m1 (turm4)

summit presentation - reading of 'academy as potentiality' by irit rogoff

nomanden — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:18:04 GMT

we will read and discuss the text 'Academy as Potentiality' by Irit Rogoff, as preparation for the presentaion of the Summit Conference (19h, same day, in the Institut Künstlerisches Lehramt, hörsaal 3, Karl-Schweighofer-Gasse 3). And to prepare for the actual conference at the end of May in Berlin.

The text is taken from summit.kein.org - where a number of other texts are available, so if others have read different texts which they find interesting please also bring them along for discussion. The reason for reading 'Academy as Potentiality' is that it provides some interesting perspectives from which to view the general commercialisation of education in Europe, and the changes being implemented in the Academy right now, in this vein it also connects with the nomanden's current reading of 'The Ignorant Schoolmaster - 5 Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation' by Jacques Ranciere.

Please join us if you have an interest,

best wishes,

nomanden archive and reading group, m1 semperdepot

ps. unfinished text by Florian Schneider, one of the co-organisers and presenters of Summit, taken from the edu-factory mailing list, can be found here to download: t4.antville.organd here for online version: t4.antville.orgit also mentions 'The Ignorant Schoolmaster' and can also maybe discussed before travelling to Berlin, or on wednesday if anyone has time to read it!

pps. other texts on the website include:

  (very interesting text) Simon O'Sullivan: Academy: 'The Production of Subjectivity'* The interactive artwork discussed: Schematic cube.* Rob Stone: The Shrinking Green (<ampersand/>#949;ccentric Archives)* Jorella Andrews: Critical Materialities* Michael Hirsch: The Concept of the Civil Society. Notes on learning in cultural institutions* Dieter Roelstraete: Poiesis Makes Perfect, Notes on Gesture (Reprise)* Yve Lomax: On bringing education to life: notes for further thought* Bojana Cveji<ampersand/>#263;: Learning by making* Gavin Butt: Scholarly Flirtations* Dieter Lesage: A Portrait of the Artist as a Researcher

summit - non aligned initiatives in education and culture

nomanden — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:29:06 GMT

Summit Conference homepage: summit.kein.org - there are 9 texts available on here, the Simon O'Sullivan text and the Irit Rogoff texts are very interesting.

Here is the link to download the text by Florian Schneider:

t4.antville.org

or alternatively you can copy and paste it from below --->

Florian SchneiderCollaboration: Seven notes on new ways of learning and working together

If one principle could be seen to inform the opaque surface of what in the 1990s was called a "new economy" -- the shifts and changes, the dynamics and blockades, the emergencies and habit formations taking place within the realm of immaterial production -- it would certainlybe: "Work together".

Facing the challenges of digital technologies, global communications, and networking environments, as well as the inherent ignorance of traditional systems towards these, 'working together' has emerged as an unsystematic mode of collective learning processes.

Slowly and almost unnoticeably, a new word came into vogue. At first sight it might seem the least significant common denominator for describing new modes of working together, yet "collaboration" has become one of the leading terms of an emergent contemporary politicalsensibility.

Often collapsed into the most utilitarian understanding, 'collaboration' is far more than acting together, as it extends towards a network of interconnected approaches and efforts. Literallymeaning working together with others, especially in an intellectual endeavour, the term is nowadays widely used to describe new forms of labour relations within the realm of immaterial production in various fields; yet despite its significant presence there is very littleresearch and theoretical reflection on it. This might be due to a wide range of partly contradictory factors that are interestingly intertwined.

As a pejorative term, collaboration stands for willingly assisting an enemy of one's country, especially an occupying force or malevolent power. It means working together with an agency with which one is not immediately connected. Most prominently, "collaboration" became theslogan of the French Vichy regime after the meeting of Hitler and Marshall Petain in Lontoire-sur-le-Loir in October 1940. In a radio speech Petain officially enlisted the French population to "collaborate" with the German occupiers, while the French resistance movement later branded those who cooperated with the German forces as "collaborators".

Despite these negative origins, the term collaboration is mostly used today as a synonym for cooperation. Dictionary definitions and vernacular uses are generally more or less equivalent; but etymologically, historically and politically it seems to make more sense to elaborate on the actual differences between various coexisting layers of meaning.

Is it in principle, possible to make a relevant distinction between cooperation and collaboration and to what end? If so, what characterizes the constellations, social assemblages and relationships in which people collaborate? And last but not least: Does this have any impact for the current debate on education?

What follows are seven notes and propositions in which I try do address these questions in a very preliminary, eclectic and sketchy way.

In pedagogical discourse, both cooperation and collaboration are relatively new terms. They emerged in the 1970s in the context of "joint learning activities" and "project-based learning", which were supposed to break with an authoritarian teacher-centred style of guiding the thinking of the student.

What might be defined as "educational teamwork" corresponds to an idea promoted at the same time by management theory; that is, in a teamwork environment, people are supposed to understand and believe that thinking, planning, decisions and actions are better when done incooperation.

At the beginning of the last century and well ahead of his time, Andrew Carnegie, steel-tycoon and founder of Carnegie Technical Schools, said: "Teamwork is the ability to work together toward a common vision, the ability to direct individual accomplishments towardorganizational objectives. It is the fuel that allows common people to attain uncommon results."

To this day, this famous quote has probably featured prominently in a myriad PowerPoint presentations by human resource managers across the globe, but its central argument only became a reality in the early 1980s, when the crisis in the car manufacturing industries triggered the first large scale proliferation of the concept of teamwork in the realm of industrial production.

Factories that had hitherto been characterized by a highly specialized division of labour usually coupled with a strong self-organization of the workers in trade unions were turned upside down: teamwork started being considered as a prerequisite for breaking the power of the unions, dropping labour costs and moving towards so-called 'lean' production, which was seen at the time as a response to global competition and the success of Japanese exports to the US and Europe in particular.

In late industrial capitalism the notion of teamwork represented the subjugation of workers' subjectivity to an omnipresent and individualized control regime. The concept of group replaced the classical one of "foremanship" as the disciplining force. Rather than through repression, cost efficiency was increased by means of peer-pressure and the collective identification of relatively small groups of multi-skilled co-workers.

The model of teamwork soon spread across different industries and branches, yet without any great success. Meanwhile, various research studies showed that teams often make the wrong decisions, especially when the task involves solving rather complex problems. Teamwork frequently fails for the simple fact that internalised modes of cooperation are characterized by "hoarding" or stockpiling, quite the opposite of knowledge sharing: in the pursuit of a career, relevant information must be hidden from others. Joining forces in a group or team also increases the likelihood of failure rather than success; awkward group dynamics, unforeseeable external pressures and bad management practices are responsible for the rest.

This overall failure is even more staggering if we consider that rapid technological development and the availability of global intellectual resources were supposed to have increased the pressure on individuals to exchange knowledge within and between groups. Yet as knowledge became the main productive force, neither the free wheeling and well-meaning strategies of anti-authoritarianism nor the brutal force of coercing cooperation seemed capable of establishing any new dimensions of the dynamics of 'working together'.

Increasing evidence shows that 'working together' actually occurs in rather unpredictable and unexpected ways. Rather than through the exertion of the alleged generosity of a group made up of individuals in the pursuit of solidarity, it often works as a brusque and even ungenerous practice, where individuals rely on one another the more they chase their own interests, their mutual dependence arising through the pursuit of their own agendas. Exchange then becomes aneffect of necessity rather than one of mutuality, identification or desire.This entails an initial level of differentiation between cooperation and collaboration: in contrast to cooperation, collaboration is driven by complex realities rather than romantic notions of common grounds or commonality. It is an ambivalent process constituted by a set of paradoxical relationships between co-producers who affect one another.In "Le Maître ignorant", published in 1983, Jacques Rancière indicatesthat ignorance is the first virtue of the master or teacher. He givesthe example of Joseph Jacotot, an exiled French revolutionary,professor of French literature at the University of Louvain in Belgiumfrom 1815. Jacotot taught French to his Dutch-speaking students in theabsence of a shared language, through what appears to be an entirelycollaborative method: without setting up a common agenda, identifyinga common ground or communicating through a shared set of tools, he"placed himself in his students' hands and told them, through aninterpreter, to read half of the book with the aid of the translation,to repeat constantly what they had learned, to quickly read the otherhalf and then to write in French what they thought about it." This"teaching without transmitting knowledge", as Rancière defines it,seemed to be incredibly successful, because it granted a level ofautonomy to the students who acquired their own knowledge as theydeemed useful and independently from their teacher.

Rancière's example is particularly enlightening in the context ofcollaboration and its relation to notions of hierarchy which so muchof collaborative discourse deems to have vanquished. It exposes thehypocrisy of the supposed anti-authoritarianism that essentiallyunderlies many notions of cooperation. This misconception might beseen as the practice of liberally weakening the position of power, yetignoring the inherent paradox of doing so, so that in an infinite lineof regression power reappears even stronger than before. The more ittries to explain, mediate, communicate or teach, the more it reaffirmsthe distance, inequality and dependency of those who lack knowledge onthose who seem to possess it. The same applies to cooperation andteamwork: a presumption of equality actually extends bothdiscrimination and exploitation while seemingly providing continuousevidence in support of such an illusion, as if there were no radicallydifferent modes of working together.

The work of Jacotot's students can be seen as a form of collaborationwith their teacher that flattens the hierarchies and does away withthe teacher-student relationship altogether, without romanticising it.Through collaboration hierarchies are neither criticised nor morallydisapproved of and hypocritically discarded. This way of workingtogether is capable of ignoring the ignorance of the ignorant and ofpauperising the poverty of the pauper precisely because collaboratorsare neither questioning obvious authority nor pretending to be equal.Instead they have worked out a system not of exchange but of flow inwhich these positions are avoided altogether.

Collaborations are the black holes of knowledge regimes. Theywillingly produce nothingness, opulence and ill-behaviour. And it istheir very vacuity which is their strength. Unlike cooperation,collaboration does not take place for sentimental reasons, forphilanthropical impulses or for the sake of efficiency; it arises outof pure self interest. Collaborations could reveal the amazingpotential whereby an ignorant, poor or otherwise property-less personcan enable another ignorant, poor or otherwise property-less person toknow what he or she did not know and to access what he or she did notaccess. It does not entail the transmission of something from thosewho have to those who do not , but rather the setting in motion of achain of unforeseen accesses.

Shifting the focus away from its components and outcomes,collaboration is a performative and transformative process: the suddenneed to cross the familiar boundaries of one's own experiences, skillsand intellectual resources to enter nameless and foreign territorieswhere abilities that had been considered "individual" marvellouslymerge with those of others. In this sequence, outcomes and processesfollow an inverse relation as do the relations of power. For whatcomes about is not the 'granting' of access but a recognition acrossthe board of those involved in the process, that it is the unexpectedmultiplicity and uncertain location of the points of access that is atstake in the exchange.

Translating the concept of collaboration back to the context ofeducation also points to a reverse-engineering of the teacher's role.Etymologically, in Greek and Latin "pedagogue" or "educator" means"drawing out" or "pulling out" and refers to an ancient Greekpractice: a family slave called "pedagogue" used to walk the childfrom the private house to a place of learning. Rather than theteacher, who was supposed to have and transmit knowledge, thepedagogue was the person who accompanied the student to the placewhere the teacher imparted it.

This rather spatial notion of bringing somebody across a specificborder evokes striking associations with human trafficking. The escapeagent or "coyote" - as it is named at the US-Mexican border - supportsundocumented border crossers who want to make it from one nation stateto another without the demanded paperwork. Permanently on the move,only temporarily employed, nameless, anonymous and constantly changingfaces and sides, the coyote is, in an ironic way, the perfectrole-model for both education and collaboration. As a metaphor itserves the purpose of destabilising the idea of 'knowledge inmovement' away from its always assumed progressive direction. Insteadit allows for a certain degree of illegitimacy inherent in all formsof collaboration and distinguishes it from the always perfectlysanctioned and legitimate nature of cooperation. By extracting aprinciple of mobility and perceiving the lack of legitimacy asenabling as opposed to criminally inhuman and disabling, the 'coyote'who may or may not be motivated by self gain without ideologicalcommittment, produces a possibility whose parameters cannot be gaged.

The "coyote's" motivations remain unclear or, shall we say, do notmatter at all. The "coyote" is the post-modern service provider parexcellence. The fact that there is no trust whatsoever between thoseengaging in the transaction, does not actually play any part in theunfolding of its play. Here , we might say, conceptual insecurityoverrides the financial aspects of the collaboration and triggers aredundancy of affects and perceptions, feelings and reactions. Thosewho do not need the coyote's support hunt and demonise it; those whorely on the coyote's secret knowledge and skills appreciate it all themore. The extreme polarities of these responses instantiate the rangeof the collaborative field and the impossibility of navigating itthrough moralising vectors.

Ultimately, collaboration with a coyote generates pure potential:ranging from the dream of a better life to the reality of pure livinglabour power ready to be over-exploited in the informal labour market.If it wasn't for its totally deregulated character, this practicewould bear similar results to that of traditional educational systems;we might say that in this exchange nothing can be claimed for materialexistence, let alone possession, but nevertheless something veryprecious and entirely precarious comes into being; pure imagination,yet potentially powerful beyond measure.

Against the background of post-modern control society, collaboration isabout secretly exchanging knowledge independently of borders. Itstands for the attempt to regain autonomy and get hold of immaterialresources in a knowledge-driven economy. It no longer matters who hasknowledge and who owns the resources; what matters is access: not agenerously granted accessibility but a direct, immediate and instantaccess, often gained illegally or illegitimately.

While cooperation involves identifiable individuals within and betweenorganizations, collaboration expresses a differentiated relationshipmade up of heterogeneous elements that are defined as singularities.As such they are not identifiable or subject to easy categories ofidentity, but defined out of an emergent relation between themselves.As such collaboration is extra-ordinary in so far as it produces adiscontinuity and marks a point of unpredictability, howeverdeterministic. Its unpredictability takes the form of not being ableto entirely categorise the components of the collaborative process,even when its general aim or drive may be steering it in a particulardirection.

Rationality has here been replaced by a kind of relationality thatconstantly decomposes and recomposes information in order to maketemporary use of unexpected dynamics and contingencies: from stockmarket speculation to the development of network protocols, from theproduction of new forms of aesthetics in art and culture to ageneration of political activism with global aspirations.

People meet and work together under circumstances where theirefficiency, performance and labour power cannot be singled out andindividually measured; everyone's work points to someone else's.Making and maintaining connections seems more important than trying tocapture and store ideas. One's own production is very peculiar yet itis generated and often multiplied in networks composed of countlessdistinct dependencies and constituted by the power to affect and beaffected. At no point in the process can this be arrested andascertained, for it gains its power by not having explicit points ofentry or exit as a normative work scenario might.

This excess is essentially beyond measure; collaboration relates tothe mathematical definition of singularity as the point where afunction goes to infinity or is somehow ill-behaved. The concept ofsingularity distinguishes collaboration from cooperation and refers toan emerging notion of precariousness, a systemic instability. this inturn can be seen as the crisis associated with the shift andtransition from cooperation to collaboration in modes of workingtogether.

The nets of voluntariness, enthusiasm, creativity, immense pressure,ever increasing self-doubt and desperation are temporary and fluid;they take on multiple forms but always refer to a permanent state ofinsecurity and precariousness, the blue print for widespread forms ofoccupation and employment within society. They reveal the other sideof immaterial labour, hidden in the rhetoric of 'working together'.

Today it is tremendously urgent to learn how to deal with such excess.This is not simply the realm of an exclusive minority of geeks, nerds,drop-outs and neurotic freelancers; it invests a rapidly growingglobal immaterial labour force that is confronted with the prospect oflife-long learning without the complimentary prospect of there everhaving a teacher or a schoolbook in store, because knowledge emergesas useless as soon as it can be commodified and reproduced as such.

The crucial question is how a form of education to collaboration ispossible that is not reduced ad absurdum to become the application oftruism after truism. Certainly this would not mean the staging of acollaborative process within the classroom or other spaces oflearning. This debate can take place at a meta-level or around theissue of "un-organizing" oneself in order to be aware and ready forthe future challenges of collaborative working environments. It cantake place in the fragmentation of the components of bodies ofknowledge and their re-alignment with one another according to otherprinciples. Or it can take place in the removing of pre-determineddirections around the flows of knowledge.

Cooperation necessarily takes place in client-server architectures. It follows a metaphorical narrative structure, where the coherent assignment of each part and its relation to the others gets reproducedover and over again. The current educational system mirrors this structure and is therefore essentially incapable of responding to contemporary challenges, let alone future ones. Even worse, the morethe system attempts to re-modernize itself, the more it sinks in the swamp of commodification, homogenisation and hierarchization. Obviously the problem lies with the educational system's understanding of what contemporary imperatives are and its insistence that these must have an 'applicable' function. If a model of collaboration were to be applied to educational cultures , then it would have to accept an inability to predetermine outcomes even while sharing a set of aspirations or directives or being anchored in a set of recognised problematics.

Collaboration entails rhizomatic structures where knowledge grows exuberantly and proliferates in unforeseeable ways. In contrast to cooperation, which always implies an organic model and a transcendent function, collaboration is a strictly immanent and wild praxis. Every collaborative activity begins and ends within the framework of the collaboration. It has no external goal and cannot be decreed; it is strict intransitivity, it takes place, so to speak, for its own sake.

Collaborations are voracious. Once they are set into motion they can rapidly beset and affect entire modes of production. "Free" or "open source" software development is probably the most prominent example for the transformative power of collaboration to "un-define" the relationships between authors and producers on one side and users and consumers on the other side. It imposes a paradigm that treats every user as a potential collaborator who could effectively join the development of the code regardless of their actual interests and capacities. Participation becomes virtual: It is enough that one could contribute a patch or file an issue, one does not necessarily have to do it in order to enjoy the dynamics, the efficacy and the essential openness of a collaboration.

In the last instance, the democratic or egalitarian ambition has migrated into the realm of virtuality: Open source developer groups usually do not follow the patterns and rules of representative democracy, the radical notion of equality reveals in the general condition that everyone has instant and unrestricted access to the entire set of resources that form a development. The result is as simple as it is convincing: Those who disagree may "fork" and start their own development branch without loosing access to the means of production.

On the internet, distributed non-hierarchical information architectures are characterized as "peer-to-peer" (P2P) networks. They emerged in the 1990s and triggered a revolution of the conventionaldistribution model. These networks were first designed to exchange immaterial resources such as computing time or bandwidth, mainly in scientific academic contexts. Their aim was to overcome technological limits, incapacities and shortages by combining the existing free resources.

Since the late 1990s the same network architecture has been used to exchange relevant content: music and movies were distributed amongst ordinary personal computers that worked as both downstream and upstream nodes in mushrooming networks.

The enormous success of these projects, from "Napster" to "BitTorrent" - currently estimated to account for nearly half of the total of internet traffic - enabled people who do not know each other andprobably prefer to not know each other to actually "share" their hard drives. In fact, their anonymous relationships are based on the irony of sharing, even in a strictly mathematical sense: due to lossless and cost free digital copying the object of desire is indeed multiplied rather than divided.

In the last instance collaborations are driven by the desire to create difference and refuse the absolutistic power of organization. Collaboration entails overcoming scarcity and inequality andstruggling for the freedom to produce. It carries an immense social potential, as it is a form of realisation and experience of the unlimited creativity of a multiplicity of all productive practices.

nomanden reading group 5.3

nomanden — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:51:16 GMT

NOMANDEN READING GROUP

m1 semperdepot, 16h, weds 28th march

The next reading group meeting for Jacques Ranciere's 'The Ignorant Schoolmaster - 5 Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation' will take place on Wednesday 28th at 16h in m1 semperdepot. We will be reading through and discussing chapter 3 'Reason Between Equals', which has a very interesting section directly in relation to art practice and to art education.

"...it's not a matter of making great painters; it's a matter of making the emancipated: people capable of saying, "me too, I'm a painter," a statement that contains nothing in the way of pride, only the reasonable feeling of power that belongs to any reasonable being. "There is no pride in saying out loud: Me too I'm a painter! Pride consists in saying softly to others: You neither, you aren't a painter." "Me too I'm a painter" means me too, I have a soul, I have feelings to communicate to my fellow-men."

"Intelligence is not a power of understanding based on comparing knowledge with its object. It is the power to make oneself understood through another's verification. And only an equal understands an equal. Equality and Intelligence are synonymous terms, exactly like reason and will... The equality of intelligence is the common bond of human-kind, the necessary and sufficient condition for a society of humans to exist."

hope to see you there!

nomanden

nomanden reading group 5.2

nomanden — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:48:30 GMT

nomanden reads: ranciére`s ignorant schoolmaster

tag — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:49:27 GMT

inspired by theory that walks from beograd we also want to read and reflect upon rancieré`s book about education and equality which highlights the work of french revolution contemporary Joseph Jacotot , "an exiled French schoolteacher who discovered in 1818 an unconventional teaching method that spread panic throughout the learned community of Europe."...

quote from page 6:

"...only now does this child who learned to speak through his own intelligence and through instructors who did not explain language to him - only now does his instruction, properly speaking, begin. Now everything happens as though he could no longer learn with the aid of the same intelligence he has used up until now, as though the autonomous relationship between apprenticeship and verification were, from this point on, alien to him."

copys of the text are in the nomanden archive right in the shelf left of the entry.

see you on the 28th!yours, nomanden

Nomanden Reading Group 5.1

kevingular — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:58:23 GMT

The main reading for the coming meetings will be 'The Ignorant Schoolmaster' by Jacques Ranciere. It is available in english and french but we're not sure about a german translation. First meeting is Feb 6th, 3pm in Cafe Weidinger, where we will bring photocopies of the english version. So see you there, best the nomanden

ps - Café Weidinger, Lerchenfelder Gürtel 1, 1060, Wien (U6 Burggasse Stadthalle - opposite Lugner City shopping centre)

Nomanden Reading Group no. 4

nomanden — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:22:27 GMT

Dear AllYou can find the text for the next nomanden reading group - 'Immaterial Civil War' by Matteo Pasquinelli here: www.flexmens.org

The proposed day for meeting to discuss this text in the nomanden is Tuesday 9th January, please confirm or repropose in the comments section.This text will also be discussed with the Belgrade Group - Walking Theory as part of the Production of Knowledge project in Die Theater on Saturday the 13th of January.

production of knowledge - nomanden reading group - PAF

nomanden — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:55:23 GMT

TEXTS FOR THE READING GROUP IN PAF

theory1(application/vnd.ms-word, 60 KB)Theory, Police and Disagreement

petres1(application/vnd.ms-word, 17 KB)Société Anonyme

beatrice von bismarck - academy effects(application/pdf, 139 KB)

simon sheikh - the artist as public intellectual(application/pdf, 131 KB)

for other related texts and links goto t4.antville.org

del.icio.us - how to

nomanden — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:51:28 GMT

all texts/links that have been encountered should be here if you would like to add anything please post it. the whole idea is of course that everybody publishes more and more relevant links as we go along with the project.

Place: del.icio.usLogin: openknowledgePassword: turm4

if you would like to post something please do the following:

Copy the URL (internet address) you want to share.
Go to: del.icio.us, press [login] (top right corner) and login using the above data.
Press [post] in top left navigation.
Paste the URL and hit [save]
Then add your description (the title for the post), comments and tags.
Hit [save], and your URL is published and thus shared!

You can always go back and edit or delete any post at a later time if needed.

REGARDING TAGS:Tags are separated by 'space', so if you want to create a single multiple-word tag (such as “fucking hell” or “Michael Häupl”), please use [.] or [_] or [–] or a capital letter as separator.You can use tags from both 'our' existing tag collection, other del.icio.us users' popular tags - if any - for the same bookmark AND make totally new tags, perhaps including your name (if you want other people from the group to browse in the collection by your name, that is).

BROWSING the del.icio.us/openknowledge bookmarks:The tolles thing about using these tags is, that people can browse the posts by pressing the tags on the right side of the main del.icio.us page. So please use them with that in mind.

A more easy way of adding bookmarks to del.icio.us is to use a Button in your browser's Bookmark Toolbar or use the del.icio.us Firefox Extension. More info and explanation of terms at: del.icio.us

Any Q's? Just post as a comment!

This is only a tool to share links. Nothing more. Other means of communication (mails, meetings, blog etc.) is of course still of utmost importance!

production of knowledge - related texts/links

nomanden — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 00:09:24 GMT

TEXT FROM EDU-FACTORY MAILING LISTposted by Andrew Ross, from New York University

the rise of the global university(application/msword, 66 KB)

TEXTS FOR SUMMIT CONFERENCE IN BERLIN - may 24th-28th, 2007

9 texts can be found on the summit homepage - summit.kein.org(I just realised aswell that the texts get archived so if its not on the front page there are more texts when you click on 'recent posts' under the 'navigation' subheading)
here is a text from Florian Schneider (this version is unfinished according to the author) one of the co-organisers of the Summit Conference.collaboration - seven notes on new ways of learning and working together(application/msword, 82 KB)

TEXTS FOR READING GROUP IN PAF

theory1(application/vnd.ms-word, 60 KB)Theory, Police and Disagreement

petres1(application/vnd.ms-word, 17 KB)Société Anonyme

beatrice von bismarck - academy effects(application/pdf, 139 KB)

simon sheikh - the artist as public intellectual(application/pdf, 131 KB)

spaces for thinking - simon sheikh(application/msword, 76 KB)

spaces for thinking - simon sheikh - german version(application/msword, 80 KB)

leading out and drawing forth - notes for an art school by martin beck and julie ault(application/pdf, 113 KB)

europe as a relationship does not exist(application/msword, 48 KB)by marina grzinic

art & education: virtual conferencewww.artedu.ru

TEXTS GIVEN BY EVA EGERMANN - including a student resolution from 2003, and texts about university law, ÖH, economization...studierendenresolution2(application/rtf, 29 KB)

kunstunis im umbruch(application/rtf, 12 KB)

kleines abc des bildungspolitis(application/rtf, 14 KB)

gesetzestext(application/rtf, 15 KB)

gesetz_ug2002(application/pdf, 461 KB)

CONTENTS OF THE NOMANDEN BUS TRAVELLING LIBRARY:

'Selbst erzählen statt erzählt zu werden' + 'Writing Black Austrian History - remapping Austria' - by the Research Group on Black Austrian History writing black austrian history(application/msword, 50 KB)
'Can Post-Studio Art School Function as a Place of Resistance in an Immaterial Economy?' - Kirsten Forkert (not online but if anyone would like a copy just ask kevin)
Excerpts from 'New Key Words' respectively; Knowledge, Power, and Information (not online but a recommended read)
'W...wir wissen' Reader manoafreeuniversity.org

OTHER RELATED TEXTS

'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' Paolo Freire (Chapters 1-3, 1 copy)www.infed.org www.marxists.org
'The return of the future' Anibal Quijano, www.copenhagenfreeuniversity.dk
'New Forms of Production and Circulation of Knowledge' Maurizio Lazzarato, Knowledge www.nettime.org

Brett Neilson & Angela Mitropoulos - Polemos Universitas www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au

Letter from Andrea Fraser: www.societyofcontrol.com
John Miller: The Pedagogical Model www.societyofcontrol.com
Bologna Process: Official: ec.europa.eu en.wikipedia.org

AUDIO: Proposal for establishment of Free UniversityFree Speech Movement Rally, Berkeley Jan 1965 - Mario Savio and other speakerswww.copenhagenfreeuniversity.dk

KOSOVO: texts from a berlin-based group of architects and city planners, specialized in sustainable development with work about the status quo of city development in prishtina (and a little: kosovo)www.p4berlin.de www.p4berlin.de

nomanden reading group - How do we want to be educated?

nomanden — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:53:57 GMT

Dear Everyone

Wednesday 6th December at 18h the nomanden reading group will be meeting in M1, 1st floor, Semperdepot in the nomanden archive, at the end of the computer desks.

To discuss:

leading out and drawing forth - notes for an art school by martin beck and julie ault(application/pdf, 113 KB)
The Bologna and Sorbonne Declarations

www.bologna-bergen2005.no (under 'main documents')

We would like to begin a process of understanding the new (and old) changes in university structures, in relation to the Bologna and Sorbonne declarations. We would also like to know whether and how they are actually involved in a commodification of education (knowledge as a product), and how we can challenge an economization of the Academy. We would like to understand these processes in relation to what we perceive as a creeping neoliberalism in education. We will reflect upon these questions by discussing the situation in UK universities, where some of the Bologna Process recommendations have already been in place for some time, and where the only path of resistance to particular changes was a students+teachers strike, and also the recent history and power structure(s) of the Academy at present.

Please send ideas for crucial reading material, or personal perspectives on these issues, to nomanden_at_gmail.com.If you are unable to attend but would like to join the discussion please do so via mail.

See you on Wednesday

kevin and lukas

ps. fruits and tea will be provided

nomanden reading group

kevingular — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:37:16 GMT

Podiumsdiskussion: Kunst und Wirtschaft - wer macht die Kunst; DEPOT.

pezzo — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:33:54 GMT

Ein Gespenst geht um, es ist die Kunstmaklerin, sie hilft dem Dreamteam Wirtschaft und Kunst zu verschmelzen. Der Virus hat auch Professoren und Kunsthochschulen, Universitäten und Akademien infiziert; Rektoren und Kuratoren schon immer.Schon in der Ankündigung hieß es, dass jene spezialisierten Netzwerker versuchen das Verhältnis zwischen Wirtschaft und Kunst zu optimieren, um den Austausch von Kapital möglichst reibungslos zu gestalten.Diese anmaßende Ankündigung trieb uns schon im Vorhinein zu Ideen, wie wir uns verhalten werden, wenn dieses oder jenes - passiert. Eigentlich wollten wir rausfliegen.Wir bereiteten uns dann aber nicht bestimmt vor, auch nicht auf Debatten - wir bewaffneten uns nicht mit Wissen. Wir wollten wissen was diese Leute verbreiten.Am besagten Tag der Podiumsdiskussion trafen wir per Telefon die Abmachung; wann, wo und was? 15 Minuten vor Beginn bei der Podiumsdiskussion, Klaus nimmt Kleingeld mit.Das war´s.Sieben Uhr, Klaus ist nicht hier; ich setze mich alleine in eine der hinteren Reihen, wo ich fast alle Leute sehen kann. Als die Vertreterin des DEPOT´s die Veranstaltung eröffnet, bin ich noch immer alleine. Ich denke, dass ich keine Aktion mache mit den mitgebrachten Dosen, die ich zuvor aus dem Müll herauskramte. Der Raum ist schon fast voll, neben mir sitzt ein Typ mit einem Buch namens, Die Abschaffung der Mittelschicht - nie gehört, aber hat was. Er liest darin und manchmal hört er zu.Ich war schon zehn Minuten vorher hier und hatte noch mein Glas Leitungswasser neben mir. Ich trinke es aus, da kommt Klaus soeben herein. Er will mir die Hand reichen als würde er mir die Hand schütteln wollen, aber er wollte mir nur leise die Münzen in die Hand drücken.Die Moderatorin hat die Einleitung hinter ihr; Klaus hat nichts versäumt, außer die Begrüßung des Podiums, die Wiederholung der Ankündigung und noch ein paar andere Höflichkeiten. Wie immer.Es ging zwar um das Dremteam Wirtschaft und Kunst, aber es schien eher als wären die Vertreterinnen der Künstler, - also Christina Haupt-Stummer, von section.a und Brigitte Kössner, von der Initiative Wirtschaft und Kunst - und die Moderatorin das Dreamteam; nicht nur des Abends, sondern auch allgemein. Kunstmaklerinnen und Journalisten könnte ich mir zumindest besser als Dreamteam vorstellen, aber gut. Die Kunstmaklerinnen wollten vorerst nicht von Kultur sprechen.Nach einer Weile war mir schon fast übel von dem Gesülze, wie schön Kunst und Wirtschaft nicht funktioniert. Ich ließ meine ersten Groschen fallen, direkt in mein leeres Glas Wasser, aber das Schönreden der Podiumsgäste hörte nicht auf. Wie immer.Klaus beginnt in der ersten Reihe einige Münzen auf den Boden zu werfen. Das Publikum findet die Sache wohl amüsant und bleibt gespannt sitzen. Wie immer.Das Gesülze am Podium hat kein Ende. Die Moderatorin stellt eine belanglose Frage nach der anderen. Schon etwas peinlich, reden sie weiter als ob nichts passiert wäre. Sie fühlen sich nicht gestört. Wie immer.Abwechselnd lassen wir unsere Münzen fallen. Da war es dann zuviel und das Podium wandte sich an uns. Schließlich fand es das Publikum so unterhaltsam, dass ihr Gesülze im Gelächter unterging. Wir sagen nichts. Schließlich wurde ja am Beginn der Podiumsdiskussion ausdrücklich gesagt, dass eine Diskussion erst später stattfindet. Was wollen sie also dachte ich mir. Sie versuchten wieder weiterzureden, als ob nichts geschehen wäre. Wie immer.Die Moderatorin vom Standard wendet sich zu ihrer Rechten, an den auch am Podium sitzenden Soziologen Ulf Wuggenig: „Wie würden sie den Kunstmarkt analysieren?“ Jener zieht einen Vergleich, der nicht weniger treffend hätte formuliert werden können. Mit seiner gelassenen Stimme meinte er: „Mit der Kunst verhält es sich ähnlich, wie mit dem Sport. Der Erfolg der Wenigen, ist die Hoffnung der Vielen.“Da hat er der Moderatorin, aber auch den anderen Podiumsgästen einen gehörigen Schlag verpasst - so wirkte es zumindest. Die Moderatorin richtet das Wort an Haupt-Stummer: „Wie verteilen sie ihre Sponsorgelder an ihre Künstler?“„Wir stimmen basis-demokratisch ab, wir verteilen sie nach Interessen und Bedürfnissen.“, antwortete sie mit einem Lächeln im Gesicht, als ob sie sagen will wie politisch korrekt sie nicht ist.Eine Stimme aus dem Publikum: „Nach welchen Interessen und Bedürfnissen?“„Nach unseren und der der Künstler.“Ich wusste nicht wovon sie sprach, jedenfalls dachte ich mir, dass ich es nicht wissen will. Und wenn sie über sich selbst spricht dann sollte es womöglich ein Witz sein; Demokratiebewusstsein predigen und gleichzeitig auf dem Podium sitzen - schöne Worte.Die Rederei des Podiums hat kein Ende. Wieder irgendwelche selbst verherrlichende Scheisse; Statistiken über erfolgreiche Projekte ihrer Künstler. Wie immer.Ihre Illusionen die sie uns weiß machen wollen, fast wie Sektenführer in Gruppenworkshops; strahlendes Gesicht, gestylte Menschen, schöne Sprache, überzeugt und selbstbewusst; und die ganze Zeit das typische Frage-Antwort Spiel mit der Moderatorin.„Uah, Uah, Uah, Uah, Uah; - Uahh, Uahh, Uahhh, …“, beginne ich zu verlautbaren, wobei ich mein Glas mit Münzen in die Hände nehme und kräftig schüttle. Ich wurde lauter und lauter meine Wut entfaltete sich in den geschrieenen Satzfetzen: „Ihr seid doch alle nur Betrüger! Das ist offizielle Korruption! Kunst zu vermarkten ist Betrug! Kunst ist Betrug! - Korruption!“Als ich mich wieder setzte fragt die Moderatorin, ob ich nun fertig sei mit der Performance. Ich bleib still. Als sie fortfährt schrei ich wieder irgendwelche Laute, - ich hab Spaß daran gefunden. Sie fühlen sich etwas verarscht, aber wollen die Diskussion normal weiterführen. Wie immer.Langsam kommen Fragen aus dem Publikum an die Podiumsteilnehmer. Es kommt zu Grundsatzdiskussionen über Kunst und Kunstmarkt und geht über in ein Gejammer von bildenden Künstlern, die sich über zu hohe Subventionen für Theater und Opernhäuser, den gemeine Staat, die gierigen Sponsoren, die knauserigen Hochschulen und Universitäten und so weiter rechtgeben. Eine ganze Palette Sulz, die sie sich als wohlgemerkte Kritik am Kunstmarkt um ihre verklebten Mäuler schmierten. So wie immer.Ich kann es kaum fassen, es hat nichts gebracht. Fast nichts, außer einem heiteren Selbsthilfegruppentherapiegespräch bildender Künstler. Klaus meinte noch: „Ihr seid doch alles nur Hofnarren, und macht den Hof zur Narrenkultur!“ Aber eigentlich machten wir den Hof für die Narren.Dann gingen wir nach Hause. Und so laufen wir heute noch unseren Illusionen und unserer Berufung nach.

Franz Hofmacher, Feb. 2006

Virus unterwegs: Lass´ dich nicht anstecken!

pezzo — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:17:53 GMT

Auferstanden aus dem Dreamteam Wirtschaft und Kunst klettert ein Virus durch alle Mauerritzen, großer und kleiner Kulturinstitutionen und breitet sich in der Kultur aus. Es gibt kaum immune Subjekte, die nicht verschont bleiben.Aus einem Gespräch mit dem Soziologen Ulf Wuggenig geht hervor, dass es sich um eine geistige, oder eine vom Geiste kommende Krankheit handle, sozusagen um eine krankhafte Illusion. Die Erkrankten leiden kaum unter körperlichen oder außerpsychischen Beschwerden. Das wichtigste für einen Erkrankten ist, dass er vernetzt bleibt und am Dreamteam festhält.Der Ursprung der Krankheit wird im 19. Jahrhundert geschätzt, jedoch gab es viele ähnliche Krankheiten oder Viren schon im Mittelalter. Die Hofnarren und die Könige bildeten einst ein mächtiges Dreamteam. Der König bezahlt den Hofnarren dafür dass er sich lustig über ihn macht. Diese Schizophrenie ist auch bei jenem Virus zu erkennen.Auf Dauer können unbequeme Symptombilder entstehen, die sich maßgeblich in Verhaltensmustern und Denkprozessen ausbreiten. Die Auswüchse der Symptome verhalten sich ähnlich mit der Kokainsucht – einmal gekostet; kann man nicht mehr loslassen.Psychotherapeuten raten einfach zu Hause zu bleiben, wenn eine erhöhte Einbildungsfähigkeit gegeben ist. Unsicher ist nämlich die Art der Ansteckung, denn obwohl der Virus erst jüngst entdeckt wurde, treten jetzt vermehrt solche Krankheitsfälle auf. Das Seltsame ist, dass diese nicht direkt Kontakt miteinander hatten, bzw. erscheint es sich nur dort zu verbreiten, wo Menschen vernetzt sind.Zum Teil werden diese auch „spezialisierte Netzwerker“ benannt, wie zum Beispiel vom DEPOT, bei einer Podiumsdiskussion. Pessimisten nennen sie Makler, und befürchten, dass sich nun die Krankheit auch in die Kunsthochschulen, Akademien und Universitäten einschleicht.Von ungewisser Stelle wird gesagt, dass die ökonomische und kulturelle Unsicherheit der Auslöser der Krankheit sei. Gewiss gibt es auch andere Ungleichheiten. Historisch betrachtet, könnte dieser Virus schon länger bestanden haben – was nicht heißt, dass er nicht am Ausbrechen war, sondern am entwickeln.Das Dreamteam Wirtschaft und Kunst beeinflusste sich gegenseitig; sozusagen, machte nicht nur der Virus die Krankheit, sondern auch die Krankheit den Virus. Es ist festzustellen, dass dies eine noch nicht so alte Tendenz ist die erst aus den 80ern stammt. Seit dem die Initiative Wirtschaft und Kunst besteht, die beiden Partner schweißten sich so eng zusammen, dass man meint sie führen eine Partnerschaftsbeziehung. Diese Wärme der Nähe lässt den Virus natürlich wohl ausbrüten. Ihre Kinder, zum Beispiel Brigitte Kössner oder Christina Haupt-Stummer, beide Kunstmaklerinnen und deren Cousins die Kulturjournalisten und Kuratoren sind augenscheinlich die meist betroffenen Personengruppen. Es gibt aber auch andere Personen die es unmittelbar betreffen kann. Vor allem überträgt sich dieser Virus ganz schnell auf Künstler und auch Kunststudenten, die durch ihre Professoren an den Akademien angesteckt werden.„Idioten bleiben Idioten, nur, wer Beine hat kann selber laufen.“, sagte ein Hofnarr des 18.Jahrhunderts, der sich schließlich seinen König absetzte.

Autnomie in der Gallerie? Anarchie auf der Akademie? - org. mail service(oms)

pezzo — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:49:17 GMT

An: Angelika Fitz

Betreff: Gastvortrag LUGOMARE

Guten Tag Frau Angelika Fitz,

Durch die kurzgehaltene Ankündigung von Ihrem Gastvortrag und durch meineUnmöglichkeit an der Veranstaltung teilzunehmen habe ich folgende Fragen anSie:

Sie schreiben, "...LUGOMARE ist ein Interaktionsraum verschiedenerDisziplinen - Raum für die KOMMUNIKATION und den Entwurf."
... in dem Sie die Übersetzungsarbeit als Kuratorin
leisten und die zentrale Funktion der transparenten Kommunikationhaben.

Es scheint der Raum durch seinen Entwurf sehr irrational
strukturiert. Ob dieses Chaos der KOMMUNIKATION von den Kuratoren
geordnet werden kann scheint mir schwierig. Ich stelle mir die weitereFrage, ob es nicht auch gefährlich ist, solche autonome Strukturen in einenAusstellungsraum zu übertragen? Gibt es dann überhaupt noch einen Rahmen? -bzw. Rahmenbedingungen?

Was heisst "Erweiterte Ausstellungsbegriffe unterstützen diesenAnsatz ¬ sie arbeiten mit." im Bezug auf die Ereigniskette, dieSie designed kommunizieren? Laufen Sie nicht Gefahr, dass dieseBegriffe von "Autonomen" angeeignet werden?

Fraglich ist mir auch, inwieweit autonom und gemeinsam Aufträgeerteilt werden können und wie "eingeschworen" die Kulturschaffenden seinmüssen um nicht im Chaos zu versinken, bzw. inwieweit es Ihnen(und denanderen Kuratoren) möglich ist dieses Chaos zu übersetzten?

Eine letzte Sache fasziniert mich, und zwar: Was ist
AUTONOM-GEMEINSAME AUFTRAGSARBEIT für Sie? - Wie autonom sind diesegemeinsamen Aufräge?

Ich hoffe Sie finden Zeit mir einige dieser Fragen zu
beantworten und Danke für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit.

Hochachtungsvoll
Peter Haselmayer

--- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
Von: Katharina Koch K.Koch@akbild.ac.at
An: Peter Haselmayer anti-repressiva@gmx.net
Betreff: gastvortrag LUNGOMARE und ANGELIKA FITZ, 12.12.
Datum: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:35:45 +0100
IM RAHMEN VON
DER KONSTRUIERTE PLAN:
Montag, 12. 12. 05, 13h
Projektraum Kurzbauergasse
1020 Wien
WERK-RAUM LUNGOMARE (Bozen)
Dieser Raum ist nicht einer - es sind viele: Schauraum und
Werkraum,
Galerie und
Studio.
Ein Interaktionsraum verschiedener Disziplinen - Raum für die
Kommunikation und
den Entwurf.
Montag, 12.12.05, 17h
Turm 1, Schillerplatz 3
1010 Wien
ANGELIKA FITZ (Wien) - Die arbeitende Ausstellung
Prozessuale Ausstellungspraktiken haben in den letzten Jahren
ausgehend
vom
Kunstbereich auch die Architektur erreicht. Die Ausstellung
wird zur
Ereigniskette, in der ich meine Arbeit als Kuratorin zentral
als
Übersetzungsleistung sehe. Erweiterte Ausstellungsbegriffe
unterstützen
diesen Ansatz ¬ sie arbeiten mit.
Lungomare:
Der Werkraum Lungomare vereint Gestaltungsprozesse, die von der
Realität
ausgehen -
inspiriert von sozialen und kulturellen Entwicklungen, und vom
alltäglichen
Leben. Gestaltung wird dabei als Entwicklungskonzept begriffen,
als Dialog
mit
unserer Umwelt, und arbeitet mit der Konfrontation, der
Spontaneität und
dem
Experiment.
Lungomare wird von einer Gestaltungsgruppe, die in den
Bereichen Produkt-
und
Kommunikationsdesign, Architektur und Film arbeiten, geleitet.
Die
einzelnen
Studios arbeiten autonom und gemeinsam an Auftragsarbeiten, und
bespielen
in
Form von Ausstellungen und Events den ?Schauraum" Lungomare und
laden
dafür
Gestalter aus unterschiedlichen Disziplinen zu einer gemeinsam
?Kommunikation"
ein.
Angelika Burtscher, Manuela Demattio, Daniele Lupo, drei
Vetreter der
Arbeitsgruppe Lungomare.
Angelika Fitz:
Angelika Fitz ist Kuratorin und Kulturtheoretikerin; zuletzt
u.a. die
Ausstellungen Ornament und Display und Reserve der Form; 2003
und 2005
Kuratorin für den österreichischen Beitrag zur
Architekturbiennale Sao
Paulo; Co-Kuratorin der Projektreihe Import Export in Bombay,
Wien,
Berlin.
DER KONSTRUIERTE PLAN
ist Kooperationsprojekt von Prof. Monica Bonvicini, Isa
Rosenberger und
Sofie
Thorsen/Klasse Performative Kunst - Bildhauerei, Studio Eyal
Weizman/Bernd
Vlay, Heidi Pretterhofer/Städtebau und Andreas Spiegl/Kunst und
Kulturwissenschaft

Alexander Brener & Barbara Schurz

kevingular — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:58:02 GMT

Hi Viennese art-people, how do you do?!

Actually, there is only one point, which we want to raise in this letter.The production of art is - since the beginning of Modern art - directly linked to the production of new social and human relations. The most appropriate term for these relations is emancipative. They are based on the historical tradition and on the practice of individual and collective self-realization. That means that these relations are open, transparent, un-alienated, non-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian. These relations must be in opposition to any mythology which would have us believe that only the coming of a "great day of freedom" can generate a new form of more just and direct communication. No, this day doesn't exist! We have to build new human relations here and now, in everyday practice with all our desire, rage and joy.So art, which at the moment is for the most part only an ideology of art, must be a complex and intensive liberating practice, engendered in the construction of those radical-democratic relations. Neither populist nor anti-science, neither anti-emotional nor anti-intellect - these all being characteristics of elitist and mass culture - this emancipatory culture must be forged from the contribution of multiple groups in struggle, in which economic resistance, the questioning of various forms of authority, artistic activities and everyday life all intersect. Very good. This old dream of free culture bears witness: under the crust of words and concepts, the living reality of non-adaptation to the world of oppression is always crouched ready to spring.But what about you, Viennese art world? How are you related to this idea of culture as a gift and struggle? Frankly, we think that you, Viennese art people, are very far from this theoretical and practical egalitarian project. It seems, that you can't imagine anything besides the what-is: that is a normalized institutional prefabricated and controlled market routine. Obviously your functioning allows several ideologies, several opinions, several morals. Of course all these (more or less liberal, more or less conservative) ideologies seem to forbid dogmatism and are opposed to repressive order. Very good again. However, you dogmatize and repress in your own very restrictive way. The list of excepted opinions is short. Your ideologies allow several morals, but demand one morality. This is the morality of conformism, obedience and consensus. In the end this is the morality of confusionism, boredom, fatigue, indifference and humiliation.... Your ideologies accept several artistic factions but demand one law: the law of normalization, of smooth functioning. And this law is just the order of police and bureaucracy. In both pop- and academic forms you tend to institutionalize accepted positions, advocated by economic and intellectual authorities. Because of this you prefer the views and values admitted by the political, financial and cultural establishment. You guarantee frictionless fulfillment of expectations of different power divisions: mass-media, tourism, culture, urbanism, advertising, business....Has this anything to do with the concept of culture as a gift? Has this anything to do with liberation?Not at all.This is why we don't trust you and do not respect you. This is why we chose to challenge you and oppose you directly. This is why we can't accept your representations and investments. We think that only a direct critique and undressing of your falseness, just the destruction of your consensus, just fury and laughter in face of your hypocrisy can contribute to the construction of a new culture of self-realization and participation. For sure at the same time positive forces should not be left out: true passion, solidarity, poetry in every action....There are no limits to creativity. There is no end to subversion.... But you have little in common with it.Therefore we have just one message for you:Mind your misery! Face your cowardice! Look at your unconsciousness!

Alexander Brener, Barbara Schurz2003, December

Hopefully a political feeling.

evae — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:18:47 GMT

Political networking, autonomous feminist spaces – a Interview with Emma Hedditch.

Emma Hedditch is an artist living in London. Her work activates a commitment to feminist politics, democratic media and a genuinely collaborative and collective practice. Emma will be in Vienna during one week from 4th to 10th October, organising a workshop with the title „ The context is the content, let's meet there!“

You founded the independent video distribution network “and I will do (anything to get girls into my bedroom)“, to which you invite „any women who has ever made a video, whether it is an artist, or something she does for her job, as a mother, any women” to contribute to it. How did it start? What is the background and idea behind this project and how does it work?

When I was 21 I came to work at Cinenova, a women’s film and video distribution library in London. I was working as a volunteer. One day I noticed a poster on the noticeboard for „Big Miss Moviola“ which was a video distribution project run by Miranda July at the time. I wrote to Miranda and asked if I could contribute and if she could send a tape. She did, and we started corresponding. It wasn’t until years later when I met Miranda, in 2000 I think that it occurred to me that I could start something here in Europe as a sister project. Miranda and I discussed it and so I started „And I will do“. I had also been running a smaller exhibition type project in my bedroom in my flat at the time, and would invite women to make work there each month, but when I moved out that turned into the video project, something more temporary and mobile.The idea of the project was to get 10 women to send tapes with a video on that they want to share with 9 other women and put those videos on one tape and send it to the 10 women.

You have been engaged in a lot of different collective projects like „Women in black“, an international women´s peace group or the „Lambeth Women's projec“t, a centre for women of all ages. Once a month you organise a sewing circle in a cafe together with friends. What is happening at the sewing circle and what is the idea behind the approach of establishing this meeting places?

I like many women joined some WIB vigils in protest against sanctions in Iraq and during the attacks made by our countries on Afghanistan in 2001. Prior to that I knew some of the women from a teach-in organised around Feminist anti-militarism, broadly speaking. Many of the women were at Greenham common in the 1980’s and I have always admired these women. Some of the women from the group started to attend some of the projects I was involved in, there is a slow cross fertilisation, these things take time.The Lambeth Women’s project is an autonomous women’s centre that I became involved with about 6 years ago, it is a 3 storey house, between Stockwell and Brixton in south London. A committee runs the building. Several women’s groups use it, for meetings and as offices, some refugee groups. Young women meet on Tuesday evenings for DJ workshops and music classes, and there are some health and fitness projects. I help with computer stuff and try to help with administration. I started the Sewing Circle with two friends Mystique and Nuaego, we all live in the same area, Brixton, and wanted to make a women only event in the café of the local cinema, so we did. We called it the Sewing Circle, because this name has historically been given to meetings of groups of women under the guise of sewing, when they are actually meeting for more subversive aims.I have been interested in how women only groups operate, and how they are structurally, and how to question their visibility and representing these situations. Places like the Sewing circle brought together a lot of different women, different generations etc, and it was quite social, we listened to music and watched filmsAnd there was a certain amount of knitting and sewing going on.

Your work is providing infrastructure and space for research, distribution and discussion of feminist political ideas but also “enacting ideas of feminist politics, exploring records and traces of it`s presence within a local community.” What are you interested to find/ trace and to work on in Vienna?

I hope we can actualise and reflect on the process of actualising some exchanges between institutions in the city and individuals who are part of those institutions and those who are not or don’t feel part, or don’t want to be part. So it is not in the outcome but in the process of exploring what this field is, what are the different strategies that are taking place, and what strategies we can use to open out some of the more rigid forms, and behaviours.

You just recently organised „A political feeling, I hope so“, a „social situation“ which took place at Cubitt Gallery in London. For three days the gallery became a feminist autonomous place in your own terms. Why is it important to you to invent these autonomous spaces?

I am part of a large network of people who try to make projects, whether it be music, or visual arts, theoretical investigations, political activism, structuring home life and raising a family, film and video making, health issues etc. There is often the question of space and finding somewhere to meet and discuss, put on events, have information etc. I know at least 3 autonomous centres in London, but for a city this size there is always room for more. I tried to actualise this imagined place, it was not really established, but for 3 days it did function, and within the small gallery we held meetings, screenings, played live music and exchanged information. It was important within an art context to pluralise the idea of production, and show that so much is already happening, and just with the people I know, I found that we could bring material and ideas together in a radical way. There was very little reflection of theory, but there was some references to Hannah Arendt and her questions about ‘action’.

Imagine a utopian space from the scratch, a space with its own structure and internal principles of arrangement and order in favour of disorder in society, a heterotopia as a real utopian space in society. How would it look like?

I don’t want to imagine it, I refuse, since I don’t believe in things from scratch that feels like I would have to obliterate what exists already and how can one conceive of obliteration. I believe in working with what is here, in and with all the shit.

Interview: Eva Egermann

Interventionistische Kunst gegen die Maschine des Vergessens! Interview mit der Argentinischen KünstlerInnengruppe Etcetera

eva_e — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:43:31 GMT

Seit 1998 arbeitet die interventionistische KünstlerInnengruppe Etcétera aus Santiago de Chile und Buenos Aires an Performances und Aktionen zu den sozialen und politischen Konflikten in Argentinien. Ihre Arbeiten sind anläßlich der Ausstellung -There must be an Alternative! noch bis zum 28. November im Forum Stadtpark Graz zu sehen.

Wie beschreibt Ihr Eure Praxis im Kontext der sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Krise in Argentinien?

Am Ende des vergangenen Jahrhunderts gab es in Argentinien eine extreme Korruption und rapide anwachsende Armut. In dieser Zeit veränderte sich die Rolle des Staates, der immer weniger in ökonomische und soziale Belange intervenierte. Staatliche Unternehmen wurden privatisiert, Arbeitsstandards flexibilisiert und die Arbeitsbedingungen wurden entsprechend immer härter. Tausende ArbeiterInnen wurden arbeitslos. Die Regierung von Staatspräsident Carlos Menem folgte strikt den ökonomischen Rezepten, die von internationalen Wirschaftsorganisationen diktiert wurden, so wie in den meisten lateinamerikanischen Ländern. Ein ökonomisch - politisches Projekt, welches seinen Ursprung in der Militärdiktatur der 70er Jahre hatte, wurde umgesetzt: ein Projekt das die -Bedeutungs Lösch Maschine einführte. Mittels dieses Vehikels wurden alle sozialen Bedürfnisse und menschlichen Werte durch den stupiden Antrieb nach Kapital-Akkumulation und Konkurrenz, Spekulation und Konsum ersetzt. Alle Beziehungen wurden zu einfachen Wiederholungen eines kommerziellen Verhaltens.Gleichzeitig wurden im Kulturbereich Regeln der Repräsentation geschaffen, die seither verwendet werden um diesen sozialen Wandel darzustellen. Diese ästhetischen Codes basierten auf einer trügerischen Wahrnehmung: Dem angebliche Nutzen des neoliberalen Systems. Die gut gemachte Falle bestand darin, alle künstlerischen Ausdrücke in ein -globales Produkt umzuwandeln und somit Kunst zum Komplizen von Konsum zu machen, welcher von den ideologischen Zentren der Macht benutzt und bedient wird. Ein System der Beziehungen, welches auf die Schaffung einer Industrie, eines globalen Markts der -Kulturprodukte abzielt, in dem die Bedeutung und die kritische Rolle der Kunst abgeschafft wird. Ein System in dem die Individualisierung zu Ihrem Höhepunkt gelangt und Kompromißlosigkeit und Depolitisierung gefördert werden.Nach der Revolte in Argentinien im Dezember 2001 wuchs der Widerstand an. Straßenblockaden und Stadtteilversammlungen, besetzte Fabriken und geplünderte Supermärkte bestimmten die Szenerie und gängige Formen der politischen Repräsentation wurden radikal in Frage gestellt. Verschiedene soziale Gruppen waren von der Krise betroffen und protestierten. Leute, die ihre Ersparnisse verloren hatten, organisierten Demonstrationen gegen Banken. Beamte rebellierten gegen das Rathaus. Es gab entwickelten sich derart viele neue Protestformen der Widerstandsbewegung.In den Etcetera -Arbeitsweisen werden nun Dichtung, Theater und Bildende Kunst mit politischen Zutaten vermischt. Die Aktionen in den Straßen, Protest und Demonstrationen sind unsere Spezialität, da sie uns auf verschiedenen Weisen ermöglichen, mit den Leuten direkt in Kontakt zu treten. Es ist interessant Kunst in solchen öffentlichen Räumen zu machen, da diese sofort aufgenommen wird. Ein weiterer wichtiger Faktor bei unserer Arbeit ist der Überraschungseffekt und das Absurde.

Während einer Parlamentsdebatte im Dezember 2001 habt ihr eine öffentliche Toilette vor dem Parlament in Buenos Aires aufgebaut. Hunderte Menschen nützten die Gelegenheit um unter Benutzung dieser Toilette das Parlamentsgebäude mit ihren Exkrementen in kleine Plastiksäckchen verpackt zu beschießen. In eurem Dokumentationsvideo zu der Aktion hört man eine Frau sagen: -Sie behandeln uns wie Scheiße! Worauf bezieht sie sich mit dieser Aussage?

Wenn Sie das sagt, bezieht sie sich auf alle möglichen Ereignisse und Verbrechen. Zum Beispiel darauf, daß die Immobilienfirmen und Banken damals das gesamte Geld der Bevölkerung einbehielten, um die ökonomische Verhältnisse umzudrehen und auf deren Rücken Währungspolitik zu betreiben. Oder etwa auf die Straffreiheit für Verbrechen des Militärregimes oder darauf, daß die argentinische Regierung alle staatlichen Unternehmen an multinationale private Konzerne aus den USA oder Europa verkaufte oder darauf, daß mehr als 50 Kinder an Hunger sterben mussten.Sie behandelten uns also wie Scheiße - im buchstäblichen Sinne.Unsere Aktion - Mierdazo (the big shit) bestand also darin, alle verärgerten Leute dazu aufzufordern, ihre eigene Scheiße, die der Freunde, Verwandten oder Haustiere auf das Parlamentsgebäude abzufeuern. Zur selben Zeit fand drinnen die Parlamentssitzung zum Staatsbudget statt. Im Rahmen der Aktion fanden mehrere spektakuläre Performances statt , die eine breite Berichterstattung in den Medien provozierte. Das Konzept konnte sich also auch auf andere Teile Argentiniens ausweiten. In Mar del Plata beispielsweise wurden Lastwagenladungen voller Exkremente vor den Eingängen von Banken ausgeladen - von der Bevölkerung, die ihre Ersparnisse verloren hatte.

Wie setzt sich Eure Gruppe zusammen? Wie viele seid Ihr und wie gestaltet sich die Kooperation zu anderen widerständigen Gruppen in Argentinien?

Ecetera ist keine geschlossene KünstlerInnengruppe. Wir sehen uns als eine Bewegung von KünstlerInnen. Die Besetzung ändert sich ständig aber es sind Leute aus dem Theater- und Musikbereich ebenso beteiligt wie AutorInnen und bildende KünstlerInnen. Wir arbeiten viel mit anderen Gruppen oder Bewegungen wie den Piqueteros oder auch mit StudentInnen zusammen. Das hängt allerdings stark vom Kontext ab. Wir sind Teil einer neuen Generation in Argentinien. Die Generation der Kinder der verschwundenen Eltern - oder Kinder revolutionärer Ideen. Dazu gehören die Colectivo Situaciones ebenso wie Ecetera, Grupo der Arte Callejero und andere Netzwerke. Wir sind ein Beispiel für eine neue Linke in Argentinien.

Ihr nehmt derzeit an einer Ausstellung teil, die den Titel trägt: -There must be an Alternative Welche Alternativen schlagt ihr vor?

Das ist eine schwierige Frage. Um uns eine andere Welt vorstellen zu können, müssen wir alles verändern. Wir wissen aber, dass es um die -Gesundheit des kapitalistischen Systems schlecht steht. Argentinien funktioniert zum Beispiel wie ein Labor, in dem man sich ein perfektes Bild von den Auswirkungen neoliberaler Politik machen kann, denn mit der Wirtschaftskrise veränderte sich alles. Ecetera schlägt vor, das System kollektiv zu verändern und sich an den verschiedenartigsten Bewegungen und Experimenten zu beteiligen an den Fabriksbesetzungen durch die Arbeiter, den direkten Aktionen der Piqueteros, der Arbeitslosenbewegung, den öffentlichen Nachbarschaftsversammlungen, den geldunabhängigen Tauschökonomien und einer aktivistischen performativen Protest- und Widerstandsbewegung.

Interview und Übersetzung: Eva Egermann

Okwui Enwezor lecture

concept — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:39:00 GMT

Here is Okwui Enwezor's lecture for April forum in Australia.I got it from the friend (don't know how it came out before it is actually delivered at the forum)

Olga Kopenkina

Empires Ruins + Networks: Art in Real Time CultureAustralian Centre for the Moving Image2 -4 april 2004

Friday 2 April - 7pmKeynote:Crisis in Global Capital and The War on cultureSpeaker: Okwui Enwezor

Okwui Enwezor: The Artist as Producer in Times ofCrisis

On April 27, 1934 Walter Benjamin delivered a lectureat the Institute for the Study of Fascism in Paris. Inthe lecture, "The Author as Producer", Benjaminaddressed an important question that, since, has notceased to pose itself, namely to what degree doespolitical awareness in a work of art becomes a toolfor the deracination of the autonomy of the work andthat of the author? Benjamin's second point was tolocate what a radical critical spirit in art could bein a time of such momentous, yet undecided directionin the political consciousness of Europe: between theBolshevik revolution in Russia and the productivistmodel of artistic practice it instantiated and thestorms of repression unleashed by fascism and Nazismin Western Europe. In a sense, Benjamin's lectureaddressed the question of the artist's or writer'scommitment under certain social conditions. This would lead him to ask "What is the attitude of a work to the relations of production of its time?" Georg Lukács posed a similar question in his 1932 essay "Tendency or Partisanship?". The conditions of production of the time was the struggle between capitalism and socialism as the driving force behind modern subjectivity.

It is my intention in this lecture to extend thequestions raised by these two thinkers and apply them to the critical context of contemporary culture today.Ever more so, Benjamin and Lukács are not onlyrelevant, but crucial to understanding a visible turnthat has become increasingly evident in the field ofculture at large, that is the extent to which acertain critical activism in contemporary art hasbecome a way to pose the questions raised seventyyears ago anew through collective practices. My focusis not on activism per se, but on work driven by thespirit of activism that bear direct relationship toBenjamin's and Lukács's essays.

To that end, recent confrontations within the field ofcontemporary art have precipitated an awareness thatthere have emerged in increasing numbers, within thelast decade, new critical, artistic formations thatforeground and privilege the mode of collective andcollaborative production. Is this return anacknowledgment of the repressed memory of a socialunconscious? Is the collectivization of artisticproduction not a critique of the poverty of thelanguage of contemporary art in the face of largescale commodifications of culture which have mergedthe identity of the artist with the corporate logo ofglobal capitalism? These questions shadow the returnof collectivity in contemporary artistic practice andin so insistent a manner, across a broad geographicarea that to ignore the consequences is to miss thevital power of dissonance that is part of its appealto the contemporary thinkers and artists who proposecollectivity as a course artistic work. Of course, weneed not to be reminded that there is nothing novelabout collectivity in art as such. It's been a crucialstrategy of the avant-garde throughout the 20thcentury. Therefore, a proper understanding ofcollectivity today would have to be traced through itsaffinities with past examples. This story belongs tothe history of modernism proper.

The position of the artist working within collectiveand collaborative processes subtend earliermanifestations of this type of activity throughout the20th century. Collectivity performs an operation ofirruption and transformation on traditional mechanismsand activities of artistic production which locatesthe sole figure of the individual artist at the centerof authorship. Under the historical conditions ofmodernist reification, collective or collaborativepractices (that is the making of an artwork bymultiple authors across porous disciplinary lines)generate a radical critique of artistic ontology quathe artist and as such also questions the enduringlegacy of the artist as an autonomous, individualwithin modernist art. This concerns the question ofthe authenticity of the work of art and its link to aspecific author. However, there is a level at whichthe immanence of this discourse is also evidenced inthe critique of the author in postmodernism. On bothlevels, I would argue that the anxieties thatcircumscribe questions concerning the authenticity ofeither the work of art or the supremacy of the artistas author are symptomatic of a cyclical crisis inmodernity about the status of art to its socialcontext and the artist as more than an actor withinthe economic sphere. This crisis has beenexceptionally visible since the last decade of thetwentieth century. The political climate of thecurrent global imperium adumbrates it further.

If we look back historically collectives tend toemerge during periods of crisis; in moments of socialupheaval and political uncertainty within society.Such crisis often forces reappraisals of conditions ofproduction, reevaluation of the nature of artisticwork, and reconfiguration of the position of theartist in relation to economic, social, andpolitical institutions. There are two types ofcollective formations and collaborative practices,that are important for this discussion. The first typecan be summarized as possessing a structured modusvivendi based on permanent, fixed groupings ofpractitioners working over a sustained period. In suchcollectives, authorship represents the expression ofthe group rather than that of the individual artist.The second type of collectives tend to emphasize aflexible, non-permanent course of affiliation,privileging collaboration on project basis than on apermanent alliance. This type of collective formationcan be designated as networked collectives. Suchnetworks are far more prevalent today due to radicaladvances in communication technologies andglobalization

However, we shall trace the emergence of the artist as producer in times of crisis by first linking up withmodernism. In collective work we witness how suchwork complicates modernism's idealization of theartwork as the unique object of individual creativity.In collective work we also witness the simultaneousaporia of artwork and artist. This tends to lendcollective work a social rather than artisticcharacter.

Consequently, the collective imaginary has often beenunderstood as essentially political in orientationwith minimal artistic instrumentality. In otherinstances shared labor; collaborative practice; thecollective conceptualization of artistic work havebeen understood as the critique of the reification ofart and the commodification of the artist. Thoughcollaborative or collective work has long beenaccepted as normal in the kind of artistic productionthat requires ensemble work such as in music, in thecontext of visual art under which the individualartistic talent reigns such loss of singularity of theartist is much less the norm, particularly under theoperative conditions of capitalism.