TALKININKAI / CONTRIBUTORS
|DISCUSSION 10000000011011111 THAT GAVE AN ADVENT OF REPRODUCTIVE WORKERS AND LOVERS INDUSTRIAL UNION|
|Written by Matze Schmidt /// OKK /// DAMTP|
1. I read the "REPORT ON DAMTP PSYCHIC ATTACK ON MANIFESTA 9...". I agree and do not agree with the tactical conclusion "it’s time for artists to face their own misery" since the misery is quite clear to everyone but artists who stay arty or non-arty artists might not be able to face it. Anyway perhaps 99,8 percent of those artists got to do jobs that are not arty, as long as Beuys comes around telling everyone is one and everything is art. it is a vicious cycle to use the term art and criticize it, it's at least (and furthermore) an apologia for doing art as art. it is okay I guess to attack exploitation in the sector of the arts, but (no mission here and no believe) as long as art as a social need is not sublated as art of the bourgeois society nothing can be 'art'. So I rather think of leaving the art-field and check out more economy/work/life (whatever this means) -- mh, the way to the woods I guess? Crisis I’d say.
0. You may have heard of course when Beuys said to Metzger "Jedermann ist ein Künstler" he replied: 'Himmler auch?
0. I see no problem in using art and criticising it at the same time - as a teacher I criticise teaching also because real learning is discovery made by people together and for this we must unionise against the spectacle!
0. I feel like emphasising Peter Burger's "Theory of the Avant-Garde" where he is in favour of "autonomizing the negative in art", in order to counter the whole alienated mode of living.
0. But can whitey leave the whiteyshop?
0. A problem with art is that it sticks to the feudal setting and it is this that must be first damaged, before we can speak about art's "commodification". Because the latter is the actual cause of art's "autonomy" - which does exist (springing from the institutional setting of the whole concept; but of course not in Adorno's understanding). Why baker, the artisan? Sorry, I think we here all know that art itself is a sham, so why not be open about it?
1. The thing that we are living controversial lives in our work and "habitual personal life" (which I really can’t distinguish) is the precarious survive every former named proletarian person has to trespass. Our discourse is connected with academy but the action is on the streets ... therefore I think the double discourse or better named: 'dispute' towards traded terms is part of our existence so the controversial prostitutions will happen on the one or other way ... you work for fucking nothing in an disangled proletarian work relation or you prostitute part of your theory and artwork for surviving and feed and educate your children? I really fucking don’t know but the laws of "selbständiger künstler" or "freischaffender künstler" but the great option offered by voina to live without money ("without own one but with or through the money of other ones good spend") is an interrogative ...
1. What I mean is before I sell my legs and arms in factory I try to sell 'some fuckin artworkz' or maybe a blues in subway ... scheisse mannn keine ahnung es ist zum abwinken mit paradoxieen im denkschema und den damit verbundenen handlungsweisen. Before suming the army of krupparbeiter and all collaborating corporate structures I try to prostitute my own "artistic work" ... not less prostitution but even near by bourgeois education, trying to avoid the worse.... [any] ism.......
1. We should try to build an open platform for exactly this discussions ... von woher ??? vkeine ahnung!
1. But in an idea to find : 'gemeinsame nenner in unserer kontroversen position zur kunst'
1. bueno joder lo que seA OSTIAS