Leben – what's next?

Zwischen Kunst und Schule

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

Komposita müssen im Deutschen von hinten nach vorn gelesen werden. Demnach ist die Kunsthochschule zunächst einmal eine Schule, ein institutioneller Ort, an dem Schüler und Lehrer zusammentreffen. Gleichwohl stößt diese Lesart an einer Kunsthochschule auf Widerstand – oft im Lehrkörper und den dazugehörenden Köpfen, weniger bei den jungen Menschen, die eine Hochschule besuchen, um dort nicht alles, aber etwas Besonderes zu lernen. Was das ist, muss ihnen am Anfang unklar sein, sonst erübrigt sich das Studium. Es verbindet sich jedoch immer mit Lebensentwürfen, die in durchaus unterschiedliche Richtungen gehen. Das Spektrum reicht vom Designer über den Kunstlehrer, Kunst- und Medienwissenschaftler bis hin zum Künstler. Die Berufsbilder sind mehr oder weniger fest Umrissen, aber eingebaut in das Bild vom jeweils eigenen Leben, dessen Geschichte modellierend. Mit der Schule haben alle Erfahrungen, mit Entprivatisierung, Schulpflicht und Schullaufbahnen, Lehrplänen und Prüfungen. Durchkommen war und ist wichtig. Zur Schule als Sozialisationsagentur gibt es keine Alternative, zur real existierenden Schule viele. Deshalb interessiert mich auch, ob allgemeine Bildung in der Bundesrepublik mit, ohne oder nur mit einem Zerrbild von Kunst betrieben wird. Deshalb irritiert mich, wenn Schule in der Kunsthochschule nur als Negativbild vorkommt – im Zusammenhang mit Zwang, Verschulung und Unterrichtsbeamtentum. Aus pädagogischer Sicht geht es mir in erster Linie darum, an die Stelle der zwischenmenschlichen Machtausübung die Aufforderung zur gegenseitigen Akzeptanz, zur Erläuterung der angelegten Wertmaßstäbe und Handlungsziele zu setzen. Zwischen Kunst und Schule steht der, die, das andere. Im Zusammenhang mit Lehren und Lernen sind die anderen Menschen das zentrale Problem. Es bleibt auf geradezu abenteuerliche Weise ungelöst, lässt sich aber auch nicht umgehen. Die anderen verhalten sich eigenwilliger, als wir gern glauben. Sie sind weder als unser Ebenbild zu vereinnahmen noch als Exoten von uns zu distanzieren. Lehren und Lernen bestehen zu einem erheblichen Teil darin, sich der alltäglich nur bedingt eingeübten Anstrengung auszusetzen, nicht nur die eigenen, sondern sozial orientiert auch die Lebensentwürfe der anderen Menschen respektvoll kennenzulernen und einzubeziehen, sich von ihnen stören zu lassen. Die subjektiven Theorien von anderen ernst zu nehmen und im gleichen Vorgang schon kritisch zu verfahren, ist nicht nur ausgesprochen schwierig, sondern auch problematisch. Gerade deshalb wird es notwendig, alle Möglichkeiten des Nebeneinanders, Nacheinanders und Miteinanders zu nutzen. Neue Interpretationen als sprachliche und metasprachliche Ablösung von gängigen Beschreibungen sind die genuinen Anstoßbedingungen jeglicher Veränderung. Eine Kunsthochschule, die als Institution ständig in der Gefahr steht, vor allem an ihrem Fortbestand interessiert und damit zwangsläufig konservativ zu sein, ist in besonderem Maße darauf angewiesen. Künstler erinnern immer an diese Ablösungsmöglichkeiten, aber sie vollziehen sie keineswegs exklusiv. Sprachliche und metasprachliche Ablösungen gibt es in allen Bereichen, in denen Wandel vorstellbar ist.
Seit dem 18. Jahrhundert zeigt sich der Wandel als Entwicklung zu einer immer stärker funktional aus-differenzierten Gesellschaft, deren Teilsysteme zur Trennung von der Umwelt, aber im Austausch mit ihr Grenzen bilden. Diese Grenzen werden dadurch bestimmt, dass sich im System Handelnde darüber -verständigen und entsprechende Handlungsrollen -kultivieren. Bei steigender Komplexität kam es im -Bereich des wissenschaftlichen Forschens zur Ausdifferenzierung von Teildisziplinen mit spezifischen Me-thoden. Die gleichzeitige Ausbildung von Fachsprachen führte zur Abkoppelung von der Alltagskommunikation sowie zur weitgehenden Ausklammerung des -Subjekts mit seiner Lebenswelt. Das gilt unabhängig davon, dass sich alle Einzelmenschen täglich in unterschiedlichen gesellschaftlichen Teilsystemen bewegen. Wenn es heute ein gesellschaftliches Teilsystem gibt, in dem das sonst nur partiell beanspruchte Individuum im Mittelpunkt steht, ist es die Kunst. Hier gilt, dass künstlerischer Ausdruck als Prozess und Ergebnis nicht nach praktischer Nützlichkeit zu beurteilen ist. Diese Errungenschaft der Moderne meint die Freiheit, die Welt, die Gesellschaft, das Ich anders denken und darstellen zu dürfen als es Tradition, Staat und Konvention vorschreiben – um den Preis, dass anderenorts für die materielle, rechtliche und politische Aufrechterhaltung der Gesellschaft gesorgt werden muss. Das Kunstsystem ist nicht außerhalb von Gesellschaft autonom, sondern in einer Gesellschaft selbstbestimmt, aber nicht beziehungslos. Freiheit und Verantwortung gehören zusammen. Innerhalb des Kunstsystems wird entschieden, was ungeachtet divergierender Richtungen, Formen und Experimente als Kunst zu gelten hat. Der Streit darüber bleibt ein Dauerstreit. Er wird zwischen Menschen ausgetragen, die auf unterschiedliche Weise der Produktion, Rezeption, Distribution und Verarbeitung von Kunst verbunden sind und diese Handlungsrollen auch wechseln können. Im Blick auf spezifische Handlungen, die untereinander verbunden sind und sich gegenseitig modellieren, wird es möglich, Kunst über eine Organisationsform für Handlungen und Kommunikationen zu bestimmen. Meine Vision der Kunsthochschule, die als wissenschaftlich-künstlerische Institution in staatliche Aufgaben ein-ge-bun-den ist, braucht diesen operationalen Konsens und die permanente Arbeit daran. Wenn man Kunst nicht voreilig domestizieren und amputieren will, ist auf die -besondere Kompetenz, die Intelligenz und Kreativität des Interpreten nicht zu verzichten. Kunst durfte es vor allem dann geben und weiter geben, wenn über sie gesprochen wird. Im Reden und Schreiben darüber werden bereits produzierte Kunstwerke existent gehalten und neue ermöglicht. Dabei steht auch der Sprachgebrauch auf dem Prüfstand. Es macht einen erheblichen Unterschied, ob man für Bilder (und Texte) schlichte Gefäß-Metaphern benutzt oder sich entscheidet, Metaphern im Umkreis von Impuls, Anlass, Anregung und Möglichkeit zu verwenden. Erst die zweite Entscheidung räumt dem einzelnen Betrachter jene Aktivität ein, die sonst nur zu schnell dem Werk selbst zugeschrieben wird. Zwischen Kunst und Schule macht es Sinn, sich im Gebrauch der ersten Person Singular zu üben und damit ein Stück Machtverlust zu riskieren. Die eigene Interpretation von Kunst rechnet mit der Interpretation von anderen, statt die Kunst als Abstraktion quasi stellvertretend und selbstverständlich handeln zu lassen.
Kunst, Medien und Design als Handlungsfelder einer Hochschule, die Lehren und Lernen mit Forschung und Entwicklung verbindet, sind ohne interdisziplinäre Bemühungen nicht mehr zu bewältigen. Das hat etwas mit Disziplin zu tun, mehr noch mit Kommunikation. Gedanken an eine Rettung der Welt durch die freie Kunst erscheinen grandios, bewegen sich jedoch schnell zwischen Fahrlässigkeit und Ideologie. Elitäre Absonderung steht dem grenzüberschreitenden Diskurs im Wege. Produktive Arbeit unter institutionellen Bedingungen setzt ein Selbstverständnis voraus, das eine Entfernung von der eigenen Ich-Bezogenheit in Kauf nimmt oder wenigstens auf Zeit simulieren kann. Wo bereits Aversionen herrschen und Empathie fehlt, ist dem Auseinanderdriften durchaus unterschiedlicher Studiengänge kaum zu begegnen, bleibt das Anregungspotential für die jeweils eigene Arbeit ungenutzt. Zum interdisziplinären Diskurs gibt es keine tragfähige Alternative, auch wenn er nur schwer gelingt und immer wieder zusammenbricht. Sisyphos-Arbeit ist gefragt, hier wie im Umgang mit Studierenden.
Das Projekt Kunsthochschule wird im Überschneidungsbereich von Bildung, Kunst und Wissenschaft konkret. Bildung braucht Bilder. Sie braucht aber auch die intensive Auseinandersetzung mit dem Bild selbst. Wer sich ein Bild machen will von der Welt oder Teilen von ihr, wer wissen und wahrnehmen will, wie das alles zusammenhängt, muss sich auf die Bilder von anderen einlassen und selbst Bilder entwerfen. Lehre in diesem Bereich ist nur aufgrund hartnäckiger Klischeevorstellungen unmöglich, allerdings auch kaum wie eine Alphabetisierungskampagne zu betreiben. Bilder können dabei helfen, zu erkennen, dass die vorherrschende Wirklichkeit nur eine der möglichen Beschreibungen ist. Mit wissenschaftlichen Argumenten lässt sich geltend machen, dass ein Bild erst dann zu verstehen ist, wenn erfasst wird, wie es zeigt und was nicht zu sehen ist. Die Rede von der Benutzeroberfläche mag nicht in allen Aspekten angemessen sein – sie erinnert aber daran, dass das Entscheidende davor und dahinter -passiert, vor allem aber in und zwischen Menschen.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: Michael Schwarz, Marina Abramović (Hg.): „Beschreiben“, zum Beispiel eine Kunsthochschule. Hochschule für Bildende Künste Braunschweig. Jahrbuch 3. Köln 1999, S. 45–48.

Art without Work?

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:48 +0000

I recently recalled the precise moment when it first occurred to me that I would like to become an artist. I grew up in Moscow, and my father was a self-taught musician working at the circus. Circus artists work extremely hard physically: the amount of daily practice and physical exercise necessary to perform acrobatic acts or walk a tightrope is really enormous. They practice and exercise all day and perform by night—it’s nearly a twenty-four-hour-a-day job.
There was a birthday party for one of the kids in the building we lived in, which belonged to the union of circus artists. The children at the party, all about five or six years old, were children of clowns, animal trainers, and so forth. We were watching a cartoon on TV and at some point a conversation started about what we wanted to become when we grew up. Following the usual suggestions like a cosmonaut or a fireman, one of the kids said that he wanted to be a fine artist, because they do not work. I was very shy as a kid, so I did not say much, but thought to myself that this boy was really clever and that I too did not want to work and should therefore try to become an artist.
Ironically, this momentary realization ultimately pointed me on a trajectory that led to a perpetual state of work for many years: while my classmates in school tended to just hang out or play sports after class, I went to drawing lessons every evening. When my family moved to America, I enrolled in three schools simultaneously: the School of Visual Arts by day, Art Students League classes by night, and group life drawing lessons on weekends. Somehow the idea of not working went out the window, and all throughout my artistic education the emphasis was on work: the idea being that I had to fill all my available time with learning and practice, and that the sheer effort of this was bound to make me an artist. Perhaps this occupation of time was also practice for my future career: being a professional artist in a society where labor and time are still the ultimate producers of value. So the logic was that if all my time was filled with the labor of learning the skills of an artist, perhaps something of value would be produced, leading to a lifetime occupation by artistic labor. Thinking was of relatively little importance within this scenario.
I have to add that the system of non-university art education at the time (the 1980s) aided such an approach, because it made it possible to avoid academic studies almost entirely – literature, history, philosophy, and so forth—in favor of studio practice geared toward contriving some sort of artistic style that would be marketable.
Sometime in graduate school I started to get the sense that all this was not getting me very far artistically, that some other approach or modality of practice was possible. I don’t mean getting far only in terms of a career – although I remember this being a fairly serious concern for most people in my program—but on a basic level of just not not being convinced that the paintings and objects I was making were particularly compelling as art objects despite all the labor I put into making them. Thus there was a real urgency to find some other way to go about this, but what this other way could be was confusing and very mystifying: it was not so much about becoming a slacker artist, but rather a realization that an entirely different type of engagement was necessary in order for an artistic practice to make sense beyond appearances—beyond merely looking like art.
Since the early twentieth century, much of the advanced analysis of art production refers to the position of the artist and the intellectual as cultural workers. I think that it probably seemed highly desirable to see yourself as a member of the most dynamic class, a class that was expected to dominate the making of history: the working class. While rereading The Communist Manifesto some time ago, it was interesting to note how sure Marx was that the middle class (from which a vast majority of “cultural producers” actually come) is merely a small and historically insignificant group that is destined to vanish during the final confrontation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat: a battle from which the proletariat was expected to emerge victorious, bringing about the end of History. What progressive agent of culture would want to belong to the middle class, this vanishing species?
To this day, many in the field of art insist on using the term “cultural producer,” a term that supposedly blurs differences between different participants in the art industry—artists, curators, critics, historians, administrators, and patrons of art—on the assumption that we are all working together to produce meaning and thus culture.
Much of this language and thinking is predicated on the privileged position of work: that in order for art to come into being, work needs to be done—hard work, important work, expert work, work of art, art work. While there is a lot of disagreement about what type of work is actually required, who should or can do it, or if and how they should be trained for it, it is rarely questioned whether work is actually necessary or essential to the production of art. Duchamp mused whether there could be a work “not of art,” but can there also be an art without work? The readymade is something that immediately comes to mind, yet I feel that using existing objects produced by the labor of others does not solve this particular problem, because it is not about simply delegating, outsourcing, or appropriating. In other words, if the labor of art production is outsourced to others, while the artist and the market benefit by the surplus value it produces, it is merely a perpetuation of the exploitation that creates conditions of alienation in our society. What I mean by art without work is perhaps closer to a situation where you play a musical instrument for the sheer enjoyment of making music, where the activity is a pleasurable one not defined by labor or work per se.
Naturally, making art objects requires labor and work, but art does not exclusively belong to the realm of objects. For example, some years ago I was looking at Matisse paintings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. As I was leaving the museum, I became aware of a residual sensation that looking at these paintings produced: for some time I was actually seeing things on the street according to the visual logic of the paintings. This made me think that this is exactly where the “art” of Matisse resides—in this ephemeral yet incredibly powerful effect that occurs when you are not looking at the paintings themselves. However, because these works are such expensive, sought-after objects, the museum frames the experience of encountering them as the veneration of fetish objects, where the emphasis is placed on the object itself rather than what it can trigger within the subject. This is very unfortunate. It seems to me that art resides within and in between subjects, and subjects don’t always require work to produce themselves. For example, falling in love, or having a religious or aesthetic experience does not require work, so why should art require work to come into being?
Conceptual art becomes an important modality of practice in this respect: while conceptual artists managed to shift much of the work involved in art production to the viewer via self-reflexive framing, and explicitly stated that objects of art need not be made at all,¹ I feel that the ethos of their approach is something quite different than the condition I am trying to describe. Not surprisingly, much of conceptual art suffered the same fate as Matisse, ending up as prized objects in private and public collections.
Another aspect of all this is a certain shift that art underwent with the industrialization of society. In traditional societies, that which we now call art was something more practical or utilitarian in nature: it had a clear decorative, religious, or other use value, and it did not require a special social space/framework, like an exhibition or a museum, within which to become understandable as art. In this sense art was much more integrated in everyday life and did not involve the kind of suspension of reality that many artists of our time find so frustrating: a context in which you have freedom to utter virtually anything, but on the condition that it’s not real because it’s art.
The question of work has also become a very polemical issue these days, and particularly so in the field of art and culture. What is work for an artist within our post-Fordist blur between life and work, freedom and alienation? It’s useful to refer to distinctions that Hannah Arendt draws between labor, work, and action. For Arendt, labor corresponds to a basic need for human life to sustain itself, such as farming, preparation of food, etc. Work goes beyond the satisfaction of immediate needs and corresponds to the human ability to build and maintain a world fit for human use, while action is “the only activity that goes on directly between men without the intermediary of things or matter, [and] corresponds to the human condition of plurality.”²
I suppose Arendt’s understanding of this was inspired by the ancient Greeks, who frowned on the idea of work: labor was for slaves; free citizens were expected to engage in politics, poetry, philosophy, but not work. The only type of occupation not looked down upon was apparently that of a shepherd, presumably because when one herds animals, one is not fully occupied and thus free to think.
While I am not completely sure that action, in Arendt’s beautiful definition, is always applicable in describing conditions that enable the production of art, I suspect that certain types of art practices can turn labor and work into action, and in doing so, free art from a dependence on labor and work.
Historically there have been different approaches to realizing this, yet all seem to converge on a concern with conditions of production. If art is produced as an outcome of certain conditions (rather then simply an act of genius, which is not interesting or possible to discuss), then creating such conditions would actually produce art. If the ultimate conditions of production are the world and life (rather than a studio or art museum), it would then follow that a certain way of living, of being in the world, would in itself result in the production of art: no work is necessary.
Such interdependence between art and life, and the state of the subject therein, was a central concern for many artists of the early-twentieth-century avant-gardes. It seems that the thinking at the time was that the production of a new way of life would not only result in the production of a groundbreaking, revolutionary art, but also the other way around: that the production of a new type of art would result in a new way of life and, in turn, a new subject. One of the instances of this is Lef magazine, co-published by Rodchenko, Mayakovsky, and others, the explicit goal of which was to produce such a new subject through exposing its readers to new content and form, to new art.
Last winter I spent a lot of time looking at Warhol’s films from around the mid-’60s. I found the complex structure he put in place for the production of these films really interesting: while Warhol’s silkscreen paintings from this period garner most attention from art historians (in part because they are expensive objects in museums and private collections), it is as if he had them made in order to fund his films, which were expensive to create but produced no income. It’s tempting to understand this simply as a situation where someone works explicitly for money to fund the production of his “real work”—his art. However this simple dichotomy does not play out here: Warhol is very blunt about his apparent indifference to the production of his paintings and objects in interviews from that period, where he is clear that not only are the paintings and objects physically made by studio assistants, but even their subject matter is determined by others, and his involvement in the films is not very different—the screenplays are written by someone else, he does not direct the actors, or shoot the films, or edit them. The set for the most part is just his studio: the Factory.
One of my personal favorites is a film called The Couch (1964), in which, according to Gerard Malanga (who found the featured red couch on the street and brought it to the Factory), documents the fact that every time other activities at the Factory were finished or exhausted, someone would just start filming the couch and whatever was taking place on it at the moment: conversations, eating, sex, and so forth. The films do not seem to be made to be watched in their entirety, which is something that would be hard for most filmmakers to accept: you want the audience to see the totality of your work, no matter how experimental, and it’s frustrating when people stop paying attention or leave midway through the piece. Yet the majority of Warhol’s films seem to have a built-in indifference to this.
In one of the interviews I saw, from 1966 or so, Warhol says point blank that he has not worked in three years and is not working at the time of the interview. It’s easy to assume that this is only another evasive maneuver or provocation, which he was so good at during interviews, yet it seems to me that he was actually being very direct: having created certain conditions for production, he was present, yet did not need to work in order for significant art to come into being. Perhaps he was simply being physically present within the structure he set in motion.
It also seems to me that the most important mechanism of the Factory, its central activity, was not so much the production of art objects or films, but the production of very particular social relations: a new way of life that in turn resulted in films and other things. Warhol, the proponent of Business Art, may seem to be artistically far from the idealist or utopian avant-garde, but the structures he was using were not so dissimilar: a certain kind of de-personalization of an artwork using a collective approach rooted in a creative community – strangely reminiscent of De Stijl, Bauhaus, and so forth – all of which placed just as strong an emphasis on the reorganization of life and social relations as on the production of art. I find that, far from being dated or obsolete, this type of model is of particular significance today, facilitated and amplified by the emergence of powerful and free tools for communication, production, and dissemination found mostly on the internet, which together create a possibility for a degree of autonomy from capital.
A different yet sympathetic approach to not working can be found in the artistic practice of Rirkrit Tiravanija. Although his work has been fully absorbed and valorized by art institutions and the market, he is rather adamant that much of his activity is not art at all. In fact, once you start questioning him, it turns out that almost nothing he does, with the exception of the occasional painting, sculpture, or drawing, is, in his opinion, art. And this is not mere posing or a provocation: it seems to me that this comes from a deep reverence for a certain capacity of the everyday and a desire to explore this capacity to its fullest, most radical extent.
A couple of years ago we did something in New York which involved turning e-flux’s storefront into a kind of a free meal/discussion space where three days of conversations on contemporary art took place during lunch and dinner sessions. Rirkrit did most of the cooking, with some help from his assistants and friends. I never noticed how much Rirkrit actually works when he cooks for a large number of people. Each of the three days started early, around seven or eight in the morning, with food shopping. Food preparation started around eleven, to be ready in time for lunch sessions, followed by a couple of hours of cleaning. Then shopping again for dinner (no refrigerator during the hot New York summer), cooking, and cleaning again until past midnight. Not having a real, equipped kitchen makes food preparation, cooking, and cleaning very labor intensive. On the other hand, spending most of his time in the improvised backyard kitchen allowed Rirkrit to not engage in the conversation and to not speak or answer questions about his art, which is something I think he does not like to do. When asked if what he was doing is art, Rirkrit said no, he was just cooking.
I think what happens here is that rather than speak or work in the capacity as an artist, Rirkrit prefers to make himself very busy doing something else in the space of art. Furthermore, not unlike the Factory, yet dispersed amidst many different art venues and dates, Rirkrit’s activity manages to temporarily construct a rather peculiar set of social relations between those in attendance. While he displaces the art object and the figure of the artist from its traditional place at center stage (to the kitchen), perhaps reflecting Duchamp, his presence usually forms a quiet yet influential and shape-giving center for those present. Rirkrit does manage to produce art while not working in the capacity of an artist, yet to do so he really makes himself very busy: he works very hard doing something else.
I feel that the ethos behind much of this has to do with the communist dream of non-alienated work. When Marx writes about the end of division of labor and narrow professionalization, he describes a society where identity and social roles are extremely fluid: one day you can be a street cleaner, the next day an engineer, a cook, an artist, or a mayor.³ In this scenario, alienation disappears and art becomes indistinguishable from everyday life: it dissolves in life. Historically there is a clear trajectory of this desire for the dissolution of art, which is visible in artistic practices from early modernism to the present day. This desire may be actually older than communism and, in a certain way, it outlasts the collapse of communist ideology, which makes me think that this may be something deeper than ideology. It could be that this desire has to do with a need to reclaim a reality that art may have had prior to the industrialization of society.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: e-flux journal # 29, November 2011, http://www.e-f lux.com/journal/art-withoutwork/ [3.4.2013].
1.)Lawrence Weiner, Declaration of Intent (1968):
1. The artist may construct the piece.
2. The piece may be fabricated.
3. The piece need not be built.Each being equal and consistent with the intent of the artist the decision as to condition rests with the receiver upon the occasion of receivership.
2.)Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), 7.
3.)Karl Marx, The German Ideology (1845) (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998), 53: For as soon as the division of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; whereas in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into material power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.

Avantgarde ist unerwünscht!

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:47 +0000

(Flugblatt der SITUATIONISTISCHENINTERNATIONALE)

1. Die heutige Avantgarde, die nicht geltende Mystifikationen wiederholt, ist gesellschaftlich unterdrückt. Die Bewegung, die von der Gesellschaft erwünscht ist, kann von ihr aufgekauft werden: das ist die Pseudoavantgarde.

2. Wer neue Werte schafft, dem erscheint das heutige Leben als Illusion und Fragment. Wenn die Avantgarde die Frage nach der Bedeutung des Lebens stellt, aber unzufrieden damit, ihre Folgerungen verwirklichen will, sieht sie sich von allen Möglichkeiten abgeschnitten und von der Gesellschaft abgekapselt.

3. Die ästhetischen Abfälle der Avantgarde wie Bilder, Filme, Gedichte usw. sind bereits erwünscht und wirkungslos; unerwünscht ist das Programm der völligen Neugestaltung der Lebensbedingungen, das die Gesellschaft in ihren Grundlagen verändert.

4. Nachdem man die Produkte der Avantgarde ästhetisch neutralisiert auf den Markt gebracht hat, will man nun Ihre Forderungen, die nach wie vor auf eine Verwirklichung im gesamten Bereich des Lebens abzielen, aufteilen, zerreden und auf tote Gleise abschieben. Im Namen der früheren und jetzigen Avantgarde und aller vereinzelten, unzufriedenen Künstler protestieren wir gegen diese kulturelle Leichenfledderei und rufen alle schöpferischen Kräfte zum Boykott solcher Diskussionen auf.

5. Die moderne Kultur ist substanzlos, sie besitzt keinerlei Kraft, die sich den Beschlüssen der Avantgarde wirklich wiedersetzen könnte.

6. Wir, die neue Werte schaffen, werden von den Hütern der Kultur nicht mehr lauthals bekämpft, sondern auf spezialisierte Bereiche festgelegt, und unsere Forderungen werden lächerlich gemacht.

7. Darin sollen die Künstler die Rolle der früheren Hofnarren übernehmen, von der Gesellschaft bezahlt, ihr eine bestimmte kulturelle Freiheit vorzuspiegeln.

8. Der gesellschaftliche Dünkel will der Avantgarde ein Niveau vorschreiben, das sie nicht verlassen darf, wenn sie gesellschaftsfähig bleiben will.

9. Die Existenz des Künstlers ist das Ferment zur Metamorphose unserer absterbenden europäischen Kultur, einem Prozess, der nicht aufzuhalten, sondern zu beschleunigen ist.

10. Die europäische Kultur ist ein krankes, altes, schwangeres Weib, das sterben wird. Sollen wir den absolut aussichtslosen Versuch unternehmen, die Mutter zu retten – oder soll das Kind leben? – Die Restaurativen wollen noch die Mutter retten – und töten damit auch das Kind. Die Avantgarde hat sich entschieden: die Mutter muss sterben, damit das Kind leben kann.

11. Die Avantgarde von gestern ist comme il faut. Die künstlerische Linksfront ist heute ein Wahrheitsproblem: „Eine Wahrheit wird nur 10 Jahre alt.“ (Ibsen)

12. Künstler und Intellektuelle: unterstützt die situationistische Bewegung, denn sie jagt keinen Utopien nach, sondern ist die einzige Bewegung, die den gegenwärtigen kulturellen Zustand aufhebt.

13. Die Aufgabe der Avantgarde besteht einzig und allein darin, ihre Anerkennung zu erzwingen, ehe Ihre Disziplin und ihr Programm verwässert worden sind. Das ist es, was die Situationistische Internationale zu tun gedenkt.

München, Januar 1961

Herausgegeben von der GRUPPE SPUR als Deutsche Sektion der SITUATIONISTISCHEN INTERNATIONALE
Sturm • Prem • Fischer • Kunzelmann • Zimmer
der Skandinavischen Sektion: Steffan • Larsson • Asger Jorn • Jörgen Nash • Katia Lindell
und der Belgischen Sektion: Maurice Wyckaert

REMODERNISMUS

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:47 +0000

Einer neuen Spiritualität in der Kunst entgegen
Im Laufe des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts hat der Modernismus seine Orientierung Stück für Stück verloren bis er letztendlich im krassen postmodernen Kommerz versandet ist. Zur rechten Zeit verkünden die Stuckisten die Geburt des Remodernismus. Die Stuckisten sind die erste remodernistische Künstlergruppe.

1.
Der Remodernismus nimmt die ursprünglichen Prinzipien des Modernismus und bringt sie wieder zur Anwendung. Das Hauptaugenmerk liegt auf Vision anstelle von Formalismus.

2.
Der Remodernismus schließt eher ein als aus. Er heißt Künstler willkommen, die sich selbst erkennen und finden wollen mithilfe künstlerischer Prozesse, welche danach streben zu verbinden und einzuschließen, anstatt sich zu entfremden und auszuschließen. Der Remodernismus erhält die spirituelle Vision der Gründerväter des Modernismus aufrecht und respektiert den Mut und die Integrität, mit der sie sich den Leiden der menschlichen Seele gestellt haben und diese mit einer neuen Kunst zum Ausdruck gebracht haben, einer Kunst, die keinem religiösen oder politischen Dogma mehr unterlag und die danach strebte, dem ganzen Spektrum der menschlichen Psyche Ausdruck zu verleihen.

3.
Der Remodernismus verwirft und ersetzt den Post-Modernismus, da dieser weder in der Lage war, sich mit den elementaren Fragen nach der Bedeutung des Menschseins auseinanderzusetzten, noch Antworten auf diese zu geben.

4.
Der Remodernismus verkörpert spirituelle Tiefe und Bedeutung und beendet ein Zeitalter bestehend aus wissenschaftlichem Materialismus, Nihilismus und spirituellem Bankrott.

5.
Wir brauchen nicht noch mehr dämliche, langweilige, hirnlose Zerstörung der Konvention, wir brauchen nichts Neues sondern Beständiges. Wir brauchen eine Kunst, die Körper und Seele mit einbezieht, die die Prinzipien anerkennt, mithilfe derer Weisheit und Einsicht im Laufe der Geschichte der Menschheit am Leben erhalten wurden. Dies ist die wahre Aufgabe der Tradition.

6.
Der Modernismus hat sein Potential nie erfüllt. Es ist sinnlos ‚post-‘ irgendetwas zu sein, wenn man noch nicht einmal ‚etwas‘ gewesen ist.

7.
Spiritualität ist die Reise der Seele auf Erden. Ihr allererstes Prinzip ist eine Absichtserklärung der Wahrheit ins Gesicht zu sehen. Die Wahrheit ist wie sie ist, unabhängig davon, wie wir sie gerne hätten.
Ein spiritueller Künstler zu sein bedeutet, sich ohne wenn und aber unseren Projektionen zu stellen, den guten und den schlechten, den ansprechenden und den grotesken, unseren Stärken und unseren Schwächen, um uns selbst und dadurch unsere wahre Beziehung zu Anderen und unsere Verbindung zum Göttlichen zu erkennen.

8.
Bei spiritueller Kunst geht es nicht um ein Märchenland. Es geht darum, die raue Oberflächenstruktur des Lebens zu greifen. Es geht darum, sich den Schatten zu stellen und sich mit wilden Hunden anzufreunden. Spiritualität ist die Erkenntnis, dass alles im Leben einem höheren Zweck dient.

9.
Spirituelle Kunst ist keine Religion. Spiritualität ist das Streben der Menschheit, sich selbst zu verstehen und durch die Klarheit und Integrität ihrer Künstler zu Ihrer Symbolik zu gelangen.

10.
Das Erschaffen von wahrer Kunst ist das Verlangen des Menschen, mit sich selbst, seinen Mitmenschen und seinem Gott zu kommunizieren. Kunst, die diese Themen außer Acht lässt, ist keine Kunst.

11.
Es sollte angemerkt werden, dass die künstlerische Technik von der Vision des Künstlers diktiert wird. Sie ist nur in dem Maße notwendig, wie sie dieser entspricht.

12.
Die Aufgabe der Remodernisten ist es, Gott zurück in die Kunst zu bringen, aber nicht so, wie Gott vorher war. Der Remodernismus ist keine Religion, aber wir erachten es als unerlässlich, den Enthusiasmus wiederzuerlangen (vom griechischen en theos, von Gott besessen sein).

13.
Wahre Kunst ist sichtbare Manifestation, Beweis und Wegbegleiter der Reise der Seele. Spirituelle Kunst bedeutet nicht, Madonnas oder Buddhas zu malen. Spirituelle Kunst ist das Malen von Dingen, die die Seele des Künstlers berühren. Spirituelle Kunst schaut oft nicht sehr spirituell aus, sie sieht so aus wie alles andere, weil in der Spiritualität alles andere enthalten ist.

14.
Wieso brauchen wir eine neue Spiritualität in der Kunst? Weil mit anderen auf bedeutsame Art und Weise in Verbindung zu treten die Menschen glücklich macht. Verstanden zu werden und sich gegenseitig zu verstehen macht das Leben lebenswert.

Zusammenfassung:
Jedem, der sich in einer ungestörten mentalen Verfassung befindet, ist klar, dass das, was heute ziemlich ernsthaft von der regierenden Elite als Kunst herausgegeben wird, den Beweis erbringt, dass die scheinbar rationale Entwicklung eines Ideengerüsts gänzlich danebengegangen ist. Der Modernismus basiert auf gültigen Prinzipien, aber die jetzt aus ihm gezogenen Schlussfolgerungen sind absurd.
Wir machen auf dieses Fehlen von Bedeutung aufmerksam, damit eine kohärente Kunst erreicht und dieses Ungleichgewicht ausgeglichen werden kann.
Es gibt keinen Zweifel, dass es eine spirituelle Renaissance in der Kunst geben wird, da es für die Kunst keinen anderen Weg geben kann. Es ist die Aufgabe des Stuckismus diese spirituelle Renaissance jetzt einzuleiten.

Übersetzung: Frank Christopher Schröder

Billy Childish, Charles Thomson
1. March 2000

Wiederabdruck:
Das Manifest erschien unter http://www.stuckism.com/Manifestos/RemodernismGerman.html [29.4.2013].

Manifest

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:46 +0000

Eine neue, durch den vorhandenen Rahmen nicht zu bezwingende menschliche Kraft wird mit der unaufhaltbaren technischen Entwicklung und dem Unbefriedigtsein gegenüber ihren möglichen Anwendungen in unserem jeden Sinnes beraubten gesellschaftlichen Leben jeden Tag größer.
Die gesellschaftliche Entfremdung und Unterdrückung kann unmöglich gestaltet werden, in keiner ihrer Varianten – sie kann nur en bloc mit dieser Gesellschaft selbst zurückgewiesen werden. Jeder wirkliche Fortschritt hängt selbstverständlich von der revolutionären Lösung der vielgestaltigen Krise der Gegenwart ab.
Welches sind die Perspektiven einer Organisation des Lebens in einer Gesellschaft, die „die Produktion auf der Grundlage freier und gleicher Assoziationen der Produzenten“ authentisch „neu gruppiert“? Die Automatisierung der Produktion und die Vergesellschaftung der lebenswichtigen Güter werden die Arbeit als äußere Notwendigkeit immer mehr beschränken und dem Individuum endlich die volle Freiheit geben. Der so von jeder ökonomischen Verantwortung, von jeder Schuld und Straffälligkeit der Vergangenheit und den Anderen gegenüber befreite Mensch wird über einen neuen Mehrwert verfügen, der nicht mit Geld berechnet werden kann, da er sich unmöglich auf das Maß der Lohnarbeit reduzieren lässt – den Wert des Spieles, des frei konstruierten Lebens. Die Ausübung dieser spielerischen Schöpfung ist die Garantie der Freiheit eines jeden und aller im Rahmen der einzigen durch die Nicht-Ausbeutung des Menschen durch den Menschen garantierten Gleichheit. Die Befreiung des Spiels ist seine schöpferische Autonomie, die über die alte Trennung zwischen aufgezwungener Arbeit und passiver Freizeit hinausgeht.
Früher hat die Kirche die angeblichen Zauberer verbrannt, um die primitiven Tendenzen zum Spiel zu unterdrücken, die sich in den Volksfeten aufrechterhalten hatten. In der jetzt herrschenden Gesellschaft, die massiv trostlose Pseudospiele der Nichtbeteiligung erzeugt, wird eine echte künstlerische Tätigkeit zwangsläufig als kriminell eingestuft. Sie ist halb geheim. Sie tritt als Skandal hervor.
Was ist die Situation? Sie ist die Verwirklichung eines höheren Spiels oder genauer gesagt die Aufforderung zum Spiel der menschlichen Anwesenheit. Die revolutionären Spieler aller Länder können sich innerhalb der S.I. vereinigen, um damit anzufangen, aus der Vorgeschichte des alltäglichen Lebens hinauszukommen.
Jetzt schon schlagen wir die autonome Organisation der Produzenten der neuen Kultur vor, unabhängig von den zur Zeit vorhandenen politischen und gewerkschaftlichen Organisationen, denen wir die Fähigkeit absprechen, etwas anderes als die Einrichtung des Bestehenden zu organisieren. In dem Augenblick, wo diese Organisation aus ihrem experimentellen Anfangsstadium hinausgeht und ihre erste öffentliche Kampagne starten will, setzen wir ihr die Besetzung der UNESCO als dringlichstes Ziel. Die auf Weltebene vereinheitlichte Bürokratisierung der Kunst und der gesamten Kultur ist ein neues Phänomen, das die tiefe Verwandtschaft der auf der Welt koexistierenden sozialen Systeme auf der Grundlage der eklektischen Aufbewahrung und der Reproduktion der Vergangenheit ausdrückt. Diesen neuen Bedingungen müssen die revolutionären Künstler durch eine Aktion neuen Typs entgegentreten. Da das Vorhandensein dieser konzentrierten und in einem einzigen Gebäude lokalisierten Führung der Kultur die Beschlagnahme durch einen PUTSCH begünstigt; da diese Einrichtung außerdem gar keinen anderen sinnvollen Gebrauch als unsere subversive Perspektive haben kann, halten wir uns unseren Zeitgenossen gegenüber für berechtigt, uns dieses Apparats zu bemächtigen. Und wir werden ihn bekommen. Wir sind entschlossen, von der UNESCO Besitz zu ergreifen, und wenn es nur für eine kurze Zeit sein sollte, da wir sicher sind, dort schnell ein Werk zu verrichten, das als bedeutungsvollstes Zeichen zur Erhellung einer langen Periode von Forderungen bleiben wird.
Welches sollen die Hauptkennzeichen der neuen Kultur sein – zunächst im Vergleich zur alten Kunst?
Gegen das Spektakel führt die verwirklichte situationistische Kultur die totale Beteiligung ein.
Gegen die konservierte Kunst ist sie eine Organisation des erlebten Augenblicks – ganz direkt.
Gegen die parzellierte Kunst wird sie eine globale, alle verwendbaren Elemente gleichzeitig umfassende Praxis sein. Sie strebt natürlich eine kollektive und zweifellos anonyme Produktion an (wenigstens insofern diese Kultur nicht durch das Bedürfnis, Spuren zu hinterlassen, beherrscht wird, da die Werke NICHT ALS WAREN GELAGERT WERDEN). Als minimale Absicht haben ihre Experimente eine Revolution des Verhaltens und einen dynamischen unitären Urbanismus vor, der dazu geeignet ist, sich auf der ganzen Welt auszudehnen, um dann über alle bewohnbaren Planeten verbreitet zu werden.
Gegen die einseitige Kunst wird die situationistische Kultur eine Kunst des Dialogs und der gegenseitigen Beeinflussung sein. Es ist jetzt schon so weit, dass die Künstler (und mit ihnen die ganze sichtbare Kultur) von der Gesellschaft vollkommen getrennt sind, wie sie auch untereinander durch Konkurrenz getrennt werden. Aber schon vor dieser Sackgasse des Kapitalismus war die Kunst im wesentlichen einseitig und ohne Reaktion. Sie wird über die abgeschlossene Ära ihres Primitivismus zugunsten einer vollständigen Kommunikation hinausgehen.
Da jeder zum Künstler auf einer höheren Ebene wird – d. h. auf untrennbare Weise zugleich zum Produzenten und Konsumenten einer totalen kulturellen Schöpfung – wohnt man einer schnellen Auflösung des linearen Wertmessers der Neuheit bei. Da jeder sozusagen zum Situationisten wird, wohnt man einer multidimensionalen Inflation der Tendenzen, der Experimente, der radikal verschiedenartigen ‘Schulen’ bei – NICHT MEHR NACHEINANDER, SONDERN GLEICH-ZEITIG.
Wir führen jetzt das ein, was historisch den letzte Beruf sein wird. Die Rolle des Situationisten, des Berufsamateurs, des Anti-Spezialisten bleibt noch eine Spezialisierung bis zur Zeit des ökonomischen und geistigen Überflusses, in der jeder zu einem solchen ‘Künstler’ wird, wie es den Künstlern nicht gelungen ist – für die Konstruktion seines eigenen Lebens. Der letzte Beruf der Geschichte steht der Gesellschaft ohne permanente Arbeitsteilung so nahe, dass der Titel eines Berufs ihm allgemein abgesprochen wird, wenn er in der S.I. in Erscheinung tritt.
Denjenigen, die uns nicht gut verstehen sollten, sagen wir mit trotziger Verachtung: „Die Situationisten, für deren Richter Ihr Euch vielleicht haltet, richten Euch früher oder später. Wir warten auf Euch an der nächsten Ecke – d. h. bei der unvermeidlichen Liquidierung der Welt der Beraubung in all ihren Formen. Das sind unsere Ziele, die die zukünftigen Ziele der Menschheit sein werden.“
Am 17. Mai 1960

Wiederabdruck
17 May 1960
reprinted in Internationale Situationniste #4 (June 1960)

Manifesto

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

Experience of life in the Soviet Union always forced me to avoid the theme ‘Art of the Future’ and futurological themes in general. This is probably connected with the fact that the Soviet ideology was always directed toward the future – the ‘building of Communism’ – and did not pay attention to the existential life of man ‘here and now’. In the Soviet Union, neither life itself nor the rights of the individual were worth anything. And one of the forms of resistance to this ideology was to ignore futurology in all its manifestations.
This is the main reason why I cannot say anything about the art of the future.
In my view, we cannot predict what the GOOD art of the future will be like, since good art, the art of the aesthetic, contacts ‘here and now’, is always connected with the present and is deeply personal. Everything that we can imagine in the future is merely BAD art, of which, however, there is always more than good art. In this respect, one can say with confidence that there will be no less bad art in the future than there is now.
Totalitarian social systems are always based one way or another on futurological fantasies, and in this respect futurological forms and totalitarian forms have the same nature.
The future is unclear, and I think it will remain like this. The best works of the present contain these incomprehensible points, obscure to the end, which indicate to us – included – the unknown art of the future.

Wiederabdruck
Serpentine Gallery Manifesto Marathon, 2008.

Weiterführende Informationen/Bilder/Materialien whtsnxt.net/108

NO!art

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

NO!art ist Anti-Weltmarkt-Investitionskunst. Kunstweltmarkt-Investition ist kulturelle Manipulation.
NO!art ist gegen „klinischen“ wissenschaftlichen Ästhetizismus. Solcher Ästhetizismus ist keine Kunst.
NO!art ist gegen die Anhäufung von Kunst-Weltmarkt-Investment-Mode-Dekorationen. Solche Dekorationsspiele sind Schlafmittel für die Kultur. Sie sind gegen die „Fantasie“ im Dienste des Kunstmarktes.
NO!art ist gegen alle Kunstweltmarkt „Salonkunst“.
NO!art ist Anti-Pop-art: Pop-art ist reaktionär. Sie verherrlicht die Konsumgesellschaft und mokiert sich nur über den Konsum der unteren Klassen: Die Suppendose, das billige Hemd. Pop-art ist chauvinistisch. Sie sabotiert die soziale Kunst für alle.
NO!art ist antichauvinistisch: Die Vorherrschaft jeder nationalen „Schule“ basiert hauptsächlich auf dem Ausmaß des verfügbaren Investmentkapitals. Die Vorherrschaft jeder nationalen „Schule“ ist gleichzusetzen mit kulturellem Imperialismus.
NO!art ist die Kunstkrise des kulturellen Erstickens.
NO!art ist sozial relevanter persönlicher Ausdruck. Es ist die Soziale Kunst, die Protest-Kunst, die Anti-Kunst (Anti-Kunstmarkt-Kunst).
NO!art schafft auf natürliche Weise neue ästhetische Formen, funktioniert aber auch auf natürliche Weise im Rahmen zeitgenössischer ästhetischer Formen. Ästhetische Innovationen sind nichts als ein Nebenprodukt ungehemmter Expression.
NO!art verabscheut die „klinische“, „wissenschaftliche“ und pseudo-ästhetische Suche nach „ästhetischer Innovation“.
NO!art öffnete und beeinflusste bestimmte Abweichungen vom Kunstweltmarkt, für die sie aber auf Dauer nicht verantwortlich gemacht werden kann, z. B. für die missratene Kunstweltmarkt Popart, für bestimmte gegenwärtige erotische Eskapisten und für Arbeiten, die nur um des Horrors willen entstanden sind.
NO!art beeinflusste die heutige politische Kunst positiv, beeinflusste ebenso die Underground Presse, die Underground Filme, die Comics, die „subversive“ Werbung, die Guerilla-Art Gruppen, die gesellschaftlichen Ereignisse.
NO!art kämpft seit 1959 in dem Löwenmaul, das da heißt: New York City.
NO!art Rücksichtslos unterdrückt und dezimiert, aber nicht eliminiert oder ausgelöscht durch die Kunstweltmarkt-Unterdrückung.
NO!art Von Pin-ups zu Exkrementen: eine soziale Kunst-Rebellion.
NO!art ist „programmatisch“ dadurch, dass thematische Shows und Manifestationen innerhalb der Gruppenanstrengungen gemeinsam entstehen. Jede Show und jede Manifestation deutet demgemäß auf die nächste Aktivität hin.
NO!art versucht, das Leben durch die Kunst zu beeinflussen, und fordert demnach die schnelle künstlerische strategische Antwort.
NO!art aus dem Bauch heraus entstanden, ist keine künstlerische Besitzergreifung.
NO!art Die Zeit für YES!art liegt noch in weiter Ferne.

Publiziert von Boris Lurie als Flyer für die Ausstellung „KUNST UND POLITIK“, Karlsruher Kunstverein 1970.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien unter: http://www.no-art.info/_statements/de.html [12.7.2013].

Immaterial Labor

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

A significant amount of empirical research has been conducted concerning the new forms of the organization of work. This, combined with a corresponding wealth of theoretical reflection, has made possible the identification of a new conception of what work is nowadays and what new power relations it implies.
An initial synthesis of these results – framed in terms of an attempt to define the technical and subjective-political composition of the working class – can be expressed in the concept of immaterial labor, which is defined as the labor that produces the informational and cultural concent of the commodity. The concept of immaterial labor refers to two different aspects of labor. On the one hand, as regards the “informational content” of the commodity, it refers directly to the changes taking place in workers’ labor processes in big companies in the industrial and tertiary sectors, where the skills involved in direct labor are increasingly skills involving cybernetics and computer control (and horizontal and vertical communication). On the other hand, as regards the activity that produces the “cultural content” of the commodity, immaterial labor involves a series of activities that are not normally recognized as “work” – in other words, the kinds of activities involved in defining and fixing cultural and artistic standards, fashions, tastes, consumer norms, and, more strategically, public opinion. Once the privileged domain of the bourgeoisie and its children, these activities have since the end of the 1970s become the domain of what we have come to define as “mass intellectuality.” The profound changes in these strategic sectors have radically modified not only the composition, management, and regulation of the workforce – the organization of production – but also, and more deeply, the role and function of intellectuals and their activities within society.
The “great transformation” that began at the start of the 1970s has changed the very terms in which the question is posed. Manual labor is increasingly coming to involve procedures that could be defined as “intellectual,” and the new communications technologies increasingly require subjectivities that are rich in knowledge. It is not simply that intellectual labor has become subjected to the norms of capitalist production. What has happened is that a new “mass intellectuality” has come into being, created out of a combination of the demands of capitalist production and the forms of “self-valorization” that the struggle against work has produced. The old dichotomy between “mental and manual labor,” or between “material labor and immaterial labor,” risks failing to grasp the new nature of productive activity, which takes this separation on board and transforms it. The split between conception and execution, between labor and creativity, between author and audience, is simultaneously transcended within the “labor process” and reimposed as political command within the “process of valorization.”

The restructured worker
Twenty years of restructuring of the big factories has led to a curious paradox. The various different post-Fordist models have been constructed both on the defeat of the Fordist worker and on the recognition of the centrality of (an ever increasingly intellectualized) living labor within production. In today’s large restructured company, a worker’s work increasingly involves, at various levels, an ability to choose among different alternatives and thus a degree of responsibility regarding decision making. The concept of “interface” used by communications sociologists provides a fair definition of the activities of this kind of worker – as an interface between different functions, between different work teams, between different levels of the hierarchy, and so forth. What modern management techniques are looking for is for “the worker’s soul to become part of the factory.” The worker’s personality and subjectivity have to be made susceptible to organization and command. It is around immateriality that the quality and quantity of labor are organized. This transformation of working-class labor into a labor of control, of handling information, into a decision-making capacity that involves the investment of subjectivity, affects workers in varying ways according to their positions within the factory hierarchy, but it is nevertheless present as an irreversible process. Work can thus be defined as the capacity to activate and manage productive cooperation. In this phase, workers are expected to become “active subjects” in the coordination of the various functions of production, instead of being subjected to it as simple command. We arrive at a point where a collective learning process becomes the heart of productivity, because it is no longer a matter of finding different ways of composing or organizing already existing job functions, but of looking for new ones.
The problem, however, of subjectivity and its collective form, its constitution and its development, has immediately expressed itself as a clash between social classes within the organization of work. I should point out that what I am describing is not some utopian vision of recomposition, but the very real terrain and conditions of the conflict between social classes. The capitalist needs to find an unmediated way of establishing command over subjectivity itself; the prescription and definition of tasks transforms into a prescription of subjectivities. The new slogan of Western societies is that we should all “become subjects”. Participative management is a technology of power, a technology for creating and controlling the “subjective processes.” As it is no longer possible to confine subjectivity merely to tasks of execution, it becomes necessary for the subject’s competence in the areas of management, communication, and creativity to be made compatible with the conditions of “production for production’s sake.” Thus the slogan “become subjects,” far from eliminating the antagonism between hierarchy and cooperation, between autonomy and command, actually re-poses the antagonism at a higher level, because it both mobilizes and clashes with the very personality of the individual worker. First and foremost, we have here a discourse that is authoritarian: one has to express oneself, one has to speak, communicate, cooperate, and so forth. The “tone” is that of the people who were in executive command under Taylorization; all that has changed is the content. Second, if it is no longer possible to lay down and specify jobs and responsibilities rigidly (in the way that was once done with “scientific” studies of work), but if, on the contrary, jobs now require cooperation and collective coordination, then the subjects of that production must be capable of communication – they must be active participants within a work team. The communicational relationship (both vertically and horizontally) is thus completely predetermined in both form and content; it is subordinated to the “circulation of information” and is not expected to be anything other. The subject becomes a simple relayer of codification and decodification, whose transmitted messages must be “clear and free of ambiguity,” within a communications context that has been completely normalized by management. The necessity of imposing command and the violence that goes along with it here take on a normative communicative form.
The management mandate to “become subjects of communication” threatens to be even more totalitarian than the earlier rigid division between mental and manual labor (ideas and execution), because capitalism seeks to involve even the worker’s personality and subjectivity within the production of value. Capital wants a situation where command resides within the subject him- or herself, and within the communicative process. The worker is to be responsible for his or her own control and motivation within the work group without a foreman needing to intervene, and the foreman’s role is redefined into that of a facilitator. In fact, employers are extremely worried by the double problem this creates: on one hand, they are forced to recognize the autonomy and freedom of labor as the only possible form of cooperation in production, but on the other hand, at the same time, they are obliged (a life-and-death necessity for the capitalist) not to “redistribute” the power that the new quality of labor and its organization imply. Today’s management thinking takes workers’ subjectivity into consideration only in order to codify it in line with the requirements of production. And once again this phase of transformation succeeds in concealing the fact that the individual and collective interests of workers and those of the company are not identical.
I have defined working-class labor as an abstract activity that nowadays involves the application of subjectivity. In order to avoid misunderstandings, however, I should add that this form of productive activity is not limited only to highly skilled workers; it refers to a use value of labor power today, and, more generally, to the form of activity of every productive subject within postindustrial society. One could say that in the highly skilled, qualified worker, the “communicational model” is already given, already constituted, and that its potentialities are already defined. In the young worker, however, the “precarious” worker, and the unemployed youth, we are dealing with a pure virtuality, a capacity that is as yet undetermined but that already shares all the characteristics of postindustrial productive subjectivity. The virtuality of this capacity is neither empty nor ahistoric; it is, rather, an opening and a potentiality that have as their historical origins and antecedents the “struggle against work” of the Fordist worker and, in more recent times, the processes of socialization, educational formation, and cultural self-valorization.
This transformation of the world of work appears even more evident when one studies the social cycle of production: the “diffuse factory” and decentralization of production on the one hand and the various forms of tertiarization on the other. Here one can measure the extent to which the cycle of immaterial labor has come to assume a strategic role within the global organization of production. The various activities of research, conceptualization, management of human resources, and so forth, together with all the various tertiary activities, are organized within computerized and multimedia networks. These are the terms in which we have to understand the cycle of production and the organization of labor. The integration of scientific labor into industrial and tertiary labor has become one of the principal sources of productivity, and it is becoming a growing factor in the cycles of production that organize it.

“Immaterial Labor” in the Classic Definition
All the characteristics of the postindustrial economy (both in industry and society as a whole) are highly present within the classic forms of “immaterial” production: audiovisual production, advertising, fashion, the production of software, photography, cultural activities, and so forth. The activities of this kind of immaterial labor force us to question the classic definitions of work and workforce, because they combine the results of various different types of work skill: intellectual skills, as regards the cultural-informational content; manual skills for the ability to combine creativity, imagination, and technical and manual labor; and entrepreneurial skills in the management of social relations and the structuring of that social cooperation of which they are a part. This immaterial labor constitutes itself in forms that are immediately collective, and we might say that it exists only in the form of networks and flows. The organization of the cycle of production of immaterial labor (because this is exactly what it is, once we abandon our factoryist prejudices – a cycle of production) is not obviously apparent to the eye, because it is not defined by the four walls of a factory. The location in which it operates is outside in the society at large, at a territorial level that we could call “the basin of immaterial labor.” Small and sometimes very small “productive units” (often consisting of only one individual) are organized for specific ad hoc projects, and may exist only for the duration of those particular jobs. The cycle of production comes into operation only when it is required by the capitalist; once the job has been done, the cycle dissolves back into the networks and flows that make possible the reproduction and enrichment of its productive capacities. Precariousness, hyperexploitation, mobility, and hierarchy are the most obvious characteristics of metropolitan immaterial labor. Behind the label of the independent “self-employed” worker, what we actually find is an intellectual proletarian, but who is recognized as such only by the employers who exploit him or her. It is worth noting that in this kind of working existence it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish leisure time from work time. In a sense, life becomes inseparable from work. This labor form is also characterized by real managerial functions that consist in (1) a certain ability to manage its social relations and (2) the eliciting of social cooperation within the structures of the basin of immaterial labor.
The quality of this kind of labor power is thus defined not only by its professional capacities (which make possible the construction of the cultural-informational content of the commodity), but also by its ability to “manage” its own activity and act as the coordinator of the immaterial labor of others (production and management of the cycle). This immaterial labor appears as a real mutation of “living labor.” Here we are quite far from the Taylorist model of organization.
Immaterial labor finds itself at the crossroads (or rather, it is the interface) of a new relationship between production and consumption. The activation of both productive cooperation and the social relationship with the consumer is materialized within and by the process of communication. The role of immaterial labor is to promote continual innovation in the forms and conditions of communication (and thus in work and consumption). It gives form to and materializes needs, the imaginary, consumer tastes, and so forth, and these products in turn become powerful producers of needs, images, and tastes. The particularity of the commodity produced through immaterial labor (its essential use value being given by its value as informational and cultural content) consists in the fact that it is not destroyed in the act of consumption, but rather it enlarges, transforms, and creates the “ideological“ and cultural environment of the consumer. This commodity does not produce the physical capacity of labor power; instead, it transforms the person who uses it. Immaterial labor produces first and foremost a “social relationship“ (a relationship of innovation, production, and consumption). Only if it succeeds in this production does its activity have an economic value. This activity makes immediately apparent something that material production had “hidden,“ namely, that labor produces not only commodities, but first and foremost it produces the capital relation.

The Autonomy of the Productive Synergies of Immaterial Labor
My working hypothesis, then, is that the cycle of immaterial labor takes as its starting point a social labor power that is independent and able to organize both its own work and its relations with business entities. Industry does not form or create this new labor power, but simply takes it on board and adapts it. Industry’s control over this new labor power presupposes the independent organization and “free entrepreneurial activity” of the labor power. Advancing further on this terrain brings us into the debate on the nature of work in the post-Fordist phase of the organization of labor. Among economists, the predominant view of this problematic can be expressed in a single statement: immaterial labor operates within the forms of organization that the centralization of industry allows. Moving from this common basis, there are two differing schools of thought: one is the extension of neoclassical analysis; the other is that of systems theory. In the former, the attempt to solve the problem comes through a redefinition of the problematic of the market. It is suggested that in order to explain the phenomena of communication and the new dimensions of organization one should introduce not only cooperation and intensity of labor, but also other analytic variables (anthropological variables? immaterial variables?) and that on this basis one might introduce other objectives of optimization and so forth. In fact, the neoclassical model has considerable difficulty in freeing itself from the coherence constraints imposed by the theory of general equilibrium. The new phenomenologies of labor, the new dimensions of organization, communication, the potentiality of spontaneous synergies, the autonomy of the subjects involved, and the independence of the networks were neither foreseen nor foreseeable by a general theory that believed that material labor and an industrial economy were indispensable.
Today, with the new data available, we find the microeconomy in revolt against the macroeconomy, and the classical model is corroded by a new and irreducible anthropological reality.
Systems theory, by eliminating the constraint of the market and giving pride of place to organization, is more open to the new phenomenology of labor and in particular to the emergence of immaterial labor. In more developed systemic theories, organization is conceived as an ensemble of factors, both material and immaterial, both individual and collective, that can permit a given group to reach objectives. The success of this organizational process requires instruments of regulation, either voluntary or automatic. It becomes possible to look at things from the point of view of social synergies, and immaterial labor can be taken on board by virtue of its global efficacy. These viewpoints, however, are still tied to an image of the organization of work and its social territory within which effective activity from an economic viewpoint (in other words, the activity conforming to the objective) must inevitably be considered as a surplus in relation to collective cognitive mechanisms. Sociology and labor economics, being systemic disciplines, are both incapable of detaching themselves from this position.
I believe that an analysis of immaterial labor and a description of its organization can lead us beyond the presuppositions of business theory – whether in its neoclassical school or its systems theory school. It can lead us to define, at a territorial level, a space for a radical autonomy of the productive synergies of immaterial labor. We can thus move against the old schools of thought to establish, decisively, the viewpoint of an “anthropo-sociology” that is constitutive.
Once this viewpoint comes to dominate within social production, we find that we have an interruption in the continuity of models of production. By this I mean that, unlike the position held by many theoreticians of post-Fordism, I do not believe that this new labor power is merely functional to a new historical phase of capitalism and its processes of accumulation and reproduction. This labor power is the product of a “silent revolution” taking place within the anthropological realities of work and within the reconfiguration of its meanings. Waged labor and direct subjugation (to organization) no longer constitute the principal form of the contractual relationship between capitalist and worker. A polymorphous self-employed autonomous work has emerged as the dominant form, a kind of “intellectual worker” who is him or herself an entrepreneur, inserted within a market that is constantly shifting and within networks that are changeable in time and space.

The cycle of immaterial production
Up to this point I have been analyzing and constructing the concept of immaterial labor from a point of view that could be defined, so to speak, as “microeconomic.” If now we consider immaterial labor within the globality of the production cycle, of which it is the strategic stage, we will be able to see a series of characteristics of post-Taylorist production that have not yet been taken into consideration.
I want to demonstrate in particular how the process of valorization tends to be identified with the process of the production of social communication and how the two stages (valorization and communication) immediately have a social and territorial dimension. The concept of immaterial labor presupposes and results in an enlargement of productive cooperation that even includes the production and reproduction of communication and hence of its most important contents: subjectivity.
If Fordism integrated consumption into the cycle of the reproduction of capital, post-Fordism integrates communication into it. From a strictly economic point of view, the cycle of reproduction of immaterial labor dislocates the production-consumption relationship as it is defined as much by the “virtuous Keynesian circle” as by the Marxist reproduction schemes of the second volume of Capital. Now, rather than speaking of the toppling of “supply and demand,” we should speak about a redefinition of the production-consumption relationship. As we saw earlier, the consumer is inscribed in the manufacturing of the product from its conception. The consumer is no longer limited to consuming commodities (destroying them in the act of consumption). On the contrary, his or her consumption should be productive in accordance to the necessary conditions and the new products. Consumption is then first of all a consumption of information. Consumption is no longer only the “realization” of a product, but a real and proper social process that for the moment is defined with the term communication.

Large-scale industry and services
To recognize the new characteristics of the production cycle of immaterial labor, we should compare it with the production of large-scale industry and services. If the cycle of immaterial production immediately demonstrates to us the secret of post-Taylorist production (that is to say, that social communication and the social relationship that constitutes it become productive), then it would be interesting to examine how these new social relationships innervate even industry and services, and how they oblige us to reformulate and reorganize even the classical forms of “production.”

Large-scale industry
The postindustrial enterprise and economy are founded on the manipulation of information. Rather than ensuring (as 19th century enterprises did) the surveillance of the inner workings of the production process and the supervision of the markets of raw materials (labor included), business is focused on the terrain outside of the production process: sales and the relationship with the consumer. It always leans more toward commercialization and financing than toward production. Prior to being manufactured, a product must be sold, even in “heavy” industries such as automobile manufacturing; a car is put into production only after the sales network orders it. This strategy is based on the production and consumption of information. It mobilizes important communication and marketing strategies in order to gather information (recognizing the tendencies of the market) and circulate it (constructing a market). In the Taylorist and Fordist systems of production, by introducing the mass consumption of standardized commodities, Ford could still say that the consumer has the choice between one black model T5 and another black model T5. “Today the standard commodity is no longer the recipe to success, and the automobile industry itself, which used to be the champion of the great ‘low price’ series, would want to boast about having become a neoindustry of singularization” – and quality.¹ For the majority of businesses, survival involves the permanent search for new commercial openings that lead to the identification of always more ample or differentiated product lines. Innovation is no longer subordinated only to the rationalization of labor, but also to commercial imperatives. It seems then that the postindustrial commodity is the result of a creative process that involves both the producer and the consumer.

Services
If from industry proper we move on to the “services” sector (large banking services, insurance, and so forth), the characteristics of the process I have described appear even more clearly. We are witnessing today not really a growth of services, but rather a development of the “relations of service.” The move beyond the Taylorist organization of services is characterized by the integration of the relationship between production and consumption, where in fact the consumer intervenes in an active way in the composition of the product. The product “service” becomes a social construction and a social process of “conception” and innovation. In service industries, the “back-office” tasks (the classic work of services) have diminished and the tasks of the “front office” (the relationship with clients) have grown. There has been thus a shift of human resources toward the outer part of business. As recent sociological analyses tell us, the more a product handled by the service sector is characterized as an immaterial product, the more it distances itself from the model of industrial organization of the relationship between production and consumption. The change in this relationship between production and consumption has direct consequences for the organization of the Taylorist labor of production of services, because it draws into question both the contents of labor and the division of labor (and thus the relationship between conception and execution loses its unilateral character). If the product is defined through the intervention of the consumer, and is therefore in permanent evolution, it becomes always more difficult to define the norms of the production of services and establish an “objective” measure of productivity.

Immaterial Labor
All of these characteristics of postindustrial economics (present both in large-scale industry and the tertiary sector) are accentuated in the form of properly “immaterial” production. Audiovisual production, advertising, fashion, software, the management of territory, and so forth are all defined by means of the particular relationship between production and its market or consumers. Here we are at the furthest point from the Taylorist model. Immaterial labor continually creates and modifies the forms and conditions of communication, which in turn acts as the interface that negotiates the relationship between production and consumption. As I noted earlier, immaterial labor produces first and foremost a social relation – it produces not only commodities, but also the capital relation.
If production today is directly the production of a social relation, then the “raw material” of immaterial labor is subjectivity and the “ideological” environment in which this subjectivity lives and reproduces. The production of subjectivity ceases to be only an instrument of social control (for the reproduction of mercantile relationships) and becomes directly productive, because the goal of our postindustrial society is to construct the consumer/communicator – and to construct it as “active.” Immaterial workers (those who work in advertising, fashion, marketing, television, cybernetics, and so forth) satisfy a demand by the consumer and at the same time establish that demand. The fact that immaterial labor produces subjectivity and economic value at the same time demonstrates how capitalist production has invaded our lives and has broken down all the oppositions among economy, power, and knowledge. The process of social communication (and its principal content, the production of subjectivity) becomes here directly productive because in a certain way it “produces” production. The process by which the “social” (and what is even more social, that is, language, communication, and so forth) becomes “economic” has not yet been sufficiently studied. In effect, on the one hand, we are familiar with an analysis of the production of subjectivity defined as the constitutive “process” specific to a “relation to the self with respect to the forms of production particular to knowledge and power (as in a certain vein of poststructuralist French philosophy), but this analysis never intersects sufficiently with the forms of capitalist valorization. On the other hand, in the 1980s a network of economists and sociologists (and before them the Italian postworkerist tradition) developed an extensive analysis of the “social form of production,” but that analysis does not integrate sufficiently the production of subjectivity as the content of valorization. Now, the post-Taylorist mode of production is defined precisely by putting subjectivity to work both in the activation of productive cooperation and in the production of the “cultural” contents of commodities.

The aesthetic model
But how is the production process of social communication formed? How does the production of subjectivity take place within this process? How does the production of subjectivity become the production of the consumer/communicator and its capacities to consume and communicate? What role does immaterial labor have in this process? As I have already said, my hypothesis is this: the process of the production of communication tends to become immediately the process of valorization. If in the past communication was organized fundamentally by means of language and the institutions of ideological and literary/artistic production, today, because it is invested with industrial production, communication is reproduced by means of specific technological schemes (knowledge, thought, image, sound, and language reproduction technologies) and by means of forms of organization and “management” that are bearers of a new mode of production.
It is more useful, in attempting to grasp the process of the formation of social communication and its subsumption within the “economic,“ to use, rather than the “material“ model of production, the “aesthetic“ model that involves author, reproduction, and reception. This model reveals aspects that traditional economic categories tend to obscure and that, as I will show, constitute the “specific differences“ of the post-Taylorist means of production.² The “aesthetic/ideological“ model of production will be transformed into a small-scale sociological model with all the limits and difficulties that such a sociological transformation brings. The model of author, reproduction, and reception requires a double transformation: in the first place, the three stages of this creation process must be immediately characterized by their social form; in the second place, the three stages must be understood as the articulations of an actual productive cycle.³
The “author” must lose its individual dimension and be transformed into an industrially organized production process (with a division of labor, investments, orders, and so forth), “reproduction” becomes a mass reproduction organized according to the imperatives of profitability, and the audience (“reception”) tends to become the consumer/communicator. In this process of socialization and subsumption within the economy of intellectual activity the “ideological” product tends to assume the form of a commodity. I should emphasize, however, that the subsumption of this process under capitalist logic and the transformation of its products into commodities does not abolish the specificity of aesthetic production, that is to say, the creative relationship between author and audience.

The specific differences of the immaterial labor cycle
Allow me to underline briefly the specific differences of the “stages” that make up the production cycle of immaterial labor (immaterial labor itself, its “ideological/commodity products,” and the “public/consumer”) in relation to the classical forms of the reproduction of “capital.”
As far as immaterial labor being an “author” is concerned, it is necessary to emphasize the radical autonomy of its productive synergies. As we have seen, immaterial labor forces us to question the classical definitions of work and workforce, because it results from a synthesis of different types of knowhow: intellectual skills, manual skills, and entrepreneurial skills. Immaterial labor constitutes itself in immediately collective forms that exist as networks and flows. The subjugation of this form of cooperation and the “use value” of these skills to capitalist logic does not take away the autonomy of the constitution and meaning of immaterial labor. On the contrary, it opens up antagonisms and contradictions that, to use once again a Marxist formula, demand at least a “new form of exposition.”
The “ideological product” becomes in every respect a commodity. The term ideological does not characterize the product as a “reflection” of reality, as false or true consciousness of reality. Ideological products produce, on the contrary, new stratifications of reality; they are the intersection where human power, knowledge, and action meet. New modes of seeing and knowing demand new technologies, and new technologies demand new forms of seeing and knowing. These ideological products are completely internal to the processes of the formation of social communication; that is, they are at once the results and the prerequisites of these processes. The ensemble of ideological products constitutes the human ideological environment. Ideological products are transformed into commodities without ever losing their specificity; that is, they are always addressed to someone, they are “ideally signifying,” and thus they pose the problem of “meaning.”
The general public tends to become the model for the consumer (audience/client). The public (in the sense of the user – the reader, the music listener, the television audience) whom the author addresses has as such a double productive function. In the first place, as the addressee of the ideological product, the public is a constitutive element of the production process. In the second place, the public is productive by means of the reception that gives the product “a place in life” (in other words, integrates it into social communication) and allows it to live and evolve. Reception is thus, from this point of view, a creative act and an integrative part of the product. The transformation of the product into a commodity cannot abolish this double process of “creativity”; it must rather assume it as it is, and attempt to control it and subordinate it to its own values.
What the transformation of the product into a commodity cannot remove, then, is the character of event, the open process of creation that is established between immaterial labor and the public and organized by communication. If the innovation in immaterial production is introduced by this open process of creation, the entrepreneur, in order to further consumption and its perpetual renewal, will be constrained to draw from the “values” that the public/consumer produces. These values presuppose the modes of being, modes of existing, and forms of life that support them. From these considerations there emerge two principal consequences. First, values are “put to work.” The transformation of the ideological product into a commodity distorts or deflects the social imaginary that is produced in the forms of life, but at the same time, commodity production must recognize itself as powerless as far as its own production is concerned. The second consequence is that the forms of life (in their collective and cooperative forms) are now the source of innovation.
The analysis of the different “stages” of the cycle of immaterial labor permits me to advance the hypothesis that what is “productive” is the whole of the social relation (here represented by the author-work-audience relationship) according to modalities that directly bring into play the “meaning.” The specificity of this type of production not only leaves its imprint on the “form” of the process of production by establishing a new relationship between production and consumption, but it also poses a problem of legitimacy for the capitalist appropriation of this process. This cooperation can in no case be predetermined by economics, because it deals with the very life of society. “Economics” can only appropriate the forms and products of this cooperation, normalizing and standardizing them. The creative and innovative elements are tightly linked to the values that only the forms of life produce. Creativity and productivity in postindustrial societies reside, on the one hand, in the dialectic between the forms of life and values they produce and, on the other, in the activities of subjects that constitute them. The legitimation that the (Schumpeterian) entrepreneur found in his or her capacity for innovation has lost its foundation. Because the capitalist entrepreneur does not produce the forms and contents of immaterial labor, he or she does not even produce innovation. For economics there remains only the possibility of managing and regulating the activity of immaterial labor and creating some devices for the control and creation of the public/consumer by means of the control of communication and information technologies and their organizational processes.

Creation and intellectual labor
These brief considerations permit us to begin questioning the model of creation and diffusion specific to intellectual labor and to get beyond the concept of creativity as an expression of “individuality” or as the patrimony of the “superior” classes. The works of Simmel and Bakhtin, conceived in a time when immaterial production had just begun to become “productive,” present us with two completely different ways of posing the relationship between immaterial labor and society. The first, Simmel’s, remain completely invested in the division between manual labor and intellectual labor and give us a theory of the creativity of intellectual labor. The second, Bakhtin’s, in refusing to accept the capitalist division of labor as a given, elaborate a theory of social creativity. Simmel, in effect, explains the function of “fashion” by means of the phenomenon of imitation or distinction as regulated and commanded by class relationships. Thus the superior levels of the middle classes are the ones that create fashion, and the lower classes attempt to imitate them. Fashion here functions like a barrier that incessantly comes up because it is incessantly battered down. What is interesting for this discussion is that, according to this conception, the immaterial labor of creation is limited to a specific social group and is not diffused except through imitation. At a deeper level, this model accepts the division of labor founded on the opposition between manual and intellectual labor that has as its end the regulation and “mystification” of the social process of creation and innovation. If this model had some probability of corresponding to the dynamics of the market of immaterial labor at the moment of the birth of mass consumption (whose effects Simmel very intelligently anticipates), it could not be utilized to account for the relationship between immaterial labor and consumer-public in postindustrial society. Bakhtin, on the contrary, defines immaterial labor as the superseding of the division between “material labor and intellectual labor” and demonstrates how creativity is a social process. In fact, the work on “aesthetic production” of Bakhtin and the rest of the Leningrad Circle has this same social focus.
This is the line of investigation that seems most promising for developing a theory of the social cycle of immaterial production.

Translated by Paul Colilli and Ed Emery
Notes
1. Yves Clot, “Renouveau de 1’industrialisme et activité philosophique,» Futur antérieur, no. 10(1992);
2. Both the creative and the social elements of this production encourage me to venture the use of the «aesthetic model.» It is interesting to see how one could arrive at this new concept of labor by starting either from artistic activity (following the situationists) or from the traditional activity of the factory (following Italian workerist theories), both relying on the very Marxist concept of “living labor.“
3. Walter Benjamin has already analyzed how since the end of the nineteenth century both artistic production and reproduction, along with its perception, have assumed collective forms. I cannot pause here to consider his works, but they are certainly fundamental for any genealogy of immaterial labor and its forms of reproduction.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien in Englisch unter http://www.generation-online.org/c/fcimmateriallabour3.htm [6.9.2013].
In deutscher Übersetzung erschien er in: Toni Negri, Maurizio Lazzarato und Paolo Virno: Umherschweifende Produzenten. Immaterielle Arbeit und Subversion, ID-Verlag, 1998, S. 39–52.

Der Blaue Reiter Almanach

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

A great era has begun: the spiritual ‘awakening’, the increasing tendency to regain lost ’balance’, the inevitable necessity of spiritual plantings, the unfolding of the first blossom.
We are standing at the threshold of one of the greatest epochs that mankind has ever experienced, the epoch of great spirituality.
In the nineteenth century just ended, when there appeared to be the most thoroughgoing flourishing – the ‘great victory’ – of the material, the first ‘new’ elements of a spiritual atmosphere were formed almost unnoticed. They will give and have given the necessary nourishment for the flourishing of the spiritual.
Art, literature, even ‘exact’ science are in various stages of change in this ‘new’ era; they will all be overcome by it.
Our [first and] most important aim is to reflect phenomena in the field of art that are directly connected with this change and the essential facts that shed light on these phenomena in other fields of spiritual life.
Therefore, the reader will find works in our volumes that in this respect show an inner relationship although they may appear unrelated on the surface. We are considering or making note not of work that has a certain established, orthodox, external form (which usually is all there), but of work that has an inner life connected with the great change.
It is only natural that we want not death but life. The echo of a living voice is only a hollow form, which has not arisen out of a distinct inner necessity; in the same way, there have always been created and will increasingly be created, works of art that are nothing but hollow reverberations of works rooted in this inner necessity. They are hollow, loitering lies that pollute the spiritual air and lead wavering spirits astray. Their deception leads the spirit not to life but to death. With all means available we want to try to unmask the hollowness of this deception. This is our second goal.
It is only natural that in questions of art the artist is called upon to speak first. Therefore the contributors to our volumes will be primarily artists. Now they have the opportunity to say openly what previously they had to hide. We are therefore asking those artists who feel inwardly related to our goals to turn to us as brethren. We take the liberty of using this great word because we are convinced that in our case the establishment automatically ceases to exist ….
It should be almost superfluous to emphasize specifically that in our case the principle of internationalism is the only one possible. However, in these times we must say that an individual nation is only one of the creators of all art; one alone can never be a whole. As with a personality, the national element is automatically reflected in each great work. But in the last resort this national coloration is merely incidental. The whole work, called art, knows no borders or nations, only humanity.

Wiederabdruck:
Vorwort zu „Der Blaue Reiter Almanach“ (1912), zitiert in: 1000 Artists‘ Manifestos. From the Futurists to the Stuckists. Selected by Alex Danchev. Penguin/London 2011, S. 35–37.

to be with art is all we ask

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:39 +0000

Oh art, what are you? You are so strong and powerful, so beautiful and moving. You make us walk around and around, pacing the city at all hours, in and out of our art for all room. We really do love you and we really do hate you. Why do you have so many faces and voices? You make us thirst for you and then to run from you escaping completely into a normal life-getting up, having breakfast, going to the work-shop and being sure of putting our mind and energy into the making of a door or maybe a simple table and chair. The whole life would surely be so easeful, so drunk with the normality of work and the simple pleasures of loving and hanging around for our lifetime. Oh Art, where did you come from, who mothered such a strange being. For what kind of people are you: are for the feeble-of-mind are you for the poor-at-heart are for those with no soul. Are you a branch of nature’s fantastic network or are you an invention of some ambitious man? Do you come from a long line of arts? For every artist is born in the usual way and we have never seen a young artist. Is to become an artist to be reborn, or is it a condition of life? Coming slowly over a person like the day break. It brings the art-ability to do this funny thing and shows you new possibilities for feeling and scratching at oneself and surroundings, setting standards, making you go into every scene and every contact, every touching nerve and all your senses. And Art we are driven by you at incredible speed, ignorant of the danger you are pushing and dragging us into. And yet Art, there is no going back, all roads go only on and on. We are happy for the good times that you give us and we work and wait only for these tidbits from your table. If you only knew how much these mean to us, transporting from the depths of tragedy and black despair to a beautiful life of happiness, taking us where the good times are. When this happens we are able to walk again with our heads held high. We artists need only to see a little light through the trees of the forest, to be happy and working and back into gear again. And yet, we don’t forget you. Art, we continue to dedicate our artists-art to you alone for you and your pleasure, for Art’s-sake. We would honestly like to say to you, Art how happy we are to be your sculptors. We think about all the time and feel very sentimental about you. We do realize that you are what we really crave for and many times we meet you in our dreams. We have glimpsed you through the abstract world and have tasted of your reality. One day we thought we saw you in a crowded street, you were dressed in a light brown suit, white shirt and a curious blue tie. You looked very smart but there was about your dress a curious wornness and dryness. You were walking alone, light of step and in a very controlled sense. We were fascinated by the lightness eyes and your dustly-blonde hair. We approached you nervously and then just as we neared you you went out of sight for a second and then we could not find you again. We felt sad and unlucky and at the same time happy and hopeful to have seen your reality. We now feel very familiar with you. Art. We have learned from you many of the ways of life. In our work of drawings, sculptures, living-pieces, photo messages, written and spoken pieces we are always to be seen, frozen into a gazing for you. You will never find us working physically or with our nerves and yet we shall not cease to pose for you, Art. Many times we would like to know what you would like of us, your massages to us are not always easily understood. We realize that it cannot be too simple because of your great complexity and all meaning. If at times we do not measure up or fulfill your wishes you must believe that it is not because we are unserious but only because we are unserious but only because we are artists. We ask always for our help. Art, for we need much strength in this modern time, to be only artists of a life time. We know that you are above the people of our artist-world but we feel that we should tell you of the ordinariness and struggling that abounds and we ask you if this must be. Is it right that artists should only be able to work for you for only the days when they are new, fresh and crisp. Why can’t you let them pay homage to you for all their days growing strong in your company and coming to know you better. Oh Art, please let us all relax with you. Recently Art, we thought to set ourselves the task of painting a large set of narrative views descriptive of our looking for you. We like very much to look forward to doing it and we are sure that they are really right for you.

Wiederabdruck
Der Text entstammt dem Kunstwerk „To be with art is all we ask“ (1970) des britischen Künstlerduos Gilbert & George.