define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true);
define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true);
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].
In their scramble for survival, cultural and educational institutions have shown how easily they can betray one set of values in favour of another and that’s why our task now is to demand and adhere to the foundational and social principles they have jettisoned, by which we mean: transparency, accountability, equality and open participation.
– By transparency we mean an opening up of the administrative and financial functions/decision making processes to public scrutiny. By accountability we mean that these functions and processes are clearly presented, monitored and that they can in turn, be measured and contested by ‘participants’ at any time. Equality and open participation is exactly what it says – that men and women of all nationalities, race, colour and social status can participate in any of these processes at any time.
– Institutions as they appear today, locked in a confused space between public and private, baying to the demands of neoliberal hype with their new management structures, are not in a position to negotiate the principles of transparency, accountability and equality, let alone implement them. We realise that responding to these demands might extend and/or guarantee institutions’ survival but, thankfully, their deeply ingrained practices prevent them from even entertaining the idea on a serious level.
– In our capacity as workers with a political commitment to self-organisation we feel that any further critical contribution to institutional programmes will further reinforce the relations that keep these obsolete structures in place. We are fully aware that ‘our’ critiques, alternatives and forms of organisation are not just factored into institutional structures but increasingly utilised to legitimise their existence.
– The relationship between corporations, the state and its institutions is now so unbearable that we see no space for negotiation – we offer no contribution, no critique, no pathway to reform, no way in or out. We choose to define ourselves in relation to the social forms that we participate in and not the leaden institutional programmes laid out before us – our deregulation is determined by social, not market relations. There is no need for us to storm the Winter Palace, because most institutions are melting away in the heat of global capital anyway. We will provide no alternative. So let go!
The only question that remains is how to get rid of the carcass and deal with the stench:
– We are not interested in their so-called assets; their personnel, buildings, archives, programmes, shops, clubs, bars, facilities and spaces will all end up at the pawnbroker anyway…
– All we need is their cash in order to pay our way out of capitalism and take this opportunity to make clear our intention to supervise and mediate our own social capital, knowledge and networks.
– As a first step we suggest an immediate redistribution of their funds to already existing, self-organised bodies with a clear commitment to workers’ and immigrants’ rights, social (anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic) struggle and representation.
There is no alternative! The future is self-organised.
– In the early 1970s corporate analysts developed a strategy aimed at reducing uncertainty called ‘there is no alternative’ (tina). Somewhat ironically we now find ourselves in agreement, but this time round we’re the scenario planners and executors of our own future though we are, if nothing else, the very embodiment of uncertainty.
– In the absence of clearly stated opposition to the neoliberal system, most forms of collective and collaborative practice can be read as ‘self-enterprise’. By which we mean, groupings or clusters of individuals set up to feed into the corporate controlled markets, take their seats at the table, cater to and promote the dominant ideology.
– Self-organisation should not be confused with self-enterprise or self-help, it is not an alternative or conduit into the market. It isn’t a label, logo, brand or flag under which to sail in the waters of neoliberalism (even as a pirate ship as suggested by mtv)! It has no relationship to entrepreneurship or bogus ‘career collectives’.
– In our view self-organisation is a byword for the productive energy of those who have nothing left to lose. It offers up a space for a radical re-politicisation of social relations – the first tentative steps towards realisable freedoms.
Self-organisation is:
– Something which predates representational institutions. To be more precise: institutions are built on (and often paralyse) the predicates and social forms generated by self-organisation.
– Mutually reinforcing, self-valorising, self-empowering, self-historicising and, as a result, not compatible with fixed institutional structures.
– A social and productive force, a process of becoming which, like capitalism, can be both flexible and opaque – therefore more than agile enough to tackle (or circumvent) it.
– A social process of communication and commonality based on exchange; sharing of similar problems, knowledge and available resources.
– A fluid, temporal set of negotiations and social relations which can be emancipatory – a process of empowerment.
– Something which situates itself in opposition to existing, repressive forms of organisation and concentrations of power.
– Always challenging power both inside the organisation and outside the organisation; this produces a society of resonance and conflict, but not based on fake dualities as at present.
– An organisation of deregulated selves. It is at its core a non-identity.
– A tool that doesn’t require a cohesive identity or voice to enter into negotiation with others. It may reside within social forms but doesn’t need to take on an identifiable social form itself.
– Contagious and inclusive, it disseminates and multiplies.
– The only way to relate to self-organisation is to take part, self-organise, connect with other self-organising initiatives and challenge the legitimacy of institutional representation.
We put a lid on the bourgeois project, the national museums will be stored in their very own archive, the Institutes of Contemporary Art will be handed over to the artists unions, the Universities and Academies will be handed over to the students, Siemens and all the other global players will be handed over to their workers. The state now acts as an administrative unit – just as neoliberalism has suggested it – but with mechanisms of control, transparency accountability and equal rights for all.
END
Disclaimer:
This text can be freely distributed and printed in non-commercial, no-money contexts without the permission of the authors.
It was originally conceived as a pamphlet with the aim of disrupting the so-called critical paths and careers being carved out by those working the base structure of the political-art fields. We’re aware of contradictions, limits and problems with this text and invite all to measure the content in direct relation to the context in which it may appear. In fact, it has come as no surprise to us that its dodgy, legitimising potential has been most keenly exploited by those it originally set out to challenge.
Having let it fly we now invite you, the reader, to consider why it’s in this publication, whose interests it serves and the power relations it helps to maintain.
Stephan Dillemuth in Munich, Anthony Davies in London and Jakob Jakobsen in Copenhagen, 12 June 2005.
Wiederabdruck
Der Text erschien zuerst in: Will Bradley/Charles Esche (Hg.): Art and Social Change. A Critical Reader. London 2007, S. 378–381.
Our D.I.Y. travesties of home improvement leave us with closets full of under-used tools and sheds full of extra wood and steel wool and toxic chemicals and mastic and caulk. These closets don’t really even shut correctly; our hinges aren’t straight and we brashly scrape the undersides of our doors with a plane, hoping that two crookeds will combine into one straight. If you want to build your a walk-in closet, you may contact a Custom Closet Company and hire experts to install custom cabinets and shelves.
Our D.I.Y. adventures in making our own clothes, clutter our homes with extra fabric, yarn, and sewing supplies. The clothes we manufacture are good for a couple times out and about, but our learning curve is steep and the seams don’t always stay together. Our D.I.Y. exuberance for cooking unfamiliar cuisines fills our cabinets with jars of exotic spices, specialized contraptions, bamboo steamers, Moroccan tagines, the requisite fondue set; all items that will flood thrift stores shortly after whichever particular cooking trend is succeeded by the next. Guests to our homes smile and swallow appreciatively; does this really mean our cooking adventures are successful? We are constantly experimenting with something new, with no time to perfect anything before our next project looms on the horizon, bringing with it a new supply of gadgets and raw materials.
The trickery of advertisers makes us feel like human beings, while in reality we are, in the minds of the global mega-companies who have us all on a short leash, slavish consumers. D.I.Y. has become just another tactic to rip away our humanity, turning us into operators of cash machines and credit cards. We exist to be rippedoff and profited from. D.I.Y. panders to our beliefs, while at the same time ripping us a new asshole and sending our hard earned money straight to hell. We are stewing in our own fat. Our utopia is on layaway, with an option for 1.5 % cash back if we sign up for the right credit card. We have become hungry monsters, drooling to take back production for ourselves, whatever the cost. Our ethos has been gift wrapped and sold back to us. Our revolution has been pilfered.
We can and must stop this madness once and for all.
“Don’t Do It Yourself” is our new battle cry. D.D.I.Y. means working with friends, hiring a professional, consuming wisely and conscientiously, and providing for ourselves while working with others. We do what we do best, do what we know how to do, while allowing others to help us with what we are not equipped for. D.D.I.Y. allows us to admit that we might not be able to do everything ourselves, that we can’t be a specialist in all
fields. D.D.I.Y. says we don’t need to purchase all the tools necessary for a minor repair, especially when our neighbor has a toolbox covered in cobwebs in the back shed. It is pointless for us to learn electrical wiring in order to fix one chandelier; we don’t need to invest in a table saw to build a birdhouse. Our new ethos of D.D.I.Y. asks us to reclaim creativity in order to retreat from the corporate food chain and to embrace frugality, common sense, common property, and skill-sharing.
D.D.I.Y. compels us to invest in people instead of material. We must understand that expert wisdom exists, and that it cannot be learned overnight or from the Idiot’s Guide or For Dummies series of how-to books. Employ those who know what they are doing. Imagine a world where everyone has mountains of supplies but no idea how to use them – not pretty. Employment need not always entail a monetary exchange (though sometimes there is no choice). D.D.I.Y. contests that we all have something to offer, no matter how modest, and that our skills can be swapped for those of others. D.D.I.Y. asks us to bake bread in trade for having a friend rototil our garden or to knit a hat for the person who fixes our bicycle. If we cannot bake or knit, perhaps we can build a website,
provide childcare, walk a dog, dig a ditch, run an errand.
D.D.I.Y. is the new D.I.Y. It is un-commoditized, barterbased, community crazed, and liberating. D.D.I.Y. asks us to ask ourselves if we want to spend our time learning plumbing basics while the plumber next door now
spends many of her working hours undoing the mistakes made by amateurs. D.D.I.Y. asks us to support those who know how to do things, so that their crafts may survive. D.D.I.Y. encourages freedom, creativity, earth-consciousness and skill-sharing. The days of Do-It-Yourself are over. In the face of the corporatized takeover of our uprising against globalized consumer culture, we once again must transform our ideologies and rectify the injustices brought against humanity in the name our former revolution. Don’t-Do-It-Yourself finds us standing side by side, leaving behind the “army of one” while moving forward into a world of our own design.
Wiederabdruck
Der Text erschien zuerst in: Lisa Anne Auerbach, d. d. i. y. Don’t Do It Yourself, Journal of Aesthetics and Protest, Theory in Three Acts, issue 6, November 2008. Und online im Internet: http://www.journalofaestheticsandprotest.org/6/lovetowe/lisa.html [10.02.2013].