TALKININKAI / CONTRIBUTORS
|COMMENTS ON GEOPRAXIS [PARTIALLY INCLUDED INTO THE LAST VERSION BY HOWARD MCCALEBB]|
|Written by DAMTP|
0. The development of ‘art’ from painting into other dimensions of sensation, space, time and meaning, is a result of the development of the means of production distribution and consumption – since ‘art’ now refers to such a great range of practices it only makes sense to consider ‘art’ as a unified practice in terms of being a cultural practice that serves particular interests – psychically – that of the ruling class. Any new reality must therefore define new relationships with regards to class – which is human relations to ourselves and the world.
1. Globalization is not just the conflict between two elements - globalism vs nationalism, but rather it’s definition should be revised according the triolectical logic. Triolectics is a particular way to think, which is based not on a dualist conflict (Aristotelian metaphysics of obedience and Hegelian dialectics of resistance), but on the tripolar understanding of the situation, which always could be transformed into 3 conflicts by connecting 2 positions into one unit, or simply ignoring one of the elements. According to that globalism could be viewed:
- neoliberalist globalism of multinational corporations or neocolonialism of "free market" etc.;
- nationalism and simbolism and fascism etc;
- alterglobalism as international selforganization of the exploited people - lets say workers. The system works in a following way - if you exaggerating the conflict between liberalist globalism and nationalism (what is actually simulated, because no one government never fights fascism till the end - that always served them as last resort to get back to power) - this conflict in fact polarizes the lower class and demises possibility of the class war.
Globalization is not a process that brought about the accelerated interaction and integration of cultures, politics, business and intellectual advances around world, driven by technology, finance, and information dissemination, but rather created enormous specialization and alienation.
Globalization has brought mass starvation, exploitation, suffering, war, massacre of species, natural resources and decimation of traditional cultures of exploited peoples
2. Any discussion of art must start with a clear definition of terms. Historically, as 'the arts' are liberated from the shackles of the patronage system and thereby become 'Art' in its modern sense, precisely at that moment when the commodification of culture brings about the possibility of its ideological 'autonomy,' the institution of art emerges to regulate the cultural field. It follows from this that in attacking the institution of art, the avant-garde ought to develop a critique of commodity relations.
There is a desperate need to connect to other producers and consumers (cultural workers) who are struggling in spatial temporal or semantic proximity as well as removal to/ from us.
Future is to be based on creativeness without cultural consumption and cultural projective bourgeois (self)identification – that is a solution to overcome problem of “so much art”, which is indeed a problem of capitalist overproduction and a residue of colonialist politics.
The main point is that cultural production is not evenly produced/distributed/consumed across the planet. As organized producers we need to address this.
3. Rather than the colonizing culture of globalization or indeed resistance to it in the form of nationalism, the new phase in history – that of communism, which is still the most recent worldwide historical movement of significance which turns humanity away from tradition – from nations – from religion – from all of the structures that have up until now dominated world culture - The question is about how the change in world wide production and consumption is creating a new culture - we have already responded by creating a data miners and psychic workers union – as well as proliferating individual unions of one person - in order to bring the new information workers into line with proletarianisation around the world.
The manifesto is the language of bourgeois politics and this is why in the avant-garde synthesis of art and politics the manifesto is used. Art and politics remain as long as the ruling society does. To suggest that art or politics or the avant-garde does not exist any more is wrong. It is however correct that it is possible to go beyond it – as the age of divinity (the age of intensive capital and polarization of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd worlds) has indeed just ended. It is only proletarian workers organization – that goes beyond roles and specialisms that is really new – we need to reject the role of artist.
The manifesto is afterall simply a form of what the Lettrists refer to as ‘metagraphy’. The Futurists called this the use of the 4th dimension. It was the conscious use of texts in conjunction with painting to create meaning – the adding or integration of other dimensions. The situation around ‘abstract expressionism’ and the involvement of both the CIA and the US Communist Party shows not just the similarity of the Bolshevik and Bourgeois organizations but how the situgraphy is more instructive than the metagraphy – i.e. how organizations influence and control ‘art’ or cultural work. The post war avant-garde has already moved away from the manifesto and towards the organizational constitution. Artists groups taking on the form of the business, the private limited company or indeed public companies is evidenced in net art producing artists’ collectives. Artists have also formed radical workers unions. Political positions are therefore expressed in similar formal structures referring to precise moments in the historical development of identity. Our rejection of the role of artist is not a reaction or rejection of or against anything. It is the continuation of the historical forces which artists have been dealing with since the 1960s, organizing around the art strike - emerging from artists unions and the issues that emerged – the overcoming the dialectic of individual and collective – overcoming the problems of Eurocentricity, colonialism, white power. Of asserting our own creative labour (not capital) against alienation and commodification.
4. It’s a time to break away from the implemented system of playing the role of the artist what is in fact the main product for bourgeois art commodity system and it is not truth that the main problem is commoditization of the art production.
“Individuality” of the artist is a myth.
“Herd of anonymous” is one of the means of intimidation what is implemented by cultural-educational system and what leads towards social, psychic, spiritual, cultural, sexual etc. repression.
Capitalist exploitation is based upon the development of the feudal form – religion is replaced by art and science - The star system elevates the chosen few to godlike status while the masses starve (of attention).
Community(ies) should be based on the principle of autonomy what do not correspond the bourgeois notion of “individuality”.
The only possibility is to abolish money and for workers to take collective control of resources, production, distribution and consumption. As artists or cultural workers we must define what these are – the means of production – the psychic as well as physical resources of culture are not clearly defined. This is a vital task. We must also work in concert with other industries, other workers who produce these resources.
5. Activities (cultural or scientific) which are targeted not to serve to the liberation of the people from the economic and psychic miserabilism, but instead are oriented towards the gaining a profit – that is a perversity. The activities of the group of the people called artists always were tending to fight for the freedom, what did not exist without equality: Freedom without equality – that’s a privilege while equality without freedom is simple slavery. Instead of new opportunities we still have our old pledges, but it definitely demands new tactical solutions what we are currently trying to elaborate.
6. On one hand the text is looking to move forward ad yet is harping back TO THE BAUHAUS etc - ie going back in time to the age of divinity.
On the other hand BAUHAUS was the structure of aesthetic authoritarism what has common roots with fascist politics what has developed at the same time.
To really to forward we must seriously address the problems of Eurocentricty and begin to empower those cultural works which are threatened with extinction today to create a proletarian postmodernism…
7. Berlin as a centre of Europe can only be a useful hub in terms of firstly intervention into capitalist eurocentricity, (western European white supremacism/ anglosaxon capital) and also as a nexus in a worldwide network of locations by which to empower oppressed cultural formations in not only former colonies on every continent but locations that can be accessed mentally as well as physically by cosmopolitan drifts across the planet. This will vitally include the Asian capitalist economies other than the ex-colonies such as India – i.e. the ex-communist states. This will also inevitably include major warzones and this is something that will require particular forms of creative resistance which can draw power out of nodes of capitalist power such as Berlin.
Data Miners & Travailleurs Psychique