigenen Weltsichten gefügt sind, die „Einheit ihrer Differenz“ (Luhmann) erkennen und aushalten kann (aber wie die binäre Logik haben auch unsere Kapazitäten zur Verarbeitung von Paradoxien ihre Grenzen). Ästhetisch jedoch kann dieses Jenseits etablierter Ordnungen artikuliert und erfahren werden, wobei das damit eröffnete Spielfeld vom ästhetisch Ungefügten bis zur selbstreflexiven, dichten Gefügtheit (sei es von Werken oder von Prozessen) reicht. Ich versuche im Nachfolgenden in aller hier gebotenen Kürze aufzuzeigen, dass im Zusammendenken des transgressiven Formaspekts von Kunst unter Gesichtspunkten von Medialität das Transgressive an „Kultureller Bildung“, als ein über bloßes „Lernen über“ ästhetische Sachverhalte weit hinausgehendes Geschehen, in besonderer Weise thematisierbar wird.

Artikulation und Medialität
Der Begriff der „Artikulation“ stellt dabei eine sehr spannende theoretische Perspektive bereit, weil er den Prozess der Subjektivation im Schnittfeld der Dimensionen Identität und Anerkennung, Kommunikation und „Übertragung“⁸, Symbolizität und Kulturalität (der symbolischen Formen und Wahrnehmungsweisen), somit auch im Zusammenhang von Ästhetik und Medialität verstehen lässt.⁹ Ich verstehe dabei „Artikulation“ als Kernmoment von Kultur, sowohl in prozessualer Hinsicht als auch in ihren gestalthaften (werkförmigen oder szenischen) und kommunikativen, auf Anerkennung, also produktive Verkennung verwiesenen, mithin im engeren Sinne sozialen Aspekten. Zugleich verweist der Artikulationsbegriff jedoch auf einen begriffstheoretischen blinden Fleck im Diskurs um Kulturelle Bildung, der sich nicht durch den Verweis auf Medien als Gestaltungsmittel (oder Kommunikationsinstrument etc.) ablegen lässt: Die Medialität allen kulturellen Ausdrucks ist kein nachrangiges, sondern ein konstitutives Moment – nicht erst heute, aber heute in nicht mehr zu übersehender Art und Weise. Der zentrale Aspekt von Artikulation liegt, wie Oswald Schwemmer aufgezeigt hat,¹⁰ in der symbo-lischen Prägnanz, die durch sie hervorgebracht wird. -Artikulationen strukturieren und restrukturieren Wahrnehmungsweisen, indem sie „Prozesse der Musterbildung und -anwendung“, die „Grammatiken der Sinneswelten“, betreffen und verändern – und hierin liegt vornehmlich ihre Bildungsrelevanz. Jede Artikulation bedarf eines Mediums, und mediale Formbildungsmöglichkeiten sind „für die innere Gliederung der Artikulation konstitutiv“; ihre Analyse sei daher eine der „Hauptaufgaben jeglicher kulturtheoretischen Reflexion“¹¹. Schwemmer erkennt Medien somit als Strukturbedingungen der Möglichkeit von Artikulation. Dabei verdinglicht er Medien nicht, sondern beschreibt sie als „dynamisches System, in dem die Artikulationsprozesse dessen Selbststrukturierung in Gang setzen bzw. nutzen“.¹² Eigenstruktur und Eigendynamik machen das Selbststrukturierungspotenzial von Medien aus – dieser Zusammenhang ermöglicht (und begrenzt) Formbildungen.
Damit ist jede Artikulation – analytisch betrachtet – auf drei Ebenen zu entfalten: Ästhetische Artikulationsakte unterliegen kulturellen Prägnanzmustern, die ihrerseits durch mediale Eigenstrukturen, die als dynamische Formbildungsmöglichkeiten wirken, bestimmt werden. So unterliegt beispielsweise die Zentralperspektive als symbolische Form und historische Bedingung -visueller Artikulation¹³ ihrerseits medialen Strukturbedingungen: die Festlegung auf den eindeutigen Betrachterstandpunkt – das bildkonstituierende Subjekt, das Michel Foucault anhand von Velázquez’ „Las Meninas“ thematisiert¹⁴ – ist nur durch die fixierte Transformation von medialer Bildfläche in einen innerbildlichen Raum möglich – im Gegensatz etwa zur „virtuellen Kunst“ der Neuzeit,¹⁵ die Betrachtersubjekt und Bildebene nicht als Pole einander gegenübersetzt, sondern beide immersiv im Raum miteinander verbindet.
Unter „transgressiven Artikulationen“ lassen sich nun solche ästhetischen Prozesse verstehen, die in das Verhältnis von kulturellen Prägnanzmustern und medialen Strukturbedingungen eingreifen – und darin liegt vor dem Hintergrund der oben vorgebrachten bildungstheoretischen Differenzierung der Qualitäten von Orientierungswissen ihr besonderes Potenzial: Künstlerische -Artikulationen vollziehen potenziell eine explizite -Po-sitionierung zu den sie konstituierenden Prägnanz-mustern auf der Ebene medialer Formbildungsmöglichkeiten. An ihnen wird mithin das Verhältnis von Medialität und kulturellen Prägnanzmustern (also -ästhetischen Formen) explizit. Sie sind es daher, die die kulturellen Prägnanzmuster maßgeblich verändern und damit Neues ermöglichen. Dies geschieht, wenn – beispielsweise – das Bild seine Fläche, der Film seine Zeit, der Tanz seine Körper, das Theater seine Theatralität, die Musik ihren Klang etc. artikulativ reflexiv werden lassen, sie als eine Möglichkeit aufzeigen und somit zugleich den machtförmigen Zugriff, den die affirmative Allianz von symbolischer Prägnanz und Medialität verstärkt, aufhebt. Die Überschreitung ist damit immer auch eine Überschreitung der medialen Immersion: In-sofern wirkt sie als Moment der Unbestimmtheit, da sie die „Illusio“¹⁶, den Glauben an das (hier: ästhetische) Spiel, aussetzt, und zwar paradoxerweise nur innerhalb des ästhetischen Vollzugs. – Ob sie es will oder nicht: Ein besonderer Wert von Kunst für ästhetische und mediale Bildung liegt in dieser Hinsicht darin, dass sie das Amalgam von Kulturalität, Medialität und Normativität aufbricht, es erfahrbar, reflektierbar macht und somit alternative Praktiken aufscheinen lässt. Dies ist, in immer umfassender mediatisierten Lebenswelten, mithin zu einem unhintergehbaren Moment von Bildung avanciert.

Dieser Text ist eine gekürzte Fassung von: Benjamin Jörissen, „Transgressive Artikulationen: das Spannungsfeld von Ästhetik und Medialität aus Perspektive der strukturalen Medienbildung“, in: Malte Hagener, Vinzenz Hediger (Hg.), Medienkultur und Bildung. Ästhetische Erziehung im Zeitalter digitaler Netzwerke. Frankfurt/M. 2014.

1.) Hans-Christoph Koller, Winfried Marotzki, Olaf Sanders (Hg.), Bildungsprozesse und Fremdheitserfahrung: Beiträge zu einer Theorie transformatorischer Bildungsprozesse. Bielefeld 2007.
2.) Etwa: Michel Foucault, Hermeneutik des Subjekts: Vorlesung am Collège de France (1981/82), Frankfurt/M. 2004.
3.) Judith Butler, Psyche der Macht: Das Subjekt der Unterwerfung. Frankfurt/M. 2001; Norbert Ricken, Die Ordnung der Bildung: Beiträge zu einer Genealogie der Bildung. Wiesbaden 2006.
4.) Vgl. Gerd Jüttemann, Michael Sonntag, Christoph Wulf (Hg.), Die Seele: ihre Geschichte im Abendland. Göttingen 2005; Jörg Zirfas, Benjamin Jörissen, Phänomenologien der Identität: human-, sozial- und kulturwissenschaftliche Analysen. Wiesbaden 2007.
5.) Christoph Koller, „Bildung als Entstehung neuen Wissens? Zur Genese des Neuen in transformatorischen Bildungsprozessen“, in: Hans-Rüdiger Müller, Wassilios Stravoravdis (Hg.), Bildung im Horizont der Wissensgesellschaft, Wiesbaden 2007, S. 49–66.
6.) Winfried Marotzki, Entwurf einer strukturalen Bildungstheorie: biographietheoretische Auslegung von Bildungsprozessen in hochkomplexen Gesellschaften. Weinheim 1990.
7.) Anna-Lena Wenzel, Grenzüberschreitungen in der Gegenwartskunst: Ästhetische und philosophische Positionen (Vol. 26). Bielefeld 2011.
8.) Vgl. Karl-Josef Pazzini, „Was wirkt, was bildet?“, in: Benjamin Jörissen, Torsten Meyer (Hg.), Subjekt – Medium – Bildung, Wiesbaden 2014.
9.) Vgl. Benjamin Jörissen, „Transgressive Artikulationen: das Spannungsfeld von Ästhetik und Medialität aus Perspektive der strukturalen Medienbildung“, in: Malte Hagener, Vinzenz Hediger (Hg.), Medienkultur und Bildung. Ästhetische Erziehung im Zeitalter digitaler Netzwerke, Frankfurt/M. 2014.
10.) Oswald Schwemmer, Kulturphilosophie: eine medientheoretische Grundlegung. München 2005.
11.) Ebd., S. 55.
12.) Ebd. Verzichtet sei an dieser Stelle auf eine kritische Diskussion der Schwemmer’schen Unterscheidung von „substanziellen“ (Sprache) vs. „instrumentellen“ (Schrift), bzw. diesen „historischen“ von „maschinellen“ Medien, die mir sowohl medienanthropologisch wie auch medientheoretisch eher begrenzt plausibel erscheint.
13.) Erwin Panofsky, Aufsätze zu Grundfragen der Kunstwissenschaft. Berlin 1964.
14.) Michel Foucault, Die Ordnung der Dinge: eine Archäologie der Humanwissenschaften. Frankfurt/M. 1974, S. 31ff.
15.) Vgl. Oliver Grau, Virtuelle Kunst in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Berlin 2001.
16.) Pierre Bourdieu, Sozialer Sinn: Kritik der theoretischen Vernunft. Frankfurt/M. 1993, S. 122.

See it Again, Say it Again. The Artist as Researcher

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:49 +0000

Introduction
‘Research’ is a buzz-word on the international art scene. People everywhere are talking about ‘the artist as researcher’ and debating how research in art relates to academic research. These discussions often revolve around the legitimisation of research in art within an academic framework and it is primarily theoreticians, not the artists, who are driving them. This book is an attempt to change this. It approaches the phenomenon of ‘research in and through art’ (to use the most correct and complete term) from the perspective of the visual artist and through the prism of artistic practice. Most of the authors are visual artists themselves and the contributions by theorists also focus on the practice of the artist as researcher.
The exceptional thing about research inand through art is that practical action (the making) and theoretical reflection (the thinking) go hand in hand. The one cannot exist without the other, in the same way action and thought are inextricably linked in artistic practice. This stands in contradistinction to ‘research into art’, such as art history and cultural studies.
Master’s courses in the field of research in art are now on offer in various European cities and artists can gain a doctorate at a growing number of universities. This has long been the case in the United Kingdom, but for most European countries it is new. We can justifiably speak of an ‘educational turn in art’ and an ‘artistic turn in academic education’.¹Political decision-making has thereby given concrete impulses to the institutionalisation of research in art. However, the phenomenon of research in art is nothing new. The idea of art-as-research flows from art itself, in particular from the conceptual art of the 1960s onwards. Conceptual artists oppose the view that art can be viewed in isolation from history and politics, and they assert that art is necessarily cognitive.
In the post-modern era, reflection and research are closely interwoven with artistic practice. In some cases the research has become the work of art itself; subject matter and medium serving as an instrument in the research or ‘thought process’. Artists are increasingly positioning themselves in the societal and artistic field as researchers.

Research and the public domain
The artist-as-researcher distinguishes himself from other artists by taking it upon himself to make statements about the production and thought processes. The artist-researcher allows others to be participants in this process, enters into a discussion about this and opens himself up to critique. This is by no means self-explanatory; it actually represents a radical shift in the conception of ‘artistry’. After all, the romantic view of the artist as a recluse in a studio from which he or she sends messages out into the world was prevalent until far into the 20th century.
The artist-researcher seeks the discussion in the public domain. ‘For research to be research it has to be debated in the public domain,’ as Sarat Maharaj remarked.² This might happen at art academies and at certain art institutes, as well as at universities. When the discussion takes place in an academic context, within the framework of research for a PhD, then certain conditions are attached. For example, the research needs to yield fresh insights, not merely into one’s personal work but for art in a broader sense as well. Crucial here is the academic opponent, whose task it is to critically evaluate the new contribution to the artistic domain. If the research fails to produce novel insights, then there is no justification for the research project to lead to an academic dissertation.
There is a wide range of views about the nature of this dissertation as well as a diversity of opinion about the requirements to which it can be subjected, as is also demonstrated by the contributions to this volume. However, almost everyone concurs that language somehow plays an important part in research in art. Without language it is impossible to enter into a discourse, so the invention of a language in which we can communicate with one another about research in art and through which we can evaluate the research is probably more important than devising a viable research methodology.
When asked about their reasons for embarking upon doctoral research, the response of almost all the artist-researchers is that their aim is to be part of a research community where they can share their thoughts with others and receive constructive, substantive criticism about their work. This research community represents a significant expansion of the possibilities for art and its practitioners, as well as a broadening of art discourse.

Art as (self-) critique
The age-old Western paradigm of art as mimesis, that is as imitation of the world, and as an expression of the close unity of the beautiful and true, came to an end around 1800. Friedrich Hegel thought that art had met its apotheosis, by which he of course did not mean that no more art would be produced or that our visual tradition had suddenly come to an end. For Hegel, the end of art meant that art could no longer be seen as the manifestation of truth and that the depiction of the divine, or of the divine in creation, was no longer self-explanatory.
Hegel’s cogitations coincided with the emergence of an historical awareness, which is by definition also a critical awareness. Henceforth it would be evident that, because of the diversification of modern life and the increasing fragmentation of what was once a single, all-encompassing worldview, it was impossible for any work of art to continue being the rendering of a totality. In art, this new critical awareness assumed a clear-cut form from the second half of the 19th century.
Artists emancipated themselves from the classical tradition and positioned themselves as autonomous creators. One of the ways in which they did this was by responding in an overtly discursive manner to works of art by others. There are many well-known examples of this new, critical attitude: Manet and Titian, Cézanne and Rubens, Picasso and Velázquez, and so on. This critical discursivity represents a shift away from the centuries-old tradition of pupils emulating their masters. By degrees attention shifted from the interpretation of the work of art as a reproduction of reality to the interaction, the active dialogue, between the work of art and the social and historical context in which it was created and the work’s beholder. Modern art, which was no longer representational, became self-critical.
In critical terms, modern art took aim at the societal and political fields, and at itself. The artist places every work of art in the context of other works of art, it is positioned vis-à-vis other works of art. This does not imply that those other works of art are literally identifiable in the new work (though that may be the case). Works of art embody a meta-element, a conceptual moment; the work of art is ‘aware’ of itself, of its own position. One might term this the ‘self-awareness’ of works of art, which question and comment on themselves and the art of others.
From the 1960s, critique and self-reflexivity were a deliberate strategy in art – take, for example, conceptual art, Fluxus, appropriation art, institutional critique and so on. Artists claimed a discursive space for themselves. However, almost immediately this discursive space came under huge pressure from market forces and the for-profit mentality. In the USA and the UK this shift came about in the late 1970s with the governments of Reagan and Thatcher, which were the starting shot for the rise of the art market and, in its wake, a resurgence in traditional, figurative painting. ‘Wir wollen Sonne statt Reagan (‘We want sun instead of Reagan’), sang Joseph Beuys.
Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, neo-liberalism has been the prevailing ideology in Western countries and across whole swathes of the non-Western world, and the laws of the market have apparently gained universal currency. Artists are expected to operate as ‘cultural entrepreneurs’ in the market and within a cultural industry that is to large extent fuelled by biennials, large museums and galleries. Even art journals, which previously played a critical role, participate in this.³
So where is there still a place in the art world for art as critical investigation and self-critique? Where can one find a locus, a platform for reflection and dialogue, which is not subject to pressures from the culture industry? Though universities are also being placed under increased pressure by a profit-driven mentality and cost-cutting operations, and though even here there is the looming danger of a cultural industry of ‘knowledge production’, academia nevertheless seems to represent a good candidate for providing the leeway for this.

Art and knowledge
There is no simple answer to the question of whether research in art generates knowledge and the kind of knowledge that this may be. What do artists know?⁴ They of course know something about images; they know what it is to produce a ‘picture’. Artists have a grasp of phenomena, how things appear to us in a visible guise – about this they know a great deal, but this is too general and therefore too non-committal. The assumption that artists know how things appear to us can only be demonstrated on the basis of specific works of art and this still leaves us with no answer to the broader question of what artists know.
In the context of research in art, perhaps it is better to pose a different question, namely how do artists think? Hannah Arendt’s Thinking, the first volume of The Life of the Mind, might provide a way forward here.⁵
In Thinking, Arendt elaborates upon the distinction made by Immanuel Kant between two modes of thinking, Vernunft and Verstand. Arendt defines Vernunft as ‘reason’ and Verstand as ‘intellect’.
According to Arendt, the distinction between reason and intellect coincides with the distinction between meaning and knowledge. ‘Reason’ and ‘intellect’ serve different purposes, she writes. The first manner of thinking, reason, serves to ‘quench our thirst for meaning’, while the second, intellect, serves ‘to meet our need for knowledge and cognition’ (the capacity to learn something). For knowledge we apply criteria of certainty and proof, it is the kind of ‘knowing’ that presupposes truth, in the sense of correctness.
‘Reason’ has its origins in our need to ponder questions to which we know there is no answer and for which no verifiable knowledge is possible, such as questions about God, freedom and immortality. Reason therefore transcends the limitations of knowledge, namely the criteria of certainty and proof. ‘The need of reason is not inspired by the quest for truth but by the quest for meaning,’ writes Arendt. ‘And meaning and truth are not the same.’
In the other manner of thinking, cognisance or knowledge, the thinking is a means to an end and that objective is the determination or attainment of truth and scholarly insight. Verstand wants to understand perceptible reality and operates by applying laws and fixed criteria to phenomena as they are perceived by the senses. Verstand is based on common sense, on faith in reality, in the ‘authenticity’ of the world. The scholar approaches the world with the goal of unmasking sensory illusions and correcting errors in scholarly investigation.
Reason, by contrast, has a self-contained objective; it is the pure activity of thinking and the simultaneous awareness of this activity while we are thinking. Reason is therefore not merely reflexive but also self-reflexive. The awareness of the activity of thinking itself creates, according to Arendt, a sensation of vitality, of being alive. Reason is the unceasing quest for meaning, a quest that never ends because of constant doubt, and because such thinking is ultimately founded on doubt it possesses what Arendt calls a ‘self-destructive tendency with regard to its own results’.
In order to experience the thinking ourselves, in order to know the possibilities of one’s own mind, it is necessary for us to withdraw from the ‘real’ world. Sensory experience distracts us when we try to concentrate and think, which is why we say that someone who is thinking concentratedly is ‘absent’. To be able to understand the spectacle of the world from within we must break free from sensory perception and from the flux of daily life.
The scientist can also temporarily withdraw from the world of phenomena, but he does that to solve a problem and with the aim of returning to that world and applying the answer there, to deploy the solution in that sensory domain.
Reason, writes Arendt, is ‘out of order’ with the world. It is a type of thinking that does not chime with the world and that is for two reasons: because of the withdrawal from the world that it requires and because it does not produce any definitive end result, it offers no solutions.
It should be obvious that it is primarily reason, Vernunft, which is the faculty of thinking that is relevant to art. Reason is the kind of thinking that is stored away in the work of art. Arendt therefore calls a work of art a ‘thought-thing’, and states that art ‘quenches our thirst for meaning’. Art provides no solutions and has no objective beyond itself.
But what about the fact that the activity of thinking (of ‘reasoning’) presupposes invisibility, that it withdraws from the sensory world and turns inward to a place the outsider cannot see, while works of art are objects that are in fact real, palpable and visible, objects which are part and parcel of reality?
The work of art’s ‘reality’ is idiosyncratic and diverges from other objects in the world – even in the case of ready-mades or conceptual actions intended to traverse the boundary between art and life. It is the function of works of art to generate meaning or to give direction to the quest for meaning. The work of art is the materialisation of thinking; thinking is rendered visible in the work of art. In the work of art, that which is actually absent (the invisible ‘reason’, reasoning) is made present. Art questions all the certitudes that are accepted as matter-of-course, even those of and about itself.
The work of art is not the end product of the artist’s thinking, or just for a moment at best; it is an intermediate stage, a temporary halting of a never-ending thought process. As soon as the artist has allowed the work as object out into the world, he takes leave of it. His activity with regard to this specific work now belongs to the past, and at this point the beholder, the public, becomes involved in the work. The beholder picks up the train of thought as it is embodied in the work of art.
The verb ‘to know’ implies knowledge, evidence, and is therefore not applicable to art or to what artists do. ‘Knowing’ harks back to concepts and criteria that belong in the world of exact science and with a mode of thinking that, in essence, is alien to art.
I would not want to aver that there is an unbridgeable gap between scientists and artists. Scientists have important intuitive moments, flashes of insight, when suddenly and seemingly out of nowhere the long-sought solution to a problem presents itself. Conversely, artists carry out research and their research is, at least in part, rationalisable and disseminable. However, the orientation of these activities and the way in which the thinking takes shape differs for scientists and artists.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien als Einleitung in: Janneke Wesseling (ed.), See it Again, Say it Again: The Artist as Researcher, Amsterdam: Valiz, 2011.
1.)These developments are a direct consequence of the Bologna Agreements and the Europe-wide reorganisation of education, aimed at establishing a comparable BA and MA framework for all European countries.
2.)At a symposium about research in art, held as part of ‘Manifesta 8’ in Murcia, Spain, in 2010.
3.)See Laurens Dhaenens and Hilde Van Gelder in the introduction to Kunstkritiek. Standpunten rond de beeldende kunsten uit België en Nederland in een internationaal perspectief [Art criticism. Viewpoints on the visual arts from Belgium and the Netherlands in an international perspective] (Leuven: LannooCampus, 2010).
4.)The question ‘What do artists know?’ was the theme of a round-table discussion on art and education, organised by James Elkins in 2010.
5.)Hannah Arendt (1978), Life of the Mind, ed. Mary McCarthy, 2 vols., New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. . Thinking was originally published in 1971.

Active Resistance To Propaganda

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:49 +0000

I make the great claim for my manifesto, that it penetrates to the root of the human predicament and offers the underlying solution. We have the choice to become more cultivated and therefore more human – or by muddling along as usual we shall remain the destructive and self-destroying animal, the victim of our own cleverness (To be or not to be).

Among the travellers who accompany Active Resistance are:
Alice
Pinocchio
Art Lover (an anthropologist)
True Poet (an alchemist)

Our journey to find art will show that art gives culture and that culture is the antidote to propaganda.

AR
Dear Friends, We all love art and some of you claim to be artists. Without judges there is no art. She only exists when we know her. Does she exist? The answer to this question is of vital importance because if art is alive the world will change. No art, no true progress.
We must find out; go in search of her. – But wait! Who is this with fire-cracking smouldering pigtails, gold teeth and a brace of flintlocks in his belt? He is a pirate. – And what does his t-shirt say? – I love crap.

Pirate hands Active Resistance a Hawaiian garland of plastic flowers.

Pirate
Leave everything to me. I plunder for you. Stick with me and you might get a share of the bounty. My name is Progress.

AR
But you have stolen imagination. There is hardly anyone left now who believes in a better world. What is the future of unlimited profit in a finite world?

Pirate Progress
I like you artistic lot. But, trust me or not, I’ll take you with me if I go down. We’ll all burn together.

Film clip, close up. the pigtails burst into flames and with a “Ha-haagh!“ the Pirate disappears in a pall of smoke followed by black night.

AR
He is not Progress. Sir Morgan Mammon stole the name and the Pirate works for him.

The defiant face of Pirate Progress appears and disappears like the Cheshire Cat. Light returns.

20th century progress was a bad idea. Smash the past and the future will take care of itself. Follow the trend, keep up with the times. Artists and intellectuals jumped on the bandwagon. Progress and future were automatically linked. March on! Don’t stop to think. You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Pinocchio
Now that I have become a boy I want to be a freedom-fighter.

Sir Morgan Mammon
Music to my ears! More freedom, more consumption.

Pinocchio
No! Freedom to think for yourself, don’t believe everything you’re told! Consumption is propaganda – I want to fight propaganda.

AR
Culture is the antidote to propaganda.

Alice
Pinocchio, if you try to free yourself from the past completely, you drop the stuffy ideas and the good ideas. You throw out the baby with the bathwater. The only thing is hey kept a bit of the dirty bathwater and they’ve been piddling about in it ever since.

True Poet
The present is always the present moment of the past. We are the past. Art links past, present and future. Cut off from the past there is only habit.

Art Lover
We have lost touch with ourselves. Only the art lover stays in touch with ideas. I shall write a book, ‘The Art Lover and the Lost Generations’.

Beautiful Slavegirl
To progress or advance in any way you must know what is your end or purpose. For example, money is not an end but a means to an end. And for this reason, I shall be set free.
I am so happy! I am the famous Rhodopis (Rosycheeks). My master made a fortune from selling my body but now my lover will pay a vast ransom, – even more than my future earnings could be. Oh, Liberty! I thought you were my end, but now, I see you are just a beginning. Can I be happy when the other slaves don’t have a beginning? The only true End must be Happiness – but not just for one person. I see now that progress can be an end without limit for there is always a better way of living. And though we may progress towards greater happiness, as an end it will always escape us, and a good thing too, because if we ever reach Paradise we’ll all be dead.

AR
Aristotle took the practical view that the essence of any object lay in its end or purpose. If that could be discovered and realised then that constituted the true meaning or ‘happiness’ of that object – or person. I feel our end is to live in harmony with Gaia. This will happen when we each discover our deep interest.

Dryad of the Rainforest
How can humans be happy? For every tree they cut down a future child dies and there are more trees than children. Some people know these things but they plan to end the forest in one generation. (Nobody hears her…)

Pinocchio
Hey, Aristotle! He’s the chief who said that most slaves were happy for being told what to do. But you’ve got to give people the chance.

Child Slaveboy
A slave is not a person but a thing. A thing can be something like a car, or a hammer, as well as a slave. Soul-destroying, to put it in a nutshell. But my mother told me how to survive. I must try to understand the world and that way I don’t lose my soul, I know who I am. When she said goodbye, she said, “Love Liberty, but forget the key, for the key turns only once. I love you.“

Alice
She was your mirror. Her love showed you Yourself. She believed in you. The key is the key to your character. Aristotle said that character is a person’s habit of moral choice.

True Poet
This brave child who is capable of experience will find himself in a different world in every decade of his life, seeing it with different eyes and his outlook on life continually renewed. We are more privileged. As art lovers we have a more vast and intense experience. We see through the eyes of the artists who lived before us, all those very different views of the world throughout time, which we concentrate into our own existence: knowledge of life through an artist’s knowledge of life.

Alice
No mirror is big enough to show us the world, but art can.

Art Lover
(telling Pinocchio) Art cannot imitate life directly: it does it by representation as in a microcosm. The microcosm, which means small world, comes from primitive ritual. They made a man king for a year, then killed him to symbolize the destruction of the old world, then they made a new world from his butchered body – all inside a fenced-off area, a kind of magic circle; for example they took his eyes and said, this is the sun, this is the moon. The idea was that the small world was a pattern for the big one and that by controlling the small world you would have magical power over the exterior world, the macrocosm.

Pinocchio
Gotcha! Artists make small worlds.

Art Lover
And this small world imitates the real world. This is something humans do – we transform the world into something small so that it is within our scope to understand. All our concepts are put together from abstractions – symbols to work things out – for example, words, numbers; we can understand a model because we get an overview, then we can project it back onto the real world.
Art makes us feel the world can make sense – the satisfaction of something understood. And this piece of art, this slice of life, is a whole thing – because it is separate from the world and therefore complete. (Like the microcosm we fence it off – in a book, in a frame, on a stage). We have power over it because it is whole. It is the only time we’re in complete control, otherwise the world passes us by. That’s why we need art; crave it through all the generations.

Alice
(to Pinocchio) I love the idea of concentrating myself into a small complete world, then extending myself – Art gives me the power to face the real world.

Pinocchio
Through art we can stop the world! And make sense of it. I’ll be a painter and a freedom fighter. It’s all symbolic – the painter doesn’t paint every leaf on the tree.

AR
Action! Let’s continue our search by asking Aristotle about the art of Greek tragedy. To the Lyceum!

On the way, Pinocchio stops and turns to Alice

Pinocchio
There’s a bloke here who lives in a barrel.

Diogenes
I shit and wank in front of people in the street like a dog. I am the Cynic. The Great Alexander made a point of coming to see me and asked if he could do me a favour. Nobody’s better than me. – I told him to step out of my light. I am famous because I’ve got the balls to do what I want.

Alice
(Puzzled that he could be content with so little) He doesn’t want much.

Pinocchio
Cool, I’ve found art! I could be Diogenes II. I’ll call myself a piss artist and make lots of money.

AR
Come back children. You’ve gone too far. Alice we’re waiting for you to introduce us to Aristotle. And Pinocchio, you’re just being silly. Though Diogenes is obsessed by himself he doesn’t believe in anything, let alone himself. That’s why he’s a cynic. This self-promotion, and doing what you want is a sham philosophy of life. No, no, it’s not self-indulgence but self-discipline that makes the individual. And you, especially, need self-discipline if you’re going to be a painter.

Pinocchio
You are right. Diogenes seemed kind of happy, but he’s a poser. Too boring, I couldn’t keep it up. Ha, ha, keep it up! I could sell canned sperm. Great marketing opportunities.

Alice
(sarcastic). Oh how lewd!

At the Lyceum Aristotle, a Greek gentleman, impeccably dressed – in contrast to Diogenes – is in conversation with a philosopher of today (Adam Parker-Rhodes).

Aristotle
For the beginnings of art in general, there appear to have been two causes, both rooted in human nature. Thus from childhood it is instinctive in human beings to imitate. And man differs from the other animals as the most imitative of all and getting his first lessons by Imitation. And by instinct also all human beings get pleasure in Imitation.

As Alice enters Aristotle moves to centre stage. Alice stands beside him.

Alice
Aristotle refers to the writer of tragedy as ‘the poet’. Greek tragedy was expressed in verse but this is not the important thing. What defines the poet is that he is an imitator – just like a painter or any other maker of images. If a historian were to write up his whole history in verse this would not make him a poet; for he tells of things that have happened in real life and this is not Imitation. Imitation is more philosophical. Indeed Aristotle adds that the poet may imitate life not as it is, but as it ought to be. Even if the plot is historical the poet must select his facts to make a unified whole and then fit the characters into it – as in a microcosm.

Aristotle
For tragedy is not an Imitation of men but of actions and of life. It is in action that happiness and unhappiness are found, and the end we aim at is a kind of activity, not a quality; in accordance with their characters men are of such and such a quality, in accordance with their actions they are fortunate or the reverse. Consequently, it is not for the purpose of 5presenting their characters that the agents engage in action, but rather it is for the sake of their actions that they take on the characters they have. Thus, what happens – that is, the plot – is the end for which a tragedy exists, and the end or purpose is the most important thing of all.

Alice
Thank you very much Aristotle. I know that Active Resistance would like to ask you something.

AR
Aristotle, it is essential to every art in any medium of expression that it is a whole. For only art can achieve perfection. Please tell us what you mean by ‘the Whole’ in the case of tragedy.

Aristotle
The events which are the parts of the plot must be so organized that if any of them is displaced or taken away, the whole will be shaken and put out of joint; for if the presence or absence of a thing makes no discernable difference, that thing is not part of the whole.(Aristotle retires)

Alice
That’s how I feel about Velasquez. His work is so minimal and reduced. The paint is so thin and the people in the paintings are so real that I sometime think they weren’t there, especially in the split second before you turn to look again. I just wanted to melt into a pool on the floor.

AR
One can begin to grasp something of the obsession people have had with the idea of the circle as a perfect form. A work of art then, is an Imitation reduced to its essentials, thereby forming a whole – as in a microcosm.
Real life cannot give the complete picture. It is – a jumble of particulars in which events are engulfed in the flux of chaos. How can the artist see things as they really are when he, himself is part of the change? He needs a fixed fact to stand on.

Alice
Tell me all about it! If there is nothing fixed in the world then you find yourself in Wonderland where everything changes – including yourself. – And you try to play a game of croquet with a flamingo for a mallet and the ball is a hedgehog who runs away.

AR
A hedgehog must understand the world from a hedgehog point of view, and we must understand it from a human point of view.
We do have a fixed fact to stand on: IMITATION.
We know that Imitation gives us art – but that is as a result of the main fact which is that our species is programmed to imitate. We are the world’s best imitators and that is how we evolved into humans. We understand the world because we imitate it.
Alice will begin to explain.

Alice
It’s what happens when a baby smiles back at you. He sees you do it and the muscles in his face know how to make the same pattern, but it’s not just the muscles but his whole system which is at work. Our body is a coding system which can blueprint the eye’s impression of a smile and convert it into an actual smile. Scientists would tell us what chemicals etc. are involved.
Without this key – our human coding system, we could not hold anything in our memory or repeat our actions. Animals can do this to a limited degree. I’m thinking of a puppy I once met. I took a stick and it immediately understood my intention and was ready to run. And it brought the stick back. But animals do not have that continuous relationship with the world which gives us a great deal of control over our behaviour and our lives – even though we are free to act unwisely.

Adam Parker-Rhodes
Apes can’t dance!

AR
The philosopher Adam Parker-Rhodes is racing against time as he pins down the theory of Imitation. He knows that an understanding of who we are bears upon what we shall do in the face of looming disaster from Climate Change.

Adam Parker-Rhodes
Following on from Aristotle and with a better understanding of the brain we now know that human beings have the unique ability to transform patterns from one sensory or muscular medium to another. It enables us to do things like dancing to music which is translating sound patterns into corresponding movements of the body. We can feel something in the hand and match it with something seen or we see something in front of us and draw its form on paper. We can see someone else’s movements and imitate them ourselves. Most importantly we can see an action performed and understand its intention in terms of our own bodies and experience. Apes can do none of these things, which is why we are able to develop complex culture and they are not; civilization with language, science and technology and of course all the arts.

Pinocchio
We’re cross-wired! (dances and sings)

AR
Dance is not necessarily art but, for example, ballet is – because it aims at perfection. We spend our lives looking for perfection – because we are looking for standards to imitate. Every time we compare one thing with another we are imitating; we are trying to find a match between the data we hold in our mind and the new example – trying to find an ideal. (AR puts one hand on top of the other, palms facing) This is Imitation – matching one thing with another. We discriminate between good and bad, better and best. Discrimination is the mechanism of intelligence.

True Poet
The painter Whistler said that nature copies art. When the painter paints the perfect sunset we see it through his eyes, then look for it in real life.

AR
Not only through the eyes of the painter – we look at everything as if through other eyes. In order to judge, we want to know that other people feel the same. And don’t we always look for that communication – someone else to share the sunset? We’re looking for the perfect universal standard.

Art Lover
I’d like to tell you my idea of Imitation. It’s when we jump outside ourselves. Leave our own preoccupations and ego behind and see things through other eyes, know what it feels like to be someone else. Empathy – kindness. I like to think that everything we know has its source in human kindness.

AR
Everything becomes clear when we consider what Aristotle says: art may imitate life not as it is but as it ought to be. He is talking about perfection and only the whole is perfect. He means ideal; universal because it is something we recognize as being true to life, even if we’ve never seen it before; each part must be more essentially itself, even if it is something horrid like envy; more typical. Aristotle says that the best characters in a play are ‘someone like ourselves’ – people we can relate to.
For example, Chaucer’s characters are as alive to us today as when he first invented them. Timeless – outside of time. They speak to us of human nature. Each detail illuminates the type and is what we call the universal in the particular – ‘someone like ourselves’.
The universal in the particular is familiar to all of us – that flash of insight, that detail which suddenly reveals the whole thing, and we see things complete and as they are – and as we never saw them before. This is direct knowledge.
Insight happens because we suddenly exteriorize ourselves – it’s like ‘I am there’ and yes, if our object is a fellow human being we can imagine what it feels like to be them. We can put ourselves in their place.
Insight is often just a thrilling conviction that certain things are connected; we hold them in our mind waiting for the day of perception. (Turning to the True Poet) You are a poet and an alchemist. How does the artist create – arrive at perception?

True Poet
The originality of art lies in bringing ordinary feelings to our attention. Not everything that enters our orbit makes an impression; only the things we notice. Our senses do not register things unless we attach a feeling to them, so feelings are our prime contact with reality, more primitive than language or reason. Indeed the poet struggles to express feelings which are beyond words.
The artist’s mind is in fact a receptacle for storing up numberless feelings,phrases, images which remain there until a new idea ‘comes’ in. All the particles which can unite to form a new compound are then present together. This is alchemy.
Fusion into the whole takes place under an intense creative pressure from parts which are felt together. Emotion has its life in the work and is separate from the real-life passions of the man who creates. He must rid himself of habit.

AR
So we arrive at perception by imitating. Sometimes quickly, as when we imitate directly. Pinocchio, you’re really good at Imitation.

Pinocchio
When I notice habitual gestures and facial expressions, I say to myself, “Do that! What does that feel like?“ And then it’s quite shocking to find out. It reveals a whole attitude to life. I don’t know how some people get through a day. And have you noticed, if you’re fed up and you just make yourself do a smiley face, how the whole world lights up?

AR
And we can imitate through empathy, using our imagination to get outside ourselves.
(And turning to the True Poet) But you, the artist, are a professional imitator. These human feelings are the very stuff of art. You are the one who manages to re-present them, brings them to light – by modifying and distorting everything in relation to everything else.

Alice
These feelings about things connect us to spiritual unity, when everything is one. They show us likeness in unlikeness and difference in likeness.

Art Agent
You seem to be talking about old art. As if a work of art had a life of its own. People want the artist and they want him to give them something different.

Art Lover
Oh yes, ‘the artist’! Me, me, me. No culture – and trying to be extreme. The trouble with ‘something different’ is we’ve seen it about 17 times already.

Alice
Oh hello, Mr. White Rabbit! Please stop a moment! The artist has just produced a giant hole in the air. Perhaps he thought it was a ‘whole’. I’m sure you have an interesting observation on holes.

White Rabbit
Negative. (rushing off)

Artists Agent
Superb intellectual irony –Right on!

Mad Hatter
What do you mean a hole in the air? We’ve all got a hole in the head and we can fill it with whatever ‘Whole’ we want (changes price-tag on hat from 10/6d to £10m)

Art Agent
He’s right. The art-hole is shockingly ‘something different’, the ultimate aesthetic of all modern art. A last the past is blast! Value is once and for all transferred from the work of art to the mind of the punter.

Alice
How will you sell it?

Art Agent
Fantasy.

AR
Non-stop distraction makes people gullible.

Alice
What about fakes?

Art Agent
No problem. All genuine artists have an agent.

Alice
You’ll have to give them some sort of certificate.

Art Agent
Yes, authentication from the agent. Holes will be very popular. All those journeys into private fantasy. Like Lourdes without the crowds. Wait a minute, the art-hole concept is endlessly capable of manipulation; we could hire a stadium, the punter could pay for a massive event. The art-hole is the last word. (a moment of doubt) But not the end of ‘something different’. Anybody can be an artist, my door is always open.

Pinocchio
You people really believe in yourselves. Get a life! I just met Tweedledum and Tweedledee. They are now performance artists. When I told them I want to be a painter, Dum called me “Bourgeois!“ for believing I needed skill. I said, “I don’t think anyone uses that word anymore“. Dee said, “Contrariwise you are an elitist.“ I’m ok being an elitist – when I get the skill sorted. Hard work, though.

Talking Cricket
Pinocchio, you know that there are two sides to people, the donkey and the boy– the self who wants to live in Toyland versus the self who wants to grow up. It is the inner struggle between doing what you want and being true to your real self that humanizes a puppet.

Pinocchio
Dear little Cricket, I still get around, have a laugh! But, yeah, this inner voice is always having a go, “Pinocchio, don’t be an arsehole! Sorry – art-hole! I am your human self. Listen to me!“ (turns to Alice) C’mon Alice, you’re the chief. How do I trust myself to know what is genuine? Help me out.

Alice
Those primary feelings we’ve been talking about are ordinary feelings and they’re ethical feelings because we look at things in a universal way as if through all human eyes, trying to see things as they really are. That’s what being true to yourself means. Everybody knows this.
When they don’t, it’s because they don’t think it’s important. They prefer fantasy. And being true to yourself, Pinocchio, is when you’re not there, when your stupid little Pinocchio doesn’t get in the way. Trust your feelings. Don’t get in your own light! That’s the style!

Alice and Pinocchio
(pointing fingers, rapping) Feelings!
Pinocchio. Feelings: prime contact with reality.
Alice and Pinocchio. Trust it! Imitation!

True Poet
(to Pinocchio) Truth comes from doing the work. Art is always original. If you didn’t exist, that way of seeing wouldn’t exist.

Pinocchio
I feel like King Arthur. Only he could pull the sword from the stone. Here comes the hero! Gotcha, Alice! Good Imitation true, Bad Imitation false.

AR
I know a great couturier. He said to me, “I have prepared a dress shaped like a heart which I plan to make in black taffeta, it will hold the shape well. Now I ask myself, how would it be in black poplin? More poor, more nothing – less. In which one would a woman appear more beautiful? Until I know the answer, this will destroy me. And yes, I feel silly in front of the terrible problems others face in this world.” What does this tell us if we rely on our feelings, our feelings about things, not our personal ones? Put yourself in his place. Is he genuine or too extreme? Does he represent human nature?

General Assent
I believe in him, he’s true to life – well, he is alive. Is he self deceiving?

Art Lover
Well, next day it might not be so important, he might have other worries which also destroy him. It’s very difficult to empathize. The word ‘destroy’ is too extreme. I can’t bridge the gap.

Pinocchio
We all suffer when we can’t make decisions. But we have to make them according to our character and our character can grow strong from its seeds. We’re more wise when we’re older.

Dryad of the Rainforest
The acorn is happy when he becomes a tree.

Alice
Whoever is close to him should really try to help him. It seems serious.

True Poet
I think there’s something here which could be worked up into a play. If it were me, I would place the couturier in the context which he, himself, has introduced – world problems, the suffering of others. This begins the alchemical process of collecting and selecting the significant factors; being alive to metaphor and symbol. I would begin the action by having him make both dresses. For as Aristotle says, “It is in action that happiness or unhappiness lies.” The same woman would wear each different dress. I would discover the behaviour of the couturier by making it fit the unfurling action; set him free to find his own purpose. There are no rules as to what is true to human nature, only the discipline of our feelings, judging through trial and error. Through art we can reach what is universal, penetrate to the essential sickness or strength of the human soul.

AR
Without judges there is no art, which is the same as saying: we get the art we deserve.

Art lover
Very good – as an art lover, my passion keeps art alive. Therefore art exists! Through our engagement in art we gain culture. Culture makes us more human; elevates.

AR
But, the artist has no responsibility to us. He serves art, alone. He must tell the truth. This is the meaning of the L’art pour l’art movement, misleadingly translated as ‘Art for art’s sake’. But then, the English have never understood it. The painter, Whistler, is a protagonist of the creed and we must seek his opinion before we can safely say that we have found art.

Whistler
Art happens – no hovel is safe from it, no Prince may depend upon it, the vastest intelligence cannot bring it about and puny efforts to make it popular end in quaint comedy, and coarse farce.
This is as it should be. Why after centuries of freedom from it and indifference to it should the people have Art thrust upon them? She has no desire to teach, no purpose to better others.
Art seeks the Artist alone. Where he is, there she appears, and remains with him –loving and fruitful… And when he dies she sadly takes her flight.
With the man, then, and not with the multitude are her intimacies; and in the book of her life the names inscribed are few – scant, indeed, the list of those who have helped to write her story of love and beauty.

AR
We also have our part in all true art! Remember, Imitation makes the whole world kin.

Whistler
True indeed. But let not the unwary jauntily suppose that Shakespeare herewith hands him his passport to Paradise, and thus permits him speech among the chosen. Rather learn that in this very word, Imitation, he is condemned to remain without – to continue with the common.

AR
You mean that what is popular is also vulgar. We know the artist is a freak of nature yet he sees through human eyes. We small band of art lovers expect no favours from art. But from you, the artist, we hope to see the world through your eyes – in this way we serve art. It’s down to the art lover to engage in art.

Pinocchio
You get out what you put in – that’s my motto from now on. As a painter, perhaps Art will visit me some day, just like the fairy with blue hair.

Art lover
Mr. Whistler, I fear for these young people! In your field, painting – which has had such an impact on our lives – there is nothing happening nowadays. What are they to do? All their friends run around trying to catch the latest thing. When you’re young you like to think something is happening.¹¹

Alice
Running around? I don’t waste time, I make time – to see the ‘latest thing’ – the Rokeby Venus! Manet’s Olympia! There is so much happening outside Time.

Whistler
If Art be rare today, it was seldom heretofore. It is false, this teaching of decay. The master stands in no relation to the moment at which he occurs – a monument of isolation – hinting at sadness – having no part in the progress of his fellow men.
He is also no more the product of civilization than is the scientific wisdom of aperiod. The assertion itself requires the man to make it. The truth was from the beginning.
So Art is limited to the infinite, and beginning there cannot progress.
We have then but to wait, until, with the mark of the Gods upon him, there come among us again the chosen – who shall continue what has gone before. Satisfied that, even were he never to appear, the story of the beautiful is already complete – hewn in the marbles of the Parthenon – and broidered, with the birds, upon the fan of Hokusai – at the foot of Fujiyama.

Pinocchio
Mr. Whistler, are you the only American genius?

Art lover
progress in art – Picasso! What would he not have given to capture the ‘mana’ of those bulls from the cave paintings of twenty thousand BC? If art progressed then today’s painter would be greater than Picasso.

True poet
One truth is not more true than another.

Art lover
But time is running out for the art lovers. I’m talking about the planet. It’s all very well to say that we can become more human through art – human enough to save the planet!? Meanwhile, all we can do is believe in Alice and Pinocchio. At least they will have the advantage of a sane outlook on life.

Giant projection of Hitler’s face – in relation to which Hitler, standing on the podium in front, seems to be about the size of a garden gnome.

Hitler
All effective propaganda has to limit itself only to a very few points and to use them like slogans.

AR
Alice and Pinocchio, we have come to the end of our journey and you have passed the test. In the pursuit of art you became automatically impervious to Propaganda. Indeed, each of you quite forgot to take your daily NINSDOL pill. You are no longer addicted to Nationalistic Idolatry, Non-Stop Distraction and Organized Lying – the three constituents of Propaganda. The art lovers now invite you to become members of our movement, AR. Let us progress to the inauguration ceremony.
On the way we could look in at a Conference on Culture which is attended by those very same art lovers who from the beginning had no interest in our journey. Here it is in Paris. Pinocchio, I know you’re dying to go to the Louvre but Alice, you could just pop back in your book and I’ll put it in my pocket and take you in.

Opening speaker (French professor of anthropology)
And Man came out of Africa 180 thousand years ago …

AR
The talk lasts 3/4 hour. He’s scared of seeming Eurocentric …and the good thing is he ended up in Paris. (laughs) Quite right, too. France was the greatest flowering of western culture for the three centuries up until the First World War – interrupted by the Revolution, of course.

Philosopher
We need more festivals to promote cultural exchange between the world’straditional and popular arts and crafts.

Top cultural advisor
We need a common vision of the importance of television and cinema for the cohesion of society.

Choreographer
Dance is the only international language. It should be at the top of every agenda.

Rapper
I need the state to sponsor my music. The internet only helps established artists.

Composer
Young people should know that culture is not entertainment.

Director of state art gallery
We have not once mentioned American culture!

AR
As we began by saying, artists and intellectuals have abdicated their responsibility. They wish to be popular instead of truthful to their vision of the world. We have no avant garde. Art has never been popular; it is original and it takes time for people to see it. But where there is an avant garde, others will follow: this gives culture. There has to be a hierarchy of values. They’ve swapped culture for the cult of the individual.
When you boil it down, people think that culture is being nice to each other. Being nice is not enough. Life has to have meaning: discrimination in pursuit of truth – my way is through art. In the conference they realized they had a problem, when you like everything you end up with some sort of global soup –

Alice
– along with vanilla ice cream topped with onion sauce, magic mushroom Cornish pasties and …

Pinocchio
Ratshit!

Art lover
And Pinocchio, I think Alice has pinched some of your cheek. As we were leaving she jumped out and yelled –

Alice
You’re all a pack of cards!

AR
Children, You are expensive – crap is not good enough for you. Time is your luxury. You like to be alone because you like to think. As art lovers and readers you will converse with the highest forms of intelligence. You will form your own opinions and your ideas will be the avant garde. Ideas will give you power and you will fire the imagination of your friends. You see through propaganda. Therefore, engage in politics. It is time for you to receive your badges from the noble warrior, Leonard Peltier.

Alice
But Leonard is innocently serving Time.

Leonard Peltier
(It is the spirit of Leonard which now speaks) Art is an imaginative illusion which captures the imagination. State your vows.

Alice
Every time I read a book instead of looking at a magazine, go to the art gallery instead of watching TV, go to the theatre instead of the cinema, I fight for Active Resistance to Propaganda.

Pinocchio
The freedom fighters’ motto is: You get out what you put in.

Leonard pins on their AR badges

Leonard Peltier
Alice and Pinocchio, you are now in the presence of a great secret. Your journey has revealed to you that human beings have a choice. We can cultivate the human genius and build a great civilization on earth. Through art we see the future. It holds up a mirror of our human potential. Or, as victims of our mere cleverness we will remain the destructive animal. Our innovations can contribute to progress, but our humanity is a scientific fact, and must be taken into account for advance to happen, otherwise we have partial science which will kill us.
Indians have not made this mistake, they see the world in its entirety. Our first duty is to love our mother, Earth. Indians know the importance of living in harmony with creation. Men – not gods. The Greeks called human arrogance hubris.

Voice of Icarus
Remember the myth of Icarus. Do not fly too near the sun. Your wings are made of wax.

Light radiates through the patterns in a mandala composed of concentric circles alternating with diminishing squares. The squares represent the organization and knowledge of man and the circles represent the truth and chaos of nature.

Leonard Peltier
Progress lies in the centre of the mandala. Step forward. (In his hand he holds a small convex mirror from which the light is coming.) This is the mirror of true progress.

Alice and Pinocchio look at themselves in the mirror.

Dryad of the Rainforest
I must stay with my trees.

The most important thing about the manifesto is that it is a practice. If you follow it your life will change. In the pursuit of culture you will start to think If you change your life, you change the world.

Wiederabdruck
Das Manifest erschien unter http://activeresistance.co.uk/getalife/Manifesto_ENGLISH.pdf [5.6.2013].