Konservierung – what's next?

Vorwort Band I

admin — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 18:47:41 +0000

Exit the Twentieth Century,
take a left, it’s right there
you can’t miss it.

Die nächste Kunst

Die ewige Frage nach dem Nächsten, der Zwang zum Neuen, gefordert von Medien, Publikum und Wirtschaft, hat ihren Ursprung im Geniekult der Moderne. Ist das noch aktuell? Sind Innovation und Originalität im digitalen Zeitalter noch immer höchstes Ziel der Kunst? Es fällt zumindest auf, wieviel derzeit in der Kunst recycled, reenacted und remixed wird (Rauterberg). Aktuelle Copy- und Collage-Künstler1 dekonstruieren nicht mehr ironisch und destruktiv, sondern begegnen älteren Arbeiten und der Welt mit Respekt, schaffen unverhoffte Zusammenhänge, bewahren und entdecken wieder (Hedinger, Saltz). Marjorie Perloff nennt sie „unoriginelle Genies“, eine Haltung, die sich heute auch in der Position von Kuratoren und Sammlern zeigt. Diese haben innerhalb des Kunstfeldes stark an Einfluss gewonnen (Foster). Ein bedeutender Motor dieser Tendenz hin zum Kuratieren (Beyes, Schlüter), aber auch hin zum Kollaborieren und Partizipieren (Miessen) ist die Digitalisierung und Vernetzung der Gesellschaft durch Internet und neue Medien (Lovink, Meyer).

Die nächste Kunst ist die Kunst der nächsten Gesellschaft. Als nächste Gesellschaft bezeichnet der Soziologe Dirk Baecker die Gesellschaft, die auf dem Computer als geschäftsführender Medientechnologie basiert. Auch Marshall McLuhan, Niklas Luhmann, Régis Debray und Frédéric Martel gehen davon aus, dass kaum etwas so große Bedeutung für die Strukturen einer Gesellschaft und die Formen einer Kultur hat wie die jeweils dominierenden Verbreitungsmedien. Wir leben in, mit und durch Medien und da ist es nur logisch, dass dies auch die Kunst nicht unbeeindruckt lässt: wie sie produziert, publiziert und wie sie rezipiert wird (Bourriaud, Weibel u. a.).

Die aktuellen Debatten um das Urheberrecht zeigen eine Verschiebung im Verständnis von geistigem Eigentum. Während Raunig/Stalder von einer „Vervielfältigung des Autors“ sprechen, wählt Rauterberg den Begriff „Rekreativität“, Sollfrank spricht von einer „anderen Originalität“ und ∨Kleon fordert gar: „Steal like an artist!“ Dank der immer einfacher zu bedienenden und zur Verfügung stehenden Technologie können auch Laien professionell Kunst mit digitalen Mitteln produzieren und als Mash-Up zurück ins Netz geben (von Gehlen, Dekker). Im digitalen Zeitalter scheint sich endlich Joseph Beuys‘ berühmtes Dictum einzulösen: „Jeder ist ein Künstler.“

Aber diese Entwicklung bedroht das klassische Geschäftsmodell des Kunstmarktes, ebenso wie Teile der Museumsindustrie (Behnke, Lewis, Vogel), schafft andererseits jedoch weit größere Creative Industries (Grand/Weckerle, Rogger). Es wird interessant sein zu beobachten, wie der herkömmliche Kunstbetrieb mit dem Problem der Kompetenzenverschiebung hin zum User und Rezipienten umgehen wird (Munder, Wuggenig), wenn sie zukünftig nicht mehr Gatekeeper zwischen Original und Kopie, zwischen Besonderem und Konventionellem spielen dürfen (Bartholl). Für die Kunst könnte dies einer Befreiung gleichkommen, einer Befreiung auch vom Innovations- und Kreativitätszwang. Andreas Reckwitz stellt die Frage, ob man auch bewusst nicht kreativ sein könnte, kreative Potenziale ungenutzt lassen könnte. Wäre das gar ein Weg zu einer neuen Avantgarde? Oder stehen wir vor einer „Entkunstung“ (Stakemeier)? Oder vor einer Epoche der Postautonomie (Groys)? Gerald Raunig und Stephan Dillemuth et al. reflektieren über Möglichkeiten des Kunst- und Kulturschaffens zwischen Kooperation, Partizipation und Selbstorganisation jenseits der Institutionen und Institutionalisierung, deren Organisationsformen und ihr Potential für künstlerische Praxisformen der Zukunft. Diederich Diederichsen und Lars Bang Larsen wenden sich dem geheimnisvollen Begriff der kreativen Arbeit zu und beleuchten, wie gerade ihre Organisationsformen kapitalistisch ideal verwertbar werden.

Fragt man Künstler nach der Zukunft von Kunst, gibt es Antworten in mehrere Richtungen: a) Kunst als Ersatzreligion und als avantgardistisches Heilsversprechen mit dem Künstler als Held, der sich symbolisch für die Gesellschaft opfert (Ligthart, Schlingensief),
b) Kunst als Unterhaltung und Spiel (Banksy, Meese), c) Kunst als Trigger und Möglichkeit (Com&Com, Deller, Eno), d) Kunst als als Türöffner (Weibel), e) Kunst als Problemsteller (Nauman), f) Kunst als Protest (Fischer, Tzara) oder g) Das Ende der Kunst (Chodzinski). Zwar hatte Hegel die Kunst bereits vor rund 200 Jahren für tot erklärt, seither wurde aber dennoch fleißig weiter produziert und eine ganze Industrie aufgebaut (Graw, Mader, Scheller, Vogel, Wyss).

Entsprechend viel Bewegung gibt es zurzeit auch auf dem Feld, das mit der Bildung durch und der Ausbildung zur Kunst zu tun hat (Gielen/van Winkel, Lachmayer, Lüber, Meyer, Mörsch, Rogoff, Schönberger, Sternfeld). Dort entstehen neu institutionalisierte Gefäße wie die künstlerische Forschung (Badura, Dombois, Wesseling), welche die Funktion und den Einsatz von Kunst und Künstlern erweitern und die Grenzen zwischen Kunst und Wissenschaft ausloten. Bianchi setzt an diese Schnittstelle die Position des transdisziplinären „Archäologen der Jetztzeit“, der die kritischen Hintergründe und Denkstrukturen von Kunst vor dem Hintergrund von Natur- und Geschichtswissenschaft ebenso wie Ästhetik, Technik und Philosophie reflektiert.

Der Soziologe Baecker erwartet „Die Kunst der nächsten Gesellschaft” als „wild und dekorativ“. Er prophezeit, „sie zittert im Netzwerk, vibriert in den Medien, faltet sich in Kontroversen und versagt vor ihrer Notwendigkeit“. Der Künstler der nächsten Gesellschaft bezieht sich auf die globale Zeitgenossenschaft (Aranda/Wood/Vidokle) als die von allen geteilte Welt (Bourriaud). Demnach werden sich der Kunstbegriff wie auch der Begriff vom Autor noch stärker erweitern (Birken, Plönges), werden Gattungen und Künste noch mehr vermischt, Ordnungen und Formate weiter durchbrochen. Mehr und mehr verflechten sich Kunst, Leben, Politik, Ökonomie (Benediktsson, Bieber).

Gemäß Ingo Niermann wird Kunst zunehmend von einer nicht konservierbaren Ereignishaftigkeit bestimmt, einige Kunstwerke aus vergänglichen Materialien müssen regelmäßig erneuert werden (Hölling) und es ist nur eine Frage der Zeit, bis man mittels 3D-Kopierern ihre Relikte überall und jederzeit reproduzieren kann (Horx/Friebe). Die enormen Kosten für Lagerung, Transport und Versicherung werden dann entfallen. Diese Tendenzen gehen einher mit der „Erosion des Expertentums“ und der steigenden Präsenz der „Gratiskultur“ (Rogger).

Frühere Kunstzentren – New York, London, Paris oder Berlin – werden im Zuge der Globalisierung durch den Aufbau von neuen Kunstwelten und „emerging markets“ in Asien (Li), im Mittleren Osten (Imesch) oder Russland (Voina) ergänzt und teilweise abgelöst. Durch die Globalisierung wurden Kultur (Schindhelm) und Kunst grenzüberschreitend und zu einer lingua franca, die einem gemeinsamen Anliegen auf eine Weise entgegenkommt, wie es den an Sprache gebundenen kulturellen Äußerungen kaum möglich wäre. Alte Bindungen wie Religion, Dorfstruktur, Familie usw. sind weitgehend aufgebrochen (Wyss). Die metropolitane Gegenwartskunst scheint im Begriff, eine Weltreligion zu werden. Kunstevents schaffen ein Gemeinschaftsgefühl, quer über soziale Schichten hinweg.

Aber: Der ‚Global turn’ läutet auch das Ende des Kunstkanons ein (Basting). Der unter westlicher Flagge stehende Terminus „Internationale der Kunst“ wird auf- und abgelöst durch Begriffe wie „Global Art“ (Belting, Weibel), was andere wiederum kritisch als „Kunst-Ethnographie mit dem Tropenhelm“ (Wyss) und „opportunistische Veranstaltungen von Leuten ohne historisches Bewusstsein“ (Brock) verurteilen.

Die documenta 13-Chefin Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev bezweifelt, dass die Kategorie Kunst eine gegebene Größe ist: „Nichts ist einfach gegeben“. Die Konzeption von Kunst bezeichnet sie als „bourgeoise, eurozentrische Idee“ und fragt sich, ob das Feld der Kunst – bezogen auf die große abendländische Erzählung – auch im 21. Jahrhundert überdauern wird. Christov-Bakargiev spricht denn auch nicht mehr von Künstlern: „Wir brauchen nur einen Haufen Teilnehmer, die tun, was sie wollen, und diese Sorte Kultur produzieren.“ Der Kunstkritiker Jerry Saltz gab dieser Sorte Kunst auch bereits einen Namen: Post Art.

Ob nun Kunst oder darüber hinaus – die kulturelle Produktion wird weiter zunehmen, die Kulturangebote sind einfacher zugänglich, organisieren sich zunehmend selber (Gees), Orte und Gattungsformen werden durchlässiger und die Kunst erlebbarer (Ligthart). Neben einer Wende hin zum Realen, zur Natur und zum Ganzen (Hedinger), kann ebenso ein Trend beobachtet werden, der wegführt vom Artefakt und Referenziellen, hin zu Recherche, Prozess und Interaktion, zum Aktionistischen und Situativen (Butler, Malzacher, Žižek). Dabei rückt das Publikum, der Betrachter und Komplize in den Fokus (u. a. Helguera). Diesen relationalen Ansatz (Bourriaud) fasst Jeremy Deller von der Künstlerwarte aus plausibel zusammen: „I went from being an artist that makes things to being an artist that makes things happen“.

Die Krise

„Kunst nach der Krise“ – der Untertitel auf dem Umschlag dieses Buchs unterstellt, die Krise sei überwunden. Aber die Vorstellung, dass die Krise jemals ein Ende hat, entspricht wohl eher unserem frommen Wunschdenken, denn einer realistischen Diagnose. Aber von welcher Krise ist überhaupt die Rede?

Noch immer laufen die Aufräumarbeiten der globalen Finanzkrise, wir leben in einem Post-9/11-Überwachungsstaat (Seemann), dessen „Kampf gegen den Terror“ die Politik und Massenmedien durchdringt und den „Clash“ der Kulturen und Religionen verschärft. Über solchen Katastrophen und Schockstrategien (Klein) schweben der drohende Klimawandel, Sparzwänge, die ungerechte Verteilung von sozialer Sicherheit und Ressourcen und regelmäßige verheerende Natur-, Polit-, Atom-, Bildungs- und andere menschgemachten Katastrophen (van Mensvoort, Walch).

Oder geht es um eine Krise (in) der Kunst? Denn „in der Kunst ist immer Krise“, schreibt Dominik Landwehr. Sowohl in der Produktion wie in der Publikation und Rezeption. Vielleicht deshalb wird in schöner Regelmäßigkeit die Krise und dann auch gleich das Ende der Kunst (Danto) oder zumindest der Kunstgeschichte (Belting, Ullrich, Weibel) ausgerufen. Den ständig wachsenden Kunstmarkt scheint dies wenig zu kümmern, Jahr für Jahr werden immer wieder neue (konstruierte) Rekordumsätze vermeldet (Behnke, Lewis, Vogel). Auktionen und Vernissagen zeitgenössischer Kunstausstellungen laufen Filmfestivals und angesagten Clubs in Sachen Hipness und internationaler Promi-Dichte den Rang ab und die Yellow Press steigt zur neuen Kunstberichterstatterin auf. Internationale Großausstellungen werden heute von Millionen von Besuchern aufgesucht (Heiser) und damit zu einem unverzichtbaren Standortfaktor für eine jede Stadt. Kunst für Massen ist zwar kein neues Phänomen, die bewusste Unbewältigbarkeit von Großausstellungen ist aber eine Strategie neueren Datums und am Ende selbst ein Konsumprinzip. Aus „emanzipierten Betrachtern“ (Rancière) werden konstitutiv überforderte Rezipienten. Überfordert nicht von allzu anspruchsvoller Kunst, sondern von allzu umfangreichem Pensum. Roelstraete sieht die Ausbreitung des Kuratorischen auch als eine Art „Inkorporationskunst“ und Krisenmoment im Feld der Kunst. Jörg Scheller fragt sich, ob das gegenwärtige Kunstsystem zu einem „Sonntagsgesicht der Gier“ (Sloterdijk) werde und wir gar nicht mehr fliehen können, vor den Banken und ihren Kunstsammlungen, vor den Städten mit ihren „Public Art“ Projekten (Marchart, Schipper) und den Regierungen und Erziehungsdepartementen mit ihren „Artistic Research“-Initiativen (Badura, Wesseling).

Die größte Krise ist wohl unter den Künstlern auszumachen: Enthusiasten und flexible Dienstleister ohne feste Löhne, die ihre Ware ohne Absicherung zu Markte tragen (Dercon/Liebs). Die Wirtschaft feiert den Künstler schon seit Jahren als neues Leitmodell postfordistischer Ökonomie (Chiapello). Der Netzwerker lebt von Projekt zu Projekt (Boltanski), Maurizio Lazzarato nennt es „Immaterielle Arbeit“ und Ève Chiapello fordert mehr „Flexicurity“. Dementsprechend vergrößert sich das Prekariat im Kunstfeld stetig weiter. Denn es sind längst nicht mehr nur die Künstler ohne feste Löhne, sondern auch die Kunstvermittler, Akademiker und Journalisten, die sich unter dem Schirm von Events, Kongressen, Partys u. a. selbst ausbeuten (Dercon, Lewis, Lütticken). Verschärfend kommt hinzu, dass, wer im globalisierten Kulturbetrieb Erfolg haben will, als moderner Nomade seinen Engagements nachreist.

Krise herrscht auch bei der Kunstförderung und in der Kulturpolitik: Regierungen streichen Jahr für Jahr ihre Subventionen für Kunst und Kultur zusammen (Knüsel) und delegieren ihren Auftrag zunehmend an die Privatwirtschaft, die ihrerseits aber einen Return on invest von der Kunst fordert. Die Ökonomisierung der Kunst wird vorwärts getrieben (Liebl, Rasmussen), was auch die Vorstellung von Kunst verändert: Sie wird durch „Kreativität“ und die „Kreativindustrie“ ersetzt. Kultur gilt dann wie alles andere als ein Warenkreislauf, d. h. man bemächtigt sich der kollektiven Bildproduktion, um die privaten Profite zu steigern.

Aus der Künstlerkritik ist als neuer „Geist des Kapitalismus“ (Boltanski, Chiapello) der Neoliberalismus entstanden. Auch die Kunstkritik und die Kunstinstitutionen (Vogel, Wuggenig) sitzen in einer Kritik-Falle, müssen sie doch ihre Angestellten bezahlen und gleichzeitig (private) Förderer finden. Dass Kritik aber auch andere Wege gehen kann, zeigen die aus dem Milieu der ‚Occupy Wall Street’-Bewegung (Occupy, Graeber) stammenden solidarischen Aktionen im Kunstfeld (Lewis), etwa gegen Sotheby’s oder das MoMA (Fischer), zur Sichtbarmachung von korrupten Machenschaften, der Privatisierung öffentlichen Raums und des Missbrauchs kultureller Autorität. Investigativen Journalismus betreiben heute nicht mehr die Medien, sondern Hacker wie Julian Assange und Edward Snowden (Seemann) – oder eben Künstler (Bieber).

Eine andere Form von Kritik und Krisenthematisierung leisten The Yes Men, die sich als Repräsentanten internationaler Konzerne ausgeben und von innen heraus auf eine „Identitätskorrektur“ zuarbeiten. Die Gruppe WochenKlausur wiederum gibt konkrete Vorschläge zur Veränderung gesellschaftspolitischer Defizite und versucht diese auch umzusetzen. Doch zu oft verkommt Künstlerkritik und revolutionärer Habitus zu einem Marketingtrick. Je subversiver sich ein Künstler gibt, desto inniger wird er von den Kritisierten geliebt (Hirschhorn, Meese). Und nicht selten gipfelt die Kunst in einer „Überproduktion überflüssiger Objekte“ (Zmijewski)

Im Hintergrund steht aber auch die oben schon angesprochene (Meta-)Krise im Übergang in die „nächste Gesellschaft“ (Baecker, Meyer, Plönges). Mediologische Revolutionen wie die Einführung von Computer und Internet haben tiefgreifende Auswirkungen auf die Gesellschaft und ihre Funktionssysteme. Die Suche nach neuen Kulturformen, die der Überforderung der Gesellschaft durch das jeweils neue Kommunikationsmedium gewachsen sind, stürzt die Gesellschaft zunächst in fundamentale Krisen. Das war so, als die vorzeitliche Stammeskultur durch die Erfindung der Schrift irritiert wurde und sich aus dieser Krise die antiken Hochkulturen entwickelten. Ebenso, als die Erfindung des Buchdrucks die feudalen Herrschafts- und scholastischen Wissenssysteme irritierte und die daraus entstehende Krise zur Aufklärung und modernen Gesellschaft führte. Als parallel dazu die Einführung der Zentralperspektive die mittelalterlichen Sehgewohnheiten irritierte, war die „Lösung“ des Problems die Erfindung dessen, was wir 500 Jahre lang als „Kunst“ verstanden haben. Wir sind gespannt, ob und wie die zeitgenössische Kunst auch für die aktuellen Krisen Lösungen anbieten wird.

Der Reader

„What’s next? Kunst nach der Krise“ ist ein Reader, der 177 Essays und Interviews sowie 154 Zitate, Thesen und Manifeste zum Thema des möglichen Nächsten in der Kunst versammelt und auf breiter Phänomen- und Literaturgrundlage die neusten Entwicklungen im und um das erweiterte Feld und System „Kunst“ diskutiert. Der Sammelband zeigt Möglichkeiten der Kunst der nächsten Gesellschaft und diskutiert die gewandelten Bedingungen von Produktion, Distribution, Publikation, Vermittlung und Rezeption von Kunst in einem globalen Kontext.

Das Buch hat seinen Ursprung in zwei gleichnamigen Konferenzen und Lehrveranstaltungen an der Universität zu Köln (Institut für Kunst & Kunsttheorie) und der Hochschule der Künste Zürich (Departement für Kulturanalysen und Vermittlung). Die dort lancierten Fragen und Debatten wurden wieder aufgenommen und um weitere, auch globalere Blickwinkel und Positionen ergänzt.

Die Texte stammen von Autoren aus vier Kontinenten und erstrecken sich über eine Zeitspanne von etwa 3000 Jahren, wobei die Mehrheit der Beiträge aus den letzten drei Jahren datiert ist. Die insgesamt 304 Autoren sind größtenteils dem Kunstfeld zuzuordnen, darunter viele Künstler (Fraser, Sehgal, Zmijewski u. a.), Kuratoren (Christov-Bakargiev, Bourriaud, Obrist u. a.), Kritiker (Graw, Heiser, Verwoert u. a.), Kunsthistoriker (Belting, Ullrich, Wyss u. a.), Kulturwissenschaftler (Foster, Groys, Rogoff u. a.), Sammler (Rubell), Konservatoren (Hölling), Kunstpädagogen und -vermittler (Meyer, Mörsch, Sternfeld u. a.), Kulturjournalisten (Lewis, Rauterberg, Saltz u. a.). Daneben kommen aber auch Stimmen mancher Nachbardisziplinen und weiter entfernt liegender Felder zu Wort, so auch Philosophen (Butler, Sloterdijk, Žižek u. a.), Soziologen (Baecker, Boltanski, Luhmann, Reckwitz u. a.), Ethnologen (Graeber), Psychoanalytiker (Pazzini), Theologen (Hoff), Naturwissenschaftler (Kurzweil), Ökonomen und Wirtschaftswissenschaftler (Liebl, Priddat, Sedláček), Politiker (Benediktsson, Marx), Medienwissenschaftler (Lovink, McLuhan, Weibel), Hacker (Swartz), Aktivisten (Occupy Wall Street, Pussy Riot, The Yes Men), Musiker (z. B. Cage, Eno, Smith), Filmemacher (Kluge), Theaterschaffende (Rau, Schipper, Wickert), Architekten (Borries, Böttger, Miessen), Designer (Kleon, Porter, Westwood), Literaten (Brecht, Coupland, Wallace) und viele andere mehr.

Rund ein Viertel der Textbeiträge entstanden neu für dieses Buch, der überwiegende Teil sind Reprints von wissenschaftlichen Texten, Magazin- oder Blog-Artikeln, aber auch erstmalige Transkripte von Audio- und Videointerviews (Smith), Gedichten (Ono), Songtexten (Lennon) oder Briefen (Bezzola). Neben Essays und Interviews finden sich darüber hinaus Manifeste (Abramović u. a.), Thesen (Baecker), Glossen (Schmid), (Science) Fiction (Feuerstein, Strouhal/Horak) sowie Ausschnitte aus Kunstwerken (Gilbert & George), Grafiken (Porter), Werbespots (Apple), Filmen (Cummings) oder Büchern (Bibel, von Borries).

Die Texte erscheinen im Folgenden alphabetisch gereiht, jeweils mit bis zu zehn Schlagworten versehen. Über verschiedene Indices kann der Leser sowohl über Themen als auch Autorennamen in das Buch einsteigen. Durchsetzt sind die 177 Essays und Interviews mit 154 Zitaten, die in komprimierter Form weitere Perspektiven zur Zukunft der Kunst und Kultur eröffnen. In Kleingruppen auf einer oder zwei Seiten angeordnet, schaffen sie thematische Kurzgeschichten und einen zweiten Strang durchs Buch.

Parallel zum Buch wurde die Website whtsnxt.net lanciert. Hier werden Zusatzmaterialien zu den Texten (Bilder, Videos, Files, Weblinks u. a.), die Autoren-Biographien, Schlagworte, Registereinträge und sämtliche Zitate. Zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt werden auch hier alle Texte zur Verfügung gestellt. Via QR-Code, der unter jedem Text im Buch steht, kann man mit Hilfe eines Smartphones o. ä. direkt auf die Website wechseln und sich ergänzende Informationen zu den Beiträgen abholen. Die mediale Verschränkung funktioniert auch umgekehrt, da die Verschlagwortung und Textnummern im Buch wie im Web identisch sind.

What’s next?

Dieses Buch ist komplex: Scharfe Gegenwartsanalysen wechseln sich ab mit spekulativen Zukunftsprognosen, lakonischen Orakelsprüchen, unverfrorenen Behauptungen, gezielten Provokationen, utopischem Wunschdenken und schwarzmalenden Mahnrufen. Diese sich oft selbst widersprechende Vielstimmigkeit verunmöglicht eine klare Aussage oder Prognose über das Nächste in der Kunst, aber sie bietet eine reiche Palette an Möglichkeiten an und spricht Einladungen aus, diese Gedanken aufzunehmen und weiterzuspinnen. Wie bereits Voltaire sagte: „Die nützlichsten Bücher werden zur Hälfte von den Lesern selbst gemacht.“ Es kommt darauf an, wie man einen Text liest und interpretiert, aber auch wie man ihn weiterschreibt und in Handlung und Aktion überführt. Offene und diskursive Formate beziehen in der aktuellen zeitgenössischen Kunst Besucher und Teilnehmer in die Produktion, Publikation und Reflexion mit ein. Dies soll auch für diesen Reader gelten: Er ist ein mehrdeutiges Angebot, das Reibungspotential bereitstellt, die Gedanken tanzen lässt und zur Diskussion mit offenem Ende einlädt.

What’s Next? Die Frage kann man endlos stellen. Sie bleibt immer aktuell und dieser Reader ist deshalb nie wirklich abgeschlossen. Dementsprechend wird mit diesem Band eine Reihe eröffnet, die nach dem ersten breitgefächerten Aufschlag künftig unter dem Übertitel „What’s next?“ Themenvertiefungen anbieten wird: 2014 erscheint mit Band 2 „What’s next? Art Education“ eine Textsammlung aus dem Feld der Kunstpädagogik und -vermittlung. Während die Bände einzeln publiziert werden, wird die begleitende Website whtsnxt.net als stetig wachsendes Text- und Material-Archiv alle Publikationen verbinden.

Nun aber wünschen wir viel Vergnügen bei der Lektüre. Wir widmen dieses Buch all den Menschen, die es nie lesen werden.

Johannes M. Hedinger und Torsten Meyer
Venedig, September 2013

[English version]

Preface

Johannes M. Hedinger, Torsten Meyer / 2013

Exit the Twentieth Century,
take a left, it’s right there
you can’t miss it.

The Next Art

The eternal question of the next new thing, the compulsion for novelty, as it is propelled by the media, consumers and business, has its origin in the modern cult of the genius. Is it still relevant? Are innovation and originality still the ultimate aims of art in the digital age? At the very least, it is striking to what extent art is currently recycled, reenacted and remixed (Rauterberg). Today’s copy-and-collage artists no longer engage in deconstruction with ironical or destructive intent, but instead, engage with older works and the world with respect, create unexpected connections, preserve and reinvent (Hedinger, Saltz). Marjorie Perloff has called this phenomenon “unoriginal genius,” an attitude that is also reflected today in the position of curators and collectors, whose influence on the world of art has been steadily increasing (Foster). A major engine for this trend toward the curatorial (Beyes, Schlüter) and also toward collaboration and participation (Miessen) has been the digitalization and networking of society via the Internet and new media (Lovink, Meyer).

The next art will be the art of the next society. The sociologist Dirk Baecker defines the ‘next society’ as the society based on the computer as its dominant media technology. Marshall McLuhan, Niklas Luhmann, Régis Debray and Frédéric Martel also take as their fundamental assumption that nothing has quite so much impact on societal structure and cultural forms than a society’s dominant medium of communication. We live in, with and through media, so it is only logical that this also has a major impact on art: on the ways it is produced, publicized and received (Bourriaud, Weibel, among others).

Current controversies about copyrights point to a shift in our understanding of intellectual property. While Raunig/Stalder speak about a “duplication of the author,” Rauterberg prefers the term “re-creativity,” Sollfrank speaks about “another originality” and Kleon even advises, “Steal like an artist!” Thanks to ever more accessible and easier to use technology, even laypersons can now produce professional art with digital media and return it to the net as a mashup (von Gehlen, Dekker). In the digital age, Joseph Beuys’ famous dictum seems to have come to pass: “Everyone is an artist.”

However, these same changes threaten the classical business model of the art market as well as portions of the museum industry (Behnke, Lewis, Vogel), even as they simultaneously engender much larger creative industries (Grand/Weckerle, Rogger). It will be interesting to observe how the conventional art business will deal with the problem posed by the shift in competency to the user and recipient (Munder, Wuggenig) as it takes away the market’s role as gatekeeper between original and copy, between the special and the conventional (Bartholl). For art, this could amount to a kind of liberation, even including liberation from the compulsion for innovation and creativity. Andreas Reckwitz poses the question whether one could deliberately choose not to be creative and let creative potential remain unused. Could this even become a path toward a new avant-garde? Alternatively, do we stand at the threshold of “Entkunstung” (de-artification, as coined by Adorno) (Stakemeier) or an epoch of post-autonomy (Groys)? Gerald Raunig and Stephan Dillemuth et al. reflect upon changing possibilities for creating art and culture, among them cooperation, participation and self-organization beyond institutions and institutionalization, about their forms of organization and their potential to become future forms of artistic practice. Diedrich Diederichsen and Lars Bang Larsen turn their attention to the mysterious notion of creative work and illustrate how capitalism ideally exploits its organizational forms.

If one asks artists about the future of art, their responses run in multiple directions: a) Art as a substitute religion, an avant-garde promise of salvation with the artist as the hero who sacrifices himself symbolically for society (Ligthart, Schlingensief); b) Art as entertainment and play (Banksy, Meese); c) Art as trigger and possibility (Com&Com, Deller, Eno); d) Art as a door-opener (Weibel); e) Art as a problem-identifier (Naumann);
f) Art as protest (Fischer, Tzara); and g) the end of art (Chozinski). Of course, Hegel had already declared art dead around 200 years ago, yet since that time, it has gone on to be produced in greater quantities and grown into a huge industry (Graw, Mader, Scheller, Vogel, Wyss).

These days, there is a similar intensity of activity in those fields related to education via art and to art education (Gielen/vanWinkel, Lachmayer, Lüber, Meyer, Mörsch, Rogoff, Schönberger, Sternfeld). New institutional categories have arisen, such as artistic research (Badura, Dombois, Wesseling), which have expanded the function and utilization of art and artists, and explored the boundaries between art and science. Bianchi situates the transdisciplinary position of “archeology of the present time” at this interface, a field that examines the critical underpinnings and thought structures of art against the backdrop of the natural and historical sciences as well as aesthetics, technology and philosophy.

The sociologist Dirk Baecker expects “the art of the next society” to be “wild and decorative.” He prophesies, “it trembles in the network, vibrates in the media, divides itself into controversies and breaks down in the face of its necessity.” The artist of the next society will relate to his/her global contemporaries (Aranda/Wood/Vidokle) and to a world shared by all (Bourriaud). According to this view, the notion of art along with the notion of the author will continue to expand (Birken, Plönges), different genres and arts will intermix, and boundaries between formats and orders will break down. Art, life, politics and economics will become increasingly interconnected. (Benediktsson, Bieber)

According to Ingo Niermann, art will be increasingly defined by a non-conservable event-driven nature; some works of art made of transient materials already require regular renewal (Hölling), and it is only a matter of time until anyone will be able to use 3D-copyiers to reproduce their relics anywhere and at any time (Horx/Friebe). The enormous costs for storage, transport and insurance of artwork will fall by the wayside. These tendencies go hand in hand with the “erosion of expertise” and the growing presence of the “gratis culture.”(Rogger).

In the course of globalization, traditional centers of culture – New York, London, Paris and Berlin – will be joined and to some extent overshadowed by the growth of new art worlds and “emerging markets” in Asia (Li), the Middle East (Imesch) and Russia (Voina). Globalization will push culture (Schindhelm) and art to transcend national boundaries and become a lingua franca that addresses common concerns in ways never before possible for cultural expressions bound to language. Old ties, such as religion, village structure, family, etc. are being broadly disrupted (Wyss). The metropolitan art of the present appears to be about to turn into a world religion. Art events create a sense of community that cuts across all social classes.

Yet: the “global turn” also heralds the end of the art canon (Basting). The notion of an “Internationale of Art” under a Western banner is being replaced and supplanted by terms such as “global art”(Belting, Weibel), which other critics condemn as “art ethnography with a pith helmet”(Wyss) and “opportunistic exhibitions by people without historical consciousness” (Brock).

The artistic director of dOCUMENTA 13, Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev, questions whether the category of art can be regarded as a given: “Nothing is simply given.” The notion of ‘art’ can be characterized as a “bourgeois, Eurocentric idea” and it is questionable whether the field of art – as related to the great Western narrative – will survive through the 21st century. Christov-Bakargiev also suggests that we no longer speak in terms of artists: “We need only a bunch of participants who do what they want, and this variety produces culture.” The art critic Jerry Saltz has already given this art variety a name: Post Art.

Whether or not art, or beyond it – cultural production – will continue to thrive, cultural offerings are becoming more easily accessible, are increasingly self-organized (Gees); places and generic forms are becoming more permeable and art more directly experienced (Ligthart). Beyond a turn toward the real, to nature and to the whole (Hedinger), we can also observe a trend that leads away from artifact and reference toward research, process and interaction, toward the ‘actionist’ and the situational (Butler, Malzacher, Žižek). In this shift, the focus turns to the audience, to the observer and to accomplices (among others, Helguera). From the artist’s perspective Jeremy Deller plausibly summarizes this relational approach (Bourriaud) as, “I went from being an artist that makes things to being an artist that makes things happen.”

The Crisis

“Art after the crisis” – the subtitle on the book jacket – suggests that the crisis has been overcome. However, the idea that the crisis can ever end may only reflect our own wishful thinking rather than a realistic assessment. In fact, we must ask: what is this crisis that we are speaking about?

Cleanup work in the aftermath of the global financial crisis is still continuing, and we are living in a post 9/11 ‘surveillance state’ (Seemann), where the “war against terrorism” permeates politics and the mass media, intensifying the “clash” of cultures and religions. Beyond all such catastrophes and shock strategies (Klein) looms the threat of climate change, demands for austerity, the unjust distribution of social welfare and resources, and devastating regularly occurring natural, political, nuclear, educational and other man-made catastrophes (van Mensvoort, Walch).

Or are we speaking about a crisis (in, of) art itself? After all, as Dominik Landwehr writes, “Art is always in a crisis” – in its production as well as its publication and reception. Maybe this is the reason there are such frequent proclamations of crisis and even the end of art (Danto), or at least the end of art history (Belting, Ullrich, Weibel). These concerns seem to scarcely bother the ever-growing art market. Year after year, there are new reports of record sales (Behnke, Lewis, Vogel). Auctions, private sales, and contemporary art exhibitions are overtaking film festivals and chic clubs for their hipness and international notoriety and the yellow press is becoming the new reporter of the arts scene. Today, major international exhibitions are attended by millions of visitors (Heiser) and have turned into an indispensable ‘location factor’ for every major city. Of course, art for the masses is not a new phenomenon, but the deliberate unmanageability of major exhibitions is a very modern strategy and in the end, a consumption principle in its own right. “Emancipated viewers” (Rancière) are being esentially transformed into overwhelmed recipients. They are not overwhelmed by the sheer power of art but by the all-too grand scope of the exhibitions. Roelstraete sees the dissemination of the curatorial as a kind of “incorporation art” and a moment of crisis in the field of art. Jörg Scheller wonders whether the contemporary art system is turning into the “Sunday face of greed.” (Sloterdijk). We can no longer get away from the banks and their art collections, from the cities and their “public art” projects (Marchart, Schipper) and from governments and departments of education and their “artistic research” initiatives (Badura, Wesseling).

The greatest crisis is clearly detectable among the artists themselves – passionate and flexible service providers without fixed incomes who bring their wares to market without any assurances (Dercon/Liebs). Business has been celebrating the artist for years by now as the new model for the post-Fordist economy (Chiapello). The networker survives from one project to the next (Boltanski), and Maurizio Lazzarato calls it “intangible work” while Ève Chiapello prefers the term “flexisecurity.” Thus, precarious employment of workers in the art field continuously grows. In fact, for some time by now, it is not only artists who work without fixed wages, but also art intermediaries, academics and journalists, who vend their services under the umbrella of events, congresses, parties and such (Dercon, Lewis, Lütticken). Another aggravating factor is that anyone who wishes to succeed in the globalized culture business must wander about like a modern nomad in pursuit of his/her commitment.

The sense of crisis is also rampant in art promotion and cultural politics: governments are cutting back their subsidies for art and culture year after year (Knüsel) and increasingly delegate this function to the private economy, which for its part, expects a return on any investment it makes in art. The economization of art is driven forward (Liebl, Rasmussen), which has also changed the concept of art. Art has been replaced by “creativity” and the “creative industry.” Culture ends up valued only as a product cycle, like everything else; that collective production of imagery is seized upon in order to increase private profit.

Art criticism has challenged the new “spirit of capitalism” (Boltanski, Chiapello) in Neoliberalism. Art criticism and art institutions (Vogel, Wuggenig) find themselves at a critical juncture as they try to pay their employees while at the same time securing (private) financial backers. Criticism also proceeds in other directions, as illustrated by solidarity actions in the art field (Lewis) that emerged from the milieu of the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement (Occupy, Graeber). These include actions against Sotheby’s and MoMA(Fischer), exposing corrupt machinations, the privatization of public spaces and the misuse of cultural authority. Investigative journalism is no longer confined to the media, but also pursued by hackers such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden (Seemann) – and even by artists (Bieber).

Another form of criticism and concrete expression of crisis is provided by The Yes Men, who impersonate representatives of international corporations and work from within for the purposes of “identity correction.” The artists’ collective WochenKlausur offers concrete suggestions to change failing social policies and attempts to implement them. Yet all too often, artist’s critique and revolutionary habitus degenerate into a marketing trick. The more subversive an artist presents himself, the more passionately the very people he criticizes will adore him (Hirschhorn, Meese). And not infrequently, the art culminates in an “overproduction of superfluous objects” (Zmijewski).

However, the (meta) crisis referred to earlier in relation to our transition to the “next society” (Baecker, Meyer, Plönges) also looms in the background. Media revolutions, such as the introduction of the computer and the Internet, have profound effects on society and its functional systems. At first, the search for new cultural forms to meet society’s excessive demands on each new communication medium plunges society into a fundamental crisis. This was just as much the case when prehistoric tribal culture was disrupted by the invention of writing, a crisis that culminated in the invention of ancient high cultures. Similarly, the invention of printing disrupted feudal rule and scholastic systems of knowledge and the resulting crisis ultimately led to the Enlightenment and modern society. Analogous to these changes, the introduction of one-point perspective disrupted medieval ways of perception, and the “solution” to the problems created by this discovery was precisely what we have understood as “art” for the past 500 years. It will be exciting to find out whether and in what ways contemporary art will discover solutions for the current crisis.

The Reader

“What’s next? Art after the Crisis” is a reader that has collected 177 essays and interviews along with 154 citations, theses and manifestos on the theme of what might be the ‘next thing’ in art. The contributions examine the latest developments in and around the expanded field and system of “art” based on a broad phenomenological foundation and extensive review of the literature. The compendium volume suggests possibilities for the art of the next society and explores the transformations in the conditions of production, distribution, publication, communication and reception of art in a global context.

The book originate from two conferences and courses of the same name presented at the University of Cologne (Institute for Art and Art Theory) and the Zürich University of the Arts (Department of Cultural Analysis). The questions and discussions initiated there were revisited and expanded to include additional, more global perspectives and positions.

The contributions are written by authors from four continents and cover a time span of about 3000 years, but the majority of the essays date from the past three years. The total of 304 authors stem mostly from the field of art, including many artists (Fraser, Sehgal, Zmijewski, among others), curators (Christov-Bakargiev, Bourriaud, Obrist, among others), critics (Graw, Heiser, Verwoert, among others), art historians (Belting, Ullrich, Wyss, among others), cultural scholars (Foster, Groys, Rogoff, among others), collectors (Rubell), conservators (Hölling), art educators and organizers (Meyer, Mörsch, Sterneld, and others), and cultural journalists (Lewis, Rauterberg, Saltz, and others). In addition to these authors from the art world, there are also many voices representing both related and more distant disciplines, such as philosophers (Butler, Sloterdijk, Žižek, among others), sociologists (Baecker, Boltanski, Luhmann, Reckwitz, among others), ethnologists (Graeber), psychoanalysts (Pazzini), theologians (Hoff), natural scientists (Kurzweil), economists (Liebl, Priddat, Sedláček), politicians (Benediktsson, Marx), media scientists (Lovink, McLuhan, Weibel), hackers (Swartz), activists (Occupy Wall Street, Pussy Riot, The Yes Men), musicians (such as Cage, Eno, Smith), filmmakers (Kluge), theater professionals (Rau, Schipper, Wickert), architects (Borries, Böttger, Miessen), designers (Kleon, Porter, Westwood), literary figures (Brecht, Coupland, Wallace), and many others.

Around a quarter of the textual contributions were written especially for this volume, but the great majority are reprints of academic texts, magazine or blog articles, as well as original transcripts of audio and video interviews (Smith), poetry (Ono), song texts (Lennon), and letters (Bezzola). Along with essays and interviews, there are also manifestos (Abramović, and others), theses (Baecker), glosses (Schmid), (Science) fiction (Feuerstein, Strouhal/Horak) as well as excerpts from works of art (Gilbert & George), graphics (Porter), advertising spots (Apple), films (Cummings) or books (the Bible, von Borries).

The following texts are arranged in alphabetical order, each of them furnished with up to ten keywords. Using various indices, the reader can browse through the book by topic as well as by author name. The 177 essays are interspersed with 154 citations, which open up additional perspectives on the future of art and culture in highly compressed form. Arranged in small groups on one or two pages, they create brief histories that form a second thread running through the book.

At the same time as the book, the website whtsnxt.net was launched. The website contains supplementary materials to the texts (images, videos, files, links, among others), biographies of the authors, keywords, index entries and complete citations. At some point in the future, the texts will be made available in full on the website as well. With the QR code that is under each text in the book, one can use a smartphone (or similar device) to switch directly to the website and gather additional information about the essays. The media interface also functions in the reverse direction, since the keywords and indexing and the text numbers in the book are identical with those on the web.

What’s next?

This is a complex book: incisive contemporary analyses alternate with speculative predictions for the future, laconic oracular pronouncements, blatant assertions, deliberate provocation, utopian wishful thinking and dark exhortations. This polyphony, often self-contradictory as well, makes it impossible to draw any unequivocal conclusions or predictions about what is next in art, but instead, it offers a rich palette of possibilities and an invitation to take up these thoughts and develop them further. As Voltaire said long ago, “The most useful books are those that are half created by the readers themselves.” The important thing is how one reads and interprets a text, and whether one writes it further and translates it into practice and action. In today’s contemporary art, open and discursive formats engage visitors and participants in production, publication and reflection. This also applies to this Reader – it is an offering full of multiple meanings that generates friction, sets the mind dancing with ideas, and invites open-ended discussion.

What’s Next? This is a perpetual question. It will always be relevant and thus, the Reader is never truly finished. Accordingly, this volume will be the first in a series, and following the initial first wide-ranging presentation, will offer future titles under the heading, “What’s Next” that will focus on individual themes in depth. Volume 2 will be published in 2014, titled “What’s next? Art Education,” a collection of essays from the field of art education and communication. While the subsequent volumes will be published as single editions, the accompanying website whtsnxt.net will serve as a continuously growing archive of texts and materials from all of the publications.

Now, we would like to wish our readers great pleasure in perusing this book. We dedicate this book to all the people who will never read it.

Johannes M. Hedinger and Torsten Meyer
Venice, September 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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