Bologna-Reform – what's next?

Part II: An Institution in the Making

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

Let’s start with a hypothesis: As it seems increasingly difficult to produce meaningful content within the institutionalized structures of major universities and academies, an ethical and content-driven approach to producing new knowledge can only be achieved from the outside – through the setting up of small-scale frameworks that are nestled on the margins. There are, of course, countless positive examples for such an approach, but it may still be worthwhile to outline the current situation by using an actual case.
As outlined in Beshara Doumani’s book Academic Freedom after September 11,¹ the qualities of the academy, which are often taken for granted, have been exposed to a set of difficulties specifically after the September 11 attacks in the U.S., and, as a result, were endangered by a series of policy changes signed by the Bush administration. Although this has to be understood mainly as a U.S.-specific phenomenon, it has to be acknowledged that, in many universities around the globe, academic freedom and the notion of autonomous knowledge production has succumbed to a practice in which the academic professor is increasingly understood as no longer being a public intellectual, but an administrator and fund raiser, who – through the politically correct and consensual politics of the given departments – becomes an income-generator for the university. Such an understanding fundamentally breaks from the idea of the academy as an external agent, uninterrupted by political and economic forces, and hence operating as a genuine center for intellectual production and a robust democratic public culture. It poses the question of how one can relate and intervene in complex situations today, when actually most time is being spent on administrative and fundraising purposes.
One could dismiss the following as a naïve and potentially idealistic notion, but academic freedom also includes critical perspectives on professional norms and the questioning of pre-established hierarchical power relations. The mission of higher education in this regard is also one that is focused on service to the public good, however one might want to interpret this. It seems that, as a result of the corrosive effects on the intellectual atmosphere in the academies, there needs to be a careful consideration and revision of whether turning universities into businesses is a model that sustains intellectual development, experimentation, and radical thinking. Most recently, one can trace certain practices through which a new model of academia is being rendered, one in which knowledge production is commercialized and sold as a product for the private good. In this context, the academy itself is often understood as a corporate service provider. It further raises the question of whether critical thought is able to survive in such corporative environments.
Alan Bloom’s prophetic book The Closing of the American Mind² – though now dated – proclaimed as early as that 1980s that there was too much democracy within the American education, effectively arguing that the institution was leaving its direction to the students who did not know what they did not know. In 2005, the Rotterdam-based Berlage Institute recanted the clear leadership of Alejandro Zaera-Polo in favor of what they called at the time a curatorial board. A split within the gover-nance of the institution now delegated between Vedran Mimica (who would oversee content) and Rob Docter (who would oversee financial affairs). The split divorced architectural content from its economy, and was emblematic of what was to come.
Such a governing structure that effectively left the direction of the institution somehow between two parties not only left its direction at bay, but was also emblematic of an otherwise accepted, albeit unspoken, taboo within architecture: The exploitation and non-payment of the practitioners as fundraisers coupled with using students as service providers – what one could call an economic laundering of time – was perpetuated and propagated by the institution itself. This was exacerbated by the fact that the Berlage as a non-accredited -research lab became increasingly reliant on student -tuition to fund its endeavors, amidst rumors that it had been denied funding from the Dutch government. Students culled from the Asian upper classes who would pay the tuition (as opposed to European students who would opt for TU Delft, for example, whose program was accredited and whose tuition was less than one third of the Berlage’s) were not only at times grossly -under-qualified, but also could not speak English well enough to communicate verbally – the cornerstone of an education via critique, review, and discussion. Moreover, the faculty’s positions relied upon their bringing funding – i. e., a client – into the studio program. Hence, “You can teach, if you can fund” becoming the tag line and operating credo of the institution, which had by then been effectively turned into a corporation or a service provider for the client.
Bloom’s irony came full circle when the direction of the studio course was disputed by the students. Those who not only did not know, but also could neither understand nor communicate garnered the support of the administration such that the faculty was forced to redirect the studio according to their imperatives. The non-paid faculty was undercut by the split administration to grant governance of the studio to the paying students. On two levels, content was exchanged for economy. And educational democracy, it seemed, became an unwitting culprit, collaborator, and facilitator.
That is to say, rethinking academic freedom first and foremost entails the introduction of a counterculture set against the recent processes through which the academy becomes more and more homogeneous, consensual, and at the same time hegemonic: “The commercialization of education is producing a culture of conformity decidedly hostile to the university’s traditional role as a haven for informed social criticism. In this larger context, academic freedom is becoming a luxury, not a condition of possibility for the pursuit of truth.”³ Today, more than ever before, one should base responsible (academic) practice on a skeptical approach toward professional norms. This is precisely what lies at the very heart of what it means to be an academic. It claims the academy as a bastion or island of informed, independent, and alternative perspectives, a prerogative that emerges and should be able to thrive in a specific institutional context. However, is it still possible for such a prerogative to emerge in the given frameworks of today’s university structures?
There seem to be two essential difficulties that one is facing in such an environment today. One is the issue of administrative and economic exploitation; the other, and less obvious, is the misunderstanding that “real” knowledge is merely produced through professional competence: “As a result, whether a given publication or presentation is considered extramural or academic can be a complex matter, especially if what starts out as extramural activity within a given vocation turns out to constitute a separate area of professional competence over time (the case of Noam Chomsky is a good one).”⁴ The latter assumes that it is precisely the idea and practice of the professional that produces the most valuable results. However, the opposite seems to be the case: most surprising results and knowledge is being produced on the margins of such professional affectation. It emerges where “things,” existing and sometimes conflictual knowledge, start to overlap; not necessarily in a romantic trans-disciplinary way, but where professional, or better yet, expert thinking, collides with that of the outsider. Particularly in the U.S., the academy is recognized as a center for expertise. Sadly, such an understanding also demonstrates how, rather than being critically engaged, the academic practice is an isolated, long-term career plan.
In Paul Hirst’s seminal essay “Education and the Production of Ideas,” published in AA Files no. 29,⁵ he dismantles John Major’s rhetoric regarding the “cultural retreat with a defence of change.” Hirst argues, “Thus change is purely technical and economic, and our success in markets defines and circumscribes our modernity.” Hirst poses a relentless call for practitioners who are both willing to leave behind traditional modes of thinking and turn practice into a means of cultural and political involvement: “Above all, craft does not imply a retreat from the world, as do many of the academics who oppose the changes taking place within universities. If the university is to produce intellectuals capable of playing a role in political and cultural regeneration, it cannot afford to be cut off from the concerns of the people.” The academy should be able to offer a quasi-utopian space in which uninterested reflection, commentary, and research can be pursued. Such efforts should take place in either two ways: within an existing institutional academic body that, through its reputation and standing is able to raise the necessary financial framework for the execution of the research itself, or through an oppositional educational model, which is so small that no funding will ever disappear into the black wholes and untraceable institutional channels of the university. If the former model of existing university -education is being pursued, then the state should also assume its political role and responsibility of funding such educational activities. Given such a claim, one could argue for the recovery of a time when universities were smaller. An institution always exists as a set of echoes, in conversation with other bodies of knowledge. If such echoes can no longer be heard or even produced, it is time to move on and produce alternative modes of formalized knowledge production.
On March 8, 2010, e-flux journal launched issue 14, -co-edited by Irit Rogoff.⁶ In it, the reader is exposed to a series of urgently needed positions and theses regarding a reevaluation of contemporary models of education, considering how forms of learning and exchange can take place within flexible, temporary, and unstable configurations:
“All around us we see a search for other languages and other modalities of knowledge production, a pursuit of other modes of entering the problematics of ‘education’ that defy, in voice and in practice, the limitations being set up by the forces of bureaucratic pragmatism: a decade of increasing control and regulation, of market values imposed on an essential public right, and of -middle-brow positivism privileged over any form of -criticality – matched by a decade of unprecedented self-organization, of exceptionally creative modes of dissent, of criticality, and of individual ambitions that are challenging people to experiment with how they inhabit the field, how they inhabit knowledge.”⁷Rogoff dwells on the dangers that are inherent in a model of education in which education itself is becoming a market economy geared toward profit and revenue. She points at the fact that, within the mainstream prevailing system of education, students are increasingly being treated as paying clients, whose access and conditions have worsened considerably. One of the major forces she holds responsible for this development is the Bologna Accord, which, she claims, drives an -education policy that attempts to fuse and streamline the former heterogeneous educational models and -realities of the former East and the former West into one knowledge tradition, “erasing decades of other -models of knowledge in the East and producing an -illusion of cohesion through knowledge economies and bureaucracies.”⁸Florian Schneider, whose crucial thinking on collaboration was introduced in the chapter 6⁹, further investigates the notion of disciplinarity and the problematic circularity that such an isolating and hermetic notion fosters: “It comes as no surprise that bodies of knowledge have been called ‘the disciplines.’ The disciplinary institutions have organized education as a process of subjectivation that re-affirms the existing order and distribution of power in an endless loop.”¹⁰ Schneider argues for an urgent need to revaluate the concepts of institutions and their opponents: “networked environments, deinstitutionalized and deregulated spaces such as informal networks, free universities, open academies, squatted universities, night schools, or proto-academies.”¹¹ He introduces the term “ekstitutions” to distinguish between the need for both organizing practices (ekstitutions) and un-organizing them (institution) as a means to argue for an overdue concept of exclusivity: “By its very nature, the institution has to be concerned with inclusion. It is supposed to be open to everybody who meets the standards set in advance, while in ekstitutions admission is subject to constant negotiation and renegotiation.”¹²To return to the Berlage Institute, which, under new leadership, claims to “provide the next generation of architects and urbanists with tools to better comprehend and intervene in the complexity of contemporary life.”¹³ But within a few years, the school has deteriorated from a once-challenging hub for critical thinking and extra-disciplinary production into what could be described as an industry-led environment in which teaching is only granted to those professors who bring in more money than they get remunerated for to teach. Such a framework is coupled with a series of double standards, which only speed up the deterioration of the institution. The highly problematic change in policy – toward a more business-friendly and corporation-supportive pedagogy – was also commented on by the Dutch government, which, as a result of the Berlage’s clear lack of criticality, severely cut the institute’s public funding. What is the value of a publicly funded institution that only caters to the industry, attempting to generate profit through the politics of employment? Its agenda is simple: more money. Economy is the primary concern, while pedagogy comes later.
In 2010, two of the Berlage’s studios were financed by two external companies, which is at the time the way in which the two directors saw the institution moving (note: the leadership of the institution has since been assumed by Jean-Louis Cohen). Such third-party funding is nothing particularly special or unheard of, especially in the U.S. However, if external funding and a severe lack of responsibility and pedagogical interest from the side of the academy mean that, consequently, students are simply being hijacked and used as free labor, then something within the sphere of education and responsibility has gone critically wrong. It becomes particularly problematic when such a development goes hand in hand with an unclear goal of the studio, a lack of content in terms of education and projects, as well as an active role of the external company in the definition and formation of the program. At the Berlage Institute, this practice has gone so far as to not only jeopardizes the autonomy of the academy, but also uses the students and program to fabricate products for the company. These products thereby produce a secondary economy for the client – for example, a book that can be used to promote the company to potential clients. At the academy, the company has effectively replaced the educator. They decide what has to be done, when, and how. The professor’s role has been turned into that of an administrator, an institutionalized manager for the client, someone who is expected to contribute his or her personal and professional contacts, and provide a certain amount of voluntary workers. In such a context, students pay 25,000 euro for a two-year program, but are actually misused to deliver free labor to corporate clients just so the institution can secure its existence.
This evidently has an effect on the way that professors teach: Their interest in no longer in what is being produced in the studio, but in the relationships established through it. Reviews of student work are used as presentations for clients. The so-called juries are staffed with more corporate representatives than academic or otherwise critical and intellectually guided staff. Furthermore, these presentations can no longer be used as a fruitful and highly needed intellectual and critical exchange, as the company is present and treated with white gloves in an intellectually callous and consensus-driven manner. If the client is happy, everybody is happy. But what is the learning experience for the student? What is the educator’s point of engagement? What does the institution gain apart from securing its own existence and the replication of corporate research? Some staff members, as well as students, were, from the beginning, against such a studio model, but nevertheless remained unheard. Moreover, the institution now finds itself in an incomprehensible practice of promoting double standards by, on the one hand, wanting to work on “real” projects, while, on the other, refusing to acknowledge what this entails. It goes without saying that such protocols and concepts of education are damaging to the institution, disrespectful toward the educators, and unacceptable in terms of the institution’s “concept of the student.” A carrot-and-stick practice is used in order to persistently increase the studio’s economic output, stringing the educators along as long as they provide the academy with capital; otherwise, they are dropped like a hot potato. Educators should not be personally vested in funding the studio they are teaching, nor should their salary be used to provide speakers, critics, student travel, and so forth. Interestingly, in the corporate environment, which this school mimics, the Berlage Institute’s conduct of employment would be understood and treated as illegal practice. Since there is no commitment to professors any longer, and educators are only ever given semester-long contracts, there is neither security in carrying out worthwhile research projects or inquiries, nor the possibility to really concentrate on the work. Since educators have become exchangeable due to economic considerations, no serious and in-depth research methodologies can be developed anymore.
It seems that, out of this crisis, at least at the moment, there are only two possible ways of exiting this vicious circle. One either commits to a conventional university, which takes on the responsibility as a place for education, and is also willing and capable to economically support education – meaning that they are able to both pay for their employees as well as to simply run their everyday activities, such as lectures, seminars, or workshops. Alternatively, another possibility is to set up externalized, small-scale structures, which allow for a process of constant reform, as envisaged by Schneider’s notion of the “ekstitituion.” This issue of scale as a crucial mode of practice is also problematized in Nicolas Siepen’s and Åsa Sonjasdotter’s e-flux contribution “Learning by Doing: Reflections on Setting Up a New Art Academy,”¹⁴ in which the authors distinguish two basic formats of education: state-run art institutions (or privately funded ones for that matter) and so-called self-organized structures, between “pre-existing positions to be filled, and unstructured, continuously reinvented positions.”¹⁵While self-organized models often question and transform the way in which their participants learn and practice, it is standard that the way in which state universities or privately run institutions “suffer” from under-funding is not connected to the funding of the actual content-driven studios or research undertaken within the academy, but a lack of smart decision-making when it comes to the overbearing bureaucratic structures that these institutions have put upon themselves. Their “real” problem is management and profitability: “Perversely, a self-organized institution’s lack of funding is both its woe and its pride! In other words, when state institutions don’t function, they shut down, while self-organized “institutions” thrive, precisely because they “don’t function” [are not managed] to begin with.”¹⁶ However, there is, or at least should be, another clear distinction between a formalized institution and a self-organized structure. In the latter, one works for the sake of propelling research while probably being paid little or not at all. The former suggests a job description: If one is employed as a professor or educator, he or she should also be remunerated accordingly, as one is providing a clearly defined service, i. e., X amount of students per studio; X amount of lectures, tutorials, and reviews; X amount of hours per week; X amount of weeks per term. Ironically, the Berlage Institute was established as the latter: an unaccredited laboratory that was granted certain freedoms to operate outside the confines of the academy, and yet succumbed to the same pitfalls of the academy, which were paradoxically exacerbated by their somewhat unofficial status.
Given this framework, to return to the hypothesis, it seems increasingly relevant to produce other formats of educational engagement, coupled with alternative forms of learning, which still consider that institutional affiliation, prestige, and accreditation are part of what the student buys and, in all candor, needs. Structural change will most likely be achieved from the outside rather than the inside. The small-scale frameworks nestled on the margins of state-controlled or privately funded education are more agile, flexible, and intelligent to generate content-driven approaches, and also create and participate in local projects as well as self-initiated collaborations. These are environments in which participants and contributors learn how to unlearn, critically consider the differences between practice and professionalism, develop a socio-political reading of their surrounding, and insert a criticality into the territory in which they operate. This was the driving force for me to initiate the Winter School Middle East, which will be articulated in the next chapter. Nicolas Siepen and Åsa Sonjasdotter pose the crucial question much more effectively and clearly than I ever did in the past: “For whom or what reason is this institution here?”¹⁷In 2008, I initiated and eventually directed a roaming, small-scale, self-organized institution – or “ekstitution,” as Schneider would call it – in order to answer Siepen’s and Sonjasdotter’s question, which had not been asked yet: For whom or for what reason is this institution here? The school was supposed to be a first step toward a localized but nomadic engagement with critical environmental topics in the region.
At the time, the influx of U.S. and EU outsourced campuses in the United Arab Emirates, and more specifically Abu Dhabi and Dubai, had just geared up to the next level. Major U.S. universities and Ivy League schools were either already represented or on their way to opening up a campus in the Middle East. Interestingly, this was not so much the result of a sudden interest and content-specific endeavor in the region; on the contrary, it was an economic decision resulting from the September 11 attacks. After 9/11, many U.S. universities suffered from a lack of Middle Eastern graduate students, as their parents decided to no longer send them to the United States. Because of the way in which the U.S. university system is funded, such a collective decision made by a huge group of potential “clients” from the Middle East forced universities to move to where the clients are. What resulted was a huge development of academic collaborations, -cooperation, and outsourcing of campuses.
The first two years of the Winter School Middle East were executed in structural collaboration with the Architectural Association, London. Based on the belief that, through this different, smaller, but holistic scale of engagement, one could produce an alternative dimension to the large-scale educational export models that were implemented in the Middle East. Instead of bringing in teaching staff from only the West, we are interested in fostering a pool of local knowledge, driven by expertise from the wider region. In the first year, we gained local political sponsorship from the American University in Sharjah, together with the Third Line gallery in Dubai. This political sponsorship was necessary in order to carry out such a model in the UAE.
The first workshop comprised a body of forty-four students from countries and backgrounds as diverse as Lebanon, Italy, Iran, Germany, Palestine, Egypt, the UK, Korea, Bahrain, Greece, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Singapore, Mexico, Iraq, Latvia, Dominican Republic, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia. At the onset of the twenty-first century, which is characterized by rapid processes in urbanization, it seemed relevant and necessary to foster an architectural culture that went beyond the practice of developing architectural and urban proposals, and furthered a discourse that would allow for unforeseen and surprising processes to take place, for uncertainty in practices that are often described through certainty and control, and that would generate conflicts where most practitioners would consider the solution to “problems.” This was not understood as a colonial necessity of moving in, as is the case with large-scale universities and campuses, but as a way to open up critical formats and small platforms to a pool of local practitioners and educators, who share an interest in working beyond the scale of the academic institution. Instead of delivering a mere critique, the Winter School engages locally and fuels a critical practice of involvement, discussion, and a culture of debate. Without fostering any neo-colonial attitudes, we attempted to pro-actively tackle some of the issues that are usually critiqued. It is only through direct involvement that we can interrogate spatial realities in a serious and lasting fashion: to be political outside the realm of politics. The first Winter School dealt with the issue of migrant labor, specifically investigating Dubai’s labor camps (“Learning from Dubai,” January 2008); the second Winter School, which took place in January of 2009, investigated the issue of “Spaces and Scales of Knowledge.”
Imagine a city without people. If Dubai’s immigrant population left, this is the scenario we would be facing. Over the past three years, critics’ favorite theme has been Dubai’s migrant workers, and particularly those in the construction industry; in short, the men who enable the emirate to develop at such a rapid pace. When I first visited Dubai, I was struck by the way that Western journalists, thinkers, and writers would continuously criticize the city’s ambitions – always falling back into the same mode of critique. But what was often forgotten or not mentioned is that, as a city and mode of cultural production, Dubai has been forced through modernity within less than two decades. This makes it an unprecedented phenomenon and place. What took almost a century in Europe, or in the “West” at large, happened, and continues to happen, in Dubai within the span of a couple years, regardless of the recent financial crisis. This development has created situations that are often difficult and challenging, and require an incredible amount of belief, ambition, and effort to deal with. A lot has happened in the last five years. While many journalists still criticize the treatment and conditions of the large construction labor population of Dubai, the first labor unions have been established. Although these processes do not happen over night, one could witness the changes beyond the physical envelope of the city, but also, and more interestingly, the development of what could be called a civic city and the ways in which new small-scale institutions and project spaces would, for the first time, emerge. Instead of approaching Dubai as a place that is purely read through the black goggles of pessimism, the Winter School’s method was to thoroughly investigate the urban structures and frameworks of civil society, while critically proposing environmental alternatives through direct but externalized involvement.
Based on a relentless belief in architecture as the tool for modernization, the spatial ambitions of Sheikh Al Maktoum are exhilarating. The city is constantly churning out superlatives, but none of the kind favored by the West. While Kassel’s documenta 12 discussed “what is to be done?” Dubai just does it and worries later. An armada of international construction consortia has put up an archipelago of exception, ranging from the world’s tallest structure to the world’s largest shopping mall. The 2007 Sharjah Biennial witnessed a shift, which has taken on unprecedented social and political issues. Instead of presenting a set of self-referential objects, it addresses excessive urban development, pollution, unilateral politics, and the misuse, abuse, and exhaustion of natural resources. Here, it seems that artistic and spatial practices managed to do what politics in the region are often incapable of: outright critique. As Rem Koolhaas writes in the introduction to Al Manakh: “The recycling of the Disney fatwa says more about the stagnation of Western critical imagination than it does about the Gulf cities.”¹⁸ The scale and speed of urbanization, particularly in Dubai, even dwarfs similar operations in China and India. But what can be learned from the accelerated urbanism in the Gulf? It seemed urgent to understand the Gulf’s transformation in a different light. Not with the goggles of pessimism, but with a genuine attempt to understand and utilize its dynamics, to take serious what is too often ridiculed.
According to Anselm Franke, the space of artistic production acts as an enabler: it is a space of possibilities and autonomy. Such a freedom creates a state of exception that inhabits a potentiality; it is confined to the individual rather than society at large. Franke criticizes Doug Aitken’s call for immersive image-worlds, Expanding the Image, Breaking the Narrative,¹⁹ as a longing for something that avoids direct conflict with context, social frameworks, and political protocols. He points at Aitken’s book as somewhat symptomatic of a missing registration and the danger of understanding the space of artistic production as neutral, and therefore does not have to react to its contextual framework. A similar intellectual operation needs to be undertaken when trying to understand today’s practices in the Middle East. We must no longer read, write, or act as if the framework didn’t change. Instead of critiquing or celebrating the images that these territories offer, we must try to understand and immerse ourselves in its multifaceted accounts, and hence try to break the image and expand the narrative. This arguably naïve ambition was introduced critically in the local context of Dubai, combining our own critical networks with local and regional intelligence. The intensive, workshop-based program was operated on the basis of a series of content units, each developing its own set of approaches toward the meta-agendas of “Migrant Labor and the City” (2008) and “Spaces and Scales of Knowledge” (2009). The individual, tutor-led units investigated different aspects of the emerging spatial realities of the Gulf region, with a local focus on Dubai. Units focused on the imagery of Google Earth as a strategic tool for the city’s global representation, the spatialization and location of migrant labor camps within Dubai’s urban fabric, an oral history archive of immigrants ranging from Bangladeshi construction workers to Russian sex workers to Korean informal mobile phone dealers to Eastern European architects to the German cultural consultant and the Sheikh. It is this transient nature of the city that the Winter School attempted to come to terms with. Several collaborations, including those with the Third Line gallery, Traffic design gallery, and Bidoun magazine, ensured that the results of the workshops would not evaporate, but instead build the starting point for an ongoing debate that would, optimistically speaking, also enable and generate effects on local and regional practices in the long run.
The Winter School is the direct result of realizing that the most relevant form of participation in the politics of local educational frameworks is a small-scale nomadic institution. In many ways, its approach is the reverse of the large-scale education export models of Western universities, where educators with little to no experience in the Middle East fly in on rolling contracts, and tend to leave after two to three years, only for their successors to arrive on the same contracts: little knowledge is left behind and little is continuously built up. The Winter School aims to critically build up momentum, which can then be claimed, taken over, and hijacked by locals in order to develop it further in their own right. This microcosm presents a starting point for alternative modes of production. The environment of the workshop – where information and knowledge are shared, where the production of space is not driven by political or cultural hierarchies, but a genuine belief in experiment through investigation – suggests a different way and model of working and learning, one where educators often learn as much from their students as their students do from them.
It is in this fashion that the Winter School will continue its efforts. Without falling into the trap of consensus-driven politics, it attempts to create and inhabit an alternative middle ground, one that produces a discursive space for a new and productive discussion to emerge, a space that inhabits the gray area between criticism and celebration.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text ist eine abgeänderte Version von: Markus Miessen, „The Gray Zone between Criticism and Celebration: Winter School Middle East“, in: Ders., The Nightmare of Participation, Berlin 2010, S. 219–226.

1.) Beshara Doumani (Ed.), Academic Freedom after September 11. New York 2006.
2.) Alan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind. New York 1988.
3.) Doumani, op. cit., p. 38.
4.) Op. cit., p. 125.
5.) Paul Hirst, “Education and the Production of New Ideas,” AA Files, 29, 1995.
6.) Irit Rogoff (Ed.), e-flux journal, 14, 2010, http://e-flux.com/journal/issue/14 [10/27/2014]
7.) Irit Rogoff, “Education Actualized,” in: Rogoff 2010, op. cit.
8.) Ibid.
9.) Markus Miessen: „The Gray Zone between Criticism and Celebration: Winter School Middle East“, in: Idem, The Nightmare of Participation, Berlin 2010.
10.) Florian Schneider, “(Extended) Footnotes on Education,” in: Rogoff 2010, op. cit.
11.) Ibid.
12.) Ibid.
13.) See www.berlage-institute.nl.
14.) Nicolas Siepen, Åsa Sonjasdotter, “Learning by Doing: Reflections on Setting Up a New Art Academy,” Rogoff 2010, op. cit.
15.) Ibid.
16.) Ibid.
17.) Ibid.
18.) Rem Koolhaas, “Introduction,” in: Rem Koolhaas, Ole Bouman, Mark -Wigley (Eds), Volume 12: Al Manakh, New York/Amsterdam 2007.
19.) Doug Aitken, Broken Screen: Expanding the Image, Breaking the Narrative, ed. by Noel Daniel New York 2006.

Werden, was man ist. Künstlerische Autonomie nach der Bologna-Reform

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:16:27 +0000

„Ihr müsst keine Referenzen verwenden“, insistiert der Professor mit ruhiger Stimme. „Künstler lesen während ihrer Arbeit oft Bücher, Artikel oder andere Arten von schriftlichen Dokumenten. Zuweilen finden sie darin Beschreibungen, die noch präziser das ausdrücken, was sie selber im Kopf haben“, erläutert er und seine Worte scheinen einleuchtend. Kontinuierlich den Studierenden zugewandt, fährt er mit der gleichen Intensität fort: „Manchmal findet ihr vielleicht, dass ein Text besonders treffend beschreibt, was ihr tut und in diesem Falle beschliesst ihr womöglich, diesen Autor zu zitieren. Dies vermindert nicht im Geringsten die Autonomie Eures Werkes.“ In einer bestärkenden und nun etwas lauteren Stimme betont er: „Alle Ideen, die in euren geschriebenen Arbeiten gefunden werden, gehören euch und niemand anderem. Referenzen sollen nur dazu dienen, Eure Gedanken zu sortieren und zur Klarheit beizutragen.“ Die Ausführungen dieses Professors finden an einer Kunsthochschule während einer Lektion zur Kunstgeschichte statt. Der Dozent führt auf diese Weise in die formalen Regeln des Bibliografierens und Zitierens theoretischer Texte ein, da die Studierenden immer wieder aufgefordert sein werden, über ihre eigene künstlerische Arbeit zu schreiben.
Das Beispiel stammt aus einer ethnografischen Studie zu künstlerischen Praktiken und der Transformation epistemischer Kulturen¹ in sich verändernden Ausbildungskontexten, die derzeit an einer Reihe von Kunsthochschulen in der Schweiz durchgeführt wird.² Die Untersuchung ist möglichen Implikationen der Bologna-Reform gewidmet und stellt die Frage, inwiefern sich künstlerische Ausbildungen, Arbeiten und Selbstverständnisse durch die Verwissenschaftlichung der Hochschulen möglicherweise verändert haben. Die geschilderte Unterrichtssituation verweist auf zwei Dimensionen des Spannungsfelds, in dem sich die Realität der Kunsthochschulen heute abspielt.
Die erste Dimension weist in die Hochschulen hinein und sie zeigt sich in der Aufgabe von Dozierenden die Studierenden in ihrer Autonomie als Künstler/-innen zu bestätigen. Die Studierenden werden darin bestärkt, eine eigene künstlerische Identität auszubilden, die mit einem persönlichen Wachstum Hand in Hand gehen soll. Diese Unterstützung ist eng daran geknüpft, die Studierenden in ihren künstlerischen Anliegen ernst zu nehmen und sie durch die Ausbildung zu dem werden zu lassen, was sie in gewisser Weise bereits zu sein haben: Künstler/-innen.
Die zweite Dimension weist hinaus in die Gesellschaft, in die Welt, in die Richtung der zunehmenden – akademischen – Anforderungen, die an die Kunsthochschulen gestellt werden. Dazu gehören Theoretisierung und Reflexion als zentrale Ausbildungsthemen, die auf diese Weise nun zum Teil der künstlerischen Arbeit werden. Im Unterricht lernen die Studierenden, ihre eigenen Argumente abzustützen, Fussnoten zu verfassen oder die verwendete Literatur so zu notieren, dass sie wieder gefunden werden kann. Die Auseinandersetzung mit diesen Anfordernissen bringt es zunehmend mit sich, in der eigenen Arbeit ein Bewusstsein zu entwickeln oder gar Platz zu machen für die Stimmen anderer Personen und zwar auf eine Art und Weise, für die es lange keine Notwendigkeit gab.
Diese veränderte Konfiguration, die sich in den Bewegungen zwischen den Dimensionen von Eigenständigkeit und Bezüglichkeit zur Welt zeigt, wirft Fragen zum Konzept der künstlerischen Autonomie auf und verlangt von den Dozierenden ebenso wie von den Studierenden und den Hochschulen selbst, sich mit dieser auseinanderzusetzen. Zitier- und Bibliografierregeln werden in den geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Disziplinen und auch in den Naturwissenschaften in der Regel dazu eingesetzt, aufzuzeigen, von welchem Stand des Wissens man bei der eigenen Arbeit ausgeht und ebenso, wo und wie man sich zu verorten gedenkt.³ Auf diese Weise wird die Position des Forschenden erkennbar. Die Autonomie der Wissenschaften liegt darin, die Themen aufgrund des Wissensstandes selber zu wählen und eigene, neue Fragen daran anschliessen zu können.
Im vorliegenden kurzen Text möchten wir argumentieren, dass die Bezugnahme auf die Autonomie der Kunst oder des/der Künstler/-in Teil einer übergeordneten Auseinandersetzung ist, die mit den Grenzziehungen, der boundary work⁴ zwischen freien, auf den Kunstmarkt und die ‑szene hin orientierten künstlerischen Handlungsweisen und einer zunehmend verschulten, von wissenschaftlichen Verständnissen geprägten Haltung seitens der Kunsthochschulen zu tun hat. Boundary work, ein Konzept des Soziologen Thomas F. Gieryn, der damit thematisiert, wie Wissenschaftler selber die Grenzen zwischen Wissenschaft und Nicht-Wissenschaft ziehen, kann damit für die Künste fruchtbar gemacht werden.⁵ Die Bologna-Reform wurde relativ flächendeckend an europäischen Universitäten und Fachhochschulen eingeführt, aber die Konsequenzen sind bis heute je nach Fach unterschiedlich. Wir vermuten, dass die Beschäftigung mit dem Thema Autonomie als ein Beispiel für die Verhandlungen verschiedener Akteure auf dem Feld der Kunst über die Grenzen zwischen einer freien und einer institutionalisierten Kunstpraxis betrachtet werden können. Damit greifen sie in die Frage nach dem Ideal reiner künstlerischer Arbeit und der Trainierbarkeit von künstlerischeren Kompetenzen ein.
Kehren wir damit zu unserem Eingangsbeispiel zurück. Wir konnten nämlich auch beobachten, dass, bevor der Dozent die Zitations- und Bibliografierregeln erläuterte, er geraume Zeit darauf verwendete, den Kontext zu beschreiben, in dem Referenzen für KünstlerInnen überhaupt nützlich sein können. Er diskutierte ihren möglichen Gebrauch, indem er die Referenzen in Bezug zur künstlerischen Arbeit setzte. Er verwies auf die Situationen, in denen Lektüre in den künstlerischen Prozessen der Studierenden eine Rolle spielt, und wie es mit Hilfe anderer Autor/-innen hilfreich erscheinen kann, über die eigene Arbeit zu sprechen. Er beschrieb also Situationen, in denen die hauptsächliche Beschäftigung des Artisten seine künstlerische Arbeit zu sein scheint.
Die Notwendigkeit des sorgfältigen bibliografischen Arbeitens und des ordentlichen Zitierens als unablässige Bedingung, wenn es um das Verfassen eines wissenschaftlichen Artikels, einer schriftlichen Arbeit im Hochschulkontext geht, wird in seinen Schilderungen eher als eine unkonventionelle Folgeerscheinung künstlerischer Arbeitsweisen konzipiert. Waren gemäss Stundenplan Theorie und wissenschaftliches Arbeiten das Thema der Lektion, so lassen seine Ausführungen eine Verschiebung hin zur Betonung der künstlerischen Arbeit als der Hauptbeschäftigung der anwesenden Studierenden erkennen, die er auf diese Weise wieder ins Zentrum zu stellen vermochte.
Die Darlegungen des Dozenten machen die Bemühungen deutlich, den Studierenden so viel Freiheit wie möglich hinsichtlich der Art und Weise, wie sie ihre Arbeit verstehen und verfassen, zu garantieren. Der zweite Teil der Darlegungen enthüllt die unmittelbaren Gründe, dies zu tun: Die Wichtigkeit der künstlerischen Werk-autonomie. Der Dozent versichert den Studierenden, dass der Gebrauch des Bibliografierens, „in keinster Weise die Autonomie ihres Werkes schmälert”. Die in-dividuelle Stimme des Künstlers, der Künstlerin, so wird den Studierenden bestätigt, werde auf jeden Fall als das wichtigste Element verstanden, das bewahrt und gegen alle Widrigkeiten oder Vereinnahmungen geschützt werden muss.
Wie unsere Feldnotizen zeigen, ist es auch für viele andere Dozierende zentral, die Studierenden zu ermutigen, ihre Besonderheiten zu finden, diese zu entwickeln und, vor allem, für ihre Arbeit einzustehen. Während in einer akademischen Umgebung die eigene Arbeit und der wissenschaftliche Zweck immer in Bezug zu anderen Denktraditionen oder theoretischen Ansätzen zu setzen ist, ist ein/e Kunststudent/-in vor allem verpflichtet, sich stark genug für die eigene Arbeit zu engagieren und sie unter allen Umständen verteidigen zu können. Aus dieser Perspektive können wir die Aussagen der Professor/-innen, sogar wenn es darum geht, Verweisnormen zu erläutern, als eine gleichzeitige -Bemühung verstehen, dem Aspekt der Autonomie Bedeutung zu verschaffen oder ihn zumindest gegen unfriendly take-overs seitens der Akademisierungsbe-strebungen zu verteidigen. Die Studierenden werden, trotz des Anspruchs, Theoretiker zu lesen und sich in bestimmte philosophische, kunst- und kulturwissenschaftliche, oder soziologische Denkrichtungen ein-zuarbeiten, an ihre Prioritäten erinnert, und es wird ihnen vorgeschlagen, die akademischen Ansprüche als selbstverständliches Resultat ihrer künstlerischen Aktivität zu betrachten.
Die Kunsthochschule selber, so erläuterte ein Dozent, der ebenfalls Künstler ist, sei kein Ort, wo Künstler ausgebildet würden, um dies erst werden zu müssen. Gemäss seinen Aussagen versucht die Schule im Grunde eher, Studierende zu rekrutieren, die sich bereits bewährt, die sich schon künstlerisch engagiert haben. Die Aufgabe der Institution sieht er darin, die Studierenden zu begleiten, indem diese mit Raum und Möglichkeiten ausgestattet werden. Die Institution wird möglichst aufgehoben und nicht als eine begrenzte und begrenzende Einheit gesehen: „Wir tun nicht so, ‚als ob‘, wir imitieren nicht die Realität; wir sind bereits in der Realität. Sie (die Studierenden) arbeiten bereits, stellen aus und werden kritisiert; das ist die Realität“, sucht es ein weiterer Dozent zu formulieren. Die Schule ist – und damit trifft nun diese Beobachtung auf ein Paradox –, gemäss den Aussagen von Dozierenden, nicht dazu da, den Studierenden beizubringen, wie sie Autonomie erreichen können, sondern um sie in ihrer Autonomie als eigenständige Künstler zu behandeln und weiterzubringen.
Im Bemühen darum, Studierende als KünstlerInnen zu verstehen, die sie trotz ihrer Integration in Studiengänge und hochschulische Curricula weniger werden, als bereits sein sollen, wird die Frage danach, was ein Künstler, eine Künstlerin ist, unumgänglich. Vor dem Hintergrund der hochschulpolitischen Transformationen der letzten Jahre wird jedenfalls hier zunehmend sichtbar, dass die Kunsthochschule und mit ihr der bildungspolitische Auftrag in die Beantwortung dieser Frage einzugreifen sucht. Zu vermuten ist jedenfalls, dass die Erinnerung oder vielleicht sogar die Beschwörung der Autonomie der Künstler/-innen als Abgrenzungsleistung gegenüber wissenschaftlichen Referenzierungsansprüchen und damit als boundary work, als Grenzarbeit verstanden werden kann.
Die teilnehmende Beobachtung brachte allerdings auch zutage, dass die erwähnte Konzeption des/der Künstler/in nicht von allen Studierenden geteilt wird und viele sich diesbezüglich in einem Dilemma befinden. Spannungen werden beispielsweise bei den Präsentationen der Arbeiten durch die Studierenden sichtbar, wo immer wieder um die Ansprüche an hochstehende künstlerische Resultate gerungen wird. Studierende werden zurechtgewiesen, wenn sie sich nicht ernsthaft genug um einzelne Teile der präsentierten Arbeit gekümmert haben, so dass diese nicht glaubwürdig erscheinen. Eine Bachelorstudentin beispielsweise, die zu ihrer Entschuldigung Zeitknappheit vorbrachte, wurde ermahnt, dass es grossartig sei, dass sie einen solchen Job in zwei Stunden machen könne, dies aber nicht die Art sei, wie man damit umzugehen habe. „Nun ist Deine Arbeit hier. Wir können sie sehen und das ist die einzige Sache, die wir sehen. Deine Ideen, was Du machen wolltest oder wie Du es gemacht hast, können nicht gesehen werden.“ Nach der Lektion, erzählte diese Studentin der Ethnografin, wie unglücklich sie mit dieser Art von Kritik gewesen sei und dass nicht genügend berücksichtigt werde, dass sie Studierende seien. „Ich bin hier um zu lernen“, sagte sie, „wenn ich schon wüsste, wie alles zu machen ist, wäre ich nicht an diesem Ort“. Im Feld der Grenzziehungen zwischen künstlerischen und nicht-künstlerischen Ansprüchen, so zeigen diese Ausführungen, wird Autonomie zum Ort der Verhandlung von stärkeren oder schwächeren Formen künstlerischer Identität. Zum anderen verweisen diese Grenzziehungen aber auch in den Hinweisen zu „Ernsthaftigkeit“, „Seriosität“, „Sorgfalt“ auf ein Feld professioneller Ansprüche, die in den institutionellen Zusammenhängen ebenso wie in den künstlerischen Selbstbildern häufig nicht explizit benannt wurden.
Während etliche Bachelorstudierende noch mit diesen Bildern zu ringen haben, scheinen ältere Stu-dierende die Lektionen des Zitierens und der Selbstpräsentation gelernt zu haben. Beim Betrachten von Masterthesen durch die Autorinnen wird deutlich, dass einige Studierende durchaus Zitierregeln anzuwenden wussten und dazu auch bereit waren. Sie nutzten diese, um sich selber zu zitieren, indem sie Auszüge aus Interviews, die sie gegeben hatten, einsetzten oder Fragmente aus Artikeln, die über ihre Arbeit geschrieben worden waren, abdruckten. In einem Fall enthielten die bibliografischen Angaben ausschliesslich solche Referenzen. Das genügte, um darauf hinzuweisen, dass der besagte Student ein bestätigter Künstler war, dessen Arbeit bereits Interesse auf sich zog und breit rezipiert wurde. Ob eine solche Verweispraxis nun wissenschaftlichen Kriterien entspricht, wie sie für eine theoretische Masterarbeit an einer Kunsthochschule gefordert werden, kann hier nicht diskutiert werden. Die Grenze zwischen künstlerischem und ausbildungspolitischem Selbstbild wurde damit jedenfalls erfolgreich in sich selber hineingezogen. Auf jeden Fall kann diese Lösung ebenso als eine Bemühung gelesen werden, sich im Stand der Debatte zu verorten, als sich einen Platz und einen Namen in einem Feld zu verschaffen, in dem, wie einer der Dozierenden erwähnte, viele berufen sind, aber nur wenige ausgewählt werden.

1.) Karin Knorr Cetina, Wissenskulturen. Frankfurt/M. 2002.
2.) „Ästhetische Praktiken nach Bologna: Architektur, Design und Kunst als epistemische Kulturen in the making“, gefördert durch den Schweizerischen Nationalfonds, 2013–2015.
3.) Vgl. dazu etwa Robert K. Merton, Auf den Schultern von Riesen. Ein Leitfaden durch das Labyrinth der Gelehrsamkeit. Frankfurt/M. 1983.
4.) Thomas F. Gieryn, „Boundary-Work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in the professional ideologies of scientists“, American Sociological Review, 48, 1983, S. 781–795.
5.) Unter boundary work von Wissenschaftler/-innen versteht Gieryn: „their attribution of selected characteristics to the institution of science (i. e., to its practitioners, methods, stock of knowledge, values and work organization) for purposes of constructing a social boundary that distinguishes some intellectual activities as ‚non- science’.“ (Gieryn 1983, a. a. O., S. 782).

FREE

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:45 +0000

– Who wants to know? – I want to know.
– What do you want to know? – I don’t know!

At some point last year I proposed within my institution, Goldsmiths, University of London, that we develop a free academy adjacent to our institution and call it “Goldsmiths Free.” The reactions to this proposal, when not amused smirks at the apparently adolescent nature of the proposal, were largely either puzzled – “What would we get out of it? Why would we want to do it?” – or horrified – “How would it finance itself?” No one asked what might be taught or discussed within it and how that might differ from the intellectual work that is done within our conventional fee-charging, degree-giving, research-driven institution. And that of course was the point, that it would be different, not just in terms of redefining the point of entry into the structure (free of fees and previous qualifications) or the modus operandi of the work (not degree-based, unexamined, not subject to the state’s mechanisms of monitoring and assessment), but also that the actual knowledge would be differently situated within it. And that is what I want to think about here, about the difference in the knowledge itself, its nature, its status, and its affect.
The kind of knowledge that interested me in this proposal to the university was one that was not framed by disciplinary and thematic orders, a knowledge that would instead be presented in relation to an urgent issue, and not an issue as defined by knowledge conventions, but by the pressures and struggles of contemporaneity. When knowledge is unframed, it is less grounded genealogically and can navigate forwards rather than backwards. This kind of “unframed” knowledge obviously had a great deal to do with what I had acquired during my experiences in the art world, largely a set of permissions with regard to knowledge and a recognition of its performative faculties – that knowledge does rather than is. But the permissions I encountered in the art world came with their own set of limitations, a tendency to reduce the complex operations of speculation to either illustration or to a genre that would visually exemplify “study” or “research.” Could there be, I wondered, another mode in which knowledge might be set free without having to perform such generic mannerisms, without becoming an aesthetic trope in the hands of curators hungry for the latest “turn”?
Heads will surely be shaken! The notion of “free” is currently so degraded in terms of the free market, the dubious proposals of the new “free” economy of the internet, and the historically false promises of individual freedom, that it may be difficult to see what it might have to offer beyond all these hollow slogans. Nevertheless, the possibility of producing some interrogative proximity between “knowledge” and “free” seems both unavoidable and irresistible, particularly in view of the present struggles over the structures of education in Europe.
The actual drive towards knowledge and therefore towards some form of expansion and transformation seems far more important than simply a discussion of the categories it operates within. In order to attempt such a transition I need to think about several relevant questions:
1. First and foremost, what is knowledge when it is “free“?
2. Whether there are sites, such as the spaces of art, in which knowledge might be more “free” than in others?
3. What are the institutional implications of housing knowledge that is “free”?
4. What are the economies of “free” that might prove an alternative to the market- and outcome-based and comparison-driven economies of institutionally structured knowledge at present?
Evidently, en route I need to think about the struggles over education, its alternative sitings, the types of emergent economies that might have some purchase on its rethinking, and, finally, how “education” might be perceived as an alternative organizational mode, not of information, of formal knowledges and their concomitant marketing, but as other forms of coming together not predetermined by outcomes but by directions. Here I have in mind some process of “knowledge singularization,” which I will discuss further below.
Obviously it is not the romance of liberation that I have in mind here in relation to “free.” Knowledge cannot be “liberated,” it is endlessly embedded in long lines of transformations that link in inexplicable ways to produce new conjunctions. Nor do I have in mind the romance of “avant-garde” knowledge, with its oppositional modes of “innovation” as departure and breach. Nor am I particularly interested in what has been termed “interdisciplinarity,” which, with its intimations of movement and “sharing” between disciplines, de facto leaves intact those membranes of division and logics of separation and containment. Nor, finally, and I say this with some qualification, is my main aim here to undo the disciplinary and professional categories that have divided and isolated bodies of knowledge from one another in order to promote a heterogeneous field populated by “bodies” of knowledge akin to the marketing strategies that ensure choice and multiplicity and dignify the practices of epistemological segregation by producing endless new subcategories for inherited bodies of named and contained knowledge.
There is a vexed relation between freedom, individuality, and sovereignty that has a particular relevance for the arena being discussed here, as knowledge and education have a foothold both in processes of individuation and in processes of socialization. Hannah Arendt expressed this succinctly when she warned that
Politically, this identification of freedom with sovereignty is perhaps the most pernicious and dangerous consequence of the philosophical equation of freedom and free will. For it leads either to a denial of human freedom – namely, if it is realized that whatever men may be, they are never sovereign – or to the insight that the freedom of one man, or a group, or a body politic, can only be purchased at the price of the freedom, i. e. the sovereignty, of all others. Within the conceptual framework of traditional philosophy, it is indeed very difficult to understand how freedom and non-sovereignty can exist together or, to put it another way, how freedom could have been given to men under the conditions of non-sovereignty.¹
And in the final analysis it is my interest to get around both concepts, freedom and sovereignty, through the operations of “singularization.” Perhaps it is knowledge de-individuated, de-radicalized in the conventional sense of the radical as breach, and yet operating within the circuits of singularity – of “the new relational mode of the subject” – that is preoccupying me in this instance.
And so, the task at hand seems to me to be not one of liberation from confinement, but rather one of undoing the very possibilities of containment.
While an unbounded circulation of capital, goods, information, hegemonic alliances, populist fears, newly globalized uniform standards of excellence, and so forth, are some of the hallmarks of the late neoliberal phase of capitalism, we nevertheless can not simply equate every form of the unbounded and judge them all as equally insidious. “Free“ in relation to knowledge, it seems to me, has its power less in its expansion than in an ultimately centripetal movement, less in a process of penetrating and colonizing everywhere and everything in the relentless mode of capital, than in reaching unexpected entities and then drawing them back, mapping them onto the field of perception.

STRUGGLES
In spring and autumn of 2009 a series of prolonged strikes erupted across Austria and Germany, the two European countries whose indigenous education systems have been hardest hit by the reorganization of the Bologna Accord; smaller strikes also took place in France, Italy, and Belgium.² At the center of the students’ protests were the massive cuts in education budgets across the board and the revision of state budgets within the current economic climate, which made youth and the working class bear the burden of support for failing financial institutions.
The strikes were unified by common stands on three issues:
1. against fees for higher education
2. against the increasing limitation of access to selection in higher education
3. for re-democratization of the universities and re-inclusion of students in decision-making processes
Not only were these the largest and most organized strikes to have been held by school and university students since the 1980s, but they also included teachers, whose pay had been reduced and whose working hours had been extended, which, after considerable pressure from below, eventually moved the trade unions to take a position.
The concerns here were largely structural and procedural, and considering all that is at stake in these reorganizations of the education system, it is difficult to know what to privilege in our concern: the reformulation of institutions into regimented factories for packaged knowledge that can easily be placed within the marketplace; the processes of knowledge acquisition that are reduced to the management of formulaic outcomes that are comparable across cultures and contexts; “training“ replacing “speculating“; the dictation of such shifts from above and without any substantive consultation or debate. All of these are significant steps away from criticality in spaces of education and towards the goal that all knowledge have immediate, transparent, predictable, and pragmatic application.
The long, substantive lines that connect these struggles to their predecessors over the past forty years or so, and which constitute “education” as both an ongoing political platform and the heart of many radical artistic practices, are extremely well articulated in a conversation between Marion von Osten and Eva Egermann, in which von Osten says of her projects such as “reformpause”:
Firstly, I tried to create a space to pause, to hold on for a moment, to take a breath and to think – to think about what kinds of change might be possible; about how and what we might wish to learn; and why that which we wished to learn might be needed. I guess, in this way, both Manoa Free University and “reformpause” shared similar goals – not simply to critique the ongoing educational reforms and thereby legitimize established structures, but rather to actively engage in thinking about alternate concepts and possible change.
Secondly, there is a long history of student struggles and the question arises as to whether or not these are still relevant today and, if they are, how and why? The recent student struggles did not simply originate with the Bologna Declaration. The genealogy of various school and university protests and struggles over the past forty years demonstrates that we live in an era of educational reforms which, since the 1960s, have led to the construction of a new political subjectivity, the “knowledge worker.” This is not just a phenomenon of the new millennium; furthermore, many artistic practices from the 1960s and 1970s relate to this re-ordering of knowledge within Western societies. This is one of the many reasons why we so readily relate to these practices, as exemplified by conceptualism and the various ways in which conceptual artists engaged with contemporary changes in the concepts of information and communication.³
All of this identifies hugely problematic and very urgent issues, but we cannot lose sight of the status of actual knowledge formations within these. When knowledge is not geared towards “production,” it has the possibility of posing questions that combine the known and the imagined, the analytical and the experiential, and which keep stretching the terrain of knowledge so that it is always just beyond the border of what can be conceptualized.
These are questions in which the conditions of knowledge are always internal to the concepts it is entertaining, not as a context but as a limit to be tested. The entire critical epistemology developed by Foucault and by Derrida rested on questions that always contain a perception of their own impossibility, a consciousness of thinking as a process of unthinking something that is fully aware of its own status. The structural, the techniques, and the apparatuses, could never be separated from the critical interrogation of concepts. As Giorgio Agamben says of Foucault’s concept of the apparatus:
The proximity of this term to the theological dispositio, as well as to Foucault’s apparatuses, is evident. What is common to all these terms is that they refer back to this oikonomia, that is, to a set of practices, bodies of knowledge, measures, and institutions that aim to manage, govern, control, and orient – in a way that purports to be useful – the behaviors, gestures, and thoughts of human beings.⁴
So the struggle facing education is precisely that of separating thought from its structures, a struggle constantly informed by tensions between thought management and subjectification – the frictions by which we turn ourselves into subjects. As Foucault argued, this is the difference between the production of subjects in “power/knowledge” and those processes of self-formation in which the person is active. It would seem then that the struggle in education arises from tensions between conscious inscription into processes of self-formation and what Foucault, speaking of his concerns with scientific classification, articulated as the subsequent and necessary “insurrection of subjugated knowledges,” in which constant new voices appear claiming themselves not as “identities,” but as events within knowledge.⁵ The argument that Isabelle Stengers makes about her own political formation has convinced me that this is a productive direction to follow in trying to map out knowledge as struggle:
My own intellectual and political life has been marked by what I learned from the appearance of drugs users’ groups claiming that they were “citizens like everyone else,“ and fighting against laws that were officially meant to “protect“ them. The efficacy of this new collective voice, relegating to the past what had been the authorized, consensual expertise legitimating the “war on drugs,“ convinced me that such events were “political events“ par excellence, producing – as, I discovered afterwards, Dewey had already emphasized – both new political struggle and new important knowledge. I even proposed that what we call democracy could be evaluated by its relation to those disrupting collective productions. A “true“ democracy would demand the acceptance of the ongoing challenge of such disruptions – would not only accept them but also acknowledge those events as something it depended upon.⁶
Knowledge as disruption, knowledge as counter-subjugation, knowledge as constant exhortation to its own, often uncomfortable implications, are at the heart of “struggle.” The battle over education as we are experiencing it now does not find its origin in the desire to suppress these but rather in efforts to regulate them so that they work in tandem with the economies of cognitive capitalism.

ECONOMIES
The economies of the world of knowledge have shifted quite dramatically over the past ten to fifteen years. What had been a fairly simple subsidy model, with states covering the basic expenses of teaching, subsidizing home schooling on a per capita basis (along with private entities incorporated in “not -for-profit” structures); research councils and foundations covering the support of research in the humanities and pure sciences; and industry supporting applied research, has changed quite dramatically, as have the traditional outlets for such knowledge: scholarly journals and books, exhibitions, science-based industry, the military, and public services such as agriculture and food production. Knowledge, at present, is not only enjoined to be “transferable” (to move easily between paradigms so that its potential impact will be transparent from the outset) and to invent new and ever expanding outlets for itself, it must also contend with the prevalent belief that it should be obliged not only to seek out alternative sources of funding but actually to produce these. By producing the need for a particular type of knowledge one is also setting up the means of its excavation or invention – this is therefore a “need-based” culture of knowledge that produces the support and the market through itself.
So, when I speak of a “free” academy, the question has to be posed: if it is to meet all the above requirements, namely, that it not be fee-charging, not produce applied research, not function within given fields of expertise, and not consider itself in terms of applied “outcomes,” how would it be funded?
In terms of the internet, the economic model of “free“ that has emerged over the past decade initially seemed to be an intensification or a contemporary perpetuation of what had been called by economists, the “cross-subsidy“ model: you’d get one thing free if you bought another, or you’d get a product free only if you paid for a service. This primary model was then expanded by the possibilities of ever increasing access to the internet, married to constantly lowered costs in the realm of digital technologies.
A second trend is simply that anything that touches digital networks quickly feels the effect of falling costs. And so it goes, too, for everything from banking to gambling, check it out! The moment a company’s primary expenses become things based in silicon, free becomes not just an option but also the inevitable destination.⁷ The cost of actually circulating something within these economies becomes lower and lower, until cost is no longer the primary index of its value.
A third aspect of this emergent economic model is perhaps the one most relevant to this discussion of education. Here the emphasis is on a shift from an exclusive focus on buyers and sellers, producers and consumers, to a tripartite model, in which the third element that enters does so based on its interest in the exchange taking place between the first two elements – an interest to which it contributes financially. In the traditional media model, a publisher provides a product free (or nearly free) to consumers, and advertisers pay to ride along. Radio is “free to air,” and so is much of television. Likewise, newspaper and magazine publishers don’t charge readers anything close to the actual cost of creating, printing, and distributing their products. They’re not selling papers and magazines to readers, they’re selling readers to advertisers. It’s a three-way market.
In a sense, what the Web represents is the extension of the media business model to industries of all sorts. This is not simply the notion that advertising will pay for everything. There are dozens of ways that media companies make money around free content, from selling information about consumers to brand licensing, “value-added“ subscriptions, and direct e-commerce. Now an entire ecosystem of Web companies is growing up around the same set of models.⁸
The question is whether this model of a “free” economy is relevant to my proposal for a free “academy,” given that in an economic model the actual thing in circulation is not subject to much attention except as it appeals to a large public and their ostensible needs. Does this model have any potential for criticality or for an exchange that goes beyond consumption? Novelist, activist, and technology commentator Cory Doctorow claims that there’s a pretty strong case to be made that “free” has some inherent antipathy to capitalism. That is, information that can be freely reproduced at no marginal cost may not want, need or benefit from markets as a way of organizing them. . . . Indeed, there’s something eerily Marxist in this phenomenon, in that it mirrors Marx’s prediction of capitalism’s ability to create a surplus of capacity that can subsequently be freely shared without market forces’ brutality.⁹
The appealing part of the economy of “free” for debates about education is its unpredictability in throwing up new spheres of interest and new congregations around them. It has some small potential for shifting the present fixation on the direct relation between fees, training, applied research, organization-as-management, predictable outputs and outcomes, and the immediate consumption of knowledge. This however seems a very narrow notion of criticality as it is limited to the production of a surplus within knowledge and fails to take on the problems of subjectification. And it is the agency of subjectification and its contradictory multiplicity that is at the heart of a preoccupation with knowledge in education, giving it its traction as it were, what Foucault called “the lived multiplicity of positionings.” The internet-based model of “free” does break the direct relation between buyers and sellers, which in the current climate of debates about education, in the context of what Nick Dyer-Witheford has called “Academia Inc.,” is certainly welcome. But it does not expand the trajectory of participation substantively, merely reducing the act of taking part in this economy of use and exchange. The need to think of a “market” for the disruption of paradigms emerges as an exercise in futility and as politically debilitating. To think again with Agamben:
Contemporary societies therefore present themselves as inert bodies going through massive processes of desubjectification without acknowledging any real subjectification. Hence the eclipse of politics, which used to presuppose the existence of subjects and real identities (the workers’ movement, the bourgeoisie, etc.), and the triumph of the oikonomia, that is to say, of a pure activity of government that aims at nothing other than its own replication.¹⁰
What then would be the sites of conscious subjectification within this amalgam of education and creative practices?

SITES
Over the past two decades we have seen a proliferation of self-organized structures that take the form, with regard to both their investigations and effects, of sites of learning.¹¹ These have, more than any other initiative, collapsed the divisions between sites of formal academic education and those of creative practice, display, performance, and activism. In these spaces the previously clear boundaries between universities, academies, museums, galleries, performance spaces, NGOs, and political organizations, lost much of their visibility and efficaciousness. Of course, virtually every European city still has at least one if not several vast “entertainment machine” institutions, traditional museums that see their task as one of inviting the populace to partake of “art” in the most conventional sense and perceive “research” to be largely about themselves (to consist, that is, in the seemingly endless conferences that are held each year on “the changing role of the museum”). These institutions however no longer define the parameters of the field and serve more as indices of consumption, market proximities, and scholastic inertia.
What does knowledge do when it circulates in other sites such as the art world?
As Eva Egermann says:
Of course, the art field was seen as a place in which things could happen, a field of potential, a space of exchange between different models and concepts and, in the sense of learning and unlearning, a field of agency and transfer between different social and political fields and between different positions and subjectivities. In a way, the exhibition functioned as a pretext, a defined place for communication and action that would perhaps establish impulses for further transformations. So, the project functioned as an expanded field of practice from which to organize and network between many different groups, but also to question and experiment with methods of representation and distribution for collective artistic research. We wanted to disseminate our research for collective usage through various means, such as the study circle itself, a wiki, publications and readers and through the model of a free university.¹²
More than any other sphere, the spaces of contemporary art that open themselves to this kind of alternative activity of learning and knowledge production, and see in it not an occasional indulgence but their actual daily business, have become the sites of some of the most important redefinitions of knowledge that circulate today.
As sites, they have marked the shift from “Ivory Towers” of knowledge to spaces of interlocution, with in between a short phase as “laboratories.” As a dialogical practice based on questioning, on agitating the edges of paradigms and on raising external points of view, interlocution takes knowledge back to a Socratic method but invests its operations with acknowledged stakes and interests, rather than being a set of formal proceedings. It gives a performative dimension to the belief argued earlier through the work of Foucault and Derrida, that knowledge always has at its edges the active process of its own limits and its own invalidation.
In setting up knowledge production within the spaces and sites of art, one also takes up a set of permissions that are on offer. Recognizing who is posing questions, where they are speaking from, and from where they know what they know, becomes central rather than, as is typical, marginal qualifications often relegated to footnotes. Permission is equally granted to start in the middle without having to rehearse the telos of an argument; to start from “right here and right now” and embed issues in a variety of contexts, expanding their urgency; to bring to these arguments a host of validations, interventions, asides, and exemplifications that are not recognized as directly related or as sustaining provable knowledge. And, perhaps most importantly, “the curatorial,” not as a profession but as an organizing and assembling impulse, opens up a set of possibilities, mediations perhaps, to formulate subjects that may not be part of an agreed-upon canon of “subjects” worthy of investigation. So knowledge in the art world, through a set of permissions that do not recognize the academic conventions for how one arrives at a subject, can serve both the purposes of reframing and producing subjects in the world.
Finally, I would argue that knowledge in the art world has allowed us to come to terms with partiality – with the fact that our field of knowing is always partially comprehensible, the problems that populate it are partially visible, and our arguments are only partially inhabiting a recognizable logic. Under no illusions as to its comprehensiveness, knowledge as it is built up within the spaces of art makes relatively modest claims for plotting out the entirety of a problematic, accepting instead that it is entering in the middle and illuminating some limited aspects, all the while making clear its drives in doing so.¹³
And it is here, in these spaces, that one can ground the earlier argument that the task at hand in thinking through “free“ is not one of liberation from confinement, but rather one of undoing the very possibilities of containment. It is necessary to understand that containment is not censure but rather half acknowledges acts of framing and territorializing.

VECTORS
In conjunction with the sites described above it is also direction and circulation that help in opening up “knowledge” to new perceptions of its mobility.
How can we think of “education” as circulations of knowledge and not as the top-down or down-up dynamics in which there is always a given, dominant direction for the movement of knowledge? The direction of the knowledge determines its mode of dissemination: if it is highly elevated and canonized then it is structured in a particular, hierarchical way, involving original texts and commentaries on them; if it is experiential then it takes the form of narrative and description in a more lateral form; and if it is empirical then the production of data categories, vertical and horizontal, would dominate its argument structures even when it is speculating on the very experience of excavating and structuring that knowledge.¹⁴
While thinking about this essay I happened to hear a segment of a radio program called The Bottom Line, a weekly BBC program about business entrepreneurs I had never encountered before. In it a businessman was talking about his training; Geoff Quinn the chief executive of clothing manufacturer T. M. Lewin said he had not had much education and went into clothing retailing at the age of sixteen, “but then I discovered the stock room – putting things in boxes, making lists, ordering the totality of the operation.”¹⁵ He spoke of the stockroom, with a certain sense of wonder, as the site in which everything came together, where the bits connected and made sense, less a repository than a launch pad for a sartorial world of possibilities. The idea that the “stockroom” could be an epiphany, could be someone’s education, was intriguing and I tried to think it out a bit … part Foucauldian notion of scientific classification and part Simondon’s pragmatic transductive thought about operations rather than meanings – the “stockroom” is clearly a perspective, an early recognition of the systemic and the interconnected, and a place from which to see the “big picture.” While the “stockroom” may be a rich and pleasing metaphor, it is also a vector, along which a huge range of manufacturing technologies, marketing strategies, and advertising campaigns meet up with labor histories and those of raw materials, with print technologies and internet disseminations, with the fantasmatic investments in clothes and their potential to renew us.
Therefore what if “education” – the complex means by which knowledges are disseminated and shared – could be thought of as a vector, as a quantity (force or velocity, for example), made up of both direction and magnitude? A powerful horizontality that looks at the sites of education as convergences of drives to knowledge that are in themselves knowledge? Not in the sense of formally inherited, archived, and transmitted knowledges but in the sense that ambition “knows” and curiosity “knows” and poverty “knows” – they are modes of knowing the world and their inclusion or their recognition as events of knowledge within the sites of education make up not the context of what goes on in the classroom or in the space of cultural gathering, but the content.
Keller Easterling in her exceptionally interesting book Enduring Innocence builds on Arjun Appadurai’s notion of “imagined worlds” as “the multiple worlds that are constituted by the historically situated imaginations of persons and groups spread around the globe … these mixtures create variegated scapes described as “mediascapes and “ethnoscapes.” Which, says Easterling, by “naturalizing the migration and negotiation of traveling cultural forms allows these thinkers [such as Appadurai] to avoid impossible constructs about an authentic locality.”¹⁶ From Easterling’s work I have learned to understand such sites as located forms of “intelligence” – both information and stealth formation. To recognize the operations of “the network” in relation to structures of knowledge in which no linearity could exist and the direct relation between who is in the spaces of learning, the places to which they are connected, the technologies that close the gaps in those distances, the unexpected and unpredictable points of entry that they might have, the fantasy projections that might have brought them there – all agglomerate as sites of knowledge.
We might be able to look at these sites and spaces of education as ones in which long lines of mobility, curiosity, epistemic hegemony, colonial heritages, urban fantasies, projections of phantom professionalization, new technologies of both formal access and less formal communication, a mutual sharing of information, and modes of knowledge organization, all come together in a heady mix – that is the field of knowledge and from it we would need to go outwards to combine all of these as actual sites of knowledge and produce a vector.
Having tried to deconstruct as many discursive aspects of what “free” might mean in relation to knowledge, in relation to my hoped-for-academy, I think that what has come about is the understanding of “free” in a non-liberationist vein, away from the binaries of confinement and liberty, rather as the force and velocity by which knowledge and our imbrication in it, move along. That its comings-together are our comings-together and not points in a curriculum, rather along the lines of the operations of “singularity” that enact the relation of “the human to a specifiable horizon” through which meaning is derived, as Jean-Luc Nancy says.¹⁷ Singularity provides us with another model of thinking relationality, not as external but as loyal to a logic of its own self-organization. Self-organization links outwardly not as identity, interest, or affiliation, but as a mode of coexistence in space. To think “knowledge” as the working of singularity is actually to decouple it from the operational demands put on it, to open it up to processes of multiplication and of links to alternate and unexpected entities, to animate it through something other than critique or defiance – perhaps as “free.”

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: e-flux Journal, Education Actualized, #14, 03/2010 unter: http://www.e-flux.com/journal/free/ [07.06.2013].

1.) Hannah Arendt, “What is Freedom?” Chapter VI “Revolution and Preservation” in The Portable Hannah Arendt, (ed. Peter R. Baehr) (Penguin, London:, Penguin, 2000), 455.
2.) See Dietrich Lemke’s “Mourning Bologna” in this issue, http://e-flux.com/journal/view/123.
3.) Marion von Osten and Eva Egermann, “Twist and Shout,” in Curating and the Educational Turn: 2, eds. Paul O’Neill and Mick Wilson (London: Open Editions; Amsterdam: de Appel, forthcoming).
4.) Giorgio Agamben, “What is an Apparatus?” in What is an Apparatus? and Other Essays, eds. and trans. David Kishik and Stefan Pedatella (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009), 12.
5.) Michel Foucault, “Two Lectures,” in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, ed. Colin Gordon, trans. Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate Soper (London: Harvester, 1980), 81.
6.) Isabelle Stengers, “Experimenting with Refrains: Subjectivity and the Challenge of Escaping Modern Dualism,” in Subjectivity 22 (2008): 38–59.
7.) This is Chris Anderson’s argument in Free: The Future of a Radical Price (New York: Random House, 2009).
8.) See http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free.
9.) See Cory Doctorow, “Chris Anderson‘s Free adds much to The Long Tail, but falls short, “ Guardian (July 28, 2009), http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jul/28/cory-doctorow-free-chris-anderson.
10.) Agamben, “What is an Apparatus?” 22.
11.) See for example: Copenhagen Free University, http://www.copenhagenfreeuniversity.dk/freeutv.html Universidad Nómada, http://www.sindominio.net/unomada/ Facoltà di Fuga, http://www.rekombinant.org/fuga/index.php
The Independent Art School, http://www.independent-art-school.org.uk/ Informal Universityin Foundation, http://www.jackie-inhalt.net/
Mobilized Investigation, http://manifestor.org/mi
Minciu Sodas, http://www.ms.lt/ , including http://www.cyfranogi.com/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/backtotheroot/, http://www.onevillage.biz/
Pirate University, http://www.pirate-university.org/
Autonomous University of Lancaster, http://www.knowledgelab.org
Das Solidarische Netzwerk für offene Bildung (s.n.o.b.), Marburg (Germany), http://deu.anarchopedia.org/snob
The Free/Slow University of Warsaw, http://www.wuw2009.pl/
The University of Openness, http://p2pfoundation.net/University_of_Openness
Manoa Free University, http://www.manoafreeuniversity.org/
L’université Tangente, http://utangente.free.fr/
12.) Von Osten and Egermann, “Twist and Shout.”
13.) See Irit Rogoff, “Smuggling – An Embodied Criticality, “ available on the website of the European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies,
http://eipcp.net/dlfiles/rogoff-smuggling.
14.) See Lisa Adkins and Celia Lury, “What is the Empirical?” European Journal of Social Theory 12, no. 1 (February 2009): 5–20.
15.) Geoff Quinn, interview by Evan Davis, The Bottom Line, BBC, February 18, 2010, available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qps85#synopsis
16.) Keller Easterling, Enduring Innocence: Global Architecture and its Masquerades (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2005), 3.
17.) Jean-Luc Nancy, Being Singular Plural (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), xi.

Sinn und Sinnlichkeit

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:35 +0000

Ein Plädoyer wider die grassierende Spezialisierung und das Abarbeiten
des Status quo im akademischen Betrieb. Erfahrungen, so Künstler und Philosoph Jens Badura, müsse man machen – und nicht nur darüber schreiben oder reden.

JH: Jens, was macht die Kunst?
JB: Die Kunst – lieber spreche ich von den Künsten – macht vielerlei. Die Künste machen Möglichkeiten, sie machen Um-Ordnungen in unseren Wissensbeständen, sie machen von sich reden und vor allem: Sie lassen gern über sich reden.

Dann lass uns das tun! Derzeit reden alle über Artistic Research oder zu Deutsch: Künstlerische Forschung. Was genau ist das?
Welterschließung durch künstlerische Praktiken. Es geht darum, dass künstlerische Prozesse als Erkenntnisprozesse verstanden, anerkannt und entsprechend artikuliert werden. Die Debatte ist Ausdruck eines veränderten Umgangs mit Künsten und ihren Funktionen im Kontext unserer Auffassungen von Wissen, Kreativität und Forschung. Den Künsten wird zugetraut, im Zusammenhang mit unserer Wissensproduktion eine relevante und vielleicht gar notwendige Rolle zu spielen.

Das gern gepflegte Klischee der Romantikkunst hat also endgültig ausgedient?
Ja, es muss abdanken zugunsten einer differenzierten Auffassung multipler Verstrickungen in und mit den diversen Sphären unserer Weltbildgestaltungsstrategien: Kunst kann nicht mehr auf eine Funktion (und sei es die der Funktionslosigkeit) reduziert werden, also exklusiv zum politischen Widerstandsagenten oder Erbauungsinstrument erklärt werden. Hier sind Porositäten entstanden, die die Künste mehr und mehr verflechten mit Politik, Ökonomie etc. – und eben auch mit dem Diskurs zur Wissensproduktion.

Kunst operierte doch schon immer als erkenntnisstiftende Kraft im gesellschaftlichen Kontext, was ist jetzt neu und anders?
Künstlerische Forschung gibt es, seit es künstlerische Praxis gibt: Kunst ist immer auch forschende Welterschließung und verbindet ästhetische Sensibilität, kreative Praxis und reflexive Auseinandersetzung mit beidem. Die Konjunktur der Debatte zur Künstlerischen Forschung erklärt sich insbesondere durch das Anliegen, künstlerische Praxen als Forschungspraxen zu thematisieren. Es geht um eine zunehmende Re-Emanzipation der Sinnlichkeit. Lange wurde die Frage kleingeredet, ob es neben der rationalen Erkenntnis auch noch andere, sinnliche Erkenntnis geben kann, die man ebenso ernst nehmen sollte. Diese Entwicklung hat auch damit zu tun, dass das Klischee der Wissenschaft als Hort einer selbsttransparenten Rationalität mit Eigentlichkeitsgarantie brüchig geworden ist. Im heutigen Bewusstsein werden kreative Praktiken sowie Intuition etc. auch den Wissenschaften als unverzichtbare Zutat bei der Erkenntnisgewinnung zugestanden. Das Zerrbild des kritisch-rational vor sich hin falsifizierenden Wissenschafters ist schlicht unhaltbar geworden.

Die klassische Forschungsdefinition hat das Herstellen origineller Erkenntnisse zum Ziel. Von welchem Forschungsverständnis geht die Künstlerische Forschung aus?
Grundsätzlich vom gleichen. Nur wird hier der Erkenntnisbegriff diversifiziert: Es gilt eben nicht als selbstverständlich, dass Forschung nur Erkenntnisgewinnung im Sinne wissenschaftlich ermittelter, rational fassbarer Erkenntnisse betreibt, sondern dass es auch andere, ästhetisch sinnliche Erkenntnisse geben kann, die anderer Forschungspraktiken und Formen der Artikulation von Forschungsresultaten bedürfen. Wichtig scheint mir hier allerdings, nicht das Schema «die Wissenschaft» versus «die Kunst» zu unterlegen, denn diese Kollektivsingulare sind ja absurde Vereinfachungen, man denke nur an die grundlegenden Unterschiede zwischen Natur-, Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften – ganz zu schweigen von der Diversität in den Künsten.

Dennoch kann man wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisgewinnung anhand allgemeiner Kriterien charakterisieren.
Klar: Nachvollziehbarkeit des Forschungsprozesses und der Ergebnisproduktion; Verwendung disziplinär anerkannter Methoden, Veröffentlichung der Resultate in einschlägigen Foren in Form von bestimmten «Aufschreibsystemen». Auch wenn künstlerisches Forschen durchaus ähnliche Praktiken in Anschlag bringt wie wissenschaftliches Arbeiten – etwa mittels Experimentierens, Recherchierens etc. –, ist es doch nicht in gleicher Weise an disziplinären Methodenvorgaben und an standardisierten Kommunikationsformaten orientiert.

Und in dieser Offenheit liegt das Potential der Künstlerischen Forschung?
Hier kann eine breiter gefächerte Welterschließung stattfinden, die der disziplinierten Wissenschaft und ihren Rationalitätserwartungen so nicht offen steht. Es sollte darum gehen, die einander ergänzenden Potentiale von Kunst und Wissenschaft zur Erkenntnisgewinnung fruchtbar zu machen und ein Mit- und Durcheinander zu provozieren. Ziel ist es, eine Pluralität von Wissensformen zuzulassen, die seit der Renaissance zunehmend zuungunsten der Sinnlichkeit auf begrifflich-rationale Erkenntnis hin reduziert wurden.

Nach so viel Abstraktem – könntest du ein paar konkrete Beispiele Künstlerischer Forschung nennen?
Es gibt unterschiedliche Typen und Forschungssettings, die sich grob in zwei Kategorien einteilen lassen: a) Forschung als Entwicklung und Erschließung der Künste und b) Forschung als Zusammenwirken von künstlerischer und wissenschaftlicher Expertise. Als Beispiel für den ersten Fall möchte ich ein Forschungsfeld des Sinlab Lausanne nennen, wo Verfahren entwickelt werden, die es ermöglichen, Bewegung als kompositorische Qualität zu erschließen – also mit dem Körper Musik zu machen. Durch das Verbinden von künstlerischen Ausdrucksformen und neuen Technologien werden künstlerische Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten erkundet. Für den zweiten Fall ein Beispiel aus meiner Arbeit am Institute for the Performing Arts and Film an der Zürcher Hochschule der Künste: Hier kooperieren Hirnforscher und Schauspieler mit dem Ziel, die neurophysiologischen Prozesse bei der Entstehung von Emotionen zu erforschen: Schauspieler sind hier Experten für die Erzeugung bestimmter emotionaler Zustände, die dann gezielt untersucht werden können.

Es gibt aber sicher auch Fälle, in denen beide Typen zusammenkommen.
Ja, etwa die «historische Aufführungspraxis» eines Nikolaus Harnoncourt, bei der es durch eine systematische Verschränkung von wissenschaftlicher Quellenforschung und der experimentellen Arbeit an den Arten des Spiels und auf Instrumenten der jeweiligen Zeit möglich wurde, neu-alte Klangformen zu erschließen. Nur das forschende Zusammenwirken von künstlerischer und wissenschaftlicher Expertise hat dies möglich gemacht. All das steht im Kontext einer Aufwertung ästhetischer Praxis und damit auch einer Ästhetisierung der Welterschliessung. Eine derartige Ästhetisierung meint hier allerdings nicht die Behübschung unseres Alltags, sondern die Aufwertung der sinnlichen Welterschließung und damit die Verbesserung unserer Aufmerksamkeit gegenüber der Gegenwart und ihrer Vielgestaltigkeit.

In der frühen Neuzeit gab es mit dem Typus des Universalgenies schon mal das Zusammengehen von Kunst und Wissenschaft.
Natürlich gab es Universaldenker, die Künstler und Wissenschafter waren, Figuren wie Leonardo oder später Goethe. Wichtig scheint mir aber vor allem, dass es insbesondere in der Renaissance eine größere Selbstverständlichkeit gab, was die Anerkennung der Relevanz des Zusammenspiels von unterschiedlichen Typen von Erkenntnis und Rationalität für unsere Welterschließung angeht.

Im Zuge einer fortschreitenden Spezialisierung haben dann Kunst und Wissenschaft getrennte Wege eingeschlagen.
In der Aufklärung und der späteren Romantik folgte eine zunehmend funktionale Differenzierung, wo die Künste und die Wissenschaften voneinander getrennte Rollen zugewiesen bekamen – und diese Rollen jeweils auch problematisch idealisiert wurden: der Künstler als Genie versus den Wissenschafter als Verkörperung des Rationalen. Das späte 19. und ganze 20. Jahrhundert kann als eine lange und komplizierte Geschichte der Rückabwicklung dieser Rollenverteilung gesehen werden. Die Künstlerische Forschung ist ein Indiz dafür, dass diese Rückabwicklung ein Stück weit erfolgreich war.

Wie kann man Kunstforschung von klassischer Kunstproduktion einerseits und der wissenschaftlichen Forschung andererseits abgrenzen?
Im Gegensatz zur Kunstproduktion geht es bei künstlerischer Forschung darum, den Aspekt der Erkenntnisproduktion selbst zu thematisieren und Formen des Ausdrucks zu suchen, die diesen Erkenntnisgewinnungsprozess verständlich und für andere anschlussfähig machen – aber eben nicht unbedingt in Form von theoretischen Texten, sondern genauso durch die Entwicklung von Formaten des konkreten Mitvollzugs von Erkenntnisprozessen, die eventuell auch eine reale Mitwirkung und eine direkte ästhetische Aussetzung erforderlich machen.

Ist Kunst generell freier als Wissenschaft?
Es ist nicht so, dass Kunst, weil sie andere Formen des Zugangs zulässt, irgendwie besser wäre als die Wissenschaft – sie ist anders als die Wissenschaften, sie kann gewisse Dinge, die die Wissenschaften nicht können – und ist freier insofern, als dass sie ihre intuitive und assoziative Heran- und Vorgehensweise nicht möglichst weitgehend durch methodische und kommunikative Konventionen ausschließen muss. Kunst kann Momente und Erfahrungszusammenhänge ermöglichen, die ich über eine Theoriesprache nicht erhalte. Dadurch werden erst Fragestellungen und Denkweisen ermöglicht, die nicht in der Form eines rationalen Sprachspiels entstehen können, sondern nur als Wechselspiel von ästhetischer Erfahrung und konzeptueller Erfassung.

Erfahrungen muss man machen und nicht nur darüber reden.
Genau. «Abstraktion ist Verlust», hat Alexander Baumgarten, der Begründer der philosophischen Ästhetik, gesagt – ein Satz, der mir immer wieder sehr zu denken gibt. Denn es ist ja nicht so, dass es ohne Abstraktion, ohne Begriff bzw. Konzept ginge – aber es geht eben auch nicht ohne Sinnlichkeit. Und Sinnlichkeit meint hier nicht zuerst die physiologische Dimension unserer Körpersinne – hören, sehen, schmecken, tasten –, sondern das Vermögen, Phänomene in ihrer Mannigfaltigkeit wahrzunehmen, als komplexes Ganzes, durch das sich uns etwas zeigt. Zugleich scheint uns eine Erfahrung zum Begreifenwollen zu nötigen, auch wenn dieses Begreifenwollen immer wieder das Erfahrene verfehlt. Das muss man aushalten. Letztlich geht es darum, eine Aufmerksamkeit gegenüber der Gegenwart zu kultivieren, die sich im Zwischenraum des Erfahrens und Begreifens bewegt und damit sensibel bleibt für das, was der etablierte Begriffsapparat immer wieder noch nicht begriffen hat.

Du nennst dich Philosoph am Rande des akademischen Betriebes …
Ja, weil ich einerseits diesem akademischen Betrieb entstamme, ihm viel verdanke und die intellektuelle Intensität und Strenge, die dort zumindest in glücklichen Stunden herrschen kann, sehr schätze. Ohne diesen Betrieb würde mir gewissermaßen das Schiff fehlen, mit dem ich mich auf dem schwankenden Medium Gegenwart über Wasser halten kann.

Aber andererseits … was treibt dich an die Peripherie?
Der akademische Betrieb hat sich in den letzten 20 Jahren stark verändert. Das ist nicht nur ein Effekt der Bologna-Reformen, der generell zunehmenden Effizienzsteigerungsanforderungen und der Drittmittelbeschaffungspflichten, die produktive Freiräume für mäanderndes Forschen einschränken. Es ist vor allem auch der Konkurrenz- und Profilierungsdynamik im Denken geschuldet: Es wird wahnsinnig viel publiziert, das letztlich nur marginale Relevanz hat, weil keiner mehr alles überschauen kann. Die Folge ist ein immer strategischerer Kommunikationsstil, immer mehr Spezialisierung – und damit eine zunehmende Kontextkompetenzverarmung – und der Bedarf an Meisterschaft in der Theorieadministration, wo es in vielen Fällen nur noch um das hechelnde Aufbereiten eines Status quo geht, nicht aber um ein leidenschaftsgetriebenes «Erfinden von Konzepten», wie es Gilles Deleuze und Félix Guattari mal in bezug auf die Philosophie genannt haben.

Was fehlt dir konkret?
Essayistisches und explorativ-experimentelles Denken, wie es mir wichtig ist und das die Lust an der Sache wachhält, wird immer weniger möglich – obwohl es paradoxerweise von vielen, die in dieser Mühle mittreten, eigentlich ebenfalls ersehnt wird. Ich fühle mich deshalb wohler an der Schnittstelle von praxisbezogenen ästhetischen Reflexionsarbeiten und künstlerischen Ausdrucksformen als im traditionellen akademischen Kontext.

Bist du deswegen auch selbst künstlerisch-performativ tätig?
Ich probiere gerne Formate aus, die es möglich machen, Reflexion durch künstlerische Praktiken zu betreiben, ja. Dazu zählen Projekte wie «Philosophische Reportagen», z. B. «Passagen», wo ich auf Fährschiffen Erkundungen zum Dasein im Nicht-mehr-Hier und Noch-nicht-Dort unternommen habe. In jüngerer Zeit sind es aber vor allem Performance-Formate, die das Philosophieren auf Bühnen bringen.

Philosophieren als eine transformative Kraft?
Ja, Philosophieren soll für andere erfahrbar und mitvollziehbar werden. Ich arbeite dabei eigentlich immer mit Künstlern zusammen, um gemeinsam eine Dynamik herzustellen, in welcher die Beschränkungen der je eigenen Denk- und Handlungsmuster verschoben werden. Konzeptarbeit und künstlerische Ausdrucksformen verstören sich in der gemeinsamen kreativen Praxis wechselseitig – und häufig produktiv. Da kommt es dann bei mir zuweilen zu Glücksgefühlen.

Literatur
Forschen mit Kunst. In: Dramaturgie. Zeitschrift der dramaturgischen
Gesellschaft 02/2012. S. 13–16.
Ästhetische Dispositive. In: Critica – Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Kunsttheorie. II/2011.
Erwartungstransgression. In: Bekmeier-Feuerhahn (Hg.): Theorien für den Kultursektor. Jahrbuch Kulturmanagement. Bielefeld: transcript, 2010. S. 273–290.
Im Echoland. In: Kulturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch Moderne 5, 2009. S. 194–204.

WiederabdruckDas Interview erschien zuerst in: Schweizer Monat, Ausgabe 1001 / November 2012. Was macht die Kunst?, S. 68–71.