Multimedia – what's next?

Artistic and pedagogical strategies in the network society

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

What is happening in professional art practice? What are my students interested in? What are the latest theories on learning and teaching? One could argue that these are the three essential and recurring questions to which every art teacher should have an answer. Over the course of my four-year research project I have focused primarily on tackling the first two questions, working within the theoretical framework of authentic art education – a framework that is in itself a partial answer to the third question. Authentic art education was introduced to the Netherlands by Folkert Haanstra¹. Emerging from a socio-constructivist theory of learning, authentic art education rests on the founding belief that art education is put to its best advantage in complex, lifelike learning situations that, on the one hand, connect to students’ interests, and on the other, to developments in the professional art field. This entails that the content matter and pedagogy of art education are acknowledged as inherently dynamic, which challenges art educators to align existing curricula and pedagogies with present-day visual production and learning forms.
In the course of my study I examined current art practices among amateurs, young people and artists, with particular emphasis on the influence of new technology on these practices. The young people and amateurs were incorporated into the research project by studying informal creative networks formed by graffiti artists, musicians, fan-artists, cosplayers and other -communities.² The practices of professional artists were -collated both through a literature study of socially engaged, collaborative art practices, and through interviews with Pilvi Takala, Jeanne van Heeswijk, Aram -Bartholl, José Antonio Vega Macotela, The Propeller Group and other artists and collectives.³Based on the typical characteristics that I distilled from contemporary informal and professional creative work practices, I formulated a number of recommendations that provide an update to Haanstra’s original theoretical framework. Below I set out a number of these recommendations, which are compared with the characteristics of traditional art education. It should be noted that the characteristics of traditional art education are merely used as a counterweight to the position I have taken. I do not suggest that there are no other -innovations in art education going on. The recommendations set out below are directed primarily at those teaching visual arts subjects in secondary schools, but they can also be viewed from the broader perspective of arts education as a whole.

Encourage students to establish meaningful connections between professional art, popular culture and real-world local and global issues.
Young people develop expertise and artistic preferences based on specific areas of interest derived from popular culture. Their cultural production is not aimed solely at artistic development; it is also fuelled by an urge to communicate or to explore certain problems or interests. This broad approach is also evident among many contemporary artists who examine social issues through their work. It is possible to create an individually significant learning path for students by allowing them to respond in their work to topical issues (whether remote or close at hand), and to source inspiration from both popular culture and ‘high’ art. In traditional art education, learning is mostly focused on traditional ‘high’ art; popular culture and personal reflection on social issues are generally viewed as less relevant.

Stimulate interdisciplinary production
Young people and artists alike often mix a variety of media and art disciplines to express themselves. Their work is often not driven by medium, but by ideas. The rise of easily accessible multimedia technology has made a huge contribution to this development and stimulates the potential for merging existing art disciplines.⁴ Traditional art education is often presented in the form of mono-disciplinary, ‘analogue’ subjects such as drawing and handicrafts.

Stimulate longitudinal artistic research
There is a tendency among artists to embark on long-term research-oriented projects that produce a series of events and products rather than a single art object. Work that young people produce outside school typically draws on a long-term fascination and immersion in a single particular subject. Creative production and critical reflection are parallel and reciprocal processes in art, which are stimulated in an inquiry-based curriculum.⁵ A process-based pedagogy grants artistic processes as equally important as final products and acknowledges creative production and critical reflection as parallel and reciprocal processes in art education. Final products are seen as temporary stages in an ongoing artistic and learning process.⁶ Teachers in an authentic curriculum strive for long-term assignments and try to avoid lessons that are ‘crumbled’ into a traditional school timetable. Traditional art education is strictly product-oriented and typically involves only short-term assignments.

Encourage collaborative production as well as online and off-line interaction with people outside the classroom
The era of the artist as a lone genius has passed – if indeed it ever truly existed. Artists and young people alike use networks and collaborative productions to share expertise and experience and to utilize various skills. Collaboration beyond the classroom offers opportunities to push the boundaries between a learning community and real world communities of practice, and enables students to establish interactive relationships with people with different backgrounds, ages and expertise than are available in class. On- and offline collaborative interaction increases opportunities for multicultural learning, as it intensifies the cultural diversity of the learning community.⁷ Traditional art education is usually based on individual expression and one-to-one teacher supervision. There is little opportunity for cooperation and interaction with others.

The mastery of analogue and digital techniques is instrumental rather than a goal in itself
Technical skills increase the potential for creative expression. However, young people and artists generally learn these techniques as part of the creative process, driven by the urge to make meaningful work. Learning processes become less significant when technical improvement and the development of ideas are detached from each other.⁸ I argue that the students’ conceptual development can both include and reinforce their advancement of technical and media skills. The improvement of specialist artistic techniques is more relevant for students who understand what art is about and who know how to link those skills to their personal, artistic concepts. Traditional art education often embarks from the isolated acquisition of techniques and skills, with students only experimenting with creating personally meaningful work in later years.

Sharing, copying and remixing are seen as artistic processes
Art critic Claire Bishop points to selection as a key activity in contemporary image production. The search for and recycling of existing imagery and audio material plays an important role in the practice of contemporary artists, and it is also a prominent feature in the informal artistic production by young people and amateurs. The availability of the Internet (the archive) and digital technology (sample and remix tools) are important stimuli for these developments. In traditional art education, the recycling of existing imagery is often discouraged because students are required to think of ‘something original’.
The findings above informed an updated pedagogical framework for authentic art education, which was implemented and evaluated at different schools. The experiences of 20 teachers and 300 students with the framework of authentic art education will be presented and discussed in my forthcoming dissertation. The study aims to provide an insight into design-based methodologies that can be applied to reduce the gap between formal art education and contemporary real world visual practices.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text ist eine abgeänderte Version von: Emiel Heijnen, „Artistic Strategies in the Network Society”, On Air, 5, 2012, S. 26–27.

1.) Folkert Haanstra, De Hollandse Schoolkunst. Mogelijkheden en beperkingen van authentieke kunsteducatie [Dutch school art. Possibilities and limitations of authentic art education]. Utrecht 2001.
2.) Kerry Freedman, Mira Kallio-Tavin, Andrea Karpati, Lazlo Papp “Visual Culture Learning Communities: How and What Students Come to Know in Informal Art Groups”, Studies in Art Education, 54 (2), 2013, pp. 131–143.
3.) For two examples for works of artists Emiel Heijnen collaborated with, please follow the QR code and find: “Michael Jackson” by IVES.One, (2009) and “Intercambio 55” (2006–2010, from: Time Divisa) by Jose Antonio Vega Macotela. IVES.One is a street artist from Amsterdam. Heijnen interviewed him in 2011. He has never studied art, but learned everything as part of the graffiti scene. In 2009 he was planning to make a stencil of Michael Jackson holding hands with a small boy. When Jackson suddenly died, IVES.one decided not to use this critical image but to honor him through a stencil of the young Michael. This image received a great deal of publicity and still appears in the public space of Amsterdam.
Emiel Heijnen interviewed Mexican artist José Antonio Vega Macotela in 2012. Time Divisa (Time Currency) is the exchange project Vega Macotela realized in collaboration with the male inmates of the overpopulated Santa Martha Acatila prison in Mexico City. Over a period of four years, Vega Macotela visited the prison weekly, encouraging the prisoners to participate in a time exchange experiment. The artist offered to perform tasks for the inmates outside the prison and in return they would have to complete small assignments for Vega Macotela. The project consists of extensive documentation of objects, drawings and photos. This photo shows a prisoner who Vega Macotela asked to mark each scar on his body with an explanation of its origins. In return Vega Macotela attended the birthday of the prisoner’s mother.
4.) Lev Manovich, Deep Remixability. Remix Theory. 2006, S. l. http://remix-theory.net/?p=61 [June 10, 2010]
5.) Kerry Freedman, Patricia Stuhr, “Curriculum change for the 21st century: Visual Culture in Art Education”, in: Elliot Eisner, Michael Day (Eds.), Handbook of Research and Policy in Art Education, Mahwah, N J 2004, pp. 815–825.
6.) Talita Groenendijk, Marike Hoekstra, Robert Klatser, Altermoderne Kunsteducatie: theorie en praktijk [Altermodern Art Education: theory and practice]. Amsterdam 2012.
7.) Sanna Järvelä, Simone Volet, Hanna Järvenoja, „Research on Motivation in Collaborative Learning: Moving Beyond the Cognitive-Situative Divide and Combining Individual and Social Processes”, Educational psychologist: official publication of the Division of Educational Psychology of the American Psychological Association, 45 (1), 2010, pp. 15–28.
8.) Tom Anderson, Melody K. Milbrandt, Art for life: Authentic Instruction in Art. New York 2005.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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