Gegenwart – what's next?

[we like to share it all]

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

1) WE LIKE TO SHARE IT ALL.
Wir sind Tramper auf den Straßen der Heterarchie. Der Zugang ist frei und die Organisation der Teilnehmer erfolgt dezentral. Das Herz unserer Generation pumpt durch seine Venen Beteiligung. Denn in Zukunft ist klar: Wir werden Teilhaber sein.

2) I HAVE IT. AND YOU CAN HAVE IT TOO. THEN WE BOTH MADE IT.
Wir leben häufig in bewussten Prozessen. Das System unserer Bewegungen ist der maßgebende Wert im Leben und seine fortlaufende Schöpfung ist immer das nächste Trittbrett. Die Mitfahrt ist stets erlaubt. Ein Mitwirken des Einzelnen im Getriebe kann gezielt dafür sorgen dass wir schneller, sicherer und vollständiger am Ziel angelangen.

3) EVERY MOMENT AN ANNIVERSARY (UNTIL WE SAY STOP).
Standorte sind zum Wechseln da. Es braucht keine Eile, da Zeit genossen; keine Gedanken über sekundengenaue Taktung und mehr Flexibilität im Countdown bitte. Jede Halbwertszeit verliert ihre Bedeutung durch das Makroskop der Gegenwart. Wir nutzen, was wir brauchen.

4) NO MATTER WHAT: NOW.
Es gibt keine lebenslange Garantie auf bedingungslose Zielsicherheit. Wir leben online und brauchen frische Updates. Jeder hat Zugang. Es braucht kein Zurück, weil alles im Begriff ist, ständig im Kontinuum verfügbar zu sein. Wofür wir und alles (mit-)bestimmt ist, kann sich zeigen (muss aber nicht).

5) FREQUENTLY ASK QUESTIONS.
Wir wollen einbezogen sein, was uns und diese Welt betrifft. Wir müssen keine Fragen stellen, deren Antworten bekannt sind. Aber wir könnten. Früher oder später folgt natürlich einem Impuls eine Resonanz. Wir wissen jedenfalls, wann/wenn es laut und gut war.

6) RECYCLE IF POSSIBLE.
Tradition darf keine Dauerbaustelle im Netzwerk sein – weder ihre Renovierung noch ihr Abriss. Sie kann dauerhaft den Motor schmieren und damit das Übersetzen der Energien medialisieren. Blinde Konformität erzeugt scheinbar einen antiquierten Klang, der konsumiert werden kann. Wir setzen uns damit auseinander und finden heraus, wohin wir damit gelangen können.

7) THE OCCUPY WALL STREETS AGENCY.
Oder besser: Das Ganze ist mehr als die Summe seiner Teile. Wenn es eine globale Parade gibt, werden wir tanzen. Die Quelle ist jedem zugänglich. Jedem sein Aggregat. Der Basar ist eröffnet.

8) JUST CLICKED IT.
Es kann sein, dass sich jemand nur verklickt hat.

Fragen:
1) Wer nimmt Teil an meinem zukünftigen Kunstunterricht?
2) Wieviel Beweglichkeit brauche ich für meinen Kunstunterricht? Wie viel Beweglichkeit brauchen meine KollegInnen? Wie viel Beweglichkeit braucht das Fach?
3) Wie gegenwärtig ist aktuelle Kunstpädagogik?
4) Wie lehre ich beständig Wandel?
5) Wer stellt die Fragen?
6)
7) Wo sind die open art educational ressources?
8) Ist das Kunst oder Junk-Mail/Spam/Trash?

Now and Elsewhere

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:44 +0000

The Problem and the Provocation
We would like to begin by taking a sentence from the formulation of the problem that set the ball rolling for this lecture series. In speaking of the “hesitation in developing any kind of comprehensive strategy” for understanding precisely what it is that we call contemporary art today (in the wake of the last twenty years of contemporary art activity), the introduction to the series speaks of its having “assumed a fully mature form – and yet it still somehow refuses to be historicized as such.”¹
Simultaneously an assertion and a reticence to name one’s place in time, it is this equivocation that we would really like to discuss.

The Old Man and the Wind: Joris Ivens’ Film
At the very beginning of Joris Ivens and Marceline Loridan’s film Une histoire de vent (A Tale of the Wind), we see a frail Joris Ivens sitting in a chair on a sand dune in the Gobi Desert, on the border between China and Mongolia, waiting for the arrival of a sandstorm.
Elsewhere in the film, an old woman – a wind shaman – talks about waiting for the wind.
Buffeted as we are by winds that blow from so many directions with such intensity, this image of an old man in a chair waiting for a storm is a metaphor for a possible response to the question “What is contemporaneity?”
It takes stubbornness, obstinacy, to face a storm, and yet also a desire not to be blown away by it. If Paul Klee’s Angelus Novus, celebrated in Benjamin’s evocation of the angel of history, with its head caught in turning between the storm of the future and the debris of the present, were ever in need of a more recent annotation, then old man Ivens in his chair, waiting for the wind, would do very nicely.
It is tempting to think of this dual obstinacy – to face the storm and not be blown away – as an acute reticence that is at the same time a refusal to either run away from or be carried away by the strong winds of history, of time itself.
We could see this “reticence,” this “refusal to historicize,” as a form of escape from the tyranny of the clock and the calendar – instruments to measure time, and to measure our ability to keep time, to keep to the demands of the time allotted to us by history, our contemporaneity. Any reflection on contemporaneity cannot avoid simultaneously being a consideration of time, and of our relation to it.

On Time
Time girds the earth tight. Day after day, astride minutes and seconds, the hours ride as they must, relentlessly. In the struggle to keep pace with clocks, we are now always and everywhere in a state of jet lag, always catching up with ourselves and with others, slightly short of breath, slightly short of time.
The soft insidious panic of time ticking away in our heads is syncopated by accelerated heartbeat of our everyday lives. Circadian rhythms (times to rise and times to sleep, times for work and times for leisure, times for sunlight and times for stars) get muddled as millions of faces find themselves lit by timeless fluorescence that trades night for day. Sleep is besieged by wakefulness, hunger is fed by stimulation, and moments of dreaming and lucid alertness are eroded with the knowledge of intimate terrors and distant wars.
When possible, escape is up a hatch and down a corridor between and occasionally beyond longitudes, to places where the hours chime epiphanies. Escape is a resonant word in the vocabulary of clockmaking. It gives us another word – escapement.

Escapement²
Escapement is a horological or clockmaking term. It denotes the mechanism in mechanical watches and clocks that governs the regular motion of the hands through a “catch and release” device that both releases and restrains the levers that move the hands for hours, minutes, and seconds. Like the catch and release of the valves of the heart that allow blood to flow between its chambers, setting the basic rhythm of life, the escapement of a watch regulates our sense of the flow of time. The continued pulsation of our hearts and the ticking of clocks denote our freedom from an eternal present. Each heartbeat, each passing second marks the here and now, promises the future, and recalls the resonance of the last heartbeat. Our heart tells us that we live in time.
The history of clockmaking saw a definite turn when devices for understanding time shifted away from the fluid principles of ancient Chinese water and incense clocks – for which time was a continuum, thus making it more difficult to surgically separate past and present, then and now – to clocks whose ticking seconds rendered a conceptual barricade between each unit, its predecessor and its follower. This is what makes now seem so alien to then. Paradoxically, it opens out another zone of discomfort. Different places share the same time because of the accident of longitude. Thus clocks in London and Lagos (with adjustments made for daylight savings) show the same time. And yet, the experience of “now“ in London and Lagos may not feel the same at all.
An escape from – or, one might say, a full-on willingness to confront – this vexation might be found by taking a stance in which one is comfortable with the fact that we exist at the intersection of different latitudes and longitudes, and that being located on this grid, we are in some sense phatically in touch with other times, other places. In a syncopated sort of way, we are “contemporaneous” with other times and spaces.

My Name is Chin Chin Choo
In Howrah Bridge, a Hindi film-noir thriller from 1958 set in a cosmopolitan Calcutta (which, in its shadowy grandeur resembled the Shanghai of the jazz age), a young dancer, the half-Burmese, half-Baghdadi-Jewish star and vamp of vintage Hindi film, Helen, plays a Chinese bar dancer. And in the song “My Name is Chin Chin Choo,” a big band jazz, kitsch orientalist, and sailor-costumed musical extravaganza, she expresses a contemporaneity that is as hard to pin down as it is to avoid being seduced by.
The lyrics weave in the Arabian Nights, Aladdin, and Sinbad; the singer invokes the bustle of Singapore and the arch trendiness of Shanghai; the music blasts a Chicago big band sound; the sailor-suited male backup dancers suddenly break into Cossack knee-bends. Times and spaces, cities and entire cultural histories – real or imagined – collide and whirl in heady counterpoint. Yesterday’s dance of contemporaneity has us all caught up in its Shanghai-Calcutta-Delhi-Bombay-Singapore turbulence. We are all called Chin Chin Choo. Hello, mister, how do you do?

Contemporaneity
Contemporaneity, the sensation of being in a time together, is an ancient enigma of a feeling. It is the tug we feel when our time pulls at us. But sometimes one has the sense of a paradoxically asynchronous contemporaneity – the strange tug of more than one time and place – as if an accumulation or thickening of our attachments to different times and spaces were manifesting itself in the form of some unique geological oddity, a richly striated cross section of a rock, sometimes sharp, sometimes blurred, marked by the passage of many epochs.

Now and Elsewhere
The problem of determining the question of contemporaneity hinges on how we orient ourselves in relation to a cluster of occasionally cascading, sometimes overlapping, partly concentric, and often conflictual temporal parameters – on how urgent, how leisurely, or even how lethargic we are prepared to be in response to a spectrum of possible answers.
Consider the experience of being continually surprised by the surface and texture of the night sky when looking through telescopes of widely differing magnifications. Thinking about “which contemporaneity” to probe is not very different from making decisions about how deep into the universe we would like to cast the line of our query.
A telescope powerful enough to aid us in discerning the shapes and extent of craters on the moon will reveal a very different image of the universe than one that unravels the rings of Saturn, or one that can bring us the light of a distant star. The universe looks different, depending on the questions we ask of the stars.
Contemporaneity, too, looks different depending on the queries we put to time. If, as Zhou Enlai famously remarked, it is still too early to tell what impact the French Revolution has had on human history, then our sense of contemporaneity distends to embrace everything from 1789 onwards. If, on the other hand, we are more interested in sensing how things have changed since the Internet came into our lives, then even 1990 can seem a long way away. So can it seem as if it were only recently that the printing press and movable type made mechanical reproduction of words and images possible on a mass scale. One could argue that time changed once and for all when the universal regime of Greenwich Mean Time imposed a sense of an arbitrarily encoded universal time for the first time in human history, enabling everyone to calculate for themselves “when,” as in how many hours ahead or behind they were in relation to everyone at every other longitude. This birthed a new time, a new sense of being together in one accounting of time. One could also argue that, after Hiroshima made it possible to imagine that humanity as we know it could auto-destruct, every successive year began to feel as long as a hundred years, or as an epoch, since it could perhaps be our last. This means that, contrary to our commonplace understanding of our “time” as being “sped up,” we could actually think of our time as being caught in the long “winding down,” the “long decline.” It all depends, really, on what question we are asking.
And so Marcel Duchamp can still seem surprisingly contemporary, and Net art oddly dated. The moon landing, whose fortieth anniversary we have recently seen, brought a future of space travel hurtlingly close to the realities of 1969. Today, the excitement surrounding men on the moon has already acquired the patina of nostalgia, and the future it held out as a promise seems oddly dated. Then again, this could change suddenly if China and India were to embark in earnest on a second-wave Cold War space race to the moon. Our realities advance into and recede from contemporaneity like the tides, throwing strange flotsam and jetsam onto the shore to be found by beachcombers with a fetish for signs from different times. The question then becomes not one of “periodizing” contemporaneity, or of erecting a neat white picket fence around it; rather, it becomes one of finding shortcuts, trapdoors, antechambers, and secret passages between now and elsewhere, or perhaps elsewhen. Time folds, and it doesn’t fold neatly – our sense of “when” we are is a function of which fold we are sliding into, or climbing out of.
A keen awareness of contemporaneity cannot but dissolve the illusion that some things, people, places, and practices are more “now” than others. Seen this way, contemporaneity provokes a sense of the simultaneity of different modes of living and doing things without a prior commitment to any one as being necessarily more true to our times. Any attempt to design structures, whether permanent or provisional, that might express or contain contemporaneity would be incomplete if it were not (also) attentive to realities that are either not explicit or manifest or that linger as specters. An openness and generosity toward realities that may be, or seem to be, in hibernation, dormant, or still in formation, can only help such structures to be more pertinent and reflective. A contemporaneity that is not curious about how it might be surprised is not worth our time.

Tagore in China
In a strange and serendipitous echo from the past, we find Rabindranath Tagore, the Bengali poet and artist who in some sense epitomized the writing of different Asian modernities in the twentieth century, saying something quite similar exactly eighty-five years ago in Shanghai, at the beginning of what was to prove to be a highly contested and controversial tour of China.
The poet [and here, all we need to do is to substitute “artist” for “poet”]’s mission is to attract the voice which is yet inaudible in the air; to inspire faith in a dream which is unfulfilled; to bring the earliest tidings of the unborn flower to a skeptic world.³
Tagore’s plea operates in three distinct temporal registers: the “as yet inaudible” in the future, the “unfulfilled dream” in the past, and the fragility of the unborn flower in the skeptic world of the present. In each of these, the artist’s work, for Tagore, is to safeguard and to take custody of – and responsibility for – that which is out of joint with its time, indeed with all time.
We could extend this reading to say that it is to rescue from the dead weight of tradition the things that were excluded from the canon, to make room for that to which the future may turn a deaf ear, and to protect the fragility of contemporary practice from present skepticism. Tagore’s argument for a polyvocal response to the question of how to be “contemporary” was misinterpreted, in some senses willfully, by two factions of Chinese intellectuals. One faction celebrated him as an uncritical champion of tradition (which he was not), while the other campaigned against him as a conservative and “otherworldly” critic of modernity (which he refused to be). Between them, these partisans of tradition and modernity in 1920s China missed an opportunity to engage with a sense of the inhabitation of time that refused to construct arbitrary – and, indeed, uncritical – hierarchies in either direction: between past and present, east and west, then and now.

On Forgetting
As time passes and we grow more into the contemporary, the reasons for remembering other times grow, while the ability to recall them weakens. Memory straddles this paradox. We could say that the ethics of memory have something to do with the urgent negotiation between having to remember (which sometimes includes the obligation to mourn), and the requirement to move on (which sometimes includes the need to forget). Both are necessary, and each is notionally contingent on the abdication of the other, but life is not led by the easy rhythm of regularly alternating episodes of memory and forgetting, canceling each other out in a neat equation that resolves itself and attains equilibrium.
Forgetting: the true vanity of contemporaneity. Amnesia: a state of forgetfulness unaware of both itself and its own deficiency. True amnesia includes forgetting that one has forgotten all that has been forgotten. It is possible to assume that one remembers everything and still be an amnesiac. This is because aspects of the forgotten may no longer occupy even the verge of memory. They may leave no lingering aftertaste or hovering anticipation of something naggingly amiss. The amnesiac is in solitary confinement, guarded by his own clones, yet secluded especially from himself.
Typically, forms of belonging and solidarity that rely on the categorical exclusion of a notional other to cement their constitutive bonds are instances of amnesia. They are premised on the forgetting of the many contrarian striations running against the grain of the moment and its privileged solidarity. On particularly bad days, which may or may not have to do with lunar cycles, as one looks into a mirror and is unable to recognize one’s own image, the hatred of the other rises like a tidal bore. Those unfaithful patches of self are then rendered as so much negative space, like holes in a mirror. Instead of being full to the brim with traces of the other, each of them is seen as a void, a wound in the self.
This void where the self-authenticated self lies shadowed and unable to recognize itself is attributed to the contagious corrosiveness of the other. The forgetting of the emptying-out of the self by its own rage forms the ground from which amnesia assaults the world. In trying to assert who we are, we forget, most of all, who we are. And then we forget the forgetting.

Kowloon Walled City and its Memory
Nowhere, unless perhaps in dreams, can the phenomenon of the boundary be experienced in a more originary way than in cities (Walter Benjamin⁴).
A few months ago we spent some time in Hong Kong, learning what it means to live in a city that distills its contemporaneity into a refined amnesia. We were interested in particular by what happened to the walled city of Kowloon and its memory.
Kowloon Walled City and its disappearance from the urban fabric of Hong Kong can be read as a parable of contemporary amnesia. The Walled City was once a diplomatic anomaly between China and the British Empire that functioned as a long-standing autonomous zone, a site of temporary near-permanence, an exclave within an enclave.
Kowloon Walled City is not just a border in space; it also marks a border in time – a temporary suspension of linear time by which the visitor agrees to the terms of a compact laid out by the current shape of the territory, a walled compound where a delicate game between memory and amnesia can be played out, apparently till eternity. This is the frontier where reality begins to cross over into an image.
Visiting the “Memorial Park” that stands on the former site of the Kowloon Walled City today is an uncanny experience. As with all “theme parks,” walking in this enclosure is like walking in a picture postcard spread over hectares rather than inches. The constructed, spacious serenity of the park, its careful gestures to the tumult of the walled city by means of models, oral-history capsules, artifacts, replicas, and remains intend to provoke in the visitor some of the frisson in the fact that he or she is standing at what was once both condemned as an urban dystopia of crime, vice, and insanitation, and hailed as an anarchist utopia. The neighborhood itself may have disappeared, but its footprint in popular culture can be discerned in the simulacral sites of action sequences in cyberpunk science fiction, gangster and horror films, manga, and multi-user computer games.
The walled city had approximately thirty thousand people living in one-hundredth of a square mile, which amounts roughly to an average population-per-unit-area density ratio of 3.3 million people to a square mile. This makes it the densest inhabited unit of space in world history.
If we think of this space as a repository of memories, it would be the most haunted place on earth.
Why do such spaces – sometimes crowded, sometimes empty (but apparently crowded with ghosts) – appear in a manner that is almost viral, such that the trope of empty, but haunted streets, set in the near future of global cities, begins to show the first signs of a cinematic epidemic of our times? Will we remember the cinema of the early twenty-first century as the first intimation of the global collapse of urban space under its own weight?
Or is this imaginary appearance of a haunting, suicidal metropolis more of an inoculation than a symptom, an early shoring-up of the defenses of citizens against their own obsolescence? How can we remember, or even represent, an inoculation that could be an obituary just as much as it could be a premonition or a warning?
The surrealist poet Louis Aragon, speaking of the disappearing neighborhoods of Paris as the city morphed into twentieth-century modernity, once wrote that
it is only today, when the pickaxe menaces them, that they have at last become the true sanctuaries of the cult of the ephemeral … Places that were incomprehensible yesterday, and that tomorrow will never know.⁵
What happens when someone from within these spaces that were “incomprehensible yesterday and that tomorrow will never know” decides to make themselves known? How does their account of the space square with its more legendary reportage?
I recall the Walled City as one big playground, especially the rooftops, where me and my friends would run and jump from one building to the next, developing strong calf muscles, a high tolerance of pain, and control of our fear, and our feet. The rooftops were our domain, shared only with the jets that passed overhead almost within reach of our outstretched arms as they roared down the ﬁnal approach to Kai Tak Airport. Among the tangle of TV antennae we hid our kid-valuable things, toys and things we didn’t want our parents to know about because, well, most of them were stolen or bought with money we earned putting together stuff in the little one-room “factories” that were all over the Walled City – if our parents knew we had money, they’d have taken it. We were good at hiding things, and ourselves (Chiu Kin Fung⁶).

Disappearance and Representation: Haunting the Record
What does disappearance do to the telling of that which has disappeared? How do we speak to, of, and for the presence of absences in our lives, our cities?
Ackbar Abbas, in his book Hong Kong: Culture and the Politics of Disappearance, meditates at length on disappearance, cities, and images:
A space of disappearance challenges historical representation in a special way, in that it is difficult to describe precisely because it can adapt so easily to any description. It is a space that engenders images so quickly that it becomes nondescript – we can think about a nondescript space as that strange thing: an ordinary, everyday space that has somehow lost its usual system of interconnectedness, a deregulated space. Such a space defeats description not because it is illegible and none of the categories fit, but because it is hyperlegible and all the categories seem to fit, whether they are the categories of social sciences, cultural criticism, or of fiction. Any description then that tries to capture the features of the city will have to be, to some extent at least, stretched between fact and fiction … If this is the case, then there can be no single-minded pursuit of the signs that finishes with a systematic reading of the city, only a compendium of indices of disappearance (like the nondescript) that takes into account the city’s errancy and that addresses the city through its heterogeneity and parapraxis.⁷
A parapraxis is a kind of Freudian slip, an involuntary disclosure of something that would ordinarily be repressed. It could be a joke, an anomaly, a revealing slip-up, a haunting.
What does it mean to “haunt the record”? When does a presence or a trace become so deeply etched into a surface that it merits a claim to durability simply for being so difficult to repress, resolve, deal with, and put away? The endurance of multiple claims to land and other scarce material resources often rests on the apparent impossibility of arranging a palimpsest of signatures and other inscriptions rendered illegible by accumulation over a long time, and across many generations. In a sense, this is why the contingent and temporary character of the Kowloon Walled City endured for as long as it did. There is of course the delicate irony of the fact that the protection offered by its juridical anomaly with regard to sovereignty – a constitutional Freudian slip with consequences – was erased the moment Hong Kong reverted to China. The autonomy of being a wedge of China in the middle of Hong Kong became moot the moment Hong Kong was restored to Chinese sovereignty. Resolving the question of Hong Kong’s status automatically resolved all doubts and ambivalences with regard to claims over the custody and inhabitation of Kowloon Walled City.

A Chinese Sense of Time: Neither Permanence nor Impermanence
It is appropriate to end with a quotation from a Chinese text from the fourth century of the Common Era, a Madhyamika Mahayana Buddhist text, The Treatise of Seng Zhao.
When the Sutras say that things pass, they say so with a measure of reservation, for they wish to contradict people’s belief in permanence.
(And here we would gesture in the direction of the assumption that this contemporaneity is destined to be permanent; after all, this too shall pass).
And when the sutras say that things are lost, they say so with a mental reservation in order to express disapproval of what people understand by “passing.”
(And here we would gesture in the direction of the assumption that this contemporaneity is destined to oblivion; after all, something from this too shall remain).
Their wording may be contradictory, but not their aim. It follows that with the sages: permanence has not the meaning of the staying behind, while the wheel of time, or Karma, moves on. Impermanence has not the meaning of outpassing the wheel. People who seek in vain ancient events in our time conclude that things are impermanent. We, who seek in vain present events in ancient times, see that things are permanent. Therefore, Buddha, Liberation, He, it, appears at the proper moment, but has no fixed place in time.⁸
What more can we say of contemporaneity? It appears at the proper moment, but has no fixed place in time. In that spirit, let us not arrogate solely to ourselves the pleasures and the perils of all that is to be gained and lost in living and working, as we do, in these interesting times.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst im e-flux journal #12, Januar 2010 unter
http://www.e-f lux.com/journal/now-and-elsewhere/ [8.9.2013].

1.) Julieta Aranda, Brian Kuan Wood, Anton Vidokle, “What is Contemporary Art? Issue One“ e-flux journal, no. 11 (December 2009).
2.) See Raqs Media Collective, “Escapement,“ an installation at Frith Street Gallery, London, July 8, 2009–September 30, 2009.
3.) Rabindranath Tagore, “First Talk at Shanghai,“ in Talks in China (Calcutta: Visva-Bharati, 1925), quoted in Sisir Kumar Das, “The Controversial Guest: Tagore in China“ in Across the Himalayan Gap: An Indian Quest for Understanding China, ed. Tan Chung (Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, 1998); online version at.
4.) Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project, trans. Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999), 88.
5.) Louis Aragon, Paris Peasant in Art in Theory, 1900–1990: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood, (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1993), 456.
6.) Chiu Kin Fung, “Children of the Walled City,“ Asia Literary Review 10 (Winter 2008), 72–73.
7.) M. Ackbar Abbas, Hong Kong: Culture and the Politics of Disappearance (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 73–74.
8.) Chao Lun: The Treatise of Seng-chao, trans. Walter Liebenthal (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1968).

Was ist Unst?

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:44 +0000

Die Unst bevölkert die Gesellschaft und schlägt ihr Gedächtnis auf. Die Unst sammelt, kopiert, zeigt. Die Unst ist der Resteverwalter jener Wirklichkeit, die im Vorwissen der Kunst vergessen gegangen ist. Die Unst ist die reine Wiederholung. Denn wir haben begriffen, dass die Kunst sich loswerden muss, um wieder eine zu werden.

Was bedeutet Unst?
Die Unst ist ein Wort. Es schreibt sich wie Kunst, nur ohne K: Unst. Sagt jemand: „Kunst“, so antworten wir ihm wörtlich: „Unst“. Schreibt jemand: „Kunst“, so benutzen wir den Radiergummi und gelangen zur Unst. Begegnet uns ein Künstler, so bekehren wir ihn durch ein einziges Wort. Denn die Unst ist die Wörtlichkeit. Und die Liebhaber der Unst sind die Ünstler.

Was begeistert den Ünstler?
Der Ünstler ruft ausser sich: „Süsse Schönheit!“, wenn das Mikrofon des Diktators rauscht, wenn der Kies unter den Füssen des Zeugen knirscht, wenn ein Flugzeug ein verlassenes Braunkohlegebiet überfliegt, wenn der Scherz dem Erzähler entgleitet, wenn die Quellen sich widersprechen, wenn der Dezember für Klarheit sorgt, wenn ein Berg ein Echo wirft, wenn ein Unbekannter einen Einkaufszettel schreibt.
Denn das alles ist Unst, und die Unst ist das ureigene Gebiet des Ünstlers.

Warum feiert die Unst das Leben?
Die Unst feiert das Leben nicht, weil es widersprüchlich ist (aber auch). Die Unst feiert das Leben nicht, weil es lustig ist (aber auch). Die Unst feiert nicht das Tragische, nicht das Wahre, nicht die Geschichte, nicht die Revolution, nicht die Melancholie, nicht das fremde Geschlecht und nicht die Naivität (aber manchmal schon). Die Unst verkündet nicht die Lehre der Hysterie, der Poesie oder des Understatement (nur ab und zu). Die Unst gründet seine Belehrungen nicht auf die Armut oder den Reichtum, die Jugend oder das Greisenalter, die Bildung oder den Pop, die Linke oder die Rechte, die Tradition oder die Revolution, Hollywood oder den Iran, das Rätselhafte oder das Klare (all das zwischendurch). Die Unst ist weder elitär noch mittelständisch, weder gründlich noch oberflächlich, weder dramatisch noch episch, weder poetisch noch kalt (höchstens zum Spass).
FRAGE: Für welche Qualität aber feiert die Unst das Leben?
ANTWORT: Die Unst feiert das Leben, weil es GENAU SO ist. Die Unst liebt den Iran, das logische Rätsel, den Dezember und die Revolution, weil sie GENAU SO sind. Die Unst erforscht die Geschichte, die Hysterie, das Lustige und das Wahre, weil all das GENAU SO ist. Die Unst liebt sogar die Zukunft, weil sie GENAU SO ist.
FRAGE: Was also ist die Unst?
ANTWORT: Die Unst ist die Betrachtung des GENAU SO.

Wie löst die Unst das Zeitproblem?
FRAGE: Wie steht die Unst zur Jetztzeit, zur Geschichte und zu den Problemen der Zukunft?
ANTWORT: Die Unst ist die Analyse des GENAU SO der Jetztzeit, welche aber im Augenblick ihrer Betrachtung bereits eine vergangene, also eine Vorzeit ist.
FRAGE: Die Jetztzeit ist eine Vorzeit?
ANTWORT: Oder umgekehrt.
FRAGE: Und weiter?
ANTWORT: Gegeben das gestische Voranschreiten der Unst im jeweils gegebenen Moment in beide Richtungen der Vor- und der Nachzeit, ist jede Erkenntnis des Ünstlers über das GENAU SO der Jetztzeit zugleich eine Handlungsanweisung für eine ebenfalls völlig gleichzeitig sich ereignende Nachzeit.
FRAGE: Die Gegenwart des Ünstlers ist also eine Handlungsanweisung an die Zukunft?
ANTWORT: Richtig. Unter der Voraussetzung natürlich, dass diese Anweisung nicht in irgendeiner übertragenen Weise, sondern ausschliesslich GENAU SO, also FÜR DEN GEGEBENEN MOMENT, also WÖRTLICH gemeint ist. Aber ein Ünstler spricht immer wörtlich, sonst wäre er kein Ünstler.
FRAGE: Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft werden durch die Arbeit des Ünstlers ein und dasselbe?
ANTWORT: Natürlich.
FRAGE: Produziert ein Ünstler also Nachzeit?
ANTWORT: Selbstverständlich. Jeder Ünstler ist eine völlig objektive Weisungsagentur der Nachzeit.
FRAGE: Der Ünstler kennt die Zukunft?
ANTWORT: Richtig. Aber nur für den jeweils gegebenen Moment. Nur innerhalb der jeweiligen Recherche. Nur wörtlich.
FRAGE: Was also liefert der Ünstler der Gesellschaft?
ANTWORT: Der Ünstler liefert: eine völlig wörtliche Wiederholung der Gegenwart durch die Vergangenheit für die Zukunft.

Fragen der Methode I.
Der Ünstler unterscheidet sich vom Künstler durch seinen wissenschaftlichen Eifer und seine vollkommene Objektivität. Für den Ünstler ist jeder Augenblick seiner privaten Arbeit ein Teil der grossen Arbeit am Welt-Objekt, welches wiederum bloss Voraussetzung des Augenblicks ist. Schauspiel, Beleuchtung, Sprache, Musik. Der Blick der Zuschauer, der Diktatoren, ihrer Verräter, der Statisten, der Kameras. Die Kleinschreibung, die Grossschreibung, das Exposé, die Recherche, die Kritik, der Absatz und die Abweichung. Die Kosten des Schauspiels, die künstlerische Wahrheit, das Husten im Publikum. Das Gerede, die Urteile, die Benachrichtigungen, die Plötzlichkeit, die Montage. Die Komik, die Unsicherheit, die Wut, das Missverständnis und die Absicht. Die Glut des Dokuments, des Augenblicks und der Zukunft. Die Gerechtigkeit, die Ironie und das Geld. Die drei Akte, die Übergänge und das Fragment. Die Dramaturgie, die Geschichte, die Zeugnisse und der Zufall. Alle Stimmen, alle Reisen, alle Fahrpläne, das Frühstück, der tiefere Sinn, die Tugend, die Witterung und die Geometrie. Der aktuelle Krieg und der persische, der Nebensatz, die Dialektik, die Erdanziehung, die Pause, der Schlaf. All das ist Teil der grossen Arbeit des Ünstlers. All das gehört zur Methode der Unst. Die Hilfsmittel des Ünstlers sind also zahllos in ihrer Art und unendlich in ihrer Wirksamkeit.

Fragen der Methode II.
Wir wiederholen (um der Wiederholung willen): Die Arbeit des Ünstlers ist niemals subjektiv, sondern immer völlig objektiv. Denn der Ünstler vertraut auf den GEGEBENEN MOMENT, der die Lehrsätze der Kybernetik, des Variétés, der Kriminologie, der Evolutionstheorie, der Quantenphysik, der Gesprächsanalyse, der Mystik, der Autobiographie und sofort bis ans Ende der Wissenschaften in sich vereinigt. Der Ünstler handelt wie jener Weise, der das Fleisch nicht teilt, indem er es schneidet – sondern das Messer dort ansetzt, wo das Gewebe sich WIE VON ALLEINE teilt.
FRAGE: Aber woher nimmt der Ünstler dieses Messer, welches WIE VON ALLEINE teilt?
ANTWORT: Jeder Moment enthält das Messer, mit dem er vom Ünstler WIE VON ALLEINE geteilt werden kann.
FRAGE: Wie erkenne ich das Messer?
ANTWORT: Das Messer zeigt sich erst in der ünstlerischen Teilung.
FRAGE: Es geht also darum, das Messer, das den Moment WIE VON ALLEINE teilt, in diesem selben Moment zu finden, indem er sich dank des Messers teilt?
ANTWORT: Natürlich.
FRAGE: Und wie komme ich zu diesem Moment?
ANTWORT: Wie von alleine. Das ist die Objektivität der Unst.
Genau dies.
Was ist in einem Wort das Ziel der Unst?
Was ist der Lebenszweck des Ünstlers?
Sich zu erheben
Zu hören
Und zu sehen.
Was?
Alles, aber nur DIES.
Wann?
Immer, aber nur in DIESEM Moment.
Wie?
Auf alle Arten, aber nur GENAU SO.
Wo?
Überall, aber nur HIER.
Denn GENAU DIES
Ist das Ziel.

Das Manifest „Was ist Unst?“ ist das wichtigste der zahlreichen Manifeste, die die Arbeit des europäischen Künstlerkollektivs „IIPM – International Institute of Political Murder“ begleiten.

Wiederabdruck
Der Text erschien (zuerst) in: http://international-institute.de/ [20.2.2009]

Contemporary Extracts

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

On this occasion I will simply quote from several of the responses I received to a questionnaire – subsequently published in October magazine – about “contemporary art.” First, my questions:

The category of “contemporary art” is not a new one. What is new is the sense that, in its very heterogeneity, much present practice seems to float free of historical determination, conceptual definition, and critical judgment. Such paradigms as “the neo-avant-garde” and “postmodernism,” which once oriented some art and theory, have run into the sand, and, arguably, no models of much explanatory reach or intellectual force have risen in their stead. At the same time, perhaps paradoxically, “contemporary art” has become an institutional object in its own right: in the academic world there are professorships and programs, and in the museum world departments and institutions, all devoted to the subject, and most tend to treat it as apart not only from prewar practice but from most postwar practice as well.
Is this floating-free real or imagined? A merely local perception? A simple effect of the end-of-grand-narratives? If it is real, how can we specify some of its principal causes, that is, beyond general reference to “the market” and “globalization”? Or is it indeed a direct outcome of a neoliberal economy, one that, moreover, is now in crisis? What are some of its salient consequences for artists, critics, curators, and historians – for their formation and their practice alike? Are there collateral effects in other fields of art history? Are there instructive analogies to be drawn from the situation in other arts and disciplines? Finally, are there benefits to this apparent lightness of being? ¹
As you can see, the questions are directed at critics and curators based in North America and Western Europe; I hope they do not appear too provincial as a result. I have arranged the extracts with an eye to connections that exist between them. My purpose here is simply to suggest the state of the debate on “the contemporary” in my part of the world today.
First from Grant Kester, a historian of contemporary art, based in southern California:
The problem of “the contemporary” is rooted in a tension that emerged when Western art history was first formalized as a discipline. The generation of European historians that helped establish the discipline in the mid-nineteenth century found itself confronted by a vast range of new and unfamiliar artifacts that were circulating throughout Europe as a result of colonial expansion into Africa, Asia, and the Americas, as well as early archaeological excavations in Italy and Greece. Historians and philosophers raised the question of how contemporary viewers could transcend the differences that existed between themselves and very different cultures whose works of art they admired – cultures whose shared meanings were inaccessible to them due to distances of time or space.
Then from James Elkins, a meta-theorist of art history, based in Chicago:
From the perspectives of “world art history” and its critics today, “the contemporary” would appear to be either exempted from the discipline of art history, because of its position outside or before art histories, or exemplary of the discipline, because of its newfound universality (i. e., by definition “the contemporary” exists everywhere).
Next from Miwon Kwon, a contemporary art critic and historian based in Los Angeles:
Contemporary art history sits at a crossroads in the uneven organization of the subfields that comprise the discipline of art history. Within most university art history departments, one group of subfields covering Western developments is organized chronologically, as periods (i. e., from Ancient to Modern, with Medieval and Renaissance in between). Another group of subfields that covers non-Western developments is identified geographically, as culturally discrete units even if they encompass an entire continent (i. e., African, Chinese, Latin American, etc.) The category of contemporary art history, while institutionally situated as coming after the Modern, following the temporal axis of Western art history as the most recent period (starting in 1945 or 1960 depending on how a department divides up faculty workload or intellectual territory), is also the space in which the contemporaneity of histories from around the world must be confronted simultaneously as a disjunctive yet continuous intellectual horizon, integral to the understanding of the present (as a whole). Contemporary art history, in other words, marks both a temporal bracketing and a spatial encompassing, a site of a deep tension between very different formations of knowledge and traditions, and thus a challenging pressure point for the field of art history in general.
For instance, what is the status of contemporary Chinese art history? What is the time frame for such a history? How closely should it be linked to Chinese art, cultural, or political history? How coordinated should it be with Western art history or aesthetic discourse? Is contemporary Chinese art history a subfield of contemporary art history? Or are they comparable categories, with the presumption that the unnamed territory of contemporary art history is Western/American?
Then from Joshua Shannon, a historian of postwar art, from the mid-Atlantic area near Washington, D.C.:
In the last twenty-five years, the academic study of contemporary art has grown from a fringe of art history to the fastest-developing field in the discipline. It is not so long ago that dissertations on living artists were all but prohibited, while statistics published this year by the College Art Association confirm that job searches in contemporary art history now outnumber those in any other specialization, with almost twice as many positions in the field, for example, as in Renaissance and Baroque combined. We might wonder whether a discipline too long afraid of the present has now become besotted with it.
Next from Richard Meyer, a theorist of “the contemporary,“ based in Los Angeles:
Recently, I have put to my “contemporary” students several questions that are at once straightforward and aggressive. Why are you studying art history if what you really want is to write about the current moment? Where are the archival and research materials on which you will draw – in the files of a commercial gallery, in a drawer in the artist’s studio, in the works of art themselves, in a series of interviews that you intend to conduct with the artist, in a theoretical paradigm that you plan to apply to the work, or in an ideological critique of the current moment? What distinguishes your practice as a contemporary art historian from that of an art critic? And how does the history of art matter to the works you plan to write about and to the scholarly contribution you hope to make?
Then from Pamela Lee, a scholar on postwar art, based in San Francisco:
Call it “the moving target syndrome.” At what point does a stack of press releases turn into something like a proper reception history? How do you write about a contemporary artist whose work shifts radically in mid-stream? And what does one do when the topics that seemed so pressing and so critical just a few short art-world seasons back lose that sense of urgency? There is, then, a paradoxical way we might characterize the problem: contemporary art history is premature because it is always in a perpetual state of becoming, one that alternates endlessly between novelty and critical (as well as commercial) exhaustion.
Next from Mark Godfrey, a young curator of contemporary art at Tate Modern in London:
If it is correct that no “paradigms” have emerged in the place of those such as “the neo-avant-garde” and “postmodernism,” then one should first look precisely to the success of those discourses to understand why. The critical discourse of postmodernism caused most historians and critics to distrust any overarching and monolithic model that would account for what is most compelling about contemporary art. At the same time, following the impact of postcolonial theory and a simple widening of our horizons, American and European art historians and curators have become far more attentive to contemporary art as it emerges across the world. Most acknowledge that serious art is being made in China, Latin America, South Africa, and so on, but few have the opportunities to see what is being made. With this situation, who would presume to name a new paradigm? A new name would assume a totalizing explanatory power and be akin to a hubristic, neocolonial move. One also begins to distrust the presumptions of the previous paradigms. How useful are the terms “neo-avant-garde” or “postmodernism” when we think about the art that emerged in centers away from North America and Western Europe where modernism and the avant-garde signified quite differently?
Then from Terry Smith, an Australian art historian with special expertise on the contemporary, based in Pittsburgh:
How has the current world-picture changed since the aftermath of the Second World War led to the reconstruction of an idea of Europe, since decolonization opened up Africa and Asia, with China and India emerging to superpower status but others cycling downwards, since the era of revolution versus dictatorship in South America led first to the imposition of neoliberal economic regimes and then to a continent-wide swing towards populist socialism? As the system built on First-, Second-, Third-, and Fourth-world divisions imploded, what new arrangements of power came into being? Now that the post-1989 juggernaut of one hyperpower, unchecked neoliberalism, historical self-realization, and the global distribution of ever-expanding production and consumption tips over the precipice, what lies in the abyss it has created? Above all, how do we, in these circumstances, connect the dots between world-picturing and place-making, the two essential parameters of our being?
Next from Alex Alberro, a Canadian historian of postwar art, based in New York:
The contemporary is witnessing the emergence of a new technological imaginary following upon the unexpected and unregulated global expansion of the new communication and information technologies of the Internet. For one thing, technological art objects have increasingly come to replace tangible ones in art galleries and museums, which have seen an upsurge in high-tech hybrids of all kinds, from digital photography, to film and video installations, to computer and other new-media art. The “white cube” has begun to be replaced by the “black box,” and the small-screen film or video monitor by the large-scale wall projection. For another thing, the image has come to replace the object as the central concern of artistic production and analysis. In the academy, the rise of visual studies in this period is symptomatic of the new preeminence of the image. Furthermore, the imaginary of this shift from analog to digital has had a number of unpredictable effects. One of the most striking of these is the proliferation of artworks that employ fiction and animation to narrate facts, as if to say that today the real must be fictionalized in order to be thought, that the real is so mind-boggling that it is easier to comprehend by analogy.
Then from Tim Griffin, editor-in-chief of Artforum, based in New York:
The potential irony of contemporary art is that by signaling its stand apart, this art actually articulates itself as another niche within the broader cultural context – as just one more interest among so many others. Such a development is paradoxical in its implications. It becomes increasingly important for art to assert its own distinctiveness in order to exist – often by reinscribing itself within its various histories, projecting previous eras’ interpretive models onto present circumstances – at the same time that such an assertion makes art resemble current mass culture all the more.
Next from Yates McKee, a young activist/critic based in the Midwest:
The multiple institutionalizations of contemporary art entail new modes of affiliation, possibility, and complicity for artistic and critical activity. Without disavowing the urgency of macro-systemic analysis, assessing these entanglements is a matter of close, site-specific reading rather than blanket celebration or denunciation. This means refusing to reduce contemporary art to a flavor-of-the-month novelty either as peddled by art-market boosters, on the one hand, or as preemptively dismissed by guardians of art-historical authority on the basis of melancholic – and often hypocritically self-exculpating – narratives of “the cultural logic of late capitalism,” on the other. Following the example of curator and critic Okwui Enwezor, the increasingly transnational scope of contemporary art in discursive, institutional, and economic terms needs to be recognized as a productive intellectual challenge to entrenched artistic, critical, and historical traditions, requiring the latter two to engage artistic practice in light of the ongoing contradictions of what Enwezor has called the “postcolonial constellation.”
Then from T. J. Demos, a historian of contemporary art, based in London:
One risk is to fall victim to the ultimately patronizing multicultural “respect” for difference that disavows any criticality whatsoever. The latter potentially disguises a neocolonial relation to the Other, as Slavoj Zˇizˇek argues, for whom multiculturalism may disclose “a disavowed, inverted, self-referential form of racism, a ‘racism with a distance’ – it ‘respects’ the Other’s identity, conceiving the Other as a self-enclosed ‘authentic’ community towards which he, the multiculturalist, maintains a distance rendered possible by his privileged universal position.”²
Next from Kelly Baum, a young curator of contemporary art at my home institution, Princeton University:
What if art’s heterogeneity signals possibility instead of dysfunction? What if heterogeneity is art’s pursuit instead of its affliction? What if, in its very heterogeneity, art were to productively engage current socio-political conditions – conditions that are reducible to neither neo-liberalism nor globalization?
I think what we are seeing today is art miming its context. I think we are witnessing art performing “agonism,“ “disaggregation,“ and “particularization.“ Heterogeneity isn’t just contemporary art’s condition, in other words; it is its subject as well.
Finally from Rachel Haidu, a young historian of postwar art, based in upstate New York:
Why – other than for the narcissistic pleasures related to knowing – do we want a relationship to history? Your questions frame the relevance of history to our critical relationships to art, but what about those desires, fantasies, and displacements of which criticism is made? Certainly they are wedged into our criticism of art’s relation to history. When art forces us to examine them in specific and productive ways, we are lucky: otherwise, what is the point of asking art (let alone the institutionalization of art) to find historical complexity or weight? For the sake of weight alone? To reassure us of our relations to a history without which we would feel … guilty? Irrelevant?

1.) Hal Foster for the Editors, “Questionnaire on ‘The Contemporary,’” October 130 (Fall 2009): 3.
2.) Slavoj Zˇizˇek, “Multiculturalism, Or, the Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism,”New Left Review 225 (Sept/Oct 1997): 44.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien unter http://www.e-flux.com/journal/contemporary-extracts/ [15.3.2013].

Das Prinzip Hoffnung (Vorwort)

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:37 +0000

Wer sind wir? Wo kommen wir her? Wohin gehen wir? Was erwarten wir? Was erwartet uns?
Viele fühlen sich nur als verwirrt. Der Boden wankt, sie wissen nicht warum und von was. Dieser ihr Zustand ist Angst, wird er bestimmter, so ist er Furcht. Einmal zog einer weit hinaus, das Fürchten zu lernen. Das gelang in der eben vergangenen Zeit leichter und näher, diese Kunst ward entsetzlich beherrscht. Doch nun wird, die Urheber der Furcht abgerechnet, ein uns gemäßeres Gefühl fällig.
Es kommt darauf an, das Hoffen zu lernen. Seine Arbeit entsagt nicht, sie ist ins Gelingen verliebt statt ins Scheitern. Hoffen, über dem Fürchten gelegen, ist weder passiv wie dieses, noch gar in ein Nichts gesperrt.
Der Affekt des Hoffens geht aus sich heraus, macht die Menschen weit, statt sie zu verengen, kann gar nicht genug von dem wissen, was sie inwendig gezielt macht, was ihnen auswendig verbündet sein mag. Die Arbeit dieses Affekts verlangt Menschen, die sich ins Werdende tätig hineinwerfen, zu dem sie selber gehören. Sie erträgt kein Hundeleben, das sich ins Seiende nur passiv geworfen fühlt, in undurchschautes, gar jämmerlich anerkanntes. Die Arbeit gegen die Lebensangst und die Umtriebe der Furcht ist die gegen ihre Urheber, ihre großenteils sehr aufzeigbaren, und sie sucht in der Welt selber, was der Welt hilft, es ist findbar. Wie reich wurde allzeit davon geträumt, vom besseren Leben geträumt, das möglich wäre. Das Leben aller Menschen ist von Tag träumen durchzogen, darin ist ein Teil lediglich schale, auch entnervende Flucht, auch Beute für Betrüger, aber ein anderer Teil reizt auf, läßt mit dem schlecht Vorhandenen sich nicht abfinden, läßt eben nicht entsagen.
Dieser andere Teil hat das Hoffen im Kern, und er ist lehrbar. Er kann aus dem ungeregelten Tagtraum wie aus dessen schlauem Mißbrauch herausgeholt werden, ist ohne Dunst aktivierbar. Kein Mensch lebte je ohne Tagträume, es kommt aber darauf an, sie immer weiter zu kennen und dadurch unbetrüglich, hilfreich, aufs Rechte gezielt zu halten.
Möchten die Tagträume noch voller werden, denn das bedeutet, daß sie sich genau um den nüchternen Blick bereichern; nicht im Sinn der Verstockung, sondern des Hellwerdens. Nicht im Sinn des bloß betrachtenden Verstands, der die Dinge nimmt, wie sie gerade sind und stehen, sondern des beteiligten, der sie nimmt, wie sie gehen, also auch besser gehen können. Möchten die Tagträume also wirklich voller werden, das ist, heller, unbeliebiger, bekannter, begriffener und mit dem Lauf der Dinge vermittelter Damit der Weizen, der reifen will, befördert und abgeholt werden kann. […]
Das utopische Bewußtsein will weit hinaussehen, aber letzthin doch nur dazu, um das ganz nahe Dunkel des gerade gelebten Augenblicks zu durchdringen, worin alles Seiende betreibt wie sich verborgen ist. Mit anderen Worten: man braucht das stärkste Fernrohr, das des geschliffenen utopischen Bewußtseins, um gerade die nächste Nahe zu durchdringen Als die unmittelbarste Unmittelbarkeit, in der der Kern des Sich-Befindens und Da-Seins noch liegt, in der zugleich der ganze Knoten des Weltgeheimnisses steckt. Das ist kein Geheimnis, das etwa nur für den unzulänglichen Verstand bestünde, während die Sache an und für sich selbst völlig klarer oder in sich ruhender Inhalt wäre, sondern es ist jenes Realgeheimnis, das sich die Weltsache noch selber ist und zu dessen Lösung sie überhaupt im Prozeß und unterwegs ist. Das Noch- Nicht- Bewußte im Menschen gehört so durchaus zum Noch-Nicht- Gewordenen, Noch- Nicht- Herausgebrachten, Herausmanifestierten in der Welt. Noch- Nicht-Bewußtes kommuniziert und wechselwirkt mit dem Noch-Nicht- Gewordenen, spezieller mit dem Heraufkommenden in Geschichte und Welt. Wobei die Untersuchung des antizipierenden Bewußtseins grundsätzlich dazu zu dienen hat, daß die eigentlichen, nun folgenden Spiegelbilder, gar Abbildungen des erwünscht, des antizipiert besseren Lebens psychisch-materiell verständlich werden. Vom Antizipierenden also soll Kenntnis gewonnen werden, auf der Grundlage einer Ontologie des Noch-Nicht. Soviel hier über den zweiten Teil, über die darin begonnene subjekt-objekthafte Funktionsanalyse der Hoffnung. […]
Geht aber nun das Vormalen zum freien und gedachten Entwurf über, dann erst befindet man sich unter den eigentlichen, nämlich den Plan oder Grundriß-Utopien. Sie erfüllen […] die Konstruktion, mit historisch reichem, nicht nur historisch bleibendem Inhalt. Er breitet sich aus in den ärztlichen und den sozialen, den technischen, architektonischen und geographischen Utopien, in den Wunschlandschaften der Malerei und Dichtung. So treten die Wunschbilder der Gesundheit hervor, die fundamentalen der Gesellschaft ohne Not, die Wunder der Technik und die Luftschlösser in so viel vorhandenen der Architektur. Es erscheinen Eldorado-Eden in den geographischen Entdeckungsreisen, die Landschaften einer uns adäquater gebildeten Umwelt in Malerei und Poesie, die Perspektiven eines Überhaupt in Weisheit. Das alles ist voll Überholungen, baut implizit oder explizit an der Strecke und dem Zielbild einer vollkommeneren Welt, an durchgeformteren und wesenhafteren Erscheinungen, als sie empirisch bereits geworden sind. Viel beliebiges und abstraktes Fluchtwesen gibt es auch hier, doch die großen Kunstwerke zeigen wesentlich einen reell bezogenen Vor- Schein ihrer vollendet herausgebildeten Sache selbst. Wechselnd ist dann der Blick aufs vorgestaltete, aufs ästhetisch-religiös experimentierte Wesen, doch jeder Versuch dieser Art experimentiert ein Überholendes, ein Vollkommenes, wie die Erde es noch nicht trägt. Der Blick darauf ist verschieden konkret, der jeweiligen Klassenschranke entsprechend, doch gehen die utopischen Grundziele des jeweiligen sogenannten Kunstwollens in den sogenannten Stilen, diese »Überschüsse« über Ideologie, mit ihrer Gesellschaft nicht gleichfalls immer unter.
Ägyptischer Bau ist das Werdenwollen wie Stein, mit Todeskristall als gemeinter Vollkommenheit, gotischer Bau ist das Werdenwollen wie der Weinstock Christi, mit dem Lebensbaum als gemeinter Vollkommenheit. Und so zeigt sich die gesamte Kunst mit Erscheinungen gefüllt, die zu Vollkommenheitssymbolen, zu einem utopisch wesenhaften Ende getrieben werden. Allerdings war es bisher nur bei den Sozialutopien selbstverständlich, daß sie – utopisch sind: erstens, weil sie so heißen, und zweitens, weil das Wort Wolkenkuckucksheim meist im Zusammenhang mit ihnen, und nicht nur mit den abstrakten unter ihnen, gebraucht worden ist. Wodurch, wie bemerkt, der Begriff Utopie sowohl ungemäß verengert, nämlich auf Staatsromane beschränkt wurde, wie vor allem auch, durch die überwiegende Abstraktheit dieser Staatsromane, eben jene abstrakte Spielform erhielt, die erst die Fortschritt des Sozialismus von diesen Utopien zur Wissenschaft weggehoben, aufgehoben hat.
Immerhin kam, mit allen Bedenklichkeiten, das Wort Utopie, das von Thomas Morus gebildete, wenn auch nicht der philosophisch weit umfangreichere Begriff Utopie hier vor. Hingegen wurde an anderen, etwa technischen Wunschbildern und Plänen wenig utopisch Bedenkenswertes bemerkt. Trotz Francis Bacons »Nova Atlantis« wurde in der Technik kein Grenzland mit eigenem Pionierstatus und eigenen, in die Natur gesetzten Hoffnungsinhalten ausgezeichnet. Noch weniger sah man es in der Architektur, als in Bauten, die einen schöneren Raum bilden, nachbilden, vorbilden.
Und desgleichen blieb Utopisches erstaunlicherweise in den Situationen und Landschaften der Malerei und Poesie unentdeckt, in deren Verstiegenheiten wie besonders in deren weit hinein- und hinausschauenden Möglichkeits-Realismen. Und doch ist in allen diesen Sphären, inhaltlich abgewandelt, utopische Funktion am Werk, schwärmerisch in den geringeren Gebilden, präzis und realistisch sui generis in den großen. Eben die Fülle der menschlichen Phantasie, samt ihrem Korrelat in der Welt (sobald Phantasie eine sachverständig-konkrete wird), kann anders als durch utopische Funktion gar nicht erforscht und inventarisiert werden; so wenig wie sie ohne dialektischen Materialismus geprüft werden kann. Der spezifische Vor-Schein, den Kunst zeigt, gleicht einem Laboratorium, worin Vorgänge, Figuren und Charaktere bis zu ihrem typisch-charakteristischen Ende getrieben werden, zu einem Abgrund oder einer Seligkeit des Endes; dieses jedem Kunstwerk eingeschriebene Wesentlichsehen von Charakteren und Situationen, das man nach seiner sinnfälligsten Art das Shakespearesche, nach seiner terminisiertesten das Dantesche nennen kann, setzt die Möglichkeit über der bereits vorhandenen Wirklichkeit voraus.
Hier überall zielen prospektive Akte und Imaginationen, ziehen subjektive, doch gegebenenfalls auch objektive Traumstraßen aus dem Gewordenen zu dem Gelungenen, zur symbolhaft umkreisten Gelungenheit.
Dergestalt hat der Begriff des Noch-Nicht und der ausgestaltenden Intention daraufhin in den Sozialutopien nicht mehr sein einziges, gar erschöpfendes Exempel; so wichtig auch die Sozialutopien, von allem anderen abgesehen, für die kritische Kenntnisnahme eines ausgeführten Antizipierens geworden sind. Doch Utopisches auf die Thomas Morus-Weise zu beschränken oder auch nur schlechthin zu orientieren, das wäre, als wollte man die Elektrizität auf den Bernstein reduzieren, von dem sie ihren griechischen Namen hat und an dem sie zuerst bemerkt worden ist. Ja, Utopisches fällt mit dem Staatsroman so wenig zusammen, daß die ganze Totalität Philosophie notwendig wird (eine zuweilen fast vergessene Totalität), um dem mit Utopie Bezeichneten inhaltlich gerecht zu werden. Daher die Breite der im Teil:
Konstruktion versammelten Antizipationen, Wunschbilder, Hoffnungsinhalte.
Daher – vor wie hinter den Staatsmärchen – die angegebene Notierung und Interpretation medizinischer, technischer, architektonischer, geographischer Utopien, auch der eigentlichen Wunsch-Landschaften in Malerei, Oper, Dichtung. Daher schließlich ist hier der Ort zur Darstellung der mannigfachen Hoffnungs-Landschaft und der spezifischen Perspektiven darauf im Eingedenken der philosophischen Weisheit.
Das trotz überwiegendem Pathos des Gewesenen in den bisherigen Philosophien, – die fast stets intendierte Richtung Erscheinung – Wesen zeigt trotzdem deutlich einen utopischen Pol. Die Reihe all dieser Ausgestaltungen, sozial, ästhetisch, philosophisch Kultur des »wahren Sems« betreffend, endet sinngemäß, auf den immer entscheidenden Boden niedergehend, in den Fragen eines Lebens der erfüllenden, von Ausbeutung befreiten Arbeit, aber auch eines Lebens jenseits der Arbeit, das ist im Wunschproblem der Muße.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text ist die gekürzte Fassung des Vorworts in: Ernst Bloch: Das Prinzip Hoffnung; Erster Band; Suhrkamp; Frankfurt a. M., 1959.