Cultural Policies. Social Policies. Back Matter Pages About this book Introduction To an increasing extent, nationals of Third World countries are protesting against the tendency of foreign theoreticians and observers to study their problems - political problems in particular - in terms of concepts and theories established on the basis of European experiences. For instance, the Egyptian Abdel Malek I in La diaiectique sociaie, writes: 'At the starting point, whose broad lines we sketch here, there is evidence of inadequation, deriving from the fact of difference. Inadequation of the conceptual system of the social sciences.
This being so, his aim is to make concepts more universal and to rebuild theory with the help of reshaped concepts. What constitutes as material? Milan: We used any material that we found interesting and useful for our project, and all of it can be found on our blog. The dramatisations of the meetings were written from memory. Nothing is fictitious. With the exception of a few short poetic parts, nothing was added to our Skype chats.
Maja: At first we spent a lot of the time on the structure, but then the structure became the manner of execution — the text mainly deals with this issue. Milan: A part of the material became the process, and this opened up numerous issues as regards what can be considered as material: is material what we obtain at meetings; what we performed? In the event of repeats at different festivals, the material becomes the context or the changing of it. The project emerged and is still emerging through an exchange — with members of political parties, artists from the non-institutionalised scene, with whom we have been holding conversations while working on the project.
Their reactions are a constituent part of the material and it is hard to define to what extent these reactions are a part of the project and to what extent are they merely its product. Maja: The integral version of the texts found on the blog, together with all photographs of the various application forms, has now been published in Scena,11 even though we did not know till the very end what this text on cultural policy would look like.
This is how an important work of art emerged, a theoretically based discussion on the possibilities and limitations of artistic subversion as well as a picturesque document on the swamp that we call Serbian political life. We formed the text in a classical play form with acts, a prologue, an epilogue, intermezzos … , which means that the contents are in conflict with the form. Milan: I thought it was especially interesting when we tried to establish a conflict between two already established and from the very start problematic discourses.
We could have invited the audience to a press conference, but I think that with the presentation in the form of a public reading we not only attacked the parliamentary system in Serbia, but also the form of drama and art. I think it is important to create something different from the conservative and closed institutionalised form, such as a public reading of a play, without taking away its performance dimension; it is only the two of us on stage, thus the project remains personal, but with a stage presence that is not private.
I was especially motivated by the toying with the expectations of the audience, which was possible in Belgrade, because the event was announced merely as a public reading of a new, contemporary play, and people did not know the contents of the play or the context of the project. The fates of artists have left a strong mark on the artistic interpretations of those works in which the dramatic conflict originated from the conflict between the artist and the system. They Live represents the newest generation of this dramaturgy, in which artists find themselves on both sides and in which the question as to whether the political parties control the artists or vice versa is posed in a serious tone.
And this is one of the basic questions posed in contemporary theatre. As it was removed from the programme as an afterthought, it took place — as previously mentioned — on 8th April in Dom Omladine in Belgrade. Milan: It was essential for us to perform the public reading in the Yugoslav Drama Theatre, for I think it is essential for such a project to be set in the context of an institution as an elitist space in which the artists are expected to show a certain conformism and not subversion of expectations.
With its presentation in Dom Omladine — the Centre for Cultural Decontamination, the project lost a part of its strength. Milan: With this act, censorship became a part of our material. This was the second time I experienced censorship in Belgrade with the same arguments. Artistic relevancy is truly not universal, but more than the contents of the objection, it is important who is the one objecting. I think that censorship based on such arguments reveals a lack of implicit understanding of the political relevancy of the project, and for certain political dissent.
Maja: In the beginning I believed that this was a form of political censorship. Now I understand that the reasons for rejecting our public reading are based in the failure to understand any sort of non-conventional drama form that is otherwise commonly found in contemporary theatre. Nika: That would be ridiculous, especially if the interview was actually based on a play by a couple of young Serbian dramaturges. Nika: What we are doing now is theatre.
Nika: It is important for us to see where we all stand.
African Politics | SpringerLink
THEY WROTE … The vulgar and inconsistent contents, the debate set in pub diction on the grand plans of the Serbian cultural production where propaganda needs to be popular and not intellectual, where only the law of natural selection is in order, and the promotion of the individual in the field of culture is based on subjective references, introduces a tragicomic note into the public reading with the hope that people will think this is a mocumentary and not actual coverage of reality. Also important is the moment in which the public lie is revealed, the facts that we all know but do not express in a public discourse.
Important party members, signed with their names and surnames, offer and purchase positions as if they were selling cheese on a market stall. The poster had to be withdrawn. On the one hand, we have a joint European soap opera explaining how the belt needs to be tightened in accordance to the scenario of the childless German Angela Merkel, and on the other, we have the young Facebook generation, for whom communication through social networks is already an act in itself.
However, after the public reading in Dom Omladine, the project was splattered across the media, and we were not ready for this. We reacted spontaneously, we did not have a prepared strategy, which is why we made a lot of mistakes. Maja: When the media grabbed hold of this event, we thought it was important as to what would we let into the media, to what level were we going to deal with the interpretation of our own work and to what extent would we use the media to express what was important for us.
In order to restrain from the unexpected media circus, we sent a text with the responses to the most frequently asked questions How did this happen? What did you do? Why Goebbels? What was your intention? Of course, numerous interpretations emerged, some of which stated that our project was financed by the political current that favoured white papers, which led us to emphasise that we do not propagate anything connected to the elections but that this was our personal artistic project, which is much more involved in the culture today than in the elections. The appearance of the discourse in the midst of the artistic idea and the responses from society Milan: As with all texts, this one also depends on the reader and the references he operates with.
The visitors of the public reading formed a mixed group that included a lot of people who do not deal with theatre professionally. There were also not a lot of reactions from the art scene after the reading, only a few individuals and they all reacted positively. I thought it was great that the project encouraged some to speak their voices at a public tribune on culture, i.
On the other hand, the project was often publicly debated over the next few weeks. I find it unbelievable that our blog reached 30, visits in two or three days. Maja: Looking at the media reactions, I can say that most of the interest was generated by the Minister of Propaganda of the Third Reich.
Only after a certain amount of time had passed did they try to contextualise the performance in a broader sense. In the Yugoslav Drama Theatre, party censorship took place — which is exactly what we are dealing with in our project. Milan: In this sense, the project remains unfinished. The responses that took place following the presentation will most likely be included in the continuation of the project, which will discuss the attempt of appropriation, commercialisation of the idea. Media — life as a bad game of chess: good moves and uncertain results Milan: We were certainly not prepared for any relations with the media.
Certain individuals from the art scene were critical towards the project because their opinions were formed exclusively from media reports. It is possible that people received only negative ideas, but I think it is important that we managed to present all materials publicly.
I trust people to be honest and intelligent enough to form their own opinions. Maja: I think that the problem does not lie so much in the media and its manipulation, but in the fact that people do not consider the material to be a starting point for future work. Most grasped the project as a simple and finished performance that would not be repeated, as this was supposedly no longer possible. Some later texts came up with their own interpretations and, with this, called for future performances of what we have started.
Milan: Of course, nobody can control the interpretations of their work, but I wanted to stay in control for at least as long as the project was still running. Even though we placed the figurines into their positions and were waiting to see in which direction they would turn, we never stopped playing chess. We had to make quite a few moves between the time when we joined the parties and the public reading. Our goal is not to take over social power with the intent of reaching an economic goal.
There are various ideological positions within art and politics, but the basic question deals with the intent behind the individual strategies. I consider the use of elements from individual structures to be legitimate for its subversion. Milan: I think that we have to constantly seek activities, and I even understand passivity as an active way of retreating so that I can observe how things truly function from a distance.
However, I do not consider our perfor-. It is possible that it achieved more or less shocking effects, but in its core it is a purely conservative act of publicly reading a play. The only shocking thing was the simplicity with which we carried out the entire project, and the speed with which the events took their course. Personal journey into co-operation: radical speech in an intimate dialogue Maja: During the elections, everybody on social networks such as Facebook represented their own opinions as relevant and bad-mouthed others, and this by no means represents a dialogue.
The world is divided into fragmented parts that fight each other. Thus, I understand the process of collective work — which demanded a consensus from the two of us as well as the presentation of both views — as a positive alternative. Milan: Creating something new is much harder as the entire world needs to be constructed from the very beginning. However, it makes something positive happen on the level of the process.
In collective work, which demands the harmonisation of various views and opinions, we have to bring all conflicts to the surface, including our own, and not allow somebody else to talk about them instead of us or let them be repeated. Especially visible was the difference in our personal aesthetic and ideological orientations, but in the end we found something in common.
Politically, it was always a part of the process; not only the starting point but also the goal, the ideal and how to reach it. In this sense, this was not merely a formal experiment. They Live? Maja: It is because of the process behind our collective work that They Live is not merely another performance on the market. In this project, the performance had already taken place prior to the public reading, and in my opinion, They Live continues to live through the reactions of individuals and through the questioning as to how to continue with the project; thus the process continues, even though we might not perform it publicly anymore.
In the event that the public reading will be repeated, we have to be aware of how the new context will influence or add to the project and how the project will refer to the social circumstances of the people who will witness the reading. Milan: During the work process, I thought that our opinions as regards the meaning of the public reading were of key importance, but now I am mainly dealing with the question whether this is merely another product on the market. I am a bit confused as regards this, maybe because of the military background in which the action is performed due to its political effect but has no life following the performance.
At first, I did not want any repeats of the readings, but now I see that my idea of something that was different from any other performance is merely an illusion. Regardless of the history that led to it, this is a performance even though we are not making any money from it and it might have different consequences. In Belgrade, the performance could operate on multiple levels — not only on the level of political parties, but also on the level of public expectations. We have also been invited to various festivals because of what we have done.
We have to find an acceptable way of exposing this. I consider it essential for this not to revolve merely around the performance, i. For me, this is the basic motif of the future performances. EPILOGUE I READ I read newspapers scientific magazines, Internet publications I read newspapers and I wonder where did the conflict go I read these fictitious articles that pragmatically try to convince me to think because of them to think on my behalf they are doing me a favour but the conflict is still nowhere to be seen and I listen to other people real people thinking people.
Nika Arhar, critic and publicist. Is not a member of any political party. Besedila, objavljena v tematskem 1. Na koncu tega kratkega uvodnika bi se najprej rada zahvalila avtorjem prispevkov in njihovim prevajalcem, prav tako pa tudi lektorjem, ki so s prevodi v tri jezike opravili veliko delo. The central focus of our interest was the relationship between the work of the artist and time, particularly the question of the conditions of time under which contemporary artists work today and how these determine the contemporary production of art.
The question of temporality in fact lies at the very centre of the economic and global conditions of artistic labour, while also being closely intertwined with the sense of life and its possibilities, and thus poses an important aesthetic and political question. Simultaneously, time is part of the ontology of the performance, which gives it an additional position in shaping a critical relationship toward flexibility and the acceleration of contemporary work.
The performance can thus show itself to be an exceptionally important critical field of temporal politics and to offer the possibility of experimenting with different forms of temporal perception, while it can also, through the question of time, reflect the conditions of its own artistic production, which has in the past decades become fused with flexible and precarious labour. During this research, I drew on four intensive 1.
The texts published within this thematic bloc came into being partially within the research project itself or as its consequence e. Other texts clear the way, by more theoretical or accessible means, toward temporality and the way in which contemporary choreographed and theatrical works deal with temporality, especially how they attempt to resist, through their own temporality, the general capitalisation of time and establish themselves as a critical embodiment of temporal perception.
Even though these contributions touch upon various themes and are written in differing styles, they are linked by a very important red thread: they all show that we cannot speak of time without also changing the temporality of practicing art, or rather, the means by which we create art, perceive it, and finally also remember it. Zahia Rahmani, the director of the Art and Globalisation programme, for her responsive understanding of the project, as well as the French contemporary dance journal Mouvement and its editor Jean-Marc Adolphe, who is also involved in the French section of the present publication.
In conclusion of this brief editorial, I would first like to thank the contributing authors and their translators, as well as the proofreaders who carried out a significant piece of work following translation into three languages. A Conversation. Nepredvidljiva dinamika in energetski tokovi ustvarjalnosti so standardizirani, napetosti in intenzitete so umirjene in podrejene izpolnjevanju obljubljenih obveznosti.
Prav ta abstrakcija oziroma navidezna praznina besede projekt je tudi eden od razlogov, zakaj je treba narediti poskus premisleka o tem pojmu. Kaj mislim s tem? This word seems to be not only endlessly extensible and abundant it can describe whatever , but also overwhelming and overflowing: we are all involved in projects, probably several of them at the same time and in different places, we are implementing the finalisation of old projects and starting new ones, continuously taking part in the relentless projective movement of production and creation.
However, as Foucault said somewhere, the sheer frequency of the use of a particular notion or word can also be a reason for anxiety: the anxiety that springs precisely from the sometimes unbearable lightness with which the word project takes over the denomination of different activities and occupations. It could be said that this term is being used pragmatically for a myriad of makings and doings. Am I then not inclining to squeeze too much out of a sheer pragmatic application of this particular word to artistic work?
An abstraction of language is at work in the word project, because the sheer signification of the word is never questioned: and that signification is related directly to the peculiar temporality that is implied in its use. Project always de-. A lot of what artists and workers in the field of culture do today seems to be caught in this unaddressed and never approached projective time.
In the projective time in which artists are moving through realised and many unrealised projects, they have to constantly imagine the future yet to come. However, that imagination always depends on a successful calculation between the present and the future; the project can only be finished or better to say: the projection can only be completed if there is a successful financial implementation that helps the promise to be realized in the end. The main paradox here is that artists are constantly challenged to imagine the future, to form proposals for the future, and they rehearse and practice constantly how to imagine that which has yet to come or which has yet to happen.
However, even though so many creative people are dealing with the imagining of the future with the creating of proposals for the future, we are at the same time living in a time that is deeply characterised by the impotence and impossibility of imagining and creating modes of political and economic life different from the ones that are already known.
Stephano Harney and Valentina Desideri, in their discussion Fate Work, talk about the future that somehow has fixed us, our current relation to the future has fixed our notion of work. So if you want to realize your dreams you have to work always assuming that those dreams are something that belong to a future scenario and not the present one. If you want to avoid work, you have to work as hard because you have to find a way, you have to have a plan, a strategy.
In order to change this dominant fate that wants to control the future, and therefore stays in the realm of the known, you have to sabotage this double machine of work and future, so that it stops functioning for a while and so that a space is opened up a present , and later, the future will come. With the title, Le Roy clearly refers to the Product of Circumstances, the seminal work from that has been so strongly canonised in recent years that it almost belongs to history.
In the performance Product of Other Circumstances, Le Roy again comes onto the stage with a lecture performance. In the performance, Le Roy displays his working process for this show, the way in which he gets informed about Butoh dance, and what kind of material he was able to find and collect on the Internet since this is the fastest way we get information nowadays and other sources. At the end of the performance, a discussion with the audience follows.
The show can be read from many entry points, but one is especially interesting for us, and this entrance is exactly through other circumstances. In the show, it can be very clearly seen how contemporary choreographers are mostly working today with a collection of dispersed, immaterial and interconnected knowledge that has to be quickly, easily acceptable, movable by itself, etc. However, there is another point that can bring us deeper into the other of circumstances. At the same time, he is actually destined to stay an amateur from the outset, since he is just learning the practice of Butoh, which demands continuous long-term work and is strongly connected to life practice.
Moreover, an artist today is the ideal worker, the one in whose profession the difference between. That position, of course, on one side, repeats the wishes of the artists from the s about bringing art and life closer, albeit under completely different economic and political circumstances. The artist is today an ideal worker, flexible, all the time erasing the limits between professional and free time, changing from project to project. However, at the same time, he has to love his work thoroughly and be really engaged with it, as with life.
The paradox then is that the notion of amateurism and professionalism is totally blurred; what is outside working hours is not any longer amateurism because an artist has to behave as an amateur all the time, having only short time periods from preparing work, being engaged in many different small projects at the same time. Under the pressure of the accelerated conditions of contemporary production, flexible modes of working and nomadic life, we can only survive in the first place if we love our work, like what we do.
However, the fact that we love the work is not related to the continuity of the present but actually only to the future and in this way, artists are professionals, always thinking about what has yet to come. However, that is the only possible way to work in contemporary art production, following temporal acceleration is the only way in which to stay professional. In that sense, an artist cannot be non-professional, because all his time is dedicated to art, everything that he does is art. What we have then is the professional attitude of the artist, but the time that is left to him for working enables him to work only as an amateur.
The intriguing relation between work and the future underlines the overwhelming use of the word project in ar-. This overwhelming denomination, which is used for all kinds of cultural products and artistic works, contains, namely, a peculiar temporal dimension that has never been stressed or questioned as such.
In this talk, I would therefore like to reflect upon how this peculiar temporality is framing contemporary artistic processes of making, collaborating and creating: project has turned out to be the ultimate horizon of making today. Project is then also a name for a multitude of singular works, which are coming into existence as a continuity of endless additions supplements ; however, the ultimate horizon of the project can never be reached or exceeded. In this peculiar continuity, it is always important to start again; after each completion, there is always a breakthrough in which something different has to appear.
There is something very perplexing at work here: regardless of the myriad possibilities it opens, it nevertheless projects its own completion as the ultimate horizon of work. This projective temporality somehow opens many possibilities, but at the same time, it is not producing the differences among them: at the end always comes a completion of already projected possibilities.
In such a temporal dimension, we can also find a link between the work of artists and other creative forces with the productive processes of capitalism. With the help of that analysis, we can also observe how, through the new modes of working, art is losing its constitutive role in society.
The role of art, namely, is closely related to the inventive and imaginative temporal dimensions of being and perceptive complexity, which are difficult to maintain through the projective modes of working. Such projective temporality also influences the acceleration of imaginative and creative work, and, in this race to reach the horizon, demands continuous transformation to reach a new, even more radical individualisation of the subject. As Maurizio Lazzarato has said, creativity has a central role in society today, but at the same time, it has never been so standardised as today.
This can be related to the fact that production of subjectivity is at the core of contemporary capitalism. We can also reflect upon the project with the help of Gilles Deleuze and his conceptualisation of the difference between virtual and possible: the project can only disclose the possible, it does not belong to the virtual, the possibility is already implemented in it. In that sense, it does not belong to the realm of change. The consequence of the standardisation of those forces or human potentialities, of which Agamben speaks is the radical individualisation and homogenisation of subjectivity.
This is, of course, closely connected with contemporary post-Fordist modes of working: where language and creativity but also movement and lifelong learning are the primary means of the production of value. These findings can be directly related to some characteristics of contemporary performance production. In the last decade or so, we can witness an enormous growth of interest in young performance work with the development of numerous forms of support networks, residencies, educational formats, etc.
However, if we try to analyse this through dynamics of contemporary production and the perspective of the kind of labour that artists do, we arrive at some interesting insights. No wonder that their work today is mostly produced through numerous residencies, open processes, showings, works-in-progress, where unfinished, still uncompleted work it does, however, have to be promising work is shown and exchanged, their value circulated and, through this exchange, also affirmed.
- Training Your Havanese Dog - House Training - Barking - Leash - Nipping!
- Jean-Claude Passeron: Que Reste-T-Il Des Héritiers Et De La Reproduction () Aujourd'hui?.
- Secrets de feu - Le retour dAusten Hart : Passions Extrêmes (French Edition);
- Zar Juri (German Edition).
- The Arms of His Love: Talks from the 1999 BYU Womens Conference.
- FELS federacion latinoamericana de semiotica.
This tells us first something about the instability of contemporary artistic value that has to be mediated and tested continuously; and in the second place, it tells us a lot about the work young artists do today on the market and, together with that, also about their role. It has to share the process of transformation with its audience and be always prepared for lifelong learning. What is 3.
To that, we can also add the temporal acceleration of productive subjects that can be found in the way in which artists today are positioned in society: mostly as autonomous productive monads who are highly individualised and self-administrated and who are all competing on the market with the enumeration of projects.
The problem lies in the fact that projective temporality of work has multiple baffling consequences on the lives of the those who are involved in the continuous creation of projects in the cultural and artistic field.
It seems that its abstract omnipresence is literally absorbing the experience of artistic work and work making, and at the same time forming the peculiar temporality of subjectivity that is involved in the completion of it. Enumeration of projects is therefore connected with the acceleration of time. Projective temporality is namely closely intertwined with the subjective experience of time; it can be argued that contemporary subjectivities are more and more experienced as the simultaneity of many projects, be they private, public, social, intimate ones, etc.
It seems as if temporality of the project is also influencing the rhythm regarding the transformation of subjectivity, which has to be flexible yet at the same time moving towards an accomplishment, a realisation, an implementation. Such a changing and flexible working force has to constantly move towards finalisation, towards the accomplishment of that which was promised in the present, towards the realisation of possibilities. On that point, the comparison with another problematic social dimension of today can be very useful: we can compare the dynamic of projective temporality with the role of debt in the economic, social and political relationships of today.
In a very interesting way, this debt. The wish of the producer is, of course, connected with the value such an act by a well-known artist can have for the market; however, at the same time, expected values are also closely intertwined with the choices artists are making when projecting what has still to come. Ivana Muller shows the complexity of choice for the artist, who is always somehow forced to do opportunistic gestures in order to repay the debt of expectation.
However, in the performance, she changes the opportunistic choice in the continuation of performative gestures, which enables her to create much more and go much broader than merely repaying the debt. The projective temporality of work and activity is also intertwined with the acceleration of that same activity, where the unexpected happens only because of the outburst of crisis, exhaustion and withdrawal; only in the moment of break, of total exhaustion, can perhaps the difference appear.
The main problem of such continuous movement toward completion and consummation is in the fact that we are not talking here about chronological temporality, where something is following something else from before, and nor is it a narrative line. What do I mean by that? In a project, we can talk about an equilibrium between the present and future, a balance between the present and future, in the sense that that which still has to come is already projected in the present.
In that sense, in that balance, the possibility of the future is only coming out of the balance with the current power structures: projective temporality is never related to the time out of joint, to the now without a future. It is precisely current power structures that also give us the belief that it is possible to foresee what is actually unforeseen. This not only means that we have less and less time for work be4.
We can again make the comparison with debt; debt namely is calculated future. It is no coincidence that debt is understood as the stealing of time, because debt has to neutralize time, since every possible deviation of the debtor has to be put aside: debt is then changing society into a society without time. All contexts of work seem to be the same they are more and more managed in the same managerial way , the differences between communities and collaborative complexities have become invisible and, with that, their political power is dis-empowered as well. Subjectivity is, with the projective mode of working, abstracted from the present social, cultural and political contexts of work, from their antagonistic and multiple complexity.
At the same time, there is a real deprivation of time in contemporary modes of working — an actual one, not only a theoretical one: we actually never have time. Such a lack of time can also be detected in the current discussions about crisis and austerity measures, where austerity acts as a process of purification of the present, the present should be squeezed out the belt should be tightened. Only when we reduce the present of life will it be possible to blossom again.
Constant lack of time is a kind of paradox, especially when concerning the possibilities a project ought to imply for the future. It seems that the more there is to a project in the future and the more possibilities there are to be completed, the less time there is at our disposal to maintain and endure, to endure in the present or in many different presents and, with that, also less time to enable social, collaborative, political or intimate relations. The only way in which we can have a relation to our present is through its administrative and managerial regulation, which is combined with the constant evaluation and re-evaluation of what we have done, with the goal of reaching something that is on the horizon of the project.
In that sense, the project becomes the ultimate horizon of our experience. Ironically, one of the words most used in cultural production to complete the project especially in the academic sphere, but also more and more in the arts is deadline. At the end of the project, there seems to stand a mortal limit, a pure completion, a consummation of creative life, with no after experience. At the same time, an illusory feeling that everything continues on into eternity is lightening this tension a bit, because there are so many projects to complete.
In this projective endlessness, there are many mortal limits to be crossed, and at the same time the future is radically closed off. Time-deprivation is therefore cancelling the imagination and creation of. In that sense, it is directly related with artistic and aesthetic practice: because it is diminishing complexity, perceptual manifoldness, availability towards nothingness and sustainability of antagonisms.
Temporality of the project is closely related to the role of time as one of the primary objects of capitalistic production of value and privatisation. Temporality is at the core of producing difference, it is the material of social and aesthetic change. It is precisely this potentiality that is today diminished, due to the administrative accomplishment of possibilities and as projective speculation of that which has yet to come, in, however, equilibrium with the present.
In that sense, art production and creation has to rethink exactly the relation between temporality and its production and find new ways in which to push the time out of joint, out of the speculative balance between that which is and that which has yet to come. To end, I would like to propose several ways of how to reflect on the possible time out of joint, how to transform the temporality of the project and open it to the present.
Although we have been confronted with numerous engaged, political and critical artistic projects over the last two decades, these projects remain without effect because of their pseudo-activity. They have not broken through and intervened in the public sphere in terms of shaping and demanding their own language therein. Although one can recognise some classic arguments resurfacing that belong to the moral register especially the one about artists not working , they need to be re-thought more carefully. It is important to recognise that the arguments against subsidizing art are part of the populist and neoliberal rhetoric aiming to profoundly re-evaluate and even erase any articulation of the communal and community in contemporary society.
In this way, art is reduced to being the result of individual choice rather than being something in the common good. Even beyond this, in the light of populist rhetoric, any support and cultivation of the good is viewed as political elitism by an engaged leftist circle. The problem is complex; on the one hand, this populist argument demands a radical re-evaluation of the public and, on the other, points out the essence of the problematic politicisation of art over the last two decades.
Although the art of this period has been interested in political activity all along, it has been radically detached from the political public sphere despite this interest. Many people active in the art field who nowadays face political pressures and radical financial cuts to art-related subsidies and support on all fronts often see common interest as equating economic value. Part of the arguments for the support of art is often that art forms an important part of the economy and contemporary creative industries. Art does not have an economic value precisely because we can never evaluate the suggestions for modes of being together, which are generated regardless of the existing web of power.
Affirming art by using the language of the economy is another unfortunate consequence of its projective temporality: perhaps the time is coming when the most radical politicisation of art will be that of radical detachment from any economic value so that new articulations of the human imagination and creativeness can be revealed. This detachment also brings invisibility, but also a potential power whose visibility cannot be seen as of yet.
To put it more precisely: the very politicisation of art over the. Through this perspective, we also need to rethink the social and political value of art, which is closely connected to the perception, recognition and establishment of the visibility of what we now have and will have in common. Of primary importance for art and workers in the artistic field is to demand endurance, continuity and to occupy spaces of the present as much as possible.
What is common is namely what is now, and not what will be in the future. Among the important questions then are: How to create modes with which to support the present, how to give it back its temporal value, its complexity and complicity with others? What would be the structures that would open this perceptual complexity of the present? How to think about political structures, aesthetic modes and cultural movements that resist the need to constantly start from the new, which resist the temptation to constantly abandon what they have already achieved?
What has to be enriched when practice unfolds is namely exactly the commonality in the present and not what has yet to come. With that, the public dimension of the present can also be enclosed: its conflictual, complex and antagonistic dimension that is, through projective culture, under strong attack. Yet art should be precisely a part of the public interest. As yet unpublished, private notes. But at the same time, artists could be lazy because they were aware that what they produce is actually nothing, it has no value.
Today, we can also read this text as an attempt to put the brakes on the capitalistic experimentation with temporality of work.
Lazy artists namely could, in socialism, show the hypocrisy at the core of the system that was glorifying work: if the artists in socialism wanted to stay artists, they actually had to stay without work. Today, artists cannot stay without work if they want to be artists but have to work continuously. Not only that, they have to be continuously critical towards their work. Artists must actually constantly banish every unsuccessful and lazy gesture from their work; however, with that, they no longer have the potentiality of showing the mirror to the real lazy people at the core of capitalism.
The problem is namely, as Aaron Schuster said, that neoliberalism actually finally appropriated laziness for 6.
We have a paradoxical situation here: the artist is working continuously and without a break, and at the same time, he is, from the populist, neoliberal perspective, perceived as one of the main parasites of society, his work is again without value, as it was in socialism. However, this time it is without value not because work is so cherished, but because actually laziness and speculation are at the core of contemporary neoliberal ideology. With that paradox, we are again back to the very serious fact that there is today a tendency in our society to expel the artist from the public sphere.
Lazy speculation and projection of the future is namely possible only when, at the same time, the public good is erased, when, at the same time, the antagonistic and complex public sphere is diminished and there is place given to the financial power of projection. Art is expelled from the public sphere because there is an interest in it not being part of the public.
It is structured, managed and framed in the temporality of the project so that it cannot any longer endure in the present or articulate any other moment of the common. The devaluation of art is actually part of the general capitalistic interest that we all work only for our own private interest, which is, of course, the greatest laziness of all. Bojana Kunst is a philosopher, dramaturge and theorist of contemporary performing arts. She is Assistant Professor in philosophy of culture at the University of Primorska; from to , she was Guest Professor at the University of Hamburg; and since autumn , she has been Professor at the Institute for Applied Theatre Studies at the University of Giessen.
She is a member of the editorial boards of Maska and Performance Research. Upam, da sledi tovrstno darilo.
About this book
Esej, objavljen v katalogu revije Berlin Festspiele: Theatertreffen Journal, Zajel je film, ustvaril je podobo belega, navidez praznega zaslona, ki pa je bil poln vsega, poln celega filma. Bi lahko bila to podoba ene ure? Predhodne sekunde so predstavljale premor. Kako naj berem premor? Gledam jih in zapisujem: enajst, osemnajst, enajst, devetnajst, enajst, dvaindvajset, enajst, petindvajset. Spoznavanje branja. Neke pesmi. Je to tisto, kar lahko prinese ena ura? Neke druge vrste vrednoto? Vrednoto neuporabnosti? Kaj pravi? Kako bi naju kdo fotografiral?
Mene in uro, ki si jo jemljem tu v Solunu. Je to tisto, na kar merim? Si zaradi tega jemljem to uro? Kako hitro bi si torej lahko vzela to uro? Kaj so mi naredile? Mislim, da ne. Dejansko bi lahko med to uro spala pet minut. Kako bi bilo to videti na papirju? Na nekaj zanimivega, inovativnega, novega? Bomo videli Kako izmeriti potrato? Spet se mi je to zgodilo, stvar se ponavlja. Ostala sem brez besed. Kaj to pomeni? Bomo videli. Bo prazen? Je tako bolj razumljivo? Ali ne?
Je to sploh pomembno? Kaj menite? Ker vse to nima smisla, ker gre za potrato. Ne gre za to. Nyssens-Braun, Dom Columba Marmion intime. Lousse et J. Jerome, Tommy and C o — O. Henry, Martin Burney et autres dupes — Card. Quoniam, Erasme — R. Lemonnyer, J. Tonneau, R. Allers, Heilerziehung bei Abwegigkeit des Charakters. Penido, La conscience religieuse. Paul — E. Jenny et G. Capucins de Saint-Maurice. Chancerel, H. Charbonnier, A. Benson, Initiation. Doyle, S. Bernadot, R.
Cathala, R. Garrigou-Lagrange, R. Martin, H. Charles Journet, J. Office du dimanche — J. Chapeau — G. Lemaitre, Sacerdoce — A. Chesterton, Divorce — A. Hublet, Leurs frimousses — Ad. Benedicti rite interpretandam — L. Essai sur la naissance de son culte — George Goyau, Missions et missionnaires — P. Agostino — P. Martindale, What think ye of Christ? Bernadot, G. Desbuquois, M. Riquet, Le joug du Christ. Pestalozzi-Pfyffer, Der Meister E. Lagrange, O.