Maska 141-142 (jesen / autum 2011) by Maska Ljubljana

7€

141-142

771318 050001

JESEN/AUTUMN

2011

SODOBNA UMETNOST IN NOVE DRUŽBENE PARADIGME I. / CONTEMPORARY ART AND NEW SOCIAL PARADIGMS I

StefanDoepner@3 × 10 17Hz SebastijanHorvat@3 × 10 17Hz (Naslovnica/The Cover)

UVODNIK

MAJA MURNIK

etošnji letnik Maske smo pričeli s temo »Telo, filozofija, umetnost« in znotraj nje posebej s poudarjanjem kompleksne fenomenologije telesa in njene kontekstualizacije tako v umetniških praksah kot v teoretskem mišljenju. Zaključujemo pa ga s temami, ki posegajo širše – v refleksijo umetniških pojavov v družbenih kontekstih. Tudi tu imamo opraviti z vidiki telesnosti in utelešenosti, vendar so razumljeni v drugačnem, ne več fenomenološkem, temveč prej družbeno-političnem kontekstu. Tako na različne vidike telesnosti opozarjata Antonio Negri in Jonathan Beller v prispevkih, ki ju je mogoče prebrati v nadaljevanju, in sicer v okviru teoretskega bloka »Sodobna umetnost in nove družbene paradigme I.«, ki ga je pripravil Janez Strehovec in se bo nadaljeval v naslednji številki revije. Transdisciplinarno mišljenje presečišč sodobnih umetniških praks, znanosti, tehnologij in družbe je bilo izhodišče okrogle mize, ki jo je letos spomladi pripravilo Ministrstvo za kulturo. V Maski objavljamo transkripcijo tega pogovora o teoretičnih in aktualnih možnostih povezovanja umetnosti in znanosti, možnostih, ki po izkušnji konceptov avtonomije umetnosti v 20. stoletju niso (več) tako samoumevne. Razmerje med telesnostjo in njeno neizogibno umeščenostjo v družbo je vodilna nit intervjuja z ameriško teoretičarko Susan Foster, avtorico koncepta t. i. najetega telesa, s katerim označuje rezultat tendenc v sodobnem poučevanju plesa. Poleg tega intervju s Fosterjevo ponuja tudi kritično refleksijo nekaterih plesnih predstav, predstavljenih na letošnjem mednarodnem festivalu Springdance v Utrechtu. Tudi dva druga prispevka (prvi Ane Perne in drugi Katje Čičigoj) ponujata informativnokritični pregled bere dveh mednarodnih festivalov – in sicer bolj tradicionalno naravnane Evropske gledališke nagrade, ki je bila letos v Sankt Peterburgu, ter »sodobneje« usmerjenega festivala ICAF, ki se ukvarja z vprašanji umetnosti skupnosti in je potekal v Utrechtu. Rubriko »Recenzije, refleksije« sklepa na fenomenoloških izhodiščih zasnovana refleksija Janeza Strehovca ob instalaciji Tanje Vujinović, postavljeni v ljubljanski Galeriji Kapelica. Naj opozorim še na vizualno gradivo Maske, ki je pred vami. Posebej zanjo so bili izbrani in z rentgenom posneti objekti-materializacije iz nekaterih projektov slovenske sodobne umetnosti. Njihova obdelava in vizualizacija na straneh revije (ideja in realizacija je delo Mihe Turšiča) daje svoj odgovor na tematike, ki jih reflektira letošnji letnik Maske. Rentgenska vizualizacija pomeni širitev sposobnosti zaznavanja človeka, je torej tehnološki podaljšek biološkega. Z vidika emancipacije tehnološkega pa je pomembno vprašanje, kako tehnologija zaznava obstoječa umetniška dela – seveda drugače, ko vidi, česar človek ne more, oziroma ne vidi tega, kar vidi človek. ..

U VO D N I K / E D I TO RI AL 1

MarkoPeljhan@3 × 10 17Hz

2 UVO DNIK / ED ITO RI A L

EDITORIAL

MAJA MURNIK TRANSLATED BY MELITA SILIČ

his year’s volume of Maska began with the subject “Body, Philosophy, Art” with particular focus on the complex phenomenology of body and its contextualization in art practices and theory alike and it has been rounded off with topics which expand further – to the reflection of art phenomena in social contexts. Here, too, we deal with aspects of corporeality and embodiment; however, they are not reflected in a phenomenological but rather a social and political context. Various aspects of corporeality are addressed in texts by Antonio Negri and Jonathan Beller that can be found in the theory section “Contemporary Art and New Social Paradigms I” contributed by Janez Strehovec, which will be continued in the next issue of the journal. The transdisciplinary notion of the intersection of contemporary art practices, science, technology and society was the starting point of a discussion panel organised this spring by the Slovenian Ministry of Culture. A transcription of this discussion on the theoretical and actual possibilities of connecting art and science is published in this Maska; it’s about the possibilities that, following the experience of art autonomy concepts in the 20th century are (no longer) self-evident. The relation between corporeality and its inevitable embeddedness in society is the fil rouge of the interview with the American theoretician Susan Foster, who termed the concept of the so-called hired body, indicating the result of tendencies in contemporary dance training. In addition, said interview also provides a critical reflection on some dance performances from this year’s Springdance international festival held in Utrecht. The contributions by Ana Perne and Katja Čičigoj also bring an informative and critical overview of two other international festivals, i.e. a more traditional Europe Theatre Prize held this year in St. Petersburg, and a more “contemporary-oriented” ICAF Festival (Utrecht) investigating the issues of community art. The Reviews, Extensions section brings a phenomenology-based reflection by Janez Strehovec on Tanja Vujinović’s installation exhibited at the Kapelica Gallery in Ljubljana. And finally, let me draw attention to the visual identity of this issue. Objects-materialisations selected from some projects of Slovenian contemporary art were, especially for this issue, taken by x-ray. Their processing and visualisation on the journal’s pages (the idea and its realisation by Miha Turšič) gives its own answer to the topics reflected in this year’s volume of Maska. X-ray visualisation provides an extension to a human’s ability of perception, and it is therefore an extension of the biological. A relevant question as to the emancipation of the technological is thus how technology perceives the existing artworks – in a different way, of course, when it perceives what a human cannot and doesn’t perceive what a human does. ..

U VO D N I K / E D I TO RI AL 3

At that point A glance at

d Negri’s text prove that contemporary social theory can benefit from a more detailed analysis of what transpires in And if we consider contemporary art, we see that

WORD TREE

conte

And if we consider

Umestitev ključnih besed iz naslova “Contemporary Art and New Social Paradigms I“ v Maski, št. 141–142

The positioning ofart the theory keywords from the title Art art and New Paradigms Maska, No.mode 141–142 of production (as far as ge facing contemporary is thus to“Contemporary understand on Social the basis of I“ainspecific

The challenge facing ... is far from being close to the understanding of the field that occupies the center of attention in this text, namely

which is increasingly defined through the use of new media and technologies,

we see that contemporary art has long been exposing, questioning and wonder

theory is thus to understand art on the basis of a specific mode of production ...

emporary art

concerned, particularly the capitalist or, in Beller’s words, the cinematic mod obliged to confront a new set of questions.

has long been exposing, questioning and wondering about precisely investment of bodies

can even be challenging and productive for contemporary political theory, while contempo

mon, art should give ethical meaning to these complex knots, in other words it should help us to construct this multiple

ustry, while camera as capital that institution functioning at once in its politico-economic dimensions

de existing beyond itself and indeed beyond “natural language” but the natural case - culmination and “Since

the

Beller’s interpretation of the viewing is also original; in

para

Cinema is at once an organizational Cinema is

ns from Einstein to Pasolini were preoccupied with the film language indicates their transitional places in

a Cinema as

emphasize about the strike in particular, however, is that it is perhaps the first film that rigorously adopts the emerging

capital, viewing has become productive labour, for the viewers, like workers in the taylorist organ

movement as significant to be the fundamental animating principle of its own organization.

a historical epoch that supersedes the bourgeois mode of production by introjecting capitalized in social relations, a necessary technology for the conversion of the commodity form into an image

adigm shift

from

mimesis to poesis, that is, from the imitative to the constructive and pro signification to simulation (from meaning to stimulation) and provides

in the relation between organization and representation and is the characteristic effect of ca for a totality of political economy. 4

which is increasingly defined through the use of new media and technologies, w

we see that contemporary art has long been exposing, questioning and wonderi

theory is thus to understand art on the basis of a specific mode of production ...

emporary art

771318 050001

is 7€

141-142

JESEN/AUTUMN

concerned, particularly the capitalist or, in Beller’s words, the cinematic mod obliged to confront a new set of questions.

2011

has long been exposing, questioning and wondering about precisely investment of bodies -

TEORETSKI BLOK / THEORY

can even be challenging and productive for contemporary political theory, while contempor SODOBNA UMETNOST IN NOVE DRUŽBENE PARADIGME (I): JONATHAN BELLER IN ANTONIO while at the same ... NEGRItime / CONTEMPORARY ART AND NEW SOCIAL PARADIGMS (I): JONATHAN BELLER AND ANTONIO ring about precisely NEGRI /...ur. / ed. Janez Strehovec

6 / OD FILMSKEGA PRODUKCIJSKEGA NAČINA K BIOPOLITIČNEMU DELU (UVODNA PREDSTAVITEV) / de of production), whereas ... FROM THE CINEMATIC MODE OF PRODUCTION TO BIOPOLITICAL LABOUR (INTRODUCTION) / Janez Strehovec

- often naked and ... 18 / FILMSKI PRODUKCIJSKI NAČIN: EKONOMIJA POZORNOSTI IN DRUŽBA SPEKTAKLA (ODLOMEK) / orary artists can gain a lot ... THE CINEMATIC MODE OF PRODUCTION: ATTENTION MASKA Časopis za scenske umetnosti / Performing Arts Journal ECONOMY AND THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE capital, viewing has become productive labour, for the viewers, like workers in the taylorist organ Ustanovljen 1920 / Since 1920 (EXCERPT) / Jonathan Beller Letn. / vol. XXVI, št. / No. 141–142 (jesen 2011 / autumn 2011)

movement as significant to be the fundamental animating principle of its own organization. 38 / METAMORFOZE: UMETNOST IN NEMATERIALNO ISSN 1318-0509 DELO / METAMORPHOSES: ART AND IMMATERIAL a historical epoch that supersedes the bourgeois mode of production by introjecting capitalized in Izdajatelj: Maska, zavod za založniško, kulturno in producentsko dejavnost / PubLABOUR / Antonio Negri

lished by: Maska, Institute for Publishing, Production and Education | Metelkova

6, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia | Telefon / Phone: +386 1 4313122 | Fax: +386 1 4313122 social relations, a necessary technology for the conversion of the commodity form into an image . | E-pošta / E-mail: info@maska.si | www.maska.si | Za založnika / For the publisher:

adigm

REFLEKTOR / REFLECTOR

Janez Janša

from

mimesis to poesis, that is, from the imitative to the constructive and pro

Odgovorna urednica / Editor-in-chief: Maja Murnik | Uredniški odbor / Editorial Board: 50 / POVEZOVANJE UMETNOSTI IN ZNANOSTI: dr. Janez Strehovec, dr. Tomaž Toporišič | Stalni sodelavci revije / Contributing Editors: Katja Čičigoj,to Janez Janša, dr. Bojana Jana Pavlič, dr. Mojca Puncer, OKROGLA MIZA / CONNECTING ART & SCIENCE: signification simulation (fromKunst, meaning to stimulation) and provides a Monika Vrečar | Mednarodno uredništvo / International Advisory Board: Inke Arns, ROUND TABLE Maaike Bleeker, Eda Čufer, Ivana Ivković, Ana Vujanović, Marko Peljhan, Nataša Petrešin-Bachelez, Luk Van Den Dries in the relation between organization and representation and is the characteristic effect of ca

shift

INTERVJU / INTERVIEW

for a totality of political economy. 74 / SUSAN FOSTER / Katja Čičigoj RECENZIJE, REFLEKSIJE / REVIEWS, EXTENSIONS

90 / SKUPNOSTNO V UMETNOSTI. ICAF – INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ARTS FESTIVAL ROTTERDAM 2011 / COMMUNALITY IN ART. ICAF – INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ARTS FESTIVAL ROTTERDAM 2011 / Katja Čičigoj ndustrial process.

nisation ...

94 / NOVE GLEDALIŠKE STVARNOSTI. EVROPSKA GLEDALIŠKA NAGRADA 2011 / NEW THEATRICAL REALITIES. EUROPE THEATRE PRIZE 2011 / Ana Perne oductive function of art ... ...

98 / DOTIK S TAKTOM. OB INSTALACIJI SUPEROHM a working periodization ... TANJE VUJINOVIĆ / THE TOUCH WITH TACT. ON THE SUPEROHM INSTALLATION BY TANJA VUJINOVIĆ apitalised ... / Janez Strehovec

Vizualizacija vsebine / Content Visualisation: Miha Turšič | Slovenska lektura / Slovene Language Editor: Melita Silič | Angleška lektura / English Language Editor: Eric Dean Scott | Tisk / Print: Cicero | Naklada / Copies: 500 Cena dvojne številke (za Slovenijo): 7 € / Price of double issue (international): 8 € | Letna naročnina za posameznike: 21 €, letna naročnina za institucije: 31 € (v ceno je vključen DDV, poštnina ni vključena v ceno) | Annual international subscription: Individual rate 47 €, Institutional rate 60 € (Package and postage not included) | Poslovna sekretarka / Secretary: Ana Ivanek | Distribucija in naročnina / Subscription and distribution: ana. ivanek@maska.si | Transakcijski račun / Account number: 02010-00165250861 Masko leta 1920 ustanovi Ljubljanski pododbor Udruženja gledaliških igralcev Kraljevine SHS. Leta 1985 Zveza kulturnih organizacij Slovenije obudi njeno izdajanje pod imenom Maske. Leta 1991 Maska ponovno dobi izvorno ime in soustanovitelja: Institutum Studiorum Humanitatis. Dosedanje glavne in/ali odgovorne urednice in uredniki: Rade Pregarc (1920–21), Peter Božič in Tone Peršak (1985–90), Maja Breznik (1991–93), Irena Štaudohar (1993– 98), Janez Janša (1998–2006) in Katja Praznik (2007–2009). Maska je članica mreže mediteranskih gledaliških revij. Druge revije, članice Mreže: PRIMER ACTO, REVISTA DE TEATRO DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE ALCALA DE HENARES, REVISTA GALEGA DO TEATRO, ART TEATRAL, ESCENA (vse Španija), ISAD (Tunis), PUBLICATION DU THEATRE NATIONAL DE TIRANA (Albanija), SEMNAL THEATRAL (Romunija), THE MANOEL (Malta), FRAKCIJA (Hrvaška), PRIMA FILA (Italija), SCENA (Jugoslavija). Maska je članica Društva Asociacija nevladnih organizacij in samostojnih ustvarjalcev na področju umetnosti in kulture ter članica mreže Team Network (Transdisciplinary European Art Magazines). Druge revije, članice Mreže: Alternatives Théâtrales (Belgija), Art’O (Italija), Ballet-Tanz (Nemčija), Danstidningen (Švedska), Highlights (Grčija), Mouvement (Francija), Obscena (Portugalska), Scènes (Belgija), Stradda (Francija). www.team-network. eu. Po 7. točki 25. člena ZDDV je davek na časopis obračunan po stopnji 8,5 %. Revijo sofinancira Javna agencija za knjigo RS. / The journal is supported by the Slovenian Book Agency.

122 IN / 102 V / 74 JE / 56 KI / 37 KOT / 36 SE / 33 DA / 31 NA / 29 ZA / 26 UMETNOSTI / 24 TUDI / 21 NE / 21 SO / 20 PA / 19 LAHKO / 18 O / 15 PRAV /

SODOBNA UMETNOST IN NOVE DRUŽBENE PARADIGME (I): JONATHAN BELLER IN ANTONIO NEGRI CONTEMPORARY ART AND NEW SOCIAL PARADIGMS (I): JONATHAN BELLER AND ANTONIO NEGRI UREDNIK / EDITOR: JANEZ STREHOVEC

ViaNegativa@3 × 10 17Hz

6 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

15 TAKO / 14 KAR / 14 S / 13 DELA / 13 Z / 12 UMETNOST / 11 BOLJ / 11 VSE / 10 BISTVENO / 10 IZ / 10 SMISLU / 10 SVET / 9 AMPAK / 9 DELO / 9 K / 9 OD /

avantgarde kot neo-avantgarde 20. stoletja so predpostavljale implozijo umetniškega v družbeno sfero. Tudi ameriškim popartistom ni bilo težko reči »yes« takratni ikonografiji množične kulture (pomislimo le na Andyja Warhola), koncept umetniške avtonomije pa je bil prav tako tuj nekaterim umetniškim tradicijam na Daljnem vzhodu, pri katerih se danes srečujemo z usmeritvijo k »umetnosti naprav« (angl. device art), za katero je bistveno povezovanje estetske, razstavne in uporabne vrednosti.1 Koncept umetniške avtonomije nikakor ni blizu tudi razumevanju področja, ki mu v tem besedilu namenjamo osrednjo pozornost, in to je sodobna umetnost, ki postaja bistveno opredeljena z rabo novih medijev in tehnologij, prav tako pa se, in to je eno glavnih stališč tega besedila, vse bolj eksplicitno umešča v svet novih družbenih paradigem in sodobnih produkcijskih oblik.

OD FILMSKEGA PRODUKCIJSKEGA NAČINA K BIOPOLITIČNEMU DELU UVODNA PREDSTAVITEV JANEZ STREHOVEC

oncepti umetniške avtonomije v smislu, da umetniškega področja ni mogoče enostavno deducirati iz temeljnih načel vsakokratne družbene resničnosti in pojasniti z njimi, so bistveno opredeljevali razumevanje evropske modernistične umetnosti v 20. stoletju. Umetnost je eno, družbena resničnost s svojimi zgodovinskimi spremenljivkami pa nekaj drugega, je bilo stališče vrste estetikov in teoretikov modernistične umetnosti, to stališče pa je bilo sprejemljivo tudi za umetnike in teoretike umetnosti v državah (evropskega) realnega socializma, ki so se sklicevali na umetniško avtonomijo še posebej takrat, ko so branili svoja disidentska, od vladajoče interpretacije in pričakovanj, kaj naj bo umetnost in kako se naj obnaša, drugačna stališča. Tu naj spomnimo na zgodbo slovenskega političnega namestništva, izraženo v mediju književnosti, ki je povezana z vrsto revij za kulturna vprašanja iz druge polovice 20. stoletja, za katere je bilo značilno, da so vzpostavljale kritičen in oporečniški odnos do slovenskega oziroma jugoslovanskega socializma (Perspektive, Problemi, Nova revija) prav na podlagi aplikacije koncepta umetniške avtonomije. Ko se danes srečujemo s temi pogledi, jih lahko razumevamo kot izrazito zgodovinske in spremenljive. Tako zgodovinske umetniške

Vprašanja odnosa med umetnostjo in družbeno resničnostjo so stopala tudi v, recimo metaforično, »paket« estetiških razprav, povezanih s pojmom realizma kot kompleksne in večplastne (tako teoretske kot ideološke) strukture, razpete med »velikim evropskim literarnim realizmom« in socrealističnimi poenostavitvami in pristranskimi pogledi, okvirjenimi z vladajočo (predvsem sovjetsko) ideologijo. Ko se danes nekateri teoretiki (morda nostalgično) spominjajo razprav o realizmu, lahko ugotavljamo, da se realizem v obliki mimetičnih umetniških praks, ki predpostavljajo t. i. objektivno realnost kot podlago umetniškim (predvsem literarnim) aktivnostim odsevanja in zrcaljenja (György Lukács), v družbenih teorijah umika pogledom o veliko neposrednejših povezavah umetnosti in družbene resničnosti. Zanje je značilno, da opuščajo stališča o umetniški avtonomiji in zato skušajo področje umetnosti razumevati v smislu prakse, ki je bistveno povezana z drugimi sektorji družbene resničnosti in je celo v isti igri z njimi. Te družbene teorije, ki vzpostavljajo vednost o novih družbenih paradigmah in kulturnih obratih, so bistveno povezane tudi z izzivi, ki izhajajo iz sodobnega kognitivnega kapitalizma kot družbenega stroja, ki ne pušča ničesar zunaj, in iz razumevanja nematerialnega in prekarnega dela, ki posega v posameznikov 24-urni življenjski ritem. Zato vrsta sodobnih in sodobnejših družbenih teorij razumeva tudi umetniške prakse kot področja, ki se ne nanašajo mimetično na svet kapitalizma, ampak so bistveno vraščene vanj; njihovi izdelki so vse manj izolirano estetski, ampak se srečujemo s podobami in zgodbami, ki najavljajo in konstruirajo bistvene momente resničnosti. Tu naj omenimo situacionista Guyja Deborda, ki je zapisal, da »spektakel ni skupek podob, ampak je medosebni družbeni odnos, katerega posrednik so podobe«,2 in še bolj naravnost: »Spektakel je kapital, ki se akumulira do takšne mere, da postane podoba.«3 Stališče, da podobe niso ujete le v postmodernistično igro označevalcev, ampak so bistvene za razumevanje sodobne blagovne produkcije, o čemer je v No Logo pisala Naomi Klein, je radikaliziral tudi Maurizio Lazzaratto: »Sodobni kapitalizem se ne 1 2 3

Masachiko Kusahara, »Making Art as Commercial Products: An Ongoing Challenge of Device Art«, v: ISEA 2008 Proceedings, Singapur, 2008, str. 280–281. Guy Debord, Družba spektakla. Komentarji k družbi spektakla. Panegirik, Ljubljana: Koda, 1999, str. 30. Prav tam, str. 39.

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 7

9 PRODUKCIJE / 9 ŠE / 9 UMETNIŠKE / 8 ALI / 8 BI / 8 ČE / 8 DANES / 8 LE / 8 NEMATERIALNEGA / 8 TEM / 7 BILO / 7 CELO / 7 DO / 7 GA / 7 NAČINU /

eprav postajamo vse bolj sodobniki nematerialnih procesov in naše življenje opredeljujejo številne abstrakcije, intelektualne storitve in nematerialni podatki (pomislimo le na finančne trge in abstraktna ovrednotenja derivatov, se pravi na njih izvedenih finančnih inštrumentov, ki diktirajo »ekonomiji artefaktov«), pa so ti procesi vse bolj soodnosniki zelo materialnih procesov in materialnih vsebin, ki prihajajo v sodobnih produkcijah silovito na površje in postavljajo pod vprašaj samoumevno čistost nematerialnega področja.

začenja s tovarnami: te, če sploh, pridejo kasneje. Najprej se pojavi z besedami, znaki in podobami.«4 Spektakli, podobe, logotipi in performansi so vse manj nekaj, kar je bistveno samo za umetnost, meje umetniške avtonomije in svet estetskih vrednosti jih vse manj določajo, zato pa toliko bolj narašča njihov pomen v svetu nematerialnega dela in postfordističnega proizvodnega načina. To besedilo je uvajalno v blok dveh prevodnih teoretskih prispevkov, in sicer Jonathana Bellerja o filmskem načinu produkcije in Antonia Negrija o umetnosti in nematerialnem delu, ki obravnavata prav zgoraj skiciran odnos med umetnostjo in družbeno resničnostjo v smislu, da se na umetniškem področju nikakor ne preigrava (le) pena posebnih (estetskih, spektakelskih) učinkov, še manj gre za umetniško posnemanje ali zrcaljenje resničnosti, ampak gre za stvari, ki ne zadevajo samo ožjega področja umetnostne teorije, temveč nam rabijo celo kot temeljno vodilo in pojasnitev osrednjih paradigem sedanjega družbenega življenja. Debordovo stališče o kapitalu, akumuliranem v podobi, je stopilo v Bellerjevo misel o filmskih gibljivih podobah, katerih razumevanje je ključno za analitični pristop k novim družbenim paradigmam in zato tudi k temeljnim načelom kognitivnega kapitalizma, katerega značilnost je v tem, da se akumulacija pri njem osredotoča na nematerialne vsebine, njegovi objekti pa spreminjajo subjekt.

MONTAŽA GIBLJIVIH PODOB, SEKVENČENJE DELAVČEVIH GIBOV: FILM V SVETU TAYLORISTIČNO ORGANIZIRANEGA DELA

onathana Bellerja, avtorja knjige Filmski produkcijski način (2006), sicer zanima tudi zgodovina in estetika filma (pozornost namenja Dzigi Vertovu in Hollywoodu), vendar pa umetnost gibljivih podob in njihovo percepcijo umešča v kontekst industrijskega dela, taylorizma, psihosocialnega menedžmenta (teorija Pavlova) in psihoanalize, kar pomeni, da se filmska estetika umika teoriji, ki ugotavlja bistveno vraščenost filma v industrijsko produkcijo, še posebej v tisti njen kompleks, ki je opredeljen kot fordistična in tayloristična oblika organiziranja industrijskega dela (za tekočim trakom). »Zgodnja filmska montaža je razširila logiko tekočega traku (sekvenčenje diskretnih, programskih, s strojem usklajenih posameznikovih operacij) k senzoriju in privedla industrijsko revolucijo k očesu. Film je povezal človekovo čutno aktivnost, tisto, kar je Marx imenoval ‘čutno delo’ v kontekstu blagovne proizvodnje, s celuloidnim trakom.«5 V tem navedku je pomembno stališče, ki razumeva film v okviru industrijske revolucije, in sicer na prav poseben način, ki ne predpostavlja kakega nanašanja ali posnemanja (in snemanja) tega, kar se dogaja v industrijskih okoljih, ampak je film sam abstrakcija procesa za tekočim trakom, ki prav tako kot film predpostavlja svojevrstno montažo in reze, poseg v delavčevo gibanje, racionalizacijo delovnega procesa. 4 5

8 T EOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

Maurizio Lazzarato, »Struggle, Event, Media«, 2003. Prev. Aileen Derieg. http:// eipcp.net/transversal/1003/lazzarato/en. (19. 12. 2009). Jonathan Beller, The Cinematic Mode of Production, Hanover in London: Dartmouth College Press, 2006, str. 9.

7 POSEBEJ / 6 DRUŽBENIH / 6 MANJ / 6 MED / 6 NI / 6 PODOBE / 6 POSTAJA / 6 PRI / 6 STALIŠČE / 6 TEGA / 6 TO / 6 VEČ / 6 ŽE / 5 AVTONOMIJE /

Beller pa samosvoje interpretira tudi gledanje, ki postaja v paradigmi kapitala produktivno delo, kajti tudi gledalci, podobno kot delavci v tayloristično organizirani industrijski proizvodnji, opravljajo sekvenčne vizualne operacije na elementih, iz katerih se sestavljajo gibljive podobe, ki pa niso več v funkciji predstavljanja kapitala, ampak so, to trdi Beller, same kapital. O podobah kot kapitalu lahko govorimo v okviru sedanjih družbenih obratov, ki nas vpeljujejo v svet nematerialnega dela, nove vloge cirkulacije kot bistvene za procese ovrednotenja in tudi novega dispozitiva, v katerem se danes konstituira, organizira in distribuira blago. Slednje teži k statusu podob, o čemer pišeta tako Naomi Klein kot Maurizio Lazzaratto. Ne le, da je za Bellerja film umetniška zvrst, ki je bistveno opredeljevala prejšnje stoletje (celo v smislu Jamesonove kulturne dominante), ampak je tudi poglavitni produkcijski način; zadeva tako industrijsko revolucijo in industrijsko organizacijo dela za tekočim trakom kot sam kapitalizem, ki postaja vse bolj filmsko organiziran, tako da lahko opažamo celo nadaljevanje industrijske oblike produkcije v filmski. »Film kot proces, kompleks gibanja, teles in zavesti, ki ga bom imenoval filmski proces, sam postane dominantni način produkcije. Vsa produkcija ne poteka prek kina v institucionalnem smislu, toda globalna produkcija je organizirana kot kino. Organizacija gibanja vlada zavesti – organizacija materiala proizvaja afekte. V filmski organizaciji globalne produkcije in reprodukcije bo ta logika ponotranjena v in kot postmoderna, do mere, do katere je za postmoderni senzorij cel svet – svet podob. Kino kapitalu priskrbi arhitektoniko logistike percepcije. Nedvomno predstavlja njihovo fuzijo. Iz tega sledi, da je filmsko skoraj stoletje dolgo strojno proizvajalo postmoderno. V tem smislu lahko rečemo, da je skozi dvajseto stoletje večina sveta dobesedno v kinu, sorodno načinu, na katerega so hoteli futuristi vstaviti gledalca v sliko.«6 Pri tem izpostavi dvojnost filma kot filma in filma kot kapitala, ki je danes lahko teoretski prijem, uporaben tudi na drugih področjih; brez zadreg lahko že od Deborda dalje govorimo o podobi kot podobi in podobi kot blagu, o spektaklu kot ekstazi estetskih učinkov in o spektaklu kot družbenem odnosu.

tom soavtor teoretskih uspešnic, kot so Imperij, Multituda in Skupno. Leta 2009 je izšla njegova knjiga Umetnost in multituda, iz katere smo v ta prevodni blok vključili zadnji razdelek Metamorfoze: Umetnost in nematerialno delo, v katerem odpira vprašanje umetnosti v kontekstu t. i. nematerialnega dela in kognitivnega kapitalizma. »Želimo zgolj opozoriti na dejstvo, da umetniška dejavnost vedno obstaja znotraj specifičnega načina produkcije in da ga reproducira oziroma, natančneje, da ga producira in spodbija, da je z njim sprijaznjena in ga uničuje. Umetniška dejavnost je vrsta delovne sile, njena edinstvena oblika. Ni naključje, da se vsi proizvodi umetniške dejavnosti tako lahko spremenijo v blago …«7 Ko govorimo o umetnosti kot blagu, smo tako pri prav posebni produkciji, menjavi, trgu in kapitalizmu, kajti Negri meni, da »dejansko sledimo sovpadanju (seveda le grobemu, pa vendar resničnemu) med različnimi obdobji umetnostne dejavnosti (čemur bi nemara lahko rekli ‘stil’ in ‘poetika’ umetnosti) na eni ter kapitalistično produkcijo in organizacijo dela na drugi strani.«8 Izziv za sodobno umetnostno teorijo je zato razumevanje umetnosti iz specifičnega produkcijskega načina (še posebej, ko gre za sodobno umetnost, iz kapitalističnega oziroma, pri Bellerju, filmskega), prav tako pa je tudi izziv za sodobno družbeno teorijo, da analizira in misli tisto, kar se dogaja v posebnem zgodovinskem produkcijskem načinu, ko ga ponotranji umetnost (in se mu hkrati zoperstavi, se mu umika in od njega oddaljuje). Razumevanje umetnosti iz specifičnega načina produkcije in procesov komodifikacije namreč nikakor ne pomeni nekega »manj«, ki bi to področje, dejansko aktivnost, kot nebistveno avtomatično podrejal dominantnemu produkcijskemu načinu. Če pogledamo na teoretske poglede tako Deborda kot Virna, Bellerja in Negrija, lahko vidimo, da v tistem, kar bi na prvi pogled izpadlo kot »manj«, tiči nek »več«, namreč posebnost umetniške dejavnosti, ki je lahko paradigmatična tudi za splošni produkcijski način določenega obdobja. Paolo Virno je pri razumevanju posebnosti nematerialnega dela posegel po primeru t. i. reproduktivnih umetnikov v naslednjem smislu: »Pozorno razmislimo o tem, kar zaznamuje dejavnost virtuozov, t. j. umetnikov izvajalcev. Prvič, njihovo delovanje se konča (ima svoj cilj) v samem sebi in se ne opredmeti v trajnem delu, ne odloži se v »končni izdelek« ali, drugače rečeno, v predmet, ki bi preživel izvedbo. Drugič, je delovanje, ki terja navzočnost drugega, ki obstaja samo vpričo publike. Delovanje brez izdelka: izvedba pianista ali plesalca ne pušča za seboj predmeta, ki bi ga bilo mogoče ločiti od same izvedbe in bi lahko vztrajal, ko bi te bilo konec. Delovanje, ki terja prisotnost drugega: performance ima smisel samo, če je videna ali slišana.«9

NEGRI: NEMATERIALNO DELO V MATERIALNIH MREŽAH IN Z MATERIALNIMI UČINKI

dtegnitev razumevanja umetnosti v smislu njene reprezentacijske funkcije in prehod k interpretacijam na podlagi njenega mesta v vsakokratnem splošnem produkcijskem načinu je blizu tudi Antoniu Negriju, ki je skupaj s Hard-

Jonathan Beller, »Filmski produkcijski način – ekonomija pozornosti in družba spektakla«, pričujoča številka Maske, str. 26.

7 8 9

Antonio Negri, »Metamorfoze. Umetnost in nematerialno delo«, pričujoča številka Maske, str. 40. Isto, str. 39. Paolo Virno, Slovnica mnoštva: k analizi oblik sodobnega življenja, Ljubljana: Krt, 2003, str. 36.

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 9

5 DRUŽBENO / 5 FILM / 5 FILMA / 5 KATERE / 5 NAČIN / 5 NAJ / 5 PODOB / 5 PODROČJA / 5 POMENI / 5 RAZUMEVANJE / 5 RESNIČNOSTI / 5 SODOBNO /

ellerjevi in Negrijevi teksti dokazujejo, da lahko sodobna družbena teorija profitira tudi od tega, da natančneje analizira tisto, kar se uresničuje v sodobni umetnosti. Del globalne produkcije in tudi ekonomije zaznavnih operacij je, rečeno v kontekstu Bellerjeve teorije, v filmu, participira na filmskem proizvodnem načinu, prav tako pa je bil ves »paket« nematerialnega dela, nematerialnih izdelkov in storitev anticipiran že skozi umetniško dematerializacijo objekta v različnih avantgardističnih praksah (še posebej pri Marcelu Duchampu). Pogled na tisto, kar se dogaja v sodobni umetnosti, je lahko izzivalen in produktiven celo za sodobno politično teorijo, prav tako pa lahko sodobni umetniki veliko pridobijo od dialoga svojih praks s sodobnimi družbenimi teorijami.

V sedanjosti lahko ugotavljamo opazen vzpon aktivnosti, ki za sabo ne puščajo nič materialnega, še posebej ne t. i. materialnih izdelkov. Nasprotno, vse bistveno, kar jih opredeljuje, je določeno s procesom aktivnosti, umeščene v dogodek, ki pa mora biti javen (zahteva prisotnost drugih, da ga, rečeno poenostavljeno, vidijo in slišijo). Vrsta takšnih aktivnosti poteka v novomedijski umetnosti, ki je izrazito postobjektna in nematerialna; bistvene stvari v njej se dogajajo na ravni performansa, igranja in programske opreme in so umeščene v svet te umetnosti v smislu, da je »umetniško delo – če temelji na tehnologiji ali ne – običajno uvrščeno med novomedijsko umetnost takrat, če je proizvedeno, razstavljeno in obravnavano v specifičnem ‘umetnostnem svetu’, v svetu novomedijske umetnosti«.10 Za avtorja tega stališča novomedijska umetnost ni ne zvrst ne posebno gibanje; zanjo je bistven prav njen svet, ki podeljuje umetniškost določenim razredom del, ki referirajo nanj in imajo priložnost vstopa v širšo javnost le, če so v tem svetu pripoznana kot zanj relevantna. Svet novomedijske umetnosti v določenem pogledu predhodi tej umetnosti in je v odnosu do nje tudi kot generativna platforma, kar to umetnost v določenem pogledu povezuje s sodobnimi korporacijami, za katere je prav tako bolj kot produkcija izdelkov pomembna vzpostavitev posebnega referenčnega sveta. Lazzaratto: »Korporacija ne oblikuje predmeta (blaga), temveč svet, v katerem predmet eksistira.«11

SODOBNI KAPITALIZEM NE PUŠČA NIČESAR ZUNAJ

rditve kot sta, da delo postaja vedno bolj abstraktno, enako kapitalizem, in da nematerialno delo proizvaja le nematerialne izdelke, so danes že zelo obrabljene, zato je pomemben prispevek tega Negrijevega besedila prav v spoznanju določenega protislovja, ki danes spremlja nematerialno delo in tudi splošne procese abstrahiranja in dematerializacij. Čeprav postajamo vse bolj sodobniki nematerialnih procesov in naše življenje opredeljujejo številne abstrakcije, intelektualne storitve in nematerialni podatki (pomislimo le na finančne trge in abstraktna ovrednotenja derivatov, se pravi na njih izvedenih finančnih inštrumentov, ki diktirajo »ekonomiji artefaktov«), pa so ti procesi vse bolj soodnosniki zelo materialnih procesov in materialnih vsebin, ki prihajajo v sodobnih produkcijah silovito na površje in postavljajo pod vprašaj samoumevno čistost nematerialnega področja. »Govoriti danes o ‘nematerialnem delu’ namreč paradoksalno ne pomeni več govoriti o abstrakciji, temveč se, nasprotno, dejansko potopiti v konkretno, v predmetno/snovno. Ne ukvarjamo se torej več s poduhovljenostjo in oddaljenimi vizijami, temveč se potapljamo med telesi, povedano drugače, gre za izraz človeške telesnosti. Nematerialno delo izdeluje materialne proizvode, blago in komunikacije. Je družbeno organizirano v jezikovnih, kooperativnih, elek-

10 Domenico Quaranta, »The Postmedia Perspective«, Rhizome.org, 12. januar 2011. http://rhizome.org/editorial/2011/jan/12/the-postmedia-perspective/. 11 Lazzarato, »Struggle, Event, Media«.

10 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

5 TISTO / 5 ZATO / 5 ZELO / 4 BELLERJA / 4 BISTVENE / 4 DEJAVNOST / 4 DRUŽBENE / 4 FILMSKI / 4 GRE / 4 INDUSTRIJSKO / 4 KAPITALIZEM / 4 KAPITALIZMA

tronskih in digitalnih omrežjih, ki so vsa zelo materialna, udejanja pa se prek vrst združevanja in prek gibanj, ki so multitudna. Zato tukaj obravnavamo nematerialnost, ki je polna telesnosti, zelo mobilna in izjemno prožna: je skupek teles.«12 To stališče lahko polemično umestimo v kontekst digitalne kulture, ki jo je literarni in filmski kiberpank najavljal kot izrazito protitelesno in platonistično, del njenih obetov pa je sprejemala in afirmirala celo zgodnja teorija kibernetskih svetov. Vendar pa nam današnji pogled na digitalno kulturo (ki vstopa v povečano resničnost kot kompleksno prepletanje aktualnega in virtualnega) pokaže, da derealizaciji v smeri digitalnega videza ustreza obratni proces, namreč realizacija v na novo odkritih telesih, ki stopajo v odnos z novimi generacijami tehniških naprav, še posebej vmesnikov. Če pomislimo na tehnologijo za virtualno resničnost, lahko vidimo, da je njen popularni vmesnik »podatkovna rokavica« (angl. data glove) spodbudil zanimanje za roko, prste in dlan ter za taktilni feedback, povezan prav z materialnostjo ter anatomijo roke in njenih komponent. In tudi če pomislimo na sodobno umetnost, je tisto, kar je v njej že dolgo zelo izpostavljeno, vprašljivo in zagonetno, prav investiranje teles v umetnosti performansa; pogosto golih, ranljivih in privedenih v ekstremne situacije. Kapitalizem pomeni abstrahiranje in dematerializacijo, prehod k podobam, logotipom, filmskemu načinu produkcije, spektaklu in umetelnim, konstruiranim svetovom, vendar pa je umetnost našla v njem svojo vlogo, v smislu, da je »razvoj umetnosti /.../ abstrakcijo družbenih odnosov, v katerih obstajamo, preoblikoval v telesne podobe; in dal je pomen vitalnosti človeških teles – skozi podobe, ki se premikajo in pretakajo v procesu nenehnega preoblikovanja. Od Bacona do Warhola ali Park Jonga si umetniki v neobdelanem prostoru zamišljajo nerazločno gmoto ter si neustrašno predstavljajo, kaj obeta svet, osvobojen svoje notranje arhitekture. Razvoj umetnosti se odslej podaja bolj v biopolitičnem izrazju in ne več toliko v nematerialnem izrazju.«13 Po zamenjavi paradigme od mimezis k poezis, torej od posnemovalne h konstrukcijski in oblikovalni funkciji umetnosti, postajamo sodobniki vstopa umetnosti v biosfero (ključni usmeritvi na tem področju sta tako eksplicitni bioart kot sodobni performans, ki se vse bolj ukvarja s telesom, postavljenim v komaj zamišljene situacije in tudi surovo izpostavljenim v njih; tu naj še posebej omenimo performans performerk in feministični performans avtoric v tradiciji od Marine Abramović, Carolee Schneemann in Valie Export, do današnjih, recimo Ann Liv Young). »Nič več ne gremo v smeri postmoderne, pravzaprav smo že prešli vse, kar je ‘post’; sedaj smo v sodobnosti in ta sodobnost je dodatno poglobila transformacijo dela – iz nematerialnega, kognitivnega, afektivnega vse bolj postaja bios: postaja biopolitično delo, dejavnost, ki reproducira oblike življenja. Delo ima odslej nove lastnosti in s temi bi želel zaključiti.«14 To stališče pomeni 12 Negri, »Metamorfoze. Umetnost in nematerialno delo«, pričujoča številka Maske, str. 40. 13 Isto, str. 40. 14 Isto, str. 42.

revizijo in dopolnitev že kar šolskega govorjenja o nematerialnem delu, ki proizvaja nematerialne izdelke; pomembno pa je, da je bilo izrečeno (in definirano) tudi na podlagi avtorjeve refleksije umetnosti. Videti je, da umetnost ni neka pena ali drugorazredno področje, ampak nam lahko rabi celo kot laboratorij za izkušanje bistvenih vsebin, ki zadevajo razumevanje sedanjosti (tudi sedanjega posameznika in njegovega dela). Bellerjevi in Negrijevi teksti dokazujejo, da lahko sodobna družbena teorija profitira tudi od tega, da natančneje analizira tisto, kar se uresničuje v sodobni umetnosti. Del globalne produkcije in tudi ekonomije zaznavnih operacij je, rečeno v kontekstu Bellerjeve teorije, v filmu, participira na filmskem proizvodnem načinu, prav tako pa je bil ves »paket« nematerialnega dela, nematerialnih izdelkov in storitev anticipiran že skozi umetniško dematerializacijo objekta v različnih avantgardističnih praksah (še posebej pri Marcelu Duchampu). Pogled na tisto, kar se dogaja v sodobni umetnosti, je lahko izzivalen in produktiven celo za sodobno politično teorijo, prav tako pa lahko sodobni umetniki veliko pridobijo od dialoga svojih praks s sodobnimi družbenimi teorijami. Ena (novomedijskih) umetnic, odprtih za izzive sodobne družbe in njene teoretske interpretacije, je Natalie Bookchin, katere videoinstalacija Mass Ornament in njeno teoretsko ozadje bo predstavljena v drugem tematskem sklopu, ki izide v prihodnji številki Maske. ..

Literatura Beller, Jonathan, The Cinematic Mode of Production: Attention Economy and the Society of the Spectacle, Hanover in London: Dartmouth College Press, University Press of New England, 2006. Debord, Guy, Družba spektakla. Komentarji k družbi spektakla. Panegirik, Ljubljana: Koda, 1999. Kusahara, Masachiko, »Making Art as Commercial Products: An Ongoing Challenge of Device Art«, v: ISEA 2008 Proceedings, Singapur, 2008. Lash, Scott, The Sociology of Postmodernism, London in New York: Routledge, 1990. Lazzarato, Maurizio, »Struggle, Event, Media«, 2003. Prev. Aileen Derieg. http://eipcp. net/transversal/1003/lazzarato/en. (11. 10. 2011). Negri, Antonio, Art & Multitude, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011. Quaranta, Domenico, The Postmedia Perspective, Rhizome.org, 12. januar 2011. http://rhizome.org/editorial/2011/jan/12/the-postmedia-perspective/. Virno, Paolo, Slovnica mnoštva: k analizi oblik sodobnega življenja, Ljubljana: Krt, 2003.

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 1 1

253 THE / 224 OF / 127 AND / 89 IN / 75 IS / 68 A / 58 THAT / 56 WHICH / 53 TO / 51 ART / 49 AS / 38 IT / 29 PRODUCTION / 27 ARE / 24 CONTEMPORARY /

FROM THE CINEMATIC T MODE OF PRODUCTION TO BIOPOLITICAL LABOUR INTRODUCTION JANEZ STREHOVEC PREVOD / TRANSLATED BY POLONA PETEK

he concepts of artistic autonomy, in terms that the field of art cannot be simply deduced from the basic principles of a given social reality and it cannot be explained by them, impacted the understanding of European modernist art in the twentieth century. Art is one thing, but social reality with its historical variables is something entirely different – this was the standpoint of the most of aestheticians and other theorists of modernist art, which was also acceptable to the artists and theorists of art in the countries of (European) real socialism, who appealed to artistic autonomy especially when they defended their different, dissident views, which departed from the dominant interpretations and expectations as regards the content and the function of art. Let us remind ourselves of the story of Slovenian political substitution, expressed in the medium of literature, which is related to a series of journals dealing with cultural issues in the second half of the twentieth century; these journals (Perspektive, Problemi, Nova revija) established a distinct critical and oppositional relation to Slovenian and Yugoslavian socialism precisely on the basis of applying the concept of artistic autonomy. When we encounter these views today, we can understand them as markedly historical and volatile. Historical art avant-gardes and neo-avant-gardes of the twentieth century alike presupposed the implosion of the artistic in the social sphere; American pop artists did not find it difficult to say “yes” to the iconography of popular culture of that time (just think of Andy Warhol); the concept of artistic autonomy was also alien to some artistic traditions in the Far East, which today display an orientation towards “device art”, which hinges upon connecting the aesthetic, the exhibitional and the functional values.1 And finally, the concept of artistic autonomy is far from being close to the understanding of the field that occupies the centre of attention in this text, namely, contemporary art, which is increasingly defined through the use of new media and technologies, while at the same time – and this

ViaNegativa@3 × 10 17Hz

12 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

Masachiko Kusahara, “Making Art as Commercial Products: An Ongoing Challenge of Device Art”, ISEA 2008 Proceedings, Singapore, 2008, pp. 280–281.

24 WE / 23 LABOUR / 23 SOCIAL / 21 ARTISTIC / 21 IMMATERIAL / 21 S / 19 AN / 18 CAN / 18 CINEMA / 17 MODE / 17 NEW / 17 ON / 17 WORLD / 16 BY /

is one of the key points of this text – it is also increasingly and ever more explicitly situated in the world of new social paradigms and contemporary modes of production. The questions of the relationship between art and social reality were also part and “parcel” of aesthetic debates concerning the notion of realism as a complex and multifaceted (theoretical as well as ideological) structure, split between “the great European literary realism” and the simplifications and biases of socialist realism, which were framed by the dominant (chiefly Soviet) ideology. When today some theorists (perhaps nostalgically) recall the debates about realism, we can see that, in social theories, realism in the form of mimetic artistic practices – which presuppose the so-called objective reality as the basis of artistic (mainly literary) activities of reflecting and mirroring (György Lukács) – has been increasingly displaced by links between art and social reality that are much more direct. These links are characterised by their abandoning of views about artistic autonomy, which is why they attempt to understand the sphere of art in the sense of practice, which is fundamentally related to other segments of social reality and which participates in the same game as they. These social theories, which establish knowledge about new social paradigms and cultural turns, are also fundamentally related to the challenges that derive from contemporary cognitive capitalism as a social machine that leaves nothing without and from an understanding of immaterial and arduous labour, which encroaches upon the individual’s 24-hour rhythm of life. Therefore, a number of fairly recent and contemporary social theories consider artistic practices as fields that do not refer mimetically to the world of capitalism; rather, they are fundamentally embedded in it. Their products are less and less aesthetic in an isolated sense; instead, they confront us with images and stories that prefigure and construct the vital moments of reality. At this point, we should mention the situationist Guy Debord, who has written that “[t]he spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.”2 Or even more straightforwardly: “The spectacle is capital accumulated to the point where it becomes image.”3 The view that images are not only caught in the postmodern play of signifiers, but are also vital to understanding contemporary production of commodities, which is what Naomi Klein has discussed in No Logo, is radicalised by Maurizio Lazzarato: “Contemporary capitalism does not arrive first with the factories: these follow later, if at all. It first arrives with words, signs and images.”4 Spectacles, images, logotypes and performances are less and less something that is vital only to art; they are less and less determined by the boundaries of artistic autonomy and the world of aesthetic values; however, their significance in the world of immaterial labour and the post-Fordist mode of production is increasing. This text is an introduction to two translated theoretical pieces – 2 3 4

Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle (La société du spectacle, 1967), New York: Zone Books, 1995, p. 12. Ibid., p. 14. Maurizio Lazzarato, “Struggle, Event, Media”, 2003. Translated by Aileen Derieg. http://eipcp.net/transversal/1003/lazzarato/en (December 19, 2009), n.p.

eller’s and Negri’s texts prove that contemporary social theory can benefit from a more detailed analysis of what transpires in contemporary art. A part of global production and even of the economy of the operations of perception, according to Beller’s theory, is in cinema, that is, it participates in the cinematic mode of production; however, the whole “package” of immaterial labour, immaterial products and services was already anticipated in the artistic dematerialisation of the object in various avant-garde practices (particularly those associated with Marcel Duchamp). A glance at contemporary art can even be challenging and productive for contemporary political theory, while contemporary artists can gain a lot from a dialogue between their practices and contemporary social theories.

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 1 3

16 IMAGES / 15 WITH / 14 ACTIVITY / 14 ALSO / 14 FROM / 14 HAS / 14 ITS / 14 NOT / 14 THIS / 13 INTO / 12 OR / 12 REALITY / 11 BE / 11 BELLER /

espite the fact that immaterial processes are increasingly a part of our reality and that our lives are progressively more determined by numerous abstractions, intellectual services and immaterial data (just think about financial markets and abstract evaluations of derivatives, that is, expert financial instruments, which dictate the “economy of artefacts”), there is a growing correlation between these processes on the one hand and very material processes and contents on the other; these material processes and contents are forcefully surfacing in contemporary productions and they question the self-evident purity of the immaterial sphere.

Jonathan Beller’s discussion of the cinematic mode of production and Antonio Negri’s analysis of art and immaterial labour – which explore the abovementioned relationship between art and social reality precisely in the sense that the sphere of art is certainly not about replaying (merely) the froth of special (aesthetic, spectacular) effects, and it is even less about artistic imitation or mirroring of reality; the sphere of art involves things that concern not only the narrower field of art theory, but also contemporary social life in general; they serve as crucial guidance to and an explanation of the key paradigms of contemporary social life. Debord’s view of capital accumulated in images is incorporated in Beller’s thinking about cinematic moving images, whose understanding is key to an analytical approach to new social paradigms and therefore also to the basic principles of cognitive capitalism, whose main characteristics reside in the fact that accumulation in cognitive capitalism focuses on immaterial contents and its objects transform the subject.

THE MONTAGE OF MOVING IMAGES, THE SEQUENCING OF THE WORKER’S MOVEMENT: CINEMA IN THE TAYLORIST WORLD OF ORGANISED LABOUR

onathan Beller, the author of The Cinematic Mode of Production (2006), is interested in the history and the aesthetics of cinema (he dedicates some attention to Dziga Vertov and Hollywood); however, he situates the art of moving images and their perception within the context of industrial labour, Taylorism, psychosocial management (Pavlov’s theory) and psychoanalysis, which means that the aesthetics of cinema is displaced by a theory that establishes a fundamental embeddedness of cinema in industrial production, particularly in that segment of industrial production which is defined as a Fordist and Taylorist mode of organising industrial labour (by means of assembly lines). “Early cinematic montage extended the logic of the assembly-line (the sequencing of discreet, programmatic machine-orchestrated human operations) to the sensorium and brought the industrial revolution to the eye. Cinema welds human sensual activity, what Marx called ‘sensual labor’, in the context of commodity production, to celluloid.”5 This quote articulates a significant understanding of cinema in the context of the industrial revolution; namely, it is a specific understanding of cinema, which does not presuppose any reference to or imitation (or recording) of what transpires in industrial settings; rather, cinema itself is an abstraction of the process on the assembly line, which, like cinema, presupposes a montage of sorts, cuts, an intervention into the worker’s movement, a rationalisation of the work process. Beller’s interpretation of the viewing is also original; in the paradigm of capital, viewing has become productive labour, for the 5

14 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

Jonathan Beller, The Cinematic Mode of Production: Attention Economy and the Society of the Spectacle, Hanover and London: Dartmouth College Press, 2006, p. 9.

11 INDUSTRIAL / 11 THE / 10 BUT / 10 CAPITALISM / 10 MEDIA / 10 SENSE / 10 THEY / 10 WHAT / 9 CINEMATIC / 9 MORE / 9 ONLY / 9 PERFORMANCE /

viewers, like workers in the Taylorist organisation of industrial production, perform sequential visual operations on the elements that form moving images. The function of the latter, however, is no longer to represent capital; rather, according to Beller, moving images are themselves capital. Images as capital are conceivable within the frame of contemporary social turns, which lead us to the world of immaterial labour, the new role of circulation as essential to the processes of evaluation, and also the new dispositif, in which commodities are now constituted, organised and distributed. As Naomi Klein and Maurizio Lazzarato have both argued, commodities seek the status of images. According to Beller, cinema is not only the art form that fundamentally defined the last century (even in the sense of Jameson’s cultural dominant), but also the dominant mode of production; it concerns the industrial revolution and the industrial organisation of labour on the assembly line as well as capitalism itself, which is increasingly structured like cinema, so we can even observe a continuation of the industrial mode of production in film production: Cinema as a process, a complex of movement, bodies, and consciousness, which I will refer to as cinematic process, becomes the dominant mode of production itself. Not all production passes through cinema in the institutional sense, but global production is organized as cinema is. Consciousness is dominated by the organization of movement – the organization of materials produces affect. In the cinematic organization of global production and reproduction, this logic will be interiorized in, and as, the postmodern to the extent that for the postmodern sensorium the world is a world of images. Cinema provides the architectonics of the logistics of perception for capital. Indeed, it represents their fusion. Hence, the cinematic has been machining the postmodern for nearly a century. In this sense, we can say that during the twentieth century, much of the world is literally in cinema, much in the way that the futurists intended to put the spectator inside the painting.6 Beller emphasises the duality of cinema, that is, cinema as cinema and cinema as capital, which can be seen as a theoretical tool that can be used in other fields as well. Without any difficulty, we can establish that it was already Debord who observed the duality of image as image and image as commodity, spectacle as the ecstasy of aesthetic effects and spectacle as a social relation.

tion is a concern shared by Antonio Negri, who has co-authored (with Michael Hardt) theoretical best-sellers such as Empire, Multitude and Commonwealth. In 2009, his book Art et multitude (in English: Art and Multitude, 2011) was published; the final section of this book entitled Metamorphoses: Art and Immaterial Labour, which broaches the question of art in the context of the so-called immaterial labour and cognitive capitalism, is included into this thematic complex. “My point is simply that artistic activity always exists within a specific mode of production, and that it reproduces it – or, more exactly, that it produces it and contests it, that it suffers it and destroys it. Artistic activity is a mode – a singular form – of labour power. It is no accident that all the products of artistic activity can so easily turn into commodities…”7 When we speak of art as commodity, we are thus dealing with a special kind of production, exchange, market and capitalism, for Negri believes that “one can in fact trace a correspondence (rough, of course, but nonetheless real) between the various periods of artistic activity (what one might call the ‘style’ and the ‘poetics’ of art) on the one hand, and the forms of capitalist production and organization of labour on the other.”8 The challenge facing contemporary art theory is thus to understand art on the basis of a specific mode of production (as far as contemporary art is concerned, particularly the capitalist or, in Beller’s words, the cinematic mode of production), whereas contemporary social theory is also faced with a challenge – the challenge of analysing and reflecting upon what happens to a specific historical mode of production once it is interiorised by art (which, however, also defies it, evades it and departs from it). Namely, to understand art on the basis of a specific mode of production and the processes of commodification certainly does not produce a “lack” of sorts, which would automatically subsume this field, the actual activity, under the dominant mode of production. If we consider Debord’s as well as Virno’s, Beller’s and Negri’s theoretical insights, we can see that what, at first sight, might seem like a “lack” is in fact a “surplus” of sorts, namely, the distinctiveness of artistic activity, which can also be paradigmatic of a general mode of production in a given period. When explaining the specificities of immaterial labour, Paolo Virno used the example of the so-called reproductive artists as follows: Let us consider carefully what defines the activity of virtuosos, of performing artists. First of all, theirs is an activity which finds its own fulfilment (that is, its own purpose) in itself, without objectifying itself into an end product, without settling into a “finished product”, or into an object which would survive the performance. Secondly, it is an activity which requires the presence of others, which exists only in the presence of an audience. An activity without an end product: the performance of a pianist or of a dancer does not leave us with a defined object distinguishable from the performance itself, capable

NEGRI: IMMATERIAL LABOUR IN MATERIAL NETWORKS AND WITH MATERIAL EFFECTS

he shift away from the understanding of art in its representational function and towards interpretations on the basis of its position within a given general mode of produc6

Ibid., p. 109.

7 8

Antonio Negri, Art and Multitude (Art et multitude, 2009), Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011, p. 108. Ibid., p. 102.

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 1 5

9 THEORY / 9 UNDERSTANDING / 9 WAS / 8 ABOUT / 8 BETWEEN / 8 CAPITAL / 8 FOR / 8 MATERIAL / 8 PROCESS / 8 SO / 7 ARTISTS / 7 AUTONOMY /

of continuing after the performance has ended. An activity which requires the presence of others: the performance makes sense only if it is seen or heard.9

material processes and contents are forcefully surfacing in contemporary productions and they question the self-evident purity of the immaterial sphere.

Nowadays, we can observe a noticeable increase in activities that leave nothing material behind, especially no so-called material products. On the contrary, everything essential, everything that defines them, is determined by the process of activity embedded in the event, which, however, must be public (to put it simply, it requires the presence of others who see and hear it). A number of such activities are taking place in new media art, which is emphatically post-objective and immaterial; the key things in new media art happen at the level of performance, gaming and software, and they are a part of this art world in the sense that “a work of art – whether based on technology or not – is usually classed as New Media Art when it is produced, exhibited and discussed in a specific ‘art world’, the world of New Media Art.”10 For the author of this statement, new media art is neither a type of art nor a special movement; the essential feature of new media art is precisely its world, which deems artistic only those categories of works which refer to it and which have the opportunity to enter the sphere of the broader public only if they are recognised as relevant to the world of new media art. In a certain sense, the world of new media art precedes new media art and functions as a generative platform in relation to it, which is what, in a way, links new media art to contemporary corporations; the latter, too, consider the establishment of a distinct referential world more important than the production of commodities: “The corporation does not generate the object (the commodity), but rather the world in which the object exists.”11

[T]o speak today of “immaterial labour” no longer means speaking of abstraction, but, on the contrary, of a real plunge into the concrete, into matter. So what we are dealing with here is no longer spirituality and vision from afar, but an immersion amidst bodies, in other words an expression of flesh. Immaterial labour makes material products, commodities and communication. It is socially organized through linguistic, cooperative, electronic and digital networks, which are all extremely material, and it takes place through types of association – and movements – which are multitudinarian. Therefore we are dealing here with an immateriality which is very full of flesh, very mobile and very flexible: an ensemble of bodies.12

CONTEMPORARY CAPITALISM LEAVES NOTHING WITHOUT

he arguments, such as those that go that labour is becoming more and more abstract, and that so is capitalism, or that immaterial labour produces only immaterial products, have become truisms by now, which is why the important contribution of Negri’s text lies in the recognition of a certain contradiction, which now accompanies immaterial labour as well as the general processes of abstraction and dematerialisation. Despite the fact that immaterial processes are increasingly a part of our reality and that our lives are progressively more determined by numerous abstractions, intellectual services and immaterial data (just think about financial markets and abstract evaluations of derivatives, that is, expert financial instruments, which dictate the “economy of artefacts”), there is a growing correlation between these processes on the one hand and very material processes and contents on the other; these

Paolo Virno, A Grammar of the Multitude, Los Angeles and New York, Semiotext(e), 2004, p. 52. 10 Domenico Quaranta, “The Postmedia Perspective”, Rhizome.org. http://rhizome. org/editorial/2011/jan/12/the-postmedia-perspective/, 2011, n.p. 11 Lazzarato, “Struggle, Event, Media”, op. cit., n.p.

16 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

This view can be polemically situated in the context of digital culture, which was hailed in cyberpunk literature and cinema as emphatically anti-corporeal and Platonist, while some of its prospects were even accepted and affirmed in the early theory of cyberworlds. However, today’s view of digital culture (which enters augmented reality as a complex intertwining of the actual and the virtual) shows that the derealisation toward the digital appearance goes hands in hands with the counter-process of realisation of newly discovered bodies, which relate to the new generations of technological devices, particularly interfaces. If we consider the technology of virtual reality, for instance, we can see that its popular interface, the so-called “data glove”, has aroused interest in the human hand, the fingers and the palm and the tactile feedback, which is related precisely to the materiality and the anatomy of the hand and its components. And if we consider contemporary art, we see that contemporary art has long been exposing, questioning and wondering about precisely the investment of bodies – often naked and vulnerable bodies in extreme situations – in the art of performance. Capitalism equals abstraction and dematerialisation, a shift towards images, logotypes, the cinematic mode of production, spectacle and artificially constructed worlds; however, art has found its role in it in that sense that “artistic development has transformed into corporeal figures the abstraction of the social relations in which we exist; and it has given importance to the vitality of flesh – through images which move and flow, in a process of continuous transformation. From Bacon to Warhol or Park Yong, the artist imagines, within a thick space, an indistinct magma; and he fearlessly considers the prospect of a world freed of its internal architecture. Henceforth, artistic development takes place in biopolitical terms as much as in immaterial terms.”13 Since the paradigm shift from mimesis to poiesis, that is, from the imitative to the constructive and productive function of art, we have witnessed the entry of art into the biosphere. The key streams in 12 Negri, Art and Multitude, op. cit., p. 107. 13 Ibid., pp. 107–108.

7 EVEN / 7 HOWEVER / 7 ITSELF / 7 LESS / 7 NEGRI / 7 PROCESSES / 7 PRODUCTS / 7 RATHER / 7 THEORETICAL / 7 VIEW / 6 AESTHETIC / 6 ALL /

this area are the explicit bioart as well as contemporary performance art, which increasingly explores the body brutally exposed in barely imaginable situations (particularly, we should mention here the performance work by feminist performers in the tradition ranging from Marina Abramović, Carolee Schneemann and Valie Export to contemporary artists, such as Ann Liv Young). “We are no longer going towards postmodernity. Or rather, we have gone beyond all the ‘post’, we are in contemporaneity, and contemporaneity has further deepened the transformation of labour. Labour – which, as we have seen, was immaterial, cognitive and affective – is in the process of transforming itself into bios, into biopolitical labour, into activity which reproduces forms of life. From now on it has new properties. It is with these properties that I would like to conclude.”14 This view entails a revision of and a supplement to the almost oversimplified view in common parlance that immaterial labour produces immaterial products; but it is important that this view was articulated (and expounded upon) on the basis of the author’s reflection on art. It seems that art is not some kind of froth or a second-rate field; rather, it can serve as a laboratory for experiencing the key contents that concern our understanding of the present (including the individual and her work). Beller’s and Negri’s texts prove that contemporary social theory can benefit from a more detailed analysis of what transpires in contemporary art. A part of global production and even of the economy of the operations of perception, according to Beller’s theory, is in cinema, that is, it participates in the cinematic mode of production; however, the whole “package” of immaterial labour, immaterial products and services was already anticipated in the artistic dematerialisation of the object in various avant-garde practices (particularly those associated with Marcel Duchamp). A glance at contemporary art can even be challenging and productive for contemporary political theory, while contemporary artists can gain a lot from a dialogue between their practices and contemporary social theories. One of the (new media) artists who are open to the challenges of contemporary society and its theoretical interpretation is Natalie Bookchin; her video installation Mass Ornament and its theoretical background will be introduced in another thematic complex, which will be published in the next issue of Maska. ..

pectacles, images, logotypes and performances are less and less something that is vital only to art; they are less and less determined by the boundaries of artistic autonomy and the world of aesthetic values; however, their significance in the world of immaterial labour and the post-Fordist mode of production is increasing.

Bibliography Beller, Jonathan, The Cinematic Mode of Production, Hanover and London: Dartmouth College Press, University Press of New England, 2006. Debord, Guy, The Society of the Spectacle, New York: Zone Books, 1995. Kusahara, Masachiko, “Making Art as Commercial Products: An Ongoing Challenge of Device Art”, ISEA 2008 Proceedings, Singapore, 2008. Lash, Scott, The Sociology of Postmodernism, London and New York: Routledge, 1990. Lazzarato, Maurizio, “Struggle, Event, Media”, 2003. Translated by Aileen Derieg. http:// eipcp.net/transversal/1003/lazzarato/en (last accessed 11 October 2011). Negri, Antonio, Art and Multitude, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011. Quaranta, Domenico, “The Postmedia Perspective”, Rhizome.org, 2011. http://rhizome.org/ editorial/2011/jan/12/the-postmedia-perspective/ (last accessed 12 October 2011). 14

Ibid., p. 115.

Virno, Paolo, A Grammar of the Multitude, Los Angeles and New York: Semiotext(e), 2004.

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 1 7

196 IN / 178 JE / 165 V / 114 KI / 105 KOT / 91 DA / 77 SE / 57 NA / 51 ZA / 41 S / 39 Z / 38 BI / 35 FILM / 35 SO / 32 KAR / 32 TO / 29 GIBANJA / 28 LAHKO /

FILMSKI PRODUKCIJSKI NAČIN: EKONOMIJA POZORNOSTI IN DRUŽBA SPEKTAKLA THE CINEMATIC MODE OF PRODUCTION: ATTENTION ECONOMY AND THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE see page 28

ODLOMEK JONATHAN BELLER PREVOD / TRANSLATED BY KATJA ČIČIGOJ

BaraKolenc@3 × 10 17Hz

18 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

26 MED / 26 OD / 25 PA / 24 NI / 23 ZGOLJ / 22 KAPITALA / 22 NE / 22 TUDI / 21 PRODUKCIJE / 20 FILMA / 20 V / 19 DO / 18 GA / 18 K / 18 KO / 18 ORGANIZACIJE /

osebna vloga filma pri razvoju industrijskega kapitalizma postavi s proizvajanjem novih afektov temelje za popolno komodifikacijo senzorija. Začenši v Eisensteinovem času film1 dematerializira industrijske procese, jih priredi v krmo za zavest in čute ter jih z vizualnimi sredstvi projicira v telesa. Film ponotranji industrijsko gibanje in ga izrazi v oblikah zavesti in čutnosti. Te oblike se prek očesa projicirajo v telesa. Telesa nato ponotranjijo industrijsko gibanje, ki preoblikuje njihovo zavest. Film spreminja gibanje v misli in občutke ali bolj splošno – afekte. Dejstvo, da dematerializacija označevalskih slojev v razviti obliki (kot zavest, kot film, kot kapital) zgodovinsko vznikne sočasno z oblikami teorij organizacije, ki se ukvarjajo z materialnim utelešenjem organizacije, ni noben paradoks. Bolj kot je sloj označevalcev abstrakten in eteričen – t. j. večje kot so možnosti izražanja brez vidnosti aparata –, bolj je izražanje odvisno od razvoja materialne in družbene organizacije. Kdorkoli, ki je kdaj hotel priti do informacij na računalniškem disku, pa ni imel dostopa do računalnika, razume družbeno-tehnološko-zgodovinsko vpetost označevanja v materialno organizacijo. Brez celotne zgodovine nastanka računalnika, t. j. brez računalnika, njegovega industrijskega temelja in vsega, kar njegov obstoj predpostavlja (Silicon Valley, off-shore delo, imperializem, na kratko, zgodovino sveta do današnjih dni), bi bile visoko dematerializirane informacije na disku neuporabne. Marx je opazil enako odvisnost med označevanjem in družbeno organizacijo, ko je vlekel vzporednico med razvojem kapitala in organizacijo buržoazne družbe. Bolj ko kapital postaja abstrakten (kot denar, kot dolg), bolj rigidna in konkretna, bolj utelešena postaja buržoazna (kapitalistična) družba. Vse večjo organizacijo teles samih (z načinom vedenja, kulturo) ter vse večjo organizacijo telesnih, intelektualnih in vizualnih poti, ki jih telesa in njihovi deteritorializirani deli prečijo, spremlja tudi navidezna dematerializacija izraza.2 Svobodno lebdeča podoba je vse do 1

Beller v svojem delu sicer razlikuje med filmom kot kulturno in umetniško prakso oz. konkretnimi predstavniki le-te (»film«) in filmom kot družbeno-ekonomskim dispozitivom, tako v smislu mreže produkcije in distribucije, kot dispozitivom pogleda in identifikacije oz. prešitja (projektor-platno-gledalec) v psihoanalitični filmski teoriji (»cinema«). Na slednji pomen se nanašajo tudi njegove teze o »afektivni ekonomiji« in »vrednotenju pogleda«. Slovenski jezik ne pozna tovrstnega razlikovanja, beseda »kino« pa označuje le konkretne kinematografe in nima tudi splošnejših konotacij filmskega dispozitiva, ki so lastne Bellerjevemu pojmu »cinema«. Zato v prevodu uporabljamo besedo »film«, vendar pa jo je potrebno razumeti v drugem nakazanem smislu (torej kot »cinema«). Op. prev. Taka radikalna dematerializacija proizvede perspektivo, ki je pogoj možnosti za izjavo Piera Paola Pasolinija: »Vse življenje, v celoti stvarstva, je naravni živeči film.« Pier Paolo Pasolini, Heretical Empiricism, Bloomington in Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1988, str. 204. Življenje je lahko naravni film za Pasolinija samo zato, ker je sam film zgodovinsko nastal obenem kot tehnologija in kot abstrakcija. Film kot »zapisani jezik realnosti« je možen zgolj v svetu, v katerem je gibanje samo dobilo nove pomene za pogled. Za Pasolinija je film za »jezik akcije« to, kar je pisanje za ustni jezik. Oko dobi nove funkcije s procesiranjem dematerializirane resničnosti (podob), saj je materialna resničnost organizirana tako, da omogoča te nove funkcije. Filmski red postane temelj vsega gibanja in pomena. Struktura realnosti pretvarja objekte v podobe in znake. V svetu visoko organiziranih sistemov postane organizirano gibanje sámo označevalno (zato je prva knjiga Deleuzovega Filma podnaslovljena Podoba-gibanje); v tem kontekstu dezorganizirano gibanje prav tako postane označevalno. Z nastankom kibernetike odnosi med gibanjem, vzorci gibanja in pomeni ne postanejo le eksplicitni, temveč vstopijo v konceptualizacijo samega življenja. »Življenje je otok tukaj in zdaj v umirajočem svetu. Proces, s katerim se živa bitja upirajo splošnemu toku razpada in dekadence, je znan kot homeostaza. Z življenjem lahko nadaljujemo v zelo posebnem okolju, ki ga dalje nosimo s seboj samo do tedaj, ko začnemo propadati hitreje, kot se lahko regeneriramo. Takrat umremo … Nismo materija, ki pasivno sprejema, temveč vzorci, ki se prenašajo dalje.« In nato preroško: »Vzorec je sporočilo in se lahko prenaša kot sporočilo.« Norbert Weiner, The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society, Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor Books, 1954, str. 95–96. Pasolinijeva vpeljava de-

kvantnega nivoja zasidrana v materialni družbeni organizaciji. Pomembno je, da pri Eisensteinu opazimo prepoznavanje principa, ki leži za režimi organizacije gibanja. Eisensteinov zavestni trud, da bi ta princip pretvoril v prakso, je izražen na naslednji način: »Atrakcijo,« je zapisal Eisenstein, »razumemo kot vsako dokazljivo dejstvo (akcijo, objekt, pojav, zavestno kombinacijo itn.), za katerega je znano in dokazano, da ima natančno določen učinek na pozornost in čustva gledalcev ter da lahko v povezavi z drugimi dejstvi strne čustva gledalcev v katerokoli smer, ki jo narekuje cilj produkcije.«3 Eisensteina je zanimal nadzor prek organizacije atrakcije. »Metoda agitacije prek spektakla sestoji iz ustvarjanja nove verige pogojnih refleksov s pomočjo asociacije izbranih pojavov z brezpogojnimi refleksi, ki jih proizvedejo.«4 Scenarij je »po našem prepričanju predpis ali lista montažnih sekvenc in kombinacij, s katerimi želi avtor podvreči gledalce določenemu nizu šokov, predpis, ki povzame splošni nameravani čustveni učinek na občinstvo, in pritisk, ki bo neizogibno izvršen nad duševnostjo gledalcev.«5 Ker je »pristop montaže bistveni, pomenonosni in edini možni jezik filma, povsem analogen vlogi besede v govorjenem materialu.«6 Nizanje gibljivih fragmentov je za Eisensteina postalo orodje za reorganizacijo duševnosti gledalcev. Ideja montaže je torej proces abstrakcije kot tak, film pa je njena dosledna uporaba. V Eisensteinovi znameniti frazi je režija »organizacija občinstva prek organizacije materiala.«7 Dejstvo, da Stavka tematizira splošni fenomen gibanja kot označevanja ter da so se filmski teoretiki od Eisensteina do Pasolinija vselej ukvarjali s filmom kot jezikom, kaže na njihove prehodne pozicije v menjavi paradigme od označevanja k simulaciji (od pomena k stimulaciji) in nam priskrbi delovno periodizacijo tega preloma. To je čas moderne kinematografije, po katerem se pomen umika čistemu afektu (kakor v Žrelu). Kar bi želel posebej poudariti glede Stavke, pa je, da je to morda prvi film, ki vznikajočo paradigmo gibanja kot označevanja dosledno prevzame za temeljni princip animacije lastne organizacije. S tem skuša Stavka inkorporirati gledalca v svoje lastno gibanje. Tako kot postane delavec v fordistični tovarni del gibalnega orkestra (orkestracije) tovarne, del stroja, tako postane gledalec komponenta Eisensteinovih gibalnih strojev. Ti filmi naložijo svoje gibanje na in v gledalce, ki, čeprav sposobni razbrati njihov »pomen«, razumejo to, kar dejansko označujejo, zgolj v in kot telesno aktivnost. Gledalec uteleša rezultantno silo gibanja, ki je nanj preneseno – splošna situacija kulture strojev, ki ovija in na določene načine presega vsak posamezni pomen.

3 4 5 6 7

zorganiziranega gibanja v družbo vse bolj organiziranih kapitalističnih in heteroseksualnih libidinalnih odnosov (dezorganizacija, ki jo je sam dojemal kot nekaj, kar je blizu nepopredmeteni življenjski sili) v filmu, kot so Arabske noči (1974), je heretični vidik njegovega empiricizma. V visoko urejeni družbi pomeni intenzifikacija obstoječe dezorganizacije prek alternativnega načina urejanja – enostavno rečeno – inavguracijo revolucije. A to je bilo v šestdesetih. Danes je mnogo težje verjeti, da sta jouissance in revolucija eno ali da sploh lahko domujeta znotraj iste idejne konstelacije. Sergei Eisenstein, Selected Works: Writings 1922–1934, vol. 1, ur. in prev. Richard Taylor. London: BFI Publishing, 1988, str. 41. Ibid., str. 45. Ibid., str. 46. Ibid., str. 46. Ibid., str. 65.

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 1 9

17 ALI / 17 FILM / 17 JIH / 17 O / 16 BOLJ / 16 TAKO / 16 VSE / 15 GIBANJE / 15 KAPITAL / 14 IZ / 14 PO / 14 POSTANE / 14 PREK / 14 PRI / 14 TEGA / 14 TER /

Eisenstein ni zapregel dematerializacije materialnega gibanja zgolj kot pomen, temveč kot neposredno razširitev družbene sile ter razvil njene možnosti. Ta dosežek pretvori Stavko v idealni študijski primer za argument, ki ga tu zasledujem: da film, subjektivnost in telesnost začnejo delovati kot kontinuum, povezan s tem, kar Eisenstein imenuje »proizvodna logika«. Če to drži, bi se moralo izkazati, da pomen Stavke ni toliko v interpretaciji, ampak da sta sama zavest in drobovje v našem času filmska, t. j. lastna proizvodni logiki, ki inkorporira telo. Izkaže se, da je ta proizvodna logika, za katero sta značilna tako racionalni nadzor gibanja kot urejena produkcija zavesti, obenem tudi logika komodifikacije. V denarni ekonomiji je gibanje prek cirkulacije kapitala enakovredno komodifikaciji. Namigujem na to, da je afekt vse bolj rezultat organizirane cirkulacije; ta cirkulacija je učinek komodifikacije. Tako moteča ideja, kakršna utegne biti ideja o invaziji zavesti s strani logistike kapitala, danes odpira vprašanje, ki bo za nekatere prav tako pošastno: »Kaj je marksizem?«

ORANJE DUŠEVNOSTI OBČINSTVA

komentarju Stavke v »Problemu materialističnega pristopa k formi« Eisenstein potrjuje naše dosedanje argumente o odnosu med gibanjem in izražanjem: »Stavka pa je prvi primer revolucionarne umetnosti, kjer je forma bolj revolucionarna kot vsebina /…/ Zgodovinsko-revolucionarni material, se pravi »produktivna« preteklost sodobne revolucionarne stvarnosti, je bil prvič raziskan pod pravilnim zornim kotom: to je bilo raziskovanje njegovih karakterističnih momentov kot razvojnih stopenj enkratnega procesa z aspekta njihovega »produktivnega« bistva. Moja oblikovna zahteva, ki sem jo postavil Proletkultu v zvezi z določanjem vsebine sedmih filmov iz cikla K diktaturi: razkriti produktivno logiko in pokazati načine boja kot »živ«, tekoč proces …«8 Richard Taylor nakazuje, da je »implikacija fraze ‘produktivna’ preteklost v ideji, da je preteklost pripravila sedanjost kot tovarniški proces«.9 Za Eisensteina je tu v igri samo-ozaveščena uporaba Marxovega odkritja o človeški produkciji človeške družbe – ne zgolj kot teorije zgodovinske in družbene produkcije, temveč kot metode, ali raje, načina produkcije. Da bi delal zgodovino, želi Eisenstein uporabiti, kar nastaja v industrijski metodi in kar nastaja pri njenih delavcih. Pogosto namigujejo, da naj bi revolucije spodletele pri udejanjanju svojih utopičnih hrepenenj in bile uspešne zgolj pri inovaciji premene v načinu produkcije. Eisensteinova formalna revolucija ni bila nobena izjema. Da preteklost proizvaja sedanjost, se zdi pravilno, za Eisensteina pa je bilo prav tako pomembno, da sedanjost proizvede preteklost. Vlogo revolucionarnega filmskega ustvarjalca je videl v uporabi tega odnosa in njegovi pretvorbi v 8

Sergej Mihajlovič Eisenstein, »K vprašanju o materialističnem pristopu k formi«, v: Sergej Mihajlovič Eisenstein, Montaža, ekstaza – izbrani spisi. Prev. Primož Pečenko. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1981, str. 45. Kot pove Richard Taylor, je bila Stavka izvorno zasnovana kot epizoda v širšem ciklu K diktaturi, ki nikoli ni bil dokončan (Eisenstein, Writings, str. 307, op. 3). 9 Eisenstein, Writings, str. 307, op. 2.

2 0 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

metodo, ki je zmožna proizvesti prihodnost. Da bi proizvedel zgodovino, se je Eisenstein posluževal najnovejših industrijskih metod. Z Eisensteinovimi besedami: »Revolucionarnost Stavke pa je v tem, da svojega novatorskega principa ne išče med ‘umetniškimi pojavi’, temveč med neposredno uporabnimi – sámo strukturno načelo je bilo, da naj prikaže film produkcijske procese.«10 Da bi pokazal, da je delavska stavka kot revolucionarna aktivnost tudi sama nekaj proizvedenega, je za Eisensteina »pomembna izbira, v kolikor presega meje estetike /…/, a še pomembnejša po tem, da je bila z materialističnega vidika pravilno raziskana prav tista sfera, katere principi so edini, ki lahko določijo ideologijo form revolucionarne umetnosti, kakor so tudi določili revolucionarne ideologije nasploh – se pravi sfera težke industrije, tovarniške proizvodnje in oblik produkcijskega procesa.«11 Stavka mora biti proizvedena iz pogojev, ki so povzročili njeno nujnost. Sfera produkcije je torej tista, ki se po Eisensteinu nedvomno izraža v vsebini, vendar tudi, še bolj dramatično, v formi. To, kar Stavka zares označuje, nam uide, če jo vidimo zgolj kot ekspozicijo pogojev za stavko. Film kot tak je zamišljen kot orodje. Film je, tako rekoč, tretji od treh pasov, ki se hrani s pogonskim sklopom novega (filmskega) načina produkcije, da bi prenesel gonilne moči na delavce na nov način. »Revolucionarna forma je produkt tistih pravilno odkritih tehničnih metod, ki konkretizirajo nov pogled in pristop k stvarem in pojavom, se pravi, novo razredno ideologijo, ki resnično obnavlja ne samo družbeni pomen, ampak tudi materialno in tehnično bistvo filma, kar se razkriva v tako imenovani ‘naši vsebini’. Lokomotiva ni nastala z ‘revolucioniranjem’ kočije, temveč kot posledica pravilnega tehničnega izračuna praktičnih možnosti nove, ne pa stare oblike energije – pare.«12 Para Eisensteinove kinematografije, njena »nova oblika energije« je, kot pravi, organizacija mase prek organiziranega materiala – nova fenomenologija objektov, proizvedenih v industrijskem procesu. To je teorija in praksa Eisensteinovega historičnega materializma. Zanj film ni zgolj reprezentacija revolucionarne prakse, ampak je neposredno vpleten v sfero produkcije. Ta teorija produkcije ni le prazna retorika, saj, kakor Eisenstein primerno zapiše, ta produkcija proizvede »novo razredno ideologijo«, nov tip prešitja z družbenim svetom. Eisenstein, po izobrazbi arhitekt in inženir, oblikuje stroje za proizvodnjo novega družbenega reda. Z zanj značilno spretnostjo za strukturno natančnost in zanj običajno ekonomijo sredstev Eisenstein povzame svoje poglede o namerni vključitvi strojev, o proletariatu, ki hitro vznika iz agrarnega sveta, in o revolucionarni umetnosti: »Umetniško delo (vsaj v okviru dveh področij, kjer delujem – gledališče in film) razumemo predvsem kot traktor, ki globoko preorje gledalčevo psiho v dani razredni usmeritvi.«13 Za Eisensteina je film stroj, ki spremeni mentalno življenje in ga, kakor bomo videli, podredi novi logiki. 10 11 12 13

Eisenstein, »K vprašanju o materialističnem pristopu k formi«, str. 46. Ibid., str. 46. Ibid., str. 48. Ibid., str. 49–50.

13 REALNEGA / 12 DRUŽBE / 12 POMEN / 12 TEM / 11 JO / 11 KINO / 11 ORGANIZACIJO / 11 ZAVESTI / 10 ČE / 10 DELO / 10 EISENSTEIN / 10 TEHNOLOGIJA /

ORGANIZACIJA – DEMATERIALIZACIJA MATERIALNEGA GIBANJA

eninove besede, ki poudarjajo pomen organizacije, so citirane na začetku Stavke: »Moč delavskega razreda leži v organizaciji. Brez organizacije množic je proletariat ničla. Organizacija je vse. Organizacija pomeni enotnost akcije, enotnost praktičnih operacij.« Sledeč tej organizacijski direktivi se Stavka nameni katalogizirati različne trenutke v organizaciji revolucionarnega proletariata in hkrati biti sama trenutek v organizaciji revolucionarnega proletariata. Predstavlja kontinuiteto med preteklostjo ter prihodnostjo in prikazuje revolucionarno vlogo proletariata pri organizaciji družbe. Začetek filma je seveda zastavljen kot boj med dvema komunikativnima režimoma, v katerem je v igri razrešitev shizme med dvema tekmujočima modeloma praktične organizacije delavcev in države. Lastniki kapitala imajo na svoji strani telefone, strukturo oblasti tovarne same in vohune, ki poročajo menedžerjem. Naposled se lahko lastniki zanašajo na državo v obliki policije in vojaških sil, ki okrepijo primež, v katerem držijo delavce. Kapitalisti s svojimi menedžerji, stroji, vohuni in policijo predstavljajo utrjeno organizacijsko mrežo. To je živa arhitektura moči. Medtem pa imajo delavci na svoji strani zgolj to, kar lahko sami ustvarijo iz pogojev lastnega obstoja. V fantastični sekvenci, ki prikazuje prepletenost sestavnih delov carske države ter režima zasebne lastnine, tovarniški delovodja, ki je prepoznal, da se kuhajo težave, pokliče svojega nadrejenega, ki nato pokliče svojega nadrejenega in tako naprej vse do lastnikov kapitala in vojaške policije. Ko klic potuje po lestvi poveljstva, govoreči sprejemajo klic prek telefona na enem ušesu in istočano k drugemu ušesu dvigajo drugo slušalko, da prenesejo sporočilo naprej in navzgor. Na tem mestu film ne prikaže le tehnološke neposrednosti povezav med kapitalističnim industrijskim menedžmentom in drugimi oblikami državne oblasti, ampak tudi nakazuje, da je funkcija človeka znotraj te posredniške mreže določena z njegovo pozicijo v organizacijski strukturi. V določenem smislu pripada telefonu večja moč delovanja kot njegovemu uporabniku – vsaj tedaj, ko so uporabniki kapitalisti ali njihovi lakaji, vpreženi pri zatiranju sil (delavcev), ki grozijo s spremembo organizacijske celovitosti njihovih sistemov. Telefonski medij deluje nekako tako kot filmski medij v Eisensteinovih rokah. Glave birokratov mehanično prenašajo sporočilo, tako kakor kapitalisti in njihova država ne morejo ukreniti nič drugega, kot da poskušajo zatreti stavko. Telefonski kabel s svojo tankostjo uteleša neverjetno organizacijsko moč. Dejstvo, da klic doseže svoj končni cilj pri vojaškem poveljstvu, ki ima na razpolago javne dokumente (zemljevide mesta in podobe vohunov, katerih fotografije se nemudoma pričnejo gibati), nakazuje, da bo poziv k prisilni protirevolucionarni sili na svoji poti navzdol po hierarhiji proti zatiralski realizaciji oživil že obstoječe strukture.14 14 Na dnu kapitalistične hierarhije so vohuni. Ti možje dobijo imena po živalih, npr. Lisica, Sova in Buldog, ter so, tako kakor kapitalisti in vojska, zgolj minimalno predstavljeni kot subjekti. Večinoma so vohuni nemisleča bitja, ki o vsem poročajo svojim gospodarjem. Ko je stavka že močno v zanosu, eden od vohunov uporabi skrito kamero v svojem žepu, da ujame podobo enega od vodij stavke. Ta podoba je nato uporabljena za identifikacijo in prijetje tega vodje. Tako kot drugi komunikacijski mediji, ki jih uporabljajo kapitalisti, postane razviti film v kapitalistični verigi organizacije, tako kot telefonski kabel, inštrument moči proti delavskemu razredu. Tako kot kapitalistom lastništvo nekaterih medijev omogoča

godnja filmska montaža je razširila logiko tekočega traku (sekvenčenje diskretnih, programskih, s strojem usklajenih posameznikovih operacij) k senzoriju in privedla industrijsko revolucijo k očesu. Film je povezal človekovo čutno aktivnost, tisto, kar je Marx imenoval ‘čutno delo’ v kontekstu blagovne proizvodnje, s celuloidnim trakom.

Ne da bi slutili bližajoči se poraz, delavci uporabijo svojo življenjsko energijo, da se organizirajo z ustnim prenašanjem sporočil, s pamfleti in pod krinko umetnosti. V prostem času ob vodi čedni voditelji razpravljajo in kujejo zaroto, medtem ko počivajo na sidru. Njihova bratska vez, skovana med delom za skupno stvar, je morda za Eisensteina libidinalno jedro revolucionarne družbe. Dobimo premoč nad delavci, tako žepna opazovalna kamera nakazuje dinamične posledice za tako prakso 20. stoletja: kdorkoli nadzoruje podobo, nadzoruje čas in nedvomno čase ter obratno: kdorkoli nadzoruje čas, nadzoruje tudi podobo. Z uporabo opazovalne kamere lastniki postavijo stavkajoče v službo svojega časa. Regulacija časa in podob, kar je dosežek kinematografske industrije, postane nov ključ za kontrolo družbene organizacije. Četudi je Stavka v celoti navidez poskus izboriti podobe in čas (zgodovino) iz primeža kapitalizma, sekvenca z opazovalno kamero kaže v slogu War and Cinema Paula Virilioja, da se film in industrija kapitala družno razvijata: zajetje podobe organizatorja je enakovredno zajetju njega samega. (»Če bi moral v enem stavku povzeti trenutno razmišljanje o natančnih izstrelkih in nasičenih orožjih,« je dejal W. J. Perry, nekdanji ameriški podsekretar za državno varnost, »bi dejal takole: ko naposled lahko vidiš tarčo, lahko pričakuješ tudi njeno uničenje.« Paul Virilio, War and Cinema: The Logistics of Perception, prev. Patrick Camiller (London: Verso, 1989, str. 4)). Nedvomno njegovo prijetje neposredno sledi razvitju njegove fotografije. Kakor kabel in pas je podoba tu dodaten povodec za delavca.

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 21

10 TO / 9 AMPAK / 9 BO / 9 DELAVCEV / 9 EISENSTEINA / 9 FILMSKI / 9 JEZIK / 9 KAKOR / 9 NAČIN / 9 PROCES / 9 STAVKA / 9 STRANI / 9 TA /

olj ko kapital postaja abstrakten (kot denar, kot dolg), bolj rigidna in konkretna, bolj utelešena postaja buržoazna (kapitalistična) družba. Vse večjo organizacijo teles samih (z načinom vedenja, kulturo) ter vse večjo organizacijo telesnih, intelektualnih in vizualnih poti, ki jih telesa in njihovi deteritorializirani deli prečijo, spremlja tudi navidezna dematerializacija izraza.

številne posnetke mož med počitkom, ki izkoristijo prosti čas za organizacijo. Delavci sedijo med ogromnimi skladovnicami tirnih koles, spet načrtujejo in zdi se, kot bi črpali navdih iz materialne vzročnosti med bazo in nadstavbo: železniški vozni park ne more voziti brez koles. Na stranišču tovarne ponovno kujejo zaroto, dokler ne vstopi šefov delovodja, oni pa potegnejo hlače navzdol in se obrnejo k pisoarjem ali sedejo na školjke v posameznih kabinah – nedolžno opravljajo svoje potrebe. In nato s superpozicijo glasu harmonike, ki se odpira in zapira, kot bi vdihavala in izdihavala sporočilo, vidimo skupine delavcev in njihove družine, ki hodijo, pojejo, govorijo med seboj, medtem ko mednapis pravi »širiti besedo«. Tudi na natisnjenih letakih delavci kličejo k splošni stavki. To je organizacija delavskih protigibanj. Gradijo revolucionarno zavest in revolucijo. Iz solidarnosti do delavcev, ki uporabljajo svoje lastne prostore in ustvarjalne sile, da bi priredili stavko, Stavka organizira

2 2 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

nepreštevno veliko gibanj in vzorcev vsakdanjega življenja, da bi sestavila sporočilo. Toda to sporočilo ni namenjeno zgolj razumevanju, t. j. ni zgolj, kot morda dozdevno predpostavlja zgornji odstavek, priročnik za revolucionarno aktivnost. Ko poskušajo kapitalisti in delavci pretentati drug drugega z uporabo lastnih organizacijskih in komunikacijskih mrež, postane jasno, da je pri delavcih gibanje sámo njihov komunikacijski medij. Delavci uredijo alternativno kroženje in se izražajo s konkretno reorganizacijo svoje okolice. Ta reorganizacija je tako rekoč filmski jezik Stavke. Spravljanje stvari v gibanje je oblika izražanja te družbe. Kapitalisti organizirajo gibanje v skladu s svojimi interesi, delavci pa skušajo organizirati svojo lastno obliko gibanja. Drugačno gibanje v družbi strogo predpisanega gibanja že pomeni izražati nekaj drugega. Alternativna gibanja lahko kljubujejo ali celo presežejo vladajoči družbeni red. Cilj delavcev v Stavki je nedvomno vsaj delno iztrgati tovarno mreži organizacije in nadzoru kapitalistov ter jo vključiti v lastno mrežo. Gibajo se, da bi sprožili gibanje njenih gibljivih delov v svoj prid. V Stavki postane reorganizacija gibanja (prostora in časa) zgovorna. V nasprotju s kapitalisti, ki so karikature, ter njihovimi vohuni, ki so poimenovani po živalih, so ljudje, ki se pojavijo kot »Ljudstvo« (ki so v Eisensteinovih filmih, kot opaža Roland Barthes, »vselej ljubki«), edini sposobni avtonomnega delovanja.15 S samolastnim gibanjem ljudstvo terja lastno človeškost. Kot da bi sámo revolucionarno gibanje začelo sprevračati Marxov opis živalskih pogojev, ki jih nalaga kapitalizem, v katerem »živalsko postane človeško in človeško živalsko.«16 Do živalskih pogojev življenja delavcev pod kapitalizmom pride po Marxu zato, ker vsa ustvarjalna energija (človeško delo) pripada kapitalistom. Čeprav se kapitalisti z izkoriščanjem delavcev vedejo nečloveško, se polaščajo človeških atributov delavcev, ki so jih zaprli v kletko. Delavec, ki je sposoben zgolj reprodukcije lastnega obstoja, je reduciran na raven živali, saj žival »proizvaja le to, kar potrebuje neposredno zase ali za svojega mladiča /…/. Žival producira zgolj sebe, medtem ko človek reproducira vso naravo.«17 Vendar pa delavska gibanja, organizirana za revolucionarno spremembo, proizvedejo nekaj onstran neposrednega obstoja in razkrivajo, da so kapitalisti in njihovi lakaji tisti, ki so zaradi pomanjkanja delovanja sposobni proizvajati zgolj same sebe. Delavska gibanja v Stavki razkrivajo živalsko naravo kapitalistov. Kot da bi urok, ki je z zamrznitvijo njihove človeškosti v proizvedenih objektih, ki jih sedaj uklepajo, delavce spremenil v živali, bil lahko premagan z reorganizacijo gibanja. Pri Eisensteinu človeškost ostaja duh, svet pa je pod urokom kapitalizma. Dihotomija, ki sem jo vzpostavil med živalskim in človeškim in je prisotna pri Eisensteinu in Marxu ter, kot bo kmalu postalo pomembno, v imaginariju njune dobe, ni sama sebi namen. Zaradi dejstva, da je kapital proizvedel živalskost, je bilo Eisensteinovo zanimanje 15 Roland Barthes, »Tretji smisel«, v: Ekran, št. 9/10, letn. 17, 1980, prev. Brane Kovič, str. 51. 16 Karl Marx, Prvi rokopis: Odtujeno delo (Kritika nacionalne ekonomije. Pariški rokopisi 1844. Ekonomsko-filozofski rokopisi), v: Karl Marx in Friedrich Engels, Izbrana dela, zv. 1, prev. Primož Simoniti, Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1979, str. 306. 17 Ibid., str. 309.

9 VREDNOSTI / 9 ZAVEST / 8 ČETUDI / 8 DRUŽBENE / 8 FILMU / 8 KOT / 8 NEPOSREDNO / 8 NOVO / 8 PROCESA / 8 STAVKE / 8 TA / 8 TEMVEČ / 8 VREDNOST /

za odnos med živalmi, ljudmi in družbeno organizacijo ob prelomu stoletja del problematike, o kateri se je obširno razpravljalo. Pomislimo zgolj na H. G. Wellsov Skrivnostni otok dr. Moreauja, na trope, ki so jih uporabljale pozne kolonialne in vznikajoče imperialistične sile, da bi označile rasno zaznamovane druge, ali na pavlovski behaviorizem. Ta konstelacija kapitala, živalskosti in človeškosti nakazuje globlje zmožnosti metamorfoze, latentne v komunikativnih vidikih gibanja, saj lahko reorganizacija potencialno stre Kirkin urok, t. j. urok kapitala, živalskosti. Za zdaj je pomembno, da smo pozorni na povezavo kapitala in živalskosti ter komunikacijskega procesa. Po Eisensteinu komunikacija vznikne kot rezultat organizacije produkcije in deluje kot oblika produkcije. Poleg tega se kaže neposredno v gibanju materialov. Dejstvo, da je gibanje sámo komunikacija, je eksplicitno pokazano v sekvenci Stavke, ki nastopi, ko se zažene proces ustavljanja dela in nekateri delavci v livarni zavračajo pridružitev. Jezna drhal stavkajočih delavcev pobere surov material tega, kar se bo kmalu spremenilo v točo tlakovcev, in z njimi prebije okna livarne. Ni dvoma o tem, kaj počnejo, ko mečejo kamne – pošiljajo sporočilo, ki bi ga lahko razumela tudi žival: »Poberite se!« Dejstvo, da gibanje materiala postane izrazno pri Eisensteinu, je zgolj malo manj nenavadno kot dejstvo, da se to dejansko zgodi prek dematerializacije gibanja materiala. Toda prav dematerializacija materialnega gibanja je trenutek, ki presega goli pomen filma v smislu, ki sem ga prej nakazal, in zaznamuje to, kar film označuje kot reorganizacijo materiala in materialnost označevanja. Prav tukaj, pri abstrahiranju materialnega gibanja od materialnosti in pri posledičnih fenomenoloških ter globinskih učinkih, pride filmski produkcijski način do polne prisotnosti. Od tod dalje bo percepcija bolj ali manj zavestno oblikovana v skladu s protokoli kroženja materiala. Ker je Stavka sama materializacija gibanj, ki so postajala lastna družbeni organizaciji kot jeziku, je tudi sama materializacija nekega »jezika«. Vendar pa je jezik prav tako neprimeren pojem kot pomen, ker tisto, za kar gre v Stavki, ni toliko govorjenje o nečem, temveč bolj prenos njenega lastnega gibanja, prenos revolucionarnega gibanja.

organizacije. Dejstvo, da se ta organizacijska sila materializira v in kot dematerializacija materialnega gibanja, zgolj nakazuje, da obstaja nova oblika energije za spremembo materialne organizacije družbe – para! Z uporabo tehnološke organizacije Realnega plinasti film v vsej svoji zračni nematerialnosti raztegne kroženje gibanja onkraj trenutnega kraja in časa na prizorišče njegove uporabe – v družbeno in čutno.

FILM: TEHNOLOGIJA REALNEGA. ZAVEST TEŽI K BLAGOVNI ZAVESTI. PRODUKTIVNA VREDNOST ČLOVEŠKE POZORNOSTI. FILM KOT ORGANIZACIJSKA PARADIGMA.

Imaginarnem označevalcu Christian Metz napove svojo psihoanalitično raziskavo kapitalističnega filma kot poskus »osvoboditi film-objekt od imaginarnega in ga pridobiti za simbolno v upanju na razširitev slednjega z novim področjem, kot poskus premestitve, kot teritorialni poskus, kot simbolni napredek.«20 Simbolni napredek, ki ga ima v mislih, sestoji iz razširitve jezika teorije na teritorij filma, saj je zanj »film tehnika imaginarnega.«21 Tu bi morali dodati, da je film tehnologija Realnega. S pridobitvijo filma za simbolno želi Metz epistemološko artikulirati to, kar se zgodi ob srečanju med filmom in duševnostjo. Po Metzu film izvršuje nalogo v prostoru imaginarnega, ki jo lahko opisno in logično analiziramo. Krajše povedano: Metz želi v simbolnem poiskati vmesnik med filmom in telesom. Vzporednico med Metzovim in mojim lastnim delom lahko najdemo v mojem poskusu pokazati, da to, kar vemo o filmu na nekakšen empiričen način (z gledanjem in refleksijo), in to, kar izkusimo, lahko izrazimo v drugačnem kodu. Za Metza je ta kod teorija – simbolno. Z vpeljavo tega, kar bo sledilo, bi želel k Metzovi analizi dodati, da izkustvo filma ni le mogoče, temveč tudi dejansko že je izraženo v drugem kodu – četudi je to vrsta koda, katerega vse enote niso razumljive za nas. Te enote imajo vse bolj kvantitativno določljiv, statistični pomen za kapital. Informatike kapitala prehitevajo pomen. Če je, kakor piše Georg Simmel, denar kakor jezik, »primerljiv z logičnimi oblikami, ki se prilagodijo vsaki poljubni vsebini, njenemu razvoju ali kombinaciji,« velja tudi obratno.22 Ob privzetju oblike industrije, t. j. ob tem, ko postane

V »Tretjem smislu« je Roland Barthes uporabil slike iz Eisensteinovih filmov, da je prišel do pojma filmskega, ki presega sfero označenca. Za Barthesa je »tretji smisel«, čemur pravi »topi pomen«, to, kar presega jezik – »označevalec brez označenca.«18 Z njegovimi besedami, »tretji smisel, ki ga teoretično lahko umestimo, ne pa opišemo, se sedaj pojavlja kot prehod od govorice k označevanju in utemeljujoče dejanje samega filmičnega.«19 Nakazujem, da se »filmska« srečanja dogajajo v nadjezikovnem okolju, ki obenem uporablja misel in jo presega. Film je tehnologija za organizacijo kulise tega srečanja – naj začasno ta prostor označimo kot prostor Realnega. Materialna reorganizacija sveta kapitala in živalskosti je, po Eisensteinu, namenjena produkciji psihične reorganizacije, fizične reorganizacije in posledično družbene re-

njen podaljšek, filmski jezik privzame obliko kapitala. Zato ne vstopam v teritorij filma zgolj zato, da bi priskrbel teorijo filma; želim pokazati, kako je kapital vseskozi razvijal »teorijo« filma prek artikulacije njegove oblike. Četudi lahko pomene filma najdemo v jeziku, to, kar film označuje, ni jezik; kar označuje, je v simbolnem, ki ga poznamo kot kapital. Treba je opozoriti, da to simbolno ni berljivo za vse subjekte in njegov proces označevanja nedvomno poteka v registru, ki se zelo razlikuje od vsakdanjih percepcij v

18 Barthes, »Tretji smisel«, str. 51. Naj opozorim, da je ta definicija v nasprotju s prevladujočo definicijo sublimnega, »označenec brez označevalca.« Glej npr. JeanFrançois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989, str. 81. 19 Barthes, »Tretji smisel«, str. 52.

20 Christian Metz, The Imaginary Signifier: Psychoanalysis and the Cinema, prev. Celia Britton, Annwyl Williams, Ben Brewster in Alfred Guzzetti, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), str. 3. 21 Ibid. 22 Georg Simmel, Filozofija denarja, prev. Marija Javornik, Ljubljana: Študentska založba, 2005, str. 469.

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 23

7 EISENSTEINU / 7 IMA / 7 LOGIKA / 7 MATERIALA / 7 NAKAZUJE / 7 NEDVOMNO / 7 OBLIKE / 7 ONSTRAN / 7 ORGANIZACIJA / 7 ORGANIZACIJI /

kinu. V principu so lahko vse možnosti, afekti in izkustva, ki so na voljo v kinu, simbolizirane s strani kapitala – z drugimi besedami, pretvorjene v menjalno vrednost v neki zgodnji ali kasnejši fazi družbene produkcije. Zato lahko vidimo pretvorbo afekta v denar in denarja v afekt. Oziroma taka bi lahko bila skrajšana zgodovina mediacije od Eisensteina dalje. Prej omenjeni premik od jezika kot arbitra vrednosti k temu, kar je naposled filmski kapital kot arbiter vrednosti – t. j. premik od jezikovnega koda, razumljenega kot temeljni kamen realnosti, k simulaciji kot afektu kapitalizirane realnosti – je izkušen kot premik v subjektu, t. j. v senzoriju.23 Najbolj splošno ime za to novo obliko izkustva, ki je posledica erozije stabilnosti jezika, je »postmoderno stanje«, katerega fenomenologijo najbolje označuje pojem simulacija. V odvrnitvi od jezikovnega koda, ki ga nakazuje »simulacija«, ostaja nek drug kod – kod menjalne vrednosti, to je kod komodifikacije. Če se izrazim figurativno (da bi pokazal nešteto načinov, na katere menjalna vrednost postaja druga plat ne le filma v smislu, kot ga običajno razumemo, ampak tudi percepcije in misli, kar bi pomenilo uvajati novo politično ekonomijo in novo estetiko, da ne omenim nove psihologije): tekoči trak kapitala (kot montaža kapitala) ne priskrbi zgolj oblike filma; kapital priskrbi formalni model za osnovno filmsko enoto, kader. Film je konkretno udejanjanje tega, kar je implicitno že pri Marxu. Vse stvari gredo skozi kader kapitala. Kot nam pove Gilles Deleuze: »Kader zagotavlja deteritorializacijo podobe,« saj »ustvari skupni standard meritve za stvari, ki ga nimajo – daljni plan dežele in bližnji plan obraza, astronomske sisteme in eno samo kapljico vode.«24 Ta princip ekvivalence natanko vzporeja in nedvomno razširja princip ekvivalence, ki ga implicira menjalna vrednost (s katero ga lahko neposredno primerjamo), ter s tem postane druga stran uporabne vrednosti (s katero ga ne moremo neposredno primerjati). Krajše, Deleuze nakazuje, da kader funkcionira kot denar, kot splošni ekvivalent. Razrezovanje realnosti v skladu z abstraktno logiko kadra sugerira, da je film tako posledica kot vir fragmentacije. Robert Bresson piše: »Ta fragmentacija je nujna, če nočemo pasti v reprezentacijo (česar kapital gotovo ne stori). Videti bitja in stvari v ločenih delih. Narediti jih neodvisne, da bi jim zadali novo odvisnost« (moj poudarek).25 To razvezovanje od tradicionalnih razmerij in reorganizacijo v nova razmerja odigra sam proces kapitala.26 Forma filma nedvomno je proces kapitala. S filmsko organizacijo sveta se logika kapitala premakne od reprezentacije k simulaciji. Z Deleuzovimi besedami: »Denar postane hrbtna stran vseh podob, ki jih 23 Glej moj esej, »Cinema, Capital of the Twentieth Century«, Postmodern Culture 4, št. 3 (maj 1994). Dosegljivo na: pmc@unit.nsu.edu. 24 Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 1, citirano v: Steven Shaviro, The Cinematic Body, Minneapolis in London: University of Minnesota Press, 1993, str. 38. 25 Robert Bresson v: Shaviro, The Cinematic Body, str. 40. Citirano iz Bressonovih Notes on the Cinematographer, prev. Jonathan Griffin, London: Quartet, 1986, str. 84. 26 »Buržoazija ne more eksistirati, ne da bi nenehno revolucionirala produkcijske instrumente, torej produkcijska razmerja, torej vsa družbena razmerja. Nasprotno pa je bila ohranitev starega produkcijskega načina nespremenjenega prvi eksistenčni pogoj vseh poprejšnjih industrijskih razredov. Nenehni prevrat v produkciji, nepretrgano pretresanje vseh družbenih razmer, večna negotovost in gibanje ločijo buržoazno epoho od vseh prejšnjih. Vsa čvrsta, zarjavela razmerja s spremstvom častitljivih predstav in nazorov vred se razvežejo, vsa nanovo stvorjena zastarevajo, preden morejo zakosteneti. Vse trdno in stalno se razblinja, vse sveto je oskrunjeno, in ljudje so naposled prisiljeni, da s treznimi očmi ogledajo svoj življenjski položaj in medsebojne odnose.« Glej: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Komunistični manifest, prev. Božidar Debenjak, Ljubljana: Sanje, 2009, str. 98.

24 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

film pokaže in postavi na mesto.«27 Podobe so se pričele gibati kot denar in njihovi afekti terjajo organizacijsko delo kapitala. Eisensteinov izvrstno artikulirani odpor do tega novega režima organizacije gibanja in njegov spremljajoči režim senzorija sta prav tako pripomogla k njegovemu nastanku. Steven Shaviro, čigar delo je del poskusa raziskave nove estetike, zgoraj omenjene v oklepaju, silovito zatrjuje v Filmskem telesu: »Ko se realno fragmentira zaradi prežetosti s stroji, se nasprotje med subjektivnostjo in objektivnostjo, med opazovalcem in opazovanim, razblini.«28 Tovrstno fenomenološko stanje, za katerega velja, da je značilno za postmodernizem, je v splošnem zgolj ohlapno povezano s postindustrijsko družbo. Kot samoumevno se jemlje skladnost med ekonomijo in zavestjo – premiki v zavesti se jemljejo kot znaki ekonomskih premikov. Predlagam, da z dematerializacijo industrijskega procesa kot filma označimo ustoličenje procesa pretvorbe zavesti – njene splošne pretvorbe v blagovno obliko. Zavest se nagiba k blagovni zavesti – to je Debordova velika lekcija. Sanjamo sanje stvari. V filmu leži ključ do strukture in relacij, fizike in metafizike, subjektivnosti in objektivnosti, na kratko, do spodaj ležeče logike postindustrijske družbe. Organizacija zavesti je koekstenzivna z organizacijo postindustrijske družbe in mediji so pasovi, ki kujejo te organizacijske povezave. Film inavgurira premik v ekonomiji družbene produkcije in če bi lahko, bi pokazali, da tak premik doseže kritično maso v filmu in njegovih naslednikih (televiziji, računalniku, internetu). Potem bi lahko trdili, da film ni zgolj specifičen fenomen, v katerem senzorij postane podvržen (podjarmljen) kodu, ki obstaja onstran njega in nedvomno onstran »naravnega jezika«, ampak splošno načelo – vrhunec in paradigma zgodovinskega obdobja, ki izpodrine buržoazni produkcijski način z introjekcijo kapitaliziranega industrijskega procesa neposredno v miselne krajine. Shaviro pripominja, da v nasprotju s semantično in psihoanalitično filmsko teorijo, ki »ostajata zaposleni s temami ideologije in reprezentacije« in »razumeta montažo predvsem kot tehniko produkcije /…/ iluzije s prešitjem gledalca in določitvijo smeri pogleda, pa široka paleta filmskih užitkov temelji eksplicitno na razsrediščeni svobodni igri, na osvoboditvi izpod omejitev subjektivitete, ki jo omogočajo montaža in posebni efekti.«29 Četudi se do neke mere strinjam s Shavirom, vseeno vidim nove oblike izkustva kot bistvene načine percepcije za obstoj v asinhronem, shizofrenem miljeju postmoderne družbe. To so pogoji možnosti za njeno večno nadaljevanje – tehnologija menedžmenta. V kinu se naučimo soočiti se s kontradikcijami in diskontinuitetami. S tem želim pokazati, da so afekti, ki jih proizvede kino, sami vpleteni v proizvodnjo biosocialnih vmesnikov v poznem kapitalizmu. Benjamin piše o Baudelairu, ki »govori o možu, ki se potopi v množico kakor v rezervoar električne energije. Ob opisovanju izkušnje šoka pravi temu 27 Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 2: The Time-Image, prev. High Tomlinson in Robert Galeta, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989, str. 77. 28 Citirano in prevedeno po: Shaviro, The Cinematic Body, str. 39. 29 Citirano in prevedeno po: ibid., str. 40–41.

7 PERCEPCIJE / 7 PRAVI / 7 PRESEGA / 7 S / 7 SMISLU / 7 ŠE / 7 SVOJE / 7 Z / 6 BESEDAMI / 6 BILO / 6 DEJSTVO / 6 DEL / 6 DELAVCI / 6 GLEDALCEV /

ilm kot proces, kompleks gibanja, teles in zavesti, ki ga bom imenoval filmski proces, sam postane dominantni način produkcije. Vsa produkcija ne poteka prek kina v institucionalnem smislu, toda globalna produkcija je organizirana kot kino. Organizacija gibanja vlada zavesti – organizacija materiala proizvaja afekte. V filmski organizaciji globalne produkcije in reprodukcije bo ta logika ponotranjena v in kot postmoderna do mere, do katere je za postmoderni senzorij cel svet – svet podob. Kino kapitalu priskrbi arhitektoniko logistike percepcije. Nedvomno predstavlja njihovo fuzijo. Iz tega sledi, da je filmsko skoraj stoletje dolgo strojno proizvajalo postmoderno. V tem smislu lahko rečemo, da je skozi dvajseto stoletje večina sveta dobesedno v kinu, sorodno načinu, na katerega so hoteli futuristi vstaviti gledalca v sliko.

možu ‘kalejdoskop, opremljen z zavestjo.’ Medtem ko Poejev mimoidoči usmerja poglede v vse smeri, ki se še vedno zdijo brezciljni, morajo današnji pešci to početi zato, da ostanejo v koraku s prometnimi znaki. Zatorej je tehnologija podvrgla človeški senzorij neke vrste treningu. Prišel je dan, ko je novo in nujno potrebo po dražljajih zadovoljil film. V filmu je percepcija v obliki šokov vpeljana kot formalni princip. To, kar določa ritem produkcije na tekočem traku, je temelj ritma recepcije v filmu.«30 Četudi so se s sodobno televizijo in elektronsko pošto izrazi in pogoji gibanja skozi prostor spremenili onstran tistih, ki jih srečuje pešec, nas tehnologija še naprej navaja na priključitev na okolje. Pričujoča analiza prevprašuje, kako »je prišel dan«, ko je kino, in kasneje mediji na splošno, izvršil to privajanje. Poleg tega razlaga posledice medijskega odnosa do »produkcije na tekočem 30 Walter Benjamin, »On Some Motifs in Baudelaire«, v: Illuminations, str. 175.

traku«. Danes smo morda v obupnem poskusu, da bi preprečili, da se naš svet razleti od nasprotij, bolj vešči v zamejitvi učinka šoka s prešitjem in kontinuiteto; vendar pa imajo diskontinuiteta, alogičnost in shizofrenija tudi svojo funkcijo, kar, kot eden od številnih primerov, implicira tudi knjiga World Orders Old and New Noama Chomskega31. Kot piše Paul Virilio: »Videi in walkmani so realnost in videz v obliki opreme: ne uporabljamo jih, da bi gledali filme in poslušali glasbo, temveč da bi dodali vizualno razsežnost in zvočne kulise, da iz sebe naredimo režiserje naše lastne realnosti.«32 Tovrstno proizvajanje vmesnikov med telesi in stroji terja delo teles in proizvaja vrednost – tako kulturno kot ekonomsko. Družbena organizacija se ne zgodi avtomatsko, temveč terja delo, delovno silo. Vredno je omeniti, da je Eisenstein inavguriral gradnjo prvih strojev, ki so bili resnično sposobni to izkoristiti. Eisensteinov namen je bil spodbuditi revolucijo leta 1917 31 Noam Chomsky, World Orders Old and New, New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. 32 Paul Virilio, War and Cinema.

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 25

6 JEZIKA / 6 KAPITALISTI / 6 METZ / 6 MORDA / 6 NAČINA / 6 NOVE / 6 OZNAČEVANJA / 6 POD / 6 PRAV / 6 PRODUKCIJA / 6 REVOLUCIONARNE / 6 SAJ /

z uporabo Stavke za organiziranje dela, ki je bilo potrebno za njeno nadaljevanje in razvijanje. Kar je dosegel, pa je bilo revolucioniranje stroja, ki je kapitalu omogočal nov primež nad živim delom, ki mu pravimo percepcija. V Deleuzovih knjigah o filmu, ki so, kot sem drugje nakazal, morda izšle pod naslovom Film v našem stoletju zaradi razlogov, podobnih tistim, ki so Marxa napeljali k temu, da je pisal pod naslovom Kapital v prejšnjem stoletju, Deleuze piše, da film, ki je prekosil gibanje in postal film časa, »vrača vero v svet« in označi to vero za »našo edino povezavo.«33 Če se povrnem k naši razpravi o Metzu, bi dejal, da je to »vera,« ki se izraža v številnih oblikah (nobena od njih ne privzame nujno oblike enotne subjektivnosti ali ideologije), ki se, celo sedaj, razvija iz in v nov kod, ki je v procesu simbolizacije. Ta simbolizacija je subjektivno izkušena kot proizvodnja novih afektov, želja in identitetnih formacij. Izkušena je tudi kot sublimnost statusa quo. Objektivno pa je simbolno, ki je kapital, digitalizirano, statistizirano, militarizirano in ekonomizirano – ima zmožnost prekositi naravni jezik v teoriji in praksi. S tem merim najbolj dobesedno na vrednotenje vere in bolj splošno na vrednotenje afekta s strani kapitala: in sicer na orwellovski jezik sodobnega nacionalizma in estetizacije fašistične kulture. Kaj kupujejo korporacije in politiki s kupovanjem »programskega časa«, če ne, z besedami Antonia Negrija, »produktivne družbene kooperacije.«34 Prav kot odgovor na grozo, ki jo omogoča naraščajoča nadvlada »naravnega« sveta in »naravnega jezika« s strani afektov tovrstnih ekonomskih računic, se je Adorno spraševal, ali lahko po Auschwitzu še obstaja poezija. Toda nihče se ni nikoli spraševal, ali lahko obstajajo filmi. Kot implicirajo globalni trendi od statističnega marketinga do novih družbenih gibanj in novih fundamentalizmov, ki predstavljajo formacije netradicionalnih oblik družbenega delovanja in dejanj, se vera kupuje in prodaja, organizira, proizvaja – vera je, na kratko, delo. Delo vere je ena od močnih oblik tega, kar imenujem produktivna vrednost človeške pozornosti. Prek te splošne razprave skušam upodobiti arhitektoniko odnosa med filmom – razumljenim kot napredek od industrijskega proizvodnega načina – in človeškimi telesi. Moja hipoteza je, da postane film v svoji interakciji s telesi in njihovo inkorporacijo samolastni proizvodni način. Film je menjava paradigme v odnosu med organizacijo in reprezentacijo in je značilni učinek splošne kapitalizacije gibanja. Kot bomo videli proti koncu tega poglavja, ko bo govor o Eisensteinovem odnosu do refleksologije in taylorizma, film odkrije nove načine delovanja na telesa. Je manj reprezentacija in bolj prezentacija: »signalizacija« v terminologiji Pavlova. Film kot proces, kompleks gibanja, teles in zavesti, ki ga bom imenoval filmski proces, sam postane dominantni način produkcije. Vsa produkcija ne poteka prek kina v institucionalnem smislu, toda globalna produkcija je organizirana kot kino. Organizacija gibanja vlada zavesti – organizacija materiala proizvaja afekte. V filmski organizaciji globalne produkcije in reprodukcije bo ta logika ponotranjena v in kot postmoderna do mere, do katere je za postmoderni 33 Deleuze, Cinema 2, str. 172. 34 Iz briljantne »Twenty Theses on Marx: Interpretation of the Class Situation Today« Antonia Negrija, prev. Michael Hardt, Polygraph #5: Contesting the New World Order, 1992, str. 154.

2 6 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

senzorij cel svet – svet podob. Kino kapitalu priskrbi arhitektoniko logistike percepcije. Nedvomno predstavlja njihovo fuzijo. Iz tega sledi, da je filmsko skoraj stoletje dolgo strojno proizvajalo postmoderno. V tem smislu lahko rečemo, da je skozi dvajseto stoletje večina sveta dobesedno v kinu, sorodno načinu, na katerega so hoteli futuristi vstaviti gledalca v sliko.35 Z drugimi besedami, film in filmska organizacija omogočata to, kar Ken Surin imenuje »potrošnja družbe s strani kapitala.«36 Popredmetenje, kot samo eden od primerov, je zgolj približek prvega reda fenomenologije gibanja, ki ga usmerja kapital. Ko kapital ovije okolje, lahko celoto afektivnega (potencialno) povežemo s kapitalom. V nasprotju z Metzom ne poskušam doseči s teorijo, da bi tisto, kar se prikazuje prek imaginarnega, prišlo na dan v ali kot simbolno. Moj projekt je izolirati organizacijsko preobrazbo (v psihoanalitičnem jeziku) imaginarnega in simbolnega s strani lacanovskega Realnega, ki se v jamesonovskem marksizmu imenuje Zgodovina. Tak projekt ima obliko indeksikalne artikulacije industrializacije senzorija; to je nujno shematično beleženje menjave produkcijskega načina in spremljajoče spremembe vrednostnega režima. Ideologija, zavest, film niso odsevi materialne baze – saj produkcija poteka prek njih. S povezavo Zgodovine in Realnega lahko vidimo, da je Stavka kot produkt »produktivne preteklosti« zgodovinska formacija onstran njene imaginarne vsebine, ki jo lahko simboliziramo v in kot branje; na način, ki presega nepreštevno število njenih gest in interpretacij, je potopljena v prostor Realnega. Na ravni, ločeni od pomena, je film v neprekinjeni zvezi z Realnim. To Realno (Zgodovina kot organizacija) je vrezano v Gledalca kot razvoj nezavednega z imaginarnimi, simbolnimi in numizmatičnimi učinki. Čeprav so tudi drugi filmski teoretiki trdili, da lahko srečamo Realno v filmu, nihče ni pokazal, da se logika realnega manifestira v filmu.37 Seveda ideja, da obstaja neka logika Realnega, nasprotuje tradicionalnim razumevanjem Realnega samega; vendar pa Realno (z Lacanovo frazo »to, kar uhaja simbolizaciji«) za nas ni niti nespremenljivo niti ontološka danost, ampak historično. Iz alegoričnih strategij branja, ki sta jih razvila npr. Jameson in Terry Eagleton in ki veliko dolgujejo Althusserjevi ideji Realnega kot produkcijskega načina, lahko sklepamo, da če je film potopljen v prostor Realnega, potem je del produkcijskega načina. Realno je proizvodno bistvo družbenega – kar boli, z Jamesonovo frazo, pa tudi kar zdravi, je naposled to, kar giba. V sedanjem produkcijskem načinu je pravilno reči, da je ponovitev po Lacanu srečanje z Realnim; a morda je bolj koristno, če rečemo, da je v fordističnih in postfordističnih družbah ponovitev delovanje Realnega. Obroki, brzostrelke, filmi, DNK, binarna koda – vse to podpira tako trditev. Metz se, kakor nakazujem, dotakne zgolj površine pojma filma kot gibala Realnega, ko se dotakne strukturiranja duševnosti s strani kina, ko opazi, da »filmska institucija ni zgolj filmska industrija (ki deluje, da bi napolnila kinodvorane, ne pa jih izpraznila), je tudi 35 Gledalec »mora biti v prihodnosti postavljen v središče slike. Ne bo prisostvoval, temveč sodeloval v akciji.« Glej: »The Exhibitors to the Public, 1912«, v: H. B. Chipps, Theories of Modern Art, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968, str. 296. 36 Kenneth Surin, »’The Continued Relevance of Marxism’ as a Question: Some Propositions«, Polygraph 6/7: Marxism Beyond Marxism?, 1993, str. 52. 37 Slavoj Žižek, Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991.

6 SAMA / 6 SIMBOLNO / 6 SPOROČILO / 6 STVARI / 6 SVETA / 6 SVOJI / 6 TELESA / 6 UČINEK / 6 ŽE / 5 AKTIVNOST / 5 DELOVANJA / 5 DEMATERIALIZACIJA

mentalni stroj – še ena industrija – ki so jo gledalci, ‘navajeni na kino’, zgodovinsko ponotranjili in ki jih je prilagodila potrošnji filmov.«38 Četudi Metz pravilno ugotavlja, da ima kino gotovo psihološke posledice za gledalce, »mentalni stroj« duševnosti ni bil nikoli zunaj politične ekonomije. Kino je tehnologija, ki se razvija v dialektičnem razmerju s spreminjajočo se funkcijo duševnosti v politični ekonomiji. Že Gramsci je zagovarjal nekaj v tej smeri, ko je zapisal, da fordistična proizvodnja potrebuje delavce z novo »psiho-socialno povezavo«.39 Mentalni pojavi so bili vedno del produkcijskega procesa, vendar kino postavi zavest (percepcijo?) kot splošni ekvivalent.40 Zavest postane medij in okvir, ki omogoča posredovanje med telesi in družbo v prihajajoči družbi. Kino razpira zavest igrivi tiraniji menjalne vrednosti, ko menjalna vrednost prehaja skozi zavest. Gotovo je kino predelava procesa, ki se je že dogajal, četudi v primitivnih oblikah. Je tehnologija za izkopavanje vrednosti iz zavesti (mentalne aktivnosti). Četudi bi lahko še veliko povedali o tem, bom zdaj predstavil nekaj trditev in posledic, ki sledijo iz ideje o projekciji skozi oko proizvodne logike produkcije, ki jih imajo za menjalno vrednost filma/ kina (in drugih medijev, ki so se iz njega razvili): 1. Film/kino je hkrati organizacijska paradigma družbenih odnosov, tehnologija, nujna za pretvorbo blagovne forme v podobo, in prototehnologija za kapitalizacijo človeške pozornosti. Na kratko, film/kino je paradigmatična tehnologija za poblagovljenje človeškega življenja vse do dobe televizije. Tako kot zasebna lastnina po Marxu ni najprej vzrok odtujitve dela, ampak njen učinek, tako tudi film/kino ni vzrok dejstva, da se objekti spreminjajo v podobe, ampak učinek njihove spremembe. Pretvorba objektov v podobe je imanentna blagovni obliki. Film/kino je predelava spektralnih vidikov blaga v gibanju. 2. Filmski produkcijski način se zanaša na skupno strukturiranje percepcije in organizacije, ki se izide v poblagovljenje obeh – kapital postane arbiter vrednosti različnih organizacijskih oblik. To izvede z intenzifikacijo kroženja blaga-podobe. Tavtološko, četudi natančno povedano, več vrednosti kot proizvede skupno strukturiranje percepcije in organizacije, več vrednosti ima. Film kot film (v nasprotju s filmom kot kapitalom) je perceptivni izloček materialne organizacije celotne družbe. Film kot film je institucionalna matrica teles, percepcije in industrije, film kot kapital pa je ta institucija, ki istočasno 38 Metz, The Imaginary Signifier, str. 7. 39 Antonio Gramsci, »Americanism and Fordism«, v: Selection from the Prison Notebooks, ur. in prev. Quintin Hoare in Geoffrey Nowell Smith, New York: International Publishers, 1971, str. 279–318. 40 Tu ne razlikujem med zavestjo in percepcijo, ker nisem še našel temelja za njuno ločevanje in to ni prostor za tovrstno podjetje. Za zdaj naj povem, da zavest postaja vse bolj podobna denarju, »izginjajočemu posredniku«, misel in percepcija pa izražata določene odnose kapitala. Marxova tridelna definicija denarja kot merila vrednosti, načina kroženja ter reprezentacije bogastva (npr. kot kapital) doseže vrhunec v denarju, ki dobi avtonomno zavest. »Denar se v svoji končni izpopolnjeni določitvi sedaj pokaže v vseh pogledih kot kontradikcija, ki se sama rešuje, ki sebe napelje k lastni razrešitvi. Kot splošna oblika bogastva se sooča s celim svetom draginj. Je čista abstrakcija – zato ko je dojeta kot taka, je čista domišljija. Kjer se kaže obstoj denarja kot takega v dokaj materialni, otipljivi obliki, obstaja zgolj v mojem umu, je gola domišljijska fikcija. Midas.« Marx, Grundrisse, str. 166. Predlagam, da delavcev v kapitalizmu ne pojmujemo kot zgolj obdarjenih z Midasovim dotikom, temveč da tudi gledalce v poznem kapitalizmu pojmujemo kot obdarjene z Midasovim pogledom. Karkoli pogledamo, se za nekoga spremeni v zlato.

funkcionira v svoji politično-ekonomski dimenziji in kot paradigma totalnosti politične ekonomije. Kapital-film naposled predpostavlja politično ekonomijo družbe spektakla. Zavest je platno, na katero režim blagovnega gibanja vrezuje svoje najgloblje spekulacije. Film (kapital) vse bolj vsrkava vse stvari, ki se pojavljajo na (ali izginjajo z, odvisno od tega, kaj je potrebno) platnu percepcije. 3. Zato se »simbolizacijski napredek«, ki ga imam v mislih glede tega, kar Metz imenuje »drugi stroj« filma, »to je družbena regulacija gledalčeve metapsihologije«, razteza onstran koncepta kina kot prilagajanja gledalcev na potrošnjo filmov in nedvomno onstran same psihologije.41 Zanimajo me strukturne, psihološke, libidinalne in telesne prilagoditve gledalcev na protokole globalne produkcije. Ta pretvorba gledanja v družbeno produktivno aktivnost, v splošnem razumljena kot potrošna aktivnost, je odvisna od uveljavitve medijev kot delovnega okolja globalne produkcije. Danes množični mediji delujejo kot deteritorializirana tovarna, kjer je vzdrževanje in zamenjava strojev nadnacionalne, nadsubjektivne infrastrukture sestavljena iz ljudi, tovarn, domačih obrti, storitvenega sektorja; pa tudi softverska in harverska oprema sta bistveni za ovrednotenje kapitala. Filmskost objektov je vprežena kot dodatna sila in uporabljena za intenzifikacijo produkcije. Kino in njegovi tehnološki nasledniki izvlečejo delo za vzdrževanje in uravnavanje družbene celovitosti. Brez televizije, pa tudi faksov, telefonov, računalnikov in digitaliziranega, kompjuteriziranega denarja bi se produkcija zaustavila. Vsak od teh medijev si izvrta pot v meso planeta.42 »Mediji« organizirajo produkcijo prek mesenih medijev duha in telesa, medtem ko so videti kot kultura (ali »demokracija«). Kulturni imperializem ni zgolj kultura v enodimenzionalnem smislu – to je imperializem. Kot tak uporabi v igri vse tradicionalne imperialistične dinamike vrednostnega izkoriščanja (zaprte soseske, policijske države, nemogoče delovne razmere itn.), postavlja pa tudi druge ovire in nevidne zidove (ki so organski, ideološki, perceptivni) ter razširja doseg voljnosti telesa (prek ritma, želje, učenja). Postavljanje nezahodnih in drugače obrobnih prebivalstev v linijo z jezikom sistema zahodnega kapitalizma (svetovni sistem) je neizprosna funkcija televizije. Na kratko, hipoteza tukaj je, da so množični mediji, vzeti kot celota, deteritorializirana tovarna, v kateri gledalci opravljajo delo samoprenove, da bi ustrezali libidinalnim, političnim, časovnim, telesnim in seveda ideološkim protokolom vse bolj intenzivnega kapitalizma. .. 41 Metz, The Imaginary Signifier, str. 7. Prvi in drugi stroj, o katerih piše Metz, sta oba del tega, kar imenujem »film kot film«. Šele ko razumemo njune političnoekonomske dimenzije, ju lahko razumemo kot »film kot kapital«. 42 »Računalniško programiranje je pravzaprav veja filmskega ustvarjanja,« je dejal Theodore Nelson, citiran v Virtual Reality Howarda Rheingolda (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991), str. 176; glej tudi str. 286. »Računalniki so gledališče. Interaktivna tehnologija, tako kot drama, prinaša platformo za reprezentacijo koherentnih realnosti, v katerih delujoči nastopajo z miselnimi, čustvenimi in produktivnimi kvalitetami. Dva tisoč let dramske teorije in prakse je bilo posvečenih cilju, ki je nenavadno podoben cilju še nerazvite discipline oblikovanja interakcije med človekom in računalnikom: ustvarjanju umetnih realnosti, v katerih je potencial za akcijo miselno, čustveno in estetsko ojačan.« (citirano v: Brenda Laurel, Computers as Theater (Reading, Mass: Adddison-Wesley Publishers, 1991). Rheingold združuje te in druge tovrstne citate pod provokativnim naslovom »The RealityIndustrial Complex«.

TEO RETSK I B LOK / T H EORY 27

657 THE / 481 OF / 203 AND / 195 IS / 187 A / 172 IN / 172 TO / 127 THAT / 110 AS / 73 CINEMA / 71 THE / 67 FOR / 58 IT / 51 S / 44 ITS / 42 EISENSTEIN /

THE CINEMATIC MODE F OF PRODUCTION: ATTENTION ECONOMY AND THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE

ilm’s special role in the development of industrial capitalism lays the groundwork for the full commodification of the sensorium as it produces new affects. Beginning in Eisenstein’s period, cinema dematerializes industrial processes, making them over into fodder for consciousness and sensuality, and projecting them into bodies through visual means. Film internalizes industrial movement and manifests it as forms of consciousness and sensuality. These forms are projected into bodies through the eye. Bodies then internalize industrial movement, making it inform their own consciousness. Film turns movement into thoughts and feelings, or, more generally, affect.

EXCERPT1 JONATHAN BELLER

Excerpt from The Cinematic Mode of Production: Attention Economy and the Society of the Spectacle by Jonathan Beller, published by Dartmouth College Press, pp. 95–112. Copyright © 2006 Jonathan Beller. Used with permission from University Press of New England. www.upne.com

MajaSmrekar&ŠpelaPetrič@3 × 10 17Hz

2 8 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

That the dematerialization of signifying strata historically emerges in a full-blown form (as consciousness, as cinema, as capital) simultaneously with forms of organization theory concerned with the material embodiment of organization is not a paradox. The more abstracted and ethereal the signifying stratum—that is, the greater the possibilities of expression without the appearance of apparatus—the more dependent the expression on the development of material and social organization. Anyone who has ever wanted to get information from a computer disk but who has not had access to a computer at a particular moment understands the socio-techno-historical embeddedness of signification on material organization. Without the complete history of the formation of the computer, that is, without the computer, its industrial base, and everything its existence implies (Silicon Valley, off-shore labor, imperialism, in short, the history of the world down to the present), the highly dematerialized information on the disk would be useless. Marx observed the same dependence of significance on social organization in the relation that he drew between the development of capital and the organization of bourgeois society. The more abstract capital became (as money, as debt), the more rigid and concrete, the more embodied bourgeois (capitalist) society became. With the increasing organization of bodies themselves (manners, culture) along with the increasing organization of the physical, intellectual, and visual pathways that they and their deterritorialized pieces traverse, comes the apparent dematerializa-

41 ORGANIZATION / 39 BY / 39 CAPITAL / 39 PRODUCTION / 37 NOT / 36 BE / 36 MOVEMENT / 35 THEIR / 34 AN / 33 WHICH / 32 IN / 32 NEW / 32 ON /

tion of expression.1 The free-floating image is anchored in material social organization down to the quantum level. The important thing to see in Eisenstein is his recognition of the principle that he saw behind regimes of organized movement. Eisenstein’s conscious effort to put that principle into practice as more is expressed as follows: “An attraction,” wrote Eisenstein, “is in our understanding any demonstrable fact (an action, an object, a phenomenon, a conscious combination and so on) that is known and proven to exercise a definite effect on the attention and emotions of the audience and that combined with others possesses the characteristics of concentrating the audience’s emotions in any direction dictated by the production’s purpose” (Writings2, 41). Eisenstein was interested in control through the organization of attraction. “The method of agitation through spectacle consists in the creation of a new chain of conditioned reflexes by associating selected phenomenon with the unconditioned reflexes they produce” (Writings, 45). The script is “in our view a prescription or a list of montage sequences and combinations by means of which the author intends to subject the audience to a definite series of shocks, a prescription that summarizes the general projected emotional effect on the audience and the pressure that will inevitably be exerted on the audience’s psyche” (Writings, 46). Because “the montage approach [i]s the essential, meaningful and sole possible language of cinema, completely analogous to the role of the word in spoken material” (Writings, 46). The juxtaposition of moving fragments became for Eisenstein a tool for the reorganization of the audience’s psyche. The idea of montage, then, is the abstraction process itself, and cinema is its conscious utilization. In Eisenstein’s famous phrase, direction is “the organization of the audience through organized material” (Writings, 65).

Such a radical dematerialization produces the perspective that is the condition of possibility for Pier Paolo Pasolini’s statement that “All life, in the entirety of creations, is a natural living film.” Pier Paolo Pasolini, Heretical Empiricism, trans. Ben Lawton and Louise K. Barnett (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1988), 204. Life can be a natural film for Pasolini only because film has come into being historically both as a technology and as an abstraction. Cinema as “the written language of reality” is only possible in a world in which movement itself has taken on new meanings for vision. For Pasolini, film is to “the language of action” as writing is to oral language. The eye achieves new functions in the processing of a dematerialized reality (images), because material reality is organized in such a way as to make these new functions possible. A cinematic order comes to underlie all movement and its meaning. The structure of reality converts objects into images and signs. In a world of highly organized systems, organized movement itself becomes significant (hence the first volume of Deleuze’s Cinema is subtitled The Movement-Image); in this context, disorganized movement also becomes significant. With the origin of cybernetics, the relations between movement, patterns of movements, and meanings not only become explicit, but enter into the conceptualization of life itself. “Life is an island here and now in a dying world. The process by which living beings resist the general stream of corruption and decay is known as homeostasis. We can continue to live in the very special environment which we carry forward with us only until we begin to decay more quickly that we can reconstitute ourselves. Then we die…. We are not the stuff that abides, but patterns that perpetuate themselves.” And then, presciently, “A pattern is a message, and may be transmitted as a message.” Norbert Weiner, The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1954), 95–96. Pasolini’s filmic introduction of disorganized movement into society of increasingly organized capitalist and heterosexist libidinal relations (disorganization that he saw as something akin to non-reified life-force) in a film such as Arabian Nights (1974), is the heretical aspect of his empiricism. In a highly regulated society, to intensify existing disorganization through an alternative ordering was, simply speaking, to inaugurate revolution. But that was the sixties. Today, it is more difficult to believe that jouissance and revolution are one, or for that matter, that they can even inhabit the same constellation of ideas. Sergei Eisenstein, Selected Works: Writings 1922–1934, vol. 1, ed. and trans. Richard Taylor (London: BFI Publishing, 1988).

The fact that The Strike thematizes the general phenomena of movement as signification and that film theoreticians from Eisenstein to Pasolini were preoccupied with film language indicates their transitional places in a paradigm shift from signification to simulation (from meaning to stimulation) and provides a working periodization of this shift. This is the period of modern cinema, after which meaning recedes before pure affect (as in Jaws). What I want to emphasize about The Strike in particular, however, is that it is perhaps the first film that rigorously adopts the emerging paradigm of movement as signification to be the fundamental animating principle of its own organization. In so doing. The Strike attempts to incorporate the spectator into its very movement, its moving. As the worker in the Fordist factory becomes a component in the factory’s orchestra (orchestration) of movement, a part in the machine, so also does the spectator become a component in the movement machines of Eisenstein. These films inflict their movement on and into the spectator who, though capable of reading their “meaning,” realizes their significance only in and as bodily activity. The spectator embodies the resultant force of the motion transferred to him or her—a general situation of machine culture that envelops, and in certain ways exceeds, any particular meaning. Eisenstein harnessed the dematerialization of material movement as not only meaning but as a direct extension of social force and developed its possibilities. Such an achievement makes The Strike an ideal case study for the contention pursued here that cinema, subjectivity, and corporeality come to operate on a continuum correlated via what Eisenstein calls a “manufacturing logic.” If this is correct, it should turn out that the significance of The Strike is that not only interpretation but consciousness and viscerality itself are in our period cinematic, that is, endemic to a manufacturing logic that incorporates the body. This manufacturing logic, characterized simultaneously by the rational control of motion and the regulated production of consciousness, also turns out to be the logic of commodification. In the money economy, movement via capital circulation is the equivalent of commodification. I am suggesting that affect is increasingly the result of organized circulation; this circulation is a commodification effect. As disturbing a notion as the invasion of consciousness by the logistics of capital may be, it raises in the present a question that for some will be equally ghastly: “What is Marxism?”

PLOUGHING THE AUDIENCE’S PSYCHE.

ommenting on The Strike in “The Problem of the Materialist Approach to Form,” Eisenstein confirms our argument thus far regarding the relationship between movement and expression: In The Strike we have the first instance of revolutionary art where the form has turned out to be more revolutionary than the content. . . . The historical revolutionary material— the “manufactured” past of contemporary revolutionary reality—was for the first time treated from a correct point of view: its characteristic movements were investigated

TEO RETSK I B LOK / T H EORY 29

31 ARE / 29 INTO / 29 WITH / 28 THIS / 27 FROM / 26 BUT / 26 WORKERS / 24 I / 24 WHAT / 22 FORM / 22 ONLY / 22 SOCIAL / 22 STRIKE / 20 CONSCIOUSNESS /

as stages in a single process from the point of view of its “manufacturing” essence. The discovery of the manufacturing logic and the exposition of the technique of the methods of a struggle that is the formal requirement I put to Proletkult in determining the content of the seven parts of the cycle Towards the Dictatorship. (Writings, 59)3 Richard Taylor suggests that “the implication [of the phrase “’manufactured’ past”] is that the past has prepared the present like a factory process (Writings, 307 n. 2). What is at stake here for Eisenstein is the self-conscious utilization of Marx’s discovery of the human production of human society—not merely as a theory of history and social production but rather as a method, or, better, a mode of production. Eisenstein wants to use what is nascent both in the method of industry and in its workers to make history. It is often suggested that revolutions fail to realize their utopian longings while succeeding in innovating a shift in the mode of production. Eisenstein’s revolution in form was no exception. That the past manufactures the present seems correct, but that the present manufactures the past was equally important to Eisenstein. He saw the revolutionary filmmaker’s role as taking this relationship and turning it into a method capable of manufacturing the future. To manufacture history, Eisenstein employed the latest industrial methods. In Eisenstein’s words, “the revolutionary quality of The Strike was exemplified by the fact that it took its renewing principle not from the ranks of ‘artistic phenomena’ but from those that are directly utilitarian: specifically, the principle of the construction of the exposition of the manufacturing processes in the film” (Writings, 60). To show that the workers’ strike as a revolutionary activity is itself something manufactured is, for Eisenstein, “a choice that is significant because it goes beyond the limits of the aesthetic sphere ... all the more so because what was in material terms correctly ascertained was precisely that sphere whose principles alone define the ideology of the forms of revolutionary art just as they have defined revolutionary ideology in general: heavy industry, factory production and the forms of the manufacturing process” (Writings, 60). The strike must be manufactured out of the conditions that give rise to its necessity. The sphere of production then, according to Eisenstein, is that which is manifest in The Strike in the content, certainly, but also, even more dramatically, in the form. One misses the significance of The Strike if one sees it merely as an exposition of the conditions of a strike. The film is itself conceived as a tool. It is, as it were, the third of three belts, this last one feeding off of the power train of the new (cinematic) mode of production to transfer powers to the workers in a new way. Revolutionary form is the product of correctly ascertained technical methods for the concretisation of a new attitude and approach to objects and phenomena—of a new class of ideology—of the true renewal not just of the social signifi3

As Richard Taylor tells us, “The Strike was originally intended as one of the episodes in th[at] larger cycle,” Towards the Dictatorship, which was never completed (Writings, 307 n. 3).

3 0 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

cance but also of the material-technical essence of cinema. It is not by revolutionising the forms of the stagecoach that the locomotive is created but through a proper technical calculation of the practical emergence of a new and previously non-existent kind of energy—steam. (Writings, 60–61) The steam of Eisenstein’s cinema, its “new kind of energy,” is, he suggests, the organization of the masses through organized material—a new phenomenology of objects produced via industrial processes. This is the theory and practice of Eisenstein’s historical materialism. For Eisenstein, cinema is not a mere representation of revolutionary practice but is directly engaged in the sphere of production. This theory of production is not empty rhetoric, because, as Eisenstein aptly puts it, this production produces “a new class of ideology,” a suture with the social world that is of a new type. Eisenstein, who trained as an architect and an engineer, is designing machines to manufacture a new social order. With his characteristic knack for structural precision and his usual economy of means, Eisenstein sums up his views on the purposeful integration of machines, a proletariat rapidly emerging from agrarian life, and revolutionary art: “In our conception a work of art is first and foremost a tractor ploughing over the audience’s psyche in a particular class context” (Writings, 62). For Eisenstein, the cinema is a machine that transforms mental life, and, as we shall see, subordinates it to a new logic.

ORGANIZATION—DEMATERIALIZATION OF MATERIAL MOVEMENT.

enin’s words stressing the importance of organization are quoted at the opening of The Strike: “The strength of the working class lies in organization. Without organization of the masses the proletariat is nothing. Organized it is everything. Organization means unity of action, unity of practical operations.” Following this organizational directive, The Strike sets out to catalog various moments in the organization of the revolutionary proletariat at the same time that it strives itself to be a moment in the organization of the revolutionary proletariat. It constructs a continuity between the past and the present, and portrays the proletariat’s revolutionary role in the reorganization of society. Indeed, the opening of the film is staged as the struggle between two communicative regimes that have at stake the resolution of a schism between two competing models for the practical organization of the workers and the state. The capitalist owners, for their part, have telephones, the power structure of the factory itself, and spies who report back to management. Ultimately, the owners can depend on the state in the form of police and military power for the enforcement of their hold over the workers. The capitalists, along with their managers, machines, spies, and police, form an entrenched organizational network. It is a living architecture of power. Meanwhile, the workers have for themselves only what they can create out of the conditions of their existence. In the fantastic shot sequence showing the interlocking components of the Czarist state and the regime of private property, a factory foreman, who early on believes trouble to be brewing, calls

20 FILM / 20 HAVE / 20 ITSELF / 20 REAL / 20 REVOLUTIONARY / 19 LANGUAGE / 19 MATERIAL / 19 MORE / 18 CAN / 18 IT / 18 THROUGH / 17 OR / 16 AT /

arly cinematic montage extended the logic of the assembly-line (the sequencing of discreet, programmatic machine-orchestrated human operations) to the sensorium and brought the industrial revolution to the eye. Cinema welds human sensual activity, what Marx called ‘sensual labor’, in the context of commodity production, to celluloid.

his superior, who then calls his superior on up to the capitalist owners and the military police. As the call goes up the ladder of command, talking heads listen to a phone in one ear while picking up a phone for the other ear in order to send the message on up the line. It is here that the film not only shows the technological immediacy of the connections between capitalist industrial management and other forms of state power but suggests that people’s functions within that mediating network are determined by their position in the organizational array. In a certain way, the telephone has more agency than its user—at least when its users are capitalists or the lackeys of capitalists engaged in the oppression of forces (workers) that threaten to transform the organizational integrity of their systems. This telephone medium functions somewhat like cinema does in the hands of Eisenstein. The bureaucrats’ heads mechanically transmit the message just as the capitalists and their state can do nothing but attempt to suppress the strike. The telephone cable, thin as it is, embodies tremendous organizational force. That the call reaches its final destination at the military commander, who has at his disposal the public records (maps of the city and images of spies whose photographs immediately begin to move), goes to show that the call for coercive counterrevolutionary force will animate already existing structures on its way back down the hierarchy toward its oppressive realization.4 4

Near the bottom of the capitalist hierarchy are the spies. These men are given animal names such as Fox, Owl, and Bulldog, and are, like the capitalists and the military themselves, only minimally presented as subjects. Rather, the spies are unthinking creatures who report everything to their masters. After the strike is well underway, one of the spies uses a camera hidden in a pocket watch to capture the image of one of the leaders of the strike. This image is then used to identify and capture the leader himself. As with the other communications media utilized by the capitalists, the developed film in the capitalist chain of organization becomes, like the phone cable, an instrument of power against the working classes. Just as the capitalists’ control of certain media allows them to exercise power over the workers, the pocket watch-camera suggests the dynamic consequences of such a practice for the twentieth century: Whoever controls the image controls the time and indeed, the times; conversely, whoever controls the time controls the image. Using the watch-camera, the owners put the striker in the service of their time. The regulation of images and time, which is precisely the achievement of industry as cinema, becomes the new key to the control of social organization. Though The Strike as a whole is ostensibly an attempt to wrest images and time (history) away from capitalism, the watch-camera sequence shows, à la Paul Virilio’s War and Cinema, that cinema and industrial capital develop in tandem: capturing the image of the

Unaware of impending defeat, the workers use their life-energy to organize by word of mouth, by pamphleteering, and under the cover of art. During leisure time by the water, the handsome leaders argue and plot while reposed on an anchor. Their fraternal bond forged in working together for a common cause is perhaps, for Eisenstein, the libidinal core of a revolutionary society. We get several shots of men in repose taking advantage of leisure time to organize. Sitting among a tremendous mountain of piled iron train wheels, the workers, planning yet again, seem to draw inspiration from a material intimation regarding base and superstructure: rolling stock cannot roll without its wheels. In a factory bathroom, they are again conspiring until, upon the unwanted entry of the boss’s foreman, they tear down their pants and face the urinals or sit on the pots in individual stalls—innocently going about their business. And under the superimposed cover of an accordion that opens and closes as if breathing a message in and out, we see bands of workers and their families walking, singing, and talking among themselves as a title states “spreading the word.” On printed leaflets, too, the workers call for an immediate strike. This is the organization of the workers’ countermovements. They are building revolutionary consciousness and a revolution. In solidarity with the workers’ use of their own spaces and creative force to assemble a strike, The Strike organizes the myriad movements and patterns of daily life to orchestrate a message. However, this message is not only meant to be understood, that is, it is not, as the above paragraph might seem to imply, merely a handbook of revolutionary activity. As the capitalists and the workers attempt to outmaneuver each other using their networks of organization and communication, it becomes clear that in the case of the workers, it is movement itself that is their medium of communication. organizer is tantamount to capturing him. (“’If I had to sum up current thinking on precision missiles and saturation weaponry in a single sentence,’ said W. J. Perry, a former U.S. Under-Secretary of State Defense, ‘I’d put it like this: once you can see the target, you can expect to destroy it.’” Paul Virilio, War and Cinema: The Logistics of Perception, trans. Patrick Camiller [London: Verso, 1989], 4). Indeed, his capture follows almost immediately upon the developing of his photograph. Like the cable and the belt, the image is here another leash on the worker.

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 3 1

16 HAS / 16 WHO / 15 BETWEEN / 15 CINEMA / 15 SOCIETY / 15 VALUE / 15 WAS / 14 ALL / 14 ALSO / 14 PROCESS / 13 CINEMATIC / 13 FORMS / 13 HUMAN /

They set up an alternative circulation and express themselves in the concrete reorganization of their surroundings. This reorganization is, as it were, the film-language of The Strike. The placing of things in motion is the form of this society’s expression. Capitalists orchestrate movement according to their interests, while workers try to orchestrate their own form of movement. To move differently in a society of highly regimented motion is already to express something else. Alternative motions may defy, or even exceed, the dominant social order. Indeed, it is the workers’ goal in The Strike to rip the factory partway out of the capitalists’ network of organization and control, and to incorporate it into their own. They move to make its moving parts move for them. In The Strike, the reorganization of movement (space and time) is made eloquent. Set apart from the capitalists, who are caricatures, and their spies, who are named for animals, the humans who appear as “The People” (who, in Eisenstein’s films, Roland Barthes notes are “always lovable”) are the only ones able to exercise autonomous agency.5 In moving for themselves, the people claim their humanity. It is as if revolutionary movement itself begins to reverse Marx’s description of the animalistic conditions imposed by capitalism, in which, “What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.”6 For Marx, the animalistic conditions of the workers’ lives under capitalism exist because all of the workers’ creative energy (human labor) belongs to the capitalist. Though in their exploitation of workers the capitalists behave inhumanely, they appropriate the human attributes of the workers whom they have caged. The worker, in only being able to reproduce his or her own subsistence, is reduced to an animal, as “an animal only produces what it immediately needs for itself or its young. An animal produces only itself whilst man reproduces the whole of nature.”7 However, the workers’ movements, organized for revolutionary change, produce something beyond immediate subsistence and reveal that it is the capitalists and their lackeys who, through their lack of agency, are capable of producing only themselves. The workers’ movements in The Strike reveal the capitalists’ animal nature. It is as if the spell that turned the workers into animals by freezing their humanity in the objects they made and that now cage them could be broken through the reorganization of movement. In Eisenstein, humanity remains a specter while the world is under capital’s enchantment. It is not for its own sake that I have raised the animal/human dichotomy, present in Eisenstein, Marx, and, as will become important for us shortly, the imaginary of this period. Because capital was, in fact, producing animality, Eisenstein’s concern with the relationship between animals, humans, and social organization was, at the turn of the century, part of a widely debated problematic. One need only think of H. G. Wells’s Island of Dr. Moreau, the tropes used by late colonial and emerging imperialist powers to characterize racialized others, or Pavlovian behaviorism here. This constellation 5 6 7

Roland Barthes, “The Third Meaning,” in A Barthes Reader, ed. Susan Sontag (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982), 317–33. Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed., ed. Robert C. Tucker (New York: Norton, 1978), 74. Ibid., 76.

32 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

of capital, animality, and humanity suggests the deeper powers of metamorphosis latent in the communicative aspects of movement, since reorganization potentially breaks the spell of Circe, that is, of capital, of animality. For the moment, the important point here is to see the conjunction of capital and animality with the process of communication. For Eisenstein, communication arises as a result of the organization of production and functions as a form of production. Furthermore, it transpires directly in the movement of materials. That movement is itself communication is made most explicit in a scene in The Strike that occurs once the work stoppage is underway and some of the workers in the foundry refuse to join. An angry mob of striking workers picks up the raw materials of what will soon be a hail of cobblestones and, heaving them, breaks jagged holes in the windows of the foundry. There is no doubt about what they are doing in making the stones fly: They are sending a message that even an animal could understand: “Get out!” That the movement of material is made expressive in Eisenstein is only slightly less extraordinary than the fact that it actually occurs via the dematerialization of the movement of material. But this dematerialization of material movement is the moment that goes beyond the mere meaning of the film in the sense that I indicated previously and marks its significance for the reorganization of the material and the materiality of signification. It is here, in the abstraction of material movement away from materiality, and in the ensuing phenomenological and visceral effects, that the cinematic mode of production comes into full presence. From now on, perception will be more or less consciously engineered according to the protocols of circulating materials. Because The Strike is itself a materialization of the movements that have begun to inhere in social organization as language, it is the materialization of a “language.” Language is, however, as inadequate a term as meaning, inasmuch as what is accomplished in The Strike is less the speaking about something and more the transferring of its very motion, the transferring of revolutionary movement.

n “The Third Meaning,” Roland Barthes used Eisenstein stills to arrive at a concept of the filmic, which surpasses the realm of the signified. For Barthes, “the third meaning,” that which he calls “the obtuse meaning,” is that which exceeds language—a “signifier without a signified.”8 In his words, “the third meaning—theoretically locatable but not describable— can now be seen as a passage from language to significance and the founding act of the filmic itself.”9 I am suggesting that “filmic” encounters take place in a translinguistic environment, which at once utilizes thought and is beyond it. Cinema is a technology for the organization of the scene of this encounter—let us provisionally call this space the space of the Real. Material reorganization of the world of capital and animality is, for Eisenstein, designed to produce psychic reorganization, physical reorganization, and, hence, social reor8

Barthes, “The Third Meaning,” 326. It is worth noting that this definition is the antithesis of the prevalent definition of the sublime, “a signified without a signifier.” See, for example Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 81. Barthes, “The Third Meaning,” 330.

13 LOGIC / 13 MANUFACTURING / 13 METZ / 13 MODE / 13 ONE / 13 REORGANIZATION / 13 THIS / 12 BODIES / 12 HERE / 12 PERCEPTION / 12 THEY / 12 WORLD /

he more abstract capital became (as money, as debt), the more rigid and concrete, the more embodied bourgeois (capitalist) society became. With the increasing organization of bodies themselves (manners, culture) along with the increasing organization of the physical, intellectual, and visual pathways that they and their deterritorialized pieces traverse, comes the apparent dematerialization of expression.

ganization. That this organizational force materializes in, and as, the dematerialization of material movement only suggests that there is a new kind of energy for the transformation of the material organization of society—steam! Utilizing the technological organization of the Real, the gaseous film in all its airy immateriality extends the circulation of movement beyond its immediate place and time and into the arena of its employment—the social and the sensuous.

CINEMA: A TECHNOLOGY OF THE REAL. CONSCIOUSNESS TENDS TOWARD CONSCIOUSNESS OF COMMODITIES. PRODUCTIVE VALUE OF HUMAN ATTENTION. CINEMA AS ORGANIZATIONAL PARADIGM.

n The Imaginary Signifier Christian Metz announces his psychoanalytic investigation of capitalist cinema as an effort “to disengage the cinema-object from the imaginary and to win it for the symbolic, in the hope of extending the latter by a new province, an enterprise of displacement, a territorial enterprise, a symbolic advance.”10 The symbolic advance that he intends entails

extending the language of theory into the territory of cinema, since, for him, “cinema is a technique of the imaginary.”11 We should add here that cinema is a technology of the Real. In the winning of cinema for the symbolic, Metz wants to be able to articulate epistemologically that which occurs in the encounter between the cinema and the psyche. For Metz, the cinema performs tasks in the space of the imaginary that can be analyzed descriptively and logically. In short, Metz intends to figure symbolically the interface between the cinema and the body. 10 Christian Metz, The Imaginary Signifier: Psychoanalysis and the Cinema, trans. Celia Britton, Annwyl Williams, Ben Brewster, and Alfred Guzzetti (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), 3. 11 Ibid.

The parallel of Metz’s work with my own effort can be found in my attempt to show that what is known about cinema in some empirical way (by watching and reflecting) and what is experienced can be expressed in another code. For Metz, this code is theory—the symbolic. By way of introducing what follows, what I would like to add here to Metz is that the experience of cinema not only can be, but indeed is being expressed in another code—though it is a type of code for which not all the units are meaningful for us. More and more thoroughly, these units have quantifiable, statistical significance for capital. The informatics of capital outpace meaning. If, as Georg Simmel writes, “money may be compared to language, which also lends itself to the most divergent directions of thought and feeling,” the reverse is also true.12 In taking the form of industry, that is, in being an extension of it, film-language takes the form of capital. Thus, I do not enter into the territory of cinema only to provide a theory of cinema; I want to show how capital has been developing a “theory” of cinema all along through the articulation of its form. Though the meanings of cinema are found in language, its significance is not language; its significance is in the symbolic known as capital. This symbolic, it should be noted, is not legible to all subjects and indeed signifies in a register far different from everyday perceptions in the cinema. In principle, all of the possibilities, affects, and experience available in the cinema are capable of being symbolized as capital—in other words, converted to exchange-value at some earlier or later stage of social production. Thus one sees the conversion of affect to money, of money to affect. Or such might be an abridged history of mediation since Eisenstein. The aforementioned shift from language as the arbiter of value to what is ultimately cinematic capital as the arbiter of value—that is, the shift from linguistic code being conceptualized as the bedrock of reality to simulation as the affect of capitalized reality is experienced as a shift by the subject, that is, by the sensorium.13 12 Georg Simmel, The Philosophy of Money, 2nd ed., ed. David Frisby, trans. Tom Bottomore and David Frisby (London and New York: Routledge, 1990), 470. 13 See my essay, “Cinema, Capital of the Twentieth Century,” Postmodern Culture 4, no. 3 (May 1994). Available at pmc@unit.nsu.edu.

TEO RETSK I B LOK / T H EORY 3 3

11 BEYOND / 11 CODE / 11 GENERAL / 11 INDUSTRIAL / 11 MEANING / 11 OWN / 11 SHIFT / 11 SYMBOLIC / 11 THEM / 11 UP / 11 WRITINGS / 10 AS / 10 BECOMES /

The most generic name for this new kind of experience resulting from the erosion of the stability of language is “the postmodern condition”—the phenomenology of which is best indexed by the term simulation. In the shift away from a linguistic code that is signaled by “simulation,” another quite different code remains, the code of exchange-value, that is, the code of commodification. Indeed, to speak figuratively here (for to show the myriad ways in which exchange-value is becoming the obverse of not just cinema in the sense in which we ordinarily understand it but of perception and thought would be to establish a new political economy and a new aesthetics, not to mention a new psychology), capital’s assembly line (as the montage of capital) not only provides the form for cinema, capital provides the formal model for the basic cinematic unit, the frame. The cinema is the concrete realization of what is already implicit in Marx: All things pass through the frame of capital. As Gilles Deleuze tells us, “The frame ensures a deterritorialization of the image” because it “gives a common standard of measurement to things which do not have one—long shots of countryside and close-ups of the face, an astronomical system and a single drop of water.”14 This principle of equivalence perfectly parallels and indeed extends the principle of equivalence implied by exchange-values (which can be compared directly), becoming the other side of use-values (which cannot be compared directly). In short, Deleuze suggests that the frame functions like money, as the general equivalent. The cutting up of reality according to the abstract logic of the frame suggests that the cinema is both a consequence and a source of fragmentation. Robert Bresson writes, “This [fragmentation] is indispensable if one does not want to fall into representation [which capital surely does not]. See beings and things in separate parts. Render them independent in order to give them a new dependence” (my emphasis).15 Such disarticulation from traditional relationships and the reorganization into new relationships enacts the very process of capital.16 Indeed, the form of cinema is the process of capital. With the cinematic organization of the world, the logic of capital moves us beyond representation and into simulation. In Deleuze’s words, “Money [becomes] the obverse of all the images that the cinema shows and sets in place.”17 The images have begun to move like money, and their affects demand the organizational work of capital. Eisenstein’s exquisitely articulate resistance to this new regime of organized movement, and its attendant regime of the sensorium, also brought it into a being.

Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 1, cited in Steven Shaviro, The Cinematic Body (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), 38. 15 Robert Bresson, in Shaviro, The Cinematic Body, 40. Quoted from Bresson’s Notes on the Cinematographer, trans. Jonathan Griffin (London: Quartet, 1986), 84. 16 “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered forms, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.” See Marx, Marx-Engels Reader, 476. 17 Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 2: The Time–Image, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 77.

3 4 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

Steven Shaviro, whose work is part of an attempt to explore the new aesthetics mentioned parenthetically above, forcefully states in The Cinematic Body that “when the real is fragmented as a result of being permeated with machines, the opposition between subjectivity and objectivity, between the observer and the observed, vanishes.”18 Such a phenomenological condition, thought to be endemic to postmodernism, is, in general, only suggestively allied with postindustrial society. A correspondence between economics and consciousness is taken for granted—shifts in consciousness are taken as signs of economic shifts. I am suggesting here that the dematerialization of industrial process as cinema can be taken to mark the inauguration of consciousness’s conversion process— its generalized conversion to the commodity form. Consciousness tends towards the consciousness of commodities—that is the great lesson of Debord. We dream the dream of things. In cinema lies a key to the structure and relations, the physics and the metaphysics, the subjectivity and objectivity, in short the underlying logic of postindustrial society. The organization of consciousness is coextensive with the organization of postindustrial society, and the media are the belts that forge these organizing connections. Cinema inaugurates a shift in the economics of social production, and if it can be shown that such a shift achieves critical mass in cinema and its legacies of television, computer, internet, then it can be argued that cinema is not merely a specific phenomenon in which the sensorium becomes subject (subjugated) to a code existing beyond itself and indeed beyond “natural language,” but the general case—the culmination and the paradigm of a historical epoch that supersedes the bourgeois mode of production by introjecting capitalized industrial process directly into the mindscape. Shaviro comments that, in opposition to semantic and psychoanalytic film theory, which “remains so preoccupied with the theme of ideology and representation” and “regards editing primarily as a technique for producing ... an illusion by suturing the spectator and perspectivizing the gaze, [a] wide variety of cinematic pleasures are predicated explicitly upon the de-centered freeplay, the freedom from the constraints of subjectivity that editing and special effects make possible.”19 Although I agree with Shaviro up to a point, I also see such new forms of experience as essential modes of perception for existence in the nonsynchronic, schizophrenic milieu of postmodern society. They are the conditions of possibility for its perpetuation—a technology of management. In the cinema, we learn to cope with contradiction and discontinuity. By this, I mean to show that the affects produced by cinema are themselves engaged in manufacturing biosocial interfaces in late capitalism. Benjamin writes of a Baudelaire, who speaks of a man who plunges into the crowd as into a reservoir of electric energy. Circumscribing the experience of the shock, he calls this man “a kaleidoscope equipped with consciousness.” Whereas Poe’s passersby cast glances in all directions which still appeared to be aimless, today’s pedestrians are 18 Shaviro, The Cinematic Body, 39. 19 Ibid., 40–41.

10 CAPITALISTS / 10 FACTORY / 10 HIS / 10 IF / 10 LABOR / 10 MEDIA / 10 ORGANIZATIONAL / 10 OUR / 10 OUT / 10 SIGNIFICANCE / 10 THEORY / 9 AFFECT /

obliged to do so in order to keep abreast of traffic signals. Thus technology has subjected the human sensorium to a kind of training. There came a day when a new and urgent need for stimuli was met by the film. In a film, perception in the form of shocks was established as a formal principle. That which determines the rhythm of production on a conveyor belt is the basis of the rhythm of reception in the film.20 Though with today’s television and email, the terms and conditions of movement through space have evolved beyond those met by the pedestrian, technology continues to train us to interface with the environment. The present analysis questions how “there came a day” when cinema, and later media in general, performed this entraining. It also explains the consequences of media’s relation to “production on a conveyor belt.” Today, in desperate measures to keep our world from flying apart at the contradictions, we are perhaps more apt to restrain the impact of shock with suture and continuity; however, discontinuity, illogic, and schizophrenia have their functions, also, as, to take but one example, the entirety of a book such as Noam Chomsky’s World Orders Old and New implies.21 As Paul Virilio writes, “videos and walkmans are reality and appearance in kit form: we use them not to watch films or listen to music, but to add vision and soundtracks, to make us directors of our own reality.”22 Such manufacturing of interfaces between bodies and machines requires labor from bodies and is productive of value—both cultural and economic. Social organization does not happen automatically, it requires work, labor power. Remarkably, it was Eisenstein who inaugurated the building of the first machines really suited to take advantage of this. Eisenstein’s intention was to foster the 1917 Revolution by using The Strike to organize the labor necessary for its continuation and development. What he achieved, however, was the revolutionizing of a machine that would give capital a new hold on the living labor called perception. In Deleuze’s Cinema books, which, as I have suggested elsewhere, might have gone under the name Cinema in our century for reasons similar to those that prompted Marx to write under the name of Capital in the last, Deleuze writes that a cinema that has surpassed movement and has become a cinema of time “restores belief in the world,” calling such belief “our only link.”23 Returning to our discussion of Metz, I would like to suggest that it is this “belief” that manifests itself in a variety of forms (none of which necessarily take the form of unified subjectivity or ideology), that is, even now, developing out of and into a new code, that is in the process of becoming symbolized. This symbolization is experienced subjectively as the production of new affects, desires, and identity formations. It also is experienced as the sublimity of the status quo. Objectively, the symbolic that is capital is digitalized, statisticized, militarized, and economized—it has the capacity in theory and practice to trump natural language. I am refering in the most literal way to the pricing of belief, and more generally of affect, by 20 Walter Benjamin, “On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,” in Illuminations, 175. 21 Noam Chomsky, World Orders Old and New (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994). 22 Paul Virilio, War and Cinema. 23 Deleuze, Cinema 2, 172.

capital: to wit, the Orwellian language of contemporary nationalism and the aestheticization of fascist culture. What are corporations and politicians buying when they buy “airtime” if not, in the words of Antonio Negri, “productive social cooperation.”24 It is in response to the horror made possible by the increasing domination of the “natural” world and “natural language” by the affects of such economic calculus that Adorno wonders if there can be poetry after Auschwitz. No one, however, wondered if there could be movies. As global trends from statistical marketing to new social movements to the new fundamentalisms imply in as much as they represent the formation of nontraditional forms of social agency and action, belief is bought and sold, it organizes, it produces, it is, in short, labor. The labor of belief is one of the strong forms of what I call the productive value of human attention. Through this general discussion, I am attempting to render an architectonics of the relationship between cinema—conceived as an advancement over the industrial mode of production—and human bodies. It is my hypothesis that cinema becomes, in its interaction with and incorporation of bodies, a mode of production in its own right. Cinema is a paradigm shift in the relation between organization and representation and is the characteristic effect of capitalized movement in general. As we shall see toward the end of this chapter, when Eisenstein’s relationship to reflexology and Taylorization is discussed, film discovers new ways to do things to bodies. It is less representation than presentation; “signalization” in Pavlov’s terms. Cinema as a process, a complex of movement, bodies, and consciousness, which I will refer to as cinematic process, becomes the dominant mode of production itself. Not all production passes through cinema in the institutional sense, but global production is organized as cinema is. Consciousness is dominated by the organization of movement—the organization of materials produces affect. In the cinematic organization of global production and reproduction, this logic will be interiorized in, and as, the postmodern to the extent that for the postmodern sensorium the world is a world of images. Cinema provides the architectonics of the logistics of perception for capital. Indeed, it represents their fusion. Hence, the cinematic has been machining the postmodern for nearly a century. In this sense, we can say that during the twentieth century, much of the world is literally in cinema, much in the way that the futurists intended to put the spectator inside the painting.25 In other words, what Ken Surin calls “the consumption of society by capital,” is made possible by the cinema and cinematic organization.26 Reification, to take one example, is only a first-order approximation of the phenomenology of capital-driven movement. As capital envelops the environment, the entirety of affect (potentially) can be correlated with capital. Unlike Metz, then, I am not seeking to cause by theory what transpires in the imaginary to emerge in or as the symbolic. My project here is to isolate the organizational transformation of (in 24 From Antonio Negri’s brilliant “Twenty Theses on Marx: Interpretation of the Class Situation Today,” trans. Michael Hardt, Polygraph #5: Contesting the New World Order (1992): 154. 25 The spectator “must in the future be placed in the center of the picture. He shall not be present at, but participate in, the action.” See, “The Exhibitors to the Public, 1912” in H. B. Chipps, Theories of Modern Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 296. 26 Kenneth Surin, “’The Continued Relevance of Marxism’ as a Question: Some Propositions,” Polygraph 6/7: Marxism Beyond Marxism? (1993): 52.

TEO RETSK I B LOK / T H EORY 3 5

9 HE / 9 OTHER / 9 PRESENT / 9 PRINCIPLE / 9 TECHNOLOGY / 9 WAY / 9 WE / 9 WOULD / 8 ANIMAL / 8 AUDIENCE / 8 CONDITIONS / 8 EXCHANGE / 8 FOR /

psychoanalytic language) the imaginary and the symbolic by the Lacanian Real, what in Jamesonian Marxism is known as History. Such a project takes the form of an indexical articulation of the industrialization of the sensorium; it is a necessarily schematic registration of a shift in the mode of production and the attendant transformation of the regime of value. Ideology, consciousness, cinema are not reflections of the material base—for production passes through them. Given the association of History with the Real, one can see that The Strike, as a product of the “manufactured past,” is a historical formation, over and above its imaginary content that can be symbolized in and as a reading; it is, in a way that exceeds all its myriad gestures and interpretations, immersed in the space of the Real. At a level distinct from meaning, cinema is on a continuum with the Real. That Real (History as organization) is cut into the Spectator as a development of the unconscious with imaginary, symbolic, and numismatic effects. Though other film theorists have argued that one encounters the Real in the cinema, none have shown that the logic of the Real manifests itself in cinema,27 Of course, the notion that there is a logic to the Real runs counter to traditional notions of the Real itself; however, the Real (in Lacan’s phrase, “that which eludes symbolization”) is, for us, neither immutable nor ontologically given but historical. From the allegorical strategies of reading developed, for example, by Jameson and Terry Eagleton, which owe a tremendous debt to Althusser’s idea of the Real as the mode of production, one can deduce that if the film is immersed in the space of the Real, then it is part of the mode of production. The Real is the manufacturing essence of the social—what hurts, in Jameson’s phrase, but also what heals, and finally what moves. In the present mode of production, it is correct to say that, for Lacan, repetition is the encounter with the Real; but it is more useful, perhaps, to say that in Fordist and post-Fordist societies, repetition is the working of the Real. Meals, machine-guns, movie-film, DNA, and binary code all support such a claim. Metz, I would suggest, only scratches the surface of a notion of the cinema as an agent of the Real when he touches on the structuring of the psyche by cinema, noting that “the cinematic institution is not just the cinema industry (which works to fill cinemas, not to empty them), it is also a mental machinery—another industry—which spectators ‘accustomed to the cinema’ have internalized historically and which has adapted them to the consumption of films.”28 Though Metz is right to state that cinema actively machines certain mentalities, the film industry does not, as Metz would have it, merely create its own consumers. Although cinema most assuredly has psychological repercussions for spectators, the “mental machinery” of the psyche has never been external to political economy. The cinema is a technology that develops in dialectical relation to the psyche’s changing function in political economy. Gramsci already argued along similar lines when he asserted that Fordist manufacturing requires for the worker a new “psycho-so-

27 Slavoj Zizek, Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991). 28 Metz, The Imaginary Signifier, 7.

3 6 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

cial nexus.”29 Mental phenomena always have been a part of the production process, but cinema posits consciousness (perception?) as a general equivalent.30 Consciousness becomes the medium and the frame that allows for the interface of bodies and society in the coming society. Cinema opens consciousness to the playful tyranny of exchange-value previously reserved (on a global scale) for bodies laboring only in a traditional sense. Cinema insists that consciousness (perception) work on exchange-value as exchangevalue passes through it. Indeed, cinema is an elaboration of a process that was already taking place, albeit in primitive forms. It is a technology for mining consciousness (mental activity) of value. Though there is still much to say regarding this point, I would like to put forth some of the claims and consequences that follow from the idea of the projection through the eye of the manufacturing logic of production for exchange-value by cinema (as well as other media, which are the developments of cinema): 1. Cinema is at once an organizational paradigm of social relations, a necessary technology for the conversion of the commodity form into an image, and a prototechnology for the capitalization of human attention. It is, in short, the paradigmatic technology for the commodification of human life up until the age of television. Just as private property, according to Marx, is not at first the cause of alienated labor but rather it is the effect, neither is cinema the cause of objects turning into images but the effect of their transformation. The conversion of objects into images is immanent in the commodity form. Cinema is an elaboration of the spectral aspects of the commodity in motion. 2. The cinematic mode of production relies upon a tandem structuring of perception and organization that results in the commodification of each—capital becomes the arbiter of the value of various organizational forms. It does this in the intensification of the circulation of the commodity-image. Tautologically, though accurately, stated, the more value the tandem structuring of perception, and organization produces, the more value it has. Cinema as cinema (as opposed to cinema as capital) is the perceptual excrescence of the material organization of an entire society. Cinema as cinema is the institutional matrix of bodies, perception, and industry, while cinema as capital is that institution functioning at once in its politico-economic dimension and as the paradigm for the totality of political economy. Capital-cinema posits, finally, the 29 Antonio Gramsci, “Americanism and Fordism,” in Selection from the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (New York: International Publishers, 1971), 279–318. 30 I equivocate between consciousness and perception here because I have yet not worked out the basis upon which to mark the distinction, and this is not the place to do it. For now, let me say that consciousness is beginning to resemble money, “the vanishing mediator,” while thought and perception express particular relations of capital. Marx’s tripartite definition of money as measure of value, means of circulation, and as representation of wealth (i.e., as capital) culminates in money’s achieving a consciousness of its own. “Money in its final perfected determination now appears in all respects as a contradiction which resolves itself, which drives itself to its own resolution. As the general form of wealth, it is confronted by the whole world of riches. It is their pure abstraction – hence comprehended as such, it is mere imagination. Where wealth appears to exist as such in a quite material, tangible form, it has its existence merely in my mind, is a sheer figment of the imagination. Midas.” Grundrisse, 166. I am suggesting that not only do workers in capitalism have the Midas touch, but spectators in late capitalism have the Midas gaze. Whatever we look at turns to gold, for someone.

8 IMAGINARY / 8 MACHINES / 8 MARX / 8 MONEY / 8 SUCH / 8 THAT / 8 THEMSELVES / 8 US / 8 WHEN / 8 WILL / 8 WORK / 7 AM / 7 BEING / 7 CALLS /

political economy of the society of the spectacle. Consciousness is the screen on which the regime of commodity movement carves its visceral speculations. Increasingly, all things are absorbed by cinema (capital) and appear on (or disappear from, depending on what is required) the screen of perception. 3. Therefore, the “symbolizing advance” that I intend concerning what Metz calls cinema’s “second machine, that is, the social regulation of the spectators’ metapsychology,” extends far beyond the concept of cinema’s adaptation of spectators to the consumption of films, and indeed beyond psychology itself.31 I am interested in the structural psychological, libidinal, and corporeal adaptation of spectators to the protocols of global production. This conversion of spectating, generally conceived as a consumer activity, into a socially productive activity depends on the establishing of media as a worksite of global production. Today, mass media functions as a deterritorialized factory, where the maintenance and retooling of a transnational, transsubjective infrastructure composed of human beings, factories, cottage industries, service sectors, as well as programmed software and electronic hardware is essential to the valorization of capital. The cinematicity of objects is harnassed as an alternative force and used to intensify production. The cinema and its technological descendants extract the labor for the maintenance and calibration of the social totality. Without television, as well as fax-modems, telephones, computers, and digitized, computerized money, production would grind to a halt. Each of these media burrows its way into the flesh of the globe.32 “The media” orchestrate production through the fleshy media of mind and body, while appearing as culture (or, for that matter, “democracy”). Cultural imperialism is not just culture in a one-dimensional sense, it is imperialism. As such, it puts into play all of traditional imperialism’s dynamics of value exploitation (gated neighborhoods, police-states, unbearable working conditions, etc.), but it also puts up other barriers, as well (invisible walls that are visceral, ideological, perceptual), and extends the range of the body’s malleability (through rhythm, desire, learning). The putting of non-Western and otherwise peripheral populations on line with the system’s language of Western capitalism (the world-system) is an inexorable function of television. In short, the hypothesis here is that mass media, taken as a whole, is the deterritorialized factory, in which spectators do the work of making themselves over in order to meet the libidinal, political, temporal, corporeal, and, of course, ideological protocols of an ever-intensifying capitalism. ..

inema as a process, a complex of movement, bodies, and

consciousness, which I will refer to as cinematic process, becomes the dominant mode of production itself. Not all production passes through cinema in the institutional sense, but global production is organized as cinema is. Consciousness is dominated by the organization of movement – the organization of materials produces affect. In the cinematic organization of global production and reproduction, this logic will be interiorized in, and as, the postmodern to the extent that for the postmodern sensorium the world is a world of images. Cinema provides the architectonics of the logistics of perception for capital. Indeed, it represents their fusion. Hence, the cinematic has been machining the postmodern for nearly a century. In

31 Metz, The Imaginary Signifier, 7. The first and second machines elaborated by Metz are both part of what I refer to as “cinema as cinema.” Only when understood in their politico-economic dimensions are they to be understood as “cinema as capital.” 32 “Computer programming is really a branch of moviemaking,” Theodor Nelson said, quoted in Howard Rheingold’s Virtual Reality (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991), 176; see also 286. “Computers are theater. Interactive technology, like drama, provides a platform for representing coherent realities in which agents perform with cognitive, emotional and productive qualities. Two thousand years of dramatic theory and practice have been devoted to an end which is remarkably similar to that of the fledgling discipline of human-computer interaction design; namely, creating artificial realities in which the potential for action is cognitively, emotionally, and aesthetically enhanced” (quoted in Brenda Laurel, Computers as Theater [Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishers, 1991]). Rheingold groups together these and other such citations under the provocative heading “The Reality-Industrial Complex.”

this sense, we can say that during the twentieth century, much of the world is literally in cinema, much in the way that the futurists intended to put the spectator inside the painting.

TEO RETSK I B LOK / T H EORY 37

155 IN / 118 V / 95 JE / 94 KI / 86 SE / 47 NA / 38 DA / 37 KOT / 31 S / 28 DELA / 28 ZA / 26 DO / 26 TO / 25 BI / 20 PA / 20 PRODUKCIJE / 20 SMO / 19 NE /

METAMORFOZE: UMETNOST IN NEMATERIALNO DELO1 METAMORPHOSES: ART AND IMMATERIAL LABOUR see page 44

ANTONIO NEGRI PREVOD / TRANSLATED BY URBAN SUŠA

SašoSedlaček@3 × 10 17Hz

3 8 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

Prispevek, predstavljen v Tate Britain, 19. januarja 2008. Objavljen v: Antonio Negri, Art et multitude, Mille et une nuits, département de Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2009, in v: Antonio Negri, Art and Multitude. Nine letters on art, followed by Metamorphoses: Art and immaterial labour, Cambridge, Malden: Polity Press, 2011, str. 101–123. ©Mille et une nuits, département de Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2009.

19 PRI / 19 TEM / 19 Z / 18 GA / 18 TA / 17 JO / 17 SO / 17 UMETNOSTI / 16 LAHKO / 16 TOREJ / 16 ŽIVLJENJA / 15 KO / 15 VEČ / 13 MED / 12 DELO / 12 GRE /

oskusimo najprej zgodovinsko umestiti koncept plastične in figurativne umetnosti z materialističnega vidika. Poskusimo torej začeti z opredelitvijo njegove morebitne (in v vsakem primeru zgodovinsko določene) povezave s strukturo in razvojem načinov produkcije. Je kaj takšnega sploh mogoče? Ker smo danes tukaj, da bi govorili o umetnosti in nematerialnem delu, se zdi, da bi bilo to koristno: »nematerialni« značaj »dela« namreč nikakor ne zmanjšuje njegove absolutno pomembne vloge v zgodovini (tudi v odnosih, ki jih goji do umetniške produkcije); in ta nematerialnost, podobno, dejavnosti dela ne odvzame njene ekonomske energije in ontološke moči, ki ju kapitalizem zahteva prav zato, da bi ju lahko izkoriščal.

Ali je torej mogoča tovrstna opredelitev umetnosti? Sam menim, da je. Tudi če upoštevamo površinskost in muhavost trga umetnin, torej tiste pojave v umetnosti, ki jih narekuje kroženje kapitala, lahko dejansko sledimo sovpadanju (seveda le grobemu, pa vendar resničnemu) med različnimi obdobji umetnostne dejavnosti (čemur bi nemara lahko rekli »stil« in »poetika« umetnosti) na eni ter kapitalistično produkcijo in organizacijo dela na drugi strani. Želim torej prikazati obrise nekaterih podob tega odnosa, pri čemer se vnaprej opravičujem zaradi njihove shematičnosti. Začnimo z obdobjem, v katerem je razredni boj postal središčni za kapitalistični razvoj. Med letoma 1848 in 1870 se ta središčnost izraža skozi surovo in silovito pomasovljenje delavskega dela v vsej njegovi materialnosti. Ali »realizem« umetniškega izraza (Courbet in Cézanne na primer) odslikava ta novi zgodovinski položaj dela? Sam sem imel vedno vtis, da to drži. Še zlasti, če upoštevamo silovitost, s katero se začneta pojavljati denaturalizacija resničnosti in strukturna materialnost subjekta – to natančno sovpada s prvimi pomembnejšimi epizodami industrijske in velemestne centralizacije izkoriščanja delovne sile. Obdobje impresionizma med letoma 1871 in 1914 na drugi strani sovpada s časom, ko je kapital poglabljal delitev in specializacijo dela, na strani delavcev pa je v tem času opaziti razvijanje subverzivnih projektov samoupravljanja produkcije. To je prvi veliki trenutek »emancipatorne naddeterminacije« pogojev akumulacije kapitalistične produkcije, trenutek, v katerem kvalificirani delavec igra glavno vlogo. Delavci pridejo do spoznanja, da je kapitalistični svet, ki predstavlja njihovega sovražnika, mogoče razkrojiti – in nemara ponovno zgraditi na drugačnih temeljih –, če bi si le lahko prisvojili ključe produkcije in si jo ponovno prisvojili [reapropriirali]. Ta razkroj in rekonstrukcija sveta sta v silovitem sozvočju s tem, kako v taistih letih začenja delovati svet umetnosti. V razkroju leži ustvarjanje – to bi lahko razumeli kot geslo prve faze transformacije umetnosti v zgodovini sedanjosti. To nas privede do oktobrske revolucije. Po vsem svetu sta se kot vihar širila revolucionarna misel in subverzivno delovanje. Da bi se odzval na ta izziv, je bil kapitalizem prisiljen vsiliti proletarcem, ki so predstavljali temelj produkcije, nadaljnje pomasovljenje; uvesti nove oblike potrošnje delavskega razreda (prek državne blaginje); privesti raven abstrakcije do vrhunca in v

organizacijo dela vpeljati »znanstveni pristop«. Natanko v tem trenutku se je »abstraktna forma« uveljavila tudi v umetniški produkciji. Ta abstrakcija je sočasno reprezentacija abstrakcije dela in, paradoksalno, z vidika delavcev vir alternativne imaginacije. Kaj pa je pravzaprav socializem, če ne projekt, po katerem organizirati abstrakcijo dela na avtonomen način? Med letoma 1917 in 1929, od zavzetja Zimskega dvorca do velike depresije, je ta abstrakcija, ki takrat zasede srce umetniške produkcije, »ekspresionistična«, kar pomeni, da se junaško zoperstavlja resničnim in prisotnim determinantam izkoriščanja. Z drugimi besedami, nasilno anticipira abstrakcijo dela – abstrakcijo, ki jo absorbira, si jo prisvoji in potisne do skrajnosti, da bi jo strmoglavila. Pridemo torej do abstrakcije, ki preči figurativno umetnost, jo uničuje in ponovno gradi, umetniška produkcija pa živi resnično revolucionarno strast, torej željo po konstruktivni estetiki, ki se izraža skozi silovito epsko izrazje. Ko se nato abstrakcija kooptira v trg in v kroženje dobrin, prevzema oblike, ki so vse bolj analitične, seveda še vedno abstraktne, a vse bolj raznovrstne in pogosto dovzetne za čisto eksperimentiranje – vsaj takrat, ko kriza (in obnavljanje načinov produkcije, kar je njena nujna posledica) to dopušča ali ko to vsilijo delavski boji. Po letu 1929 je edina preostala estetska razsežnost tista, ki jo producira množični umetnik oziroma njegova konstruktivna sposobnost, ne glede na njeno obliko. In to je razvoj, ki nas skozi zgodovino nenehnega eksperimentiranja nazadnje pripelje do leta 1968. Tako pridemo do trenutka križanja med abstrakcijo in produkcijo oziroma, povedano lepše, do prepletanja med abstrakcijo sedanjega načina produkcije in reprezentacijo drugih mogočih svetov, do abstrakcije podobe in uporabe vedno več in več različnih materialov, do poenostavitve umetniške poteze in do geometričnega destrukturiranja realnega ... Picasso in Klee, Duchamp in Malevič, Beuys in Fontana, Rauschenberg in Christo: kljub očitnim razlikam med njimi vse prepoznamo kot akterje ene in iste izkušnje ustvarjanja. Odslej smo soočeni z novim subjektom – subjektom, ki je sposoben demistificirati fetišizirano usodo, ki jo vsiljuje kapital – in z abstraktnim objektom. In zdaj? Ali iz povedanega lahko povlečemo še kaj drugega? Nastopi leto 1968. In na tej točki se je sodobna umetnost prisiljena soočiti z novim nizom vprašanj. Kako pride do nekega dogodka? Kako se lahko razvijeta strast in želja po transformaciji tega, kar je tukaj in zdaj? Kako se revolucija predstavlja danes? Kako je mogoče človeka misliti popolnoma na novo? Kako lahko abstraktno postane subjekt praxisa? Kakšen svet si abstrakcija želi in na kakšen način si ga želi? Kakšne so oblike življenja, ki so skladne s to skrajno potezo transformacije? Vrnimo se k izhodiščni razpravi. Začeli smo s fazo reapropriacije in samoupravljanja, v kateri so prevladovali razvoj podobe kvalificiranega delavca (1848–1914) in boji, ki jih je ta delavec bojeval. Povedano drugače, v tej fazi so dominirale utopije in revolucije, ki

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 3 9

12 KAR / 12 OBLIKE / 12 PREDSTAVLJA / 12 SI / 11 ALI / 11 PO / 10 MOGOČE / 10 NAS / 10 O / 10 ŽE / 9 ABSTRAKCIJO / 9 JIH / 9 NAČIN / 9 SKOZI / 9 ŠE /

ovoriti danes o »nematerialnem delu« namreč paradoksalno ne pomeni več govoriti o abstrakciji, temveč se, nasprotno, dejansko potopiti v konkretno, v predmetno/ snovno. Ne ukvarjamo se torej več s poduhovljenostjo in oddaljenimi vizijami, temveč se potapljamo med telesi, povedano drugače, gre za izraz človeške telesnosti. Nematerialno delo izdeluje materialne proizvode, blago in komunikacije. Je družbeno organizirano v jezikovnih, kooperativnih, elektronskih in digitalnih omrežjih, ki so vsa zelo materialna, udejanja pa se prek vrst združevanja in prek gibanj, ki so multitudna. Zato tukaj obravnavamo nematerialnost, ki je polna telesnosti, zelo mobilna in izjemno prožna: je skupek teles.

4 0 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

jih je izražal (gre za obdobje, ki se v času pariške komune razdeli na umetniški smeri realizma in impresionizma). Nato nastopi revolucionarna faza, ki se začne z letom 1917 in nas privede do leta 1968 ter se v celoti odvija znotraj abstrakcije delovne sile – gre za fazo, ki se po letu 1920 deli naprej na umetniški tok ekspresionizma in abstraktnega eksperimentiranja (v tem obdobju se podoba množičnega delavca sama postavlja kot hegemonski subjekt nad abstrakcijo/proti abstrakciji dela in vzpostavi projekt socialističnega upravljanja te abstrakcije). Danes je pred nami novo obdobje: konstituentna faza »družbenega delavca« [operaio sociale] in kognitivne delovne sile. S tem pa se postavi vprašanje, kaj pravzaprav konstituirata, kdaj in kje? K temu bi veljalo pristopiti od začetka. V našem primeru to pomeni postaviti vprašanje, ali je fraza »nematerialno delo« primerna. Govoriti danes o »nematerialnem delu« namreč paradoksalno ne pomeni več govoriti o abstrakciji, temveč se, nasprotno, dejansko potopiti v konkretno, v predmetno/snovno. Ne ukvarjamo se torej več s poduhovljenostjo in oddaljenimi vizijami, temveč se potapljamo med telesi, povedano drugače, gre za izraz človeške telesnosti. Nematerialno delo izdeluje materialne proizvode, blago in komunikacije. Je družbeno organizirano v jezikovnih, kooperativnih, elektronskih in digitalnih omrežjih, ki so vsa zelo materialna, udejanja pa se prek vrst združevanja in prek gibanj, ki so multitudna. Zato tukaj obravnavamo nematerialnost, ki je polna telesnosti, zelo mobilna in izjemno prožna: je skupek teles. Z vidika umetnosti nas to privede do paradoksa naše zgodbe: razvoj umetnosti je abstrakcijo družbenih odnosov, v katerih obstajamo, preoblikoval v telesne podobe; in dal je pomen vitalnosti človeških teles – skozi podobe, ki se premikajo in pretakajo v procesu nenehnega preoblikovanja. Od Bacona do Warhola ali Park Jonga si umetniki v neobdelanem prostoru zamišljajo nerazločno gmoto ter si neustrašno predstavljajo, kaj obeta svet, osvobojen svoje notranje arhitekture. Razvoj umetnosti se odslej podaja bolj v biopolitičnem izrazju in ne več toliko v nematerialnem izrazju. Poskuse, da bi si ponovno predstavljali družbeno komunikacijo, da bi zajeli njeno podobo v gibanju, spremlja skok v kipeč in kaotičen vrvež, v katerem se proizvajajo oblike življenja. Paradoks umetnosti je danes – bodisi intenzivno bodisi ekstenzivno – v želji po produkciji sveta (teles, gibanj) na drugačen način, in sicer iz sveta, ki ne priznava drugih svetov in ki vé, da je »zunanjost«, ki se oblikuje, lahko zgolj drugo znotraj absolutne notranjosti. Seveda ne gre za to, da bi s pričujočim splošnim opisom poskušali na novo pisati zgodovino umetnosti. Želimo zgolj opozoriti na dejstvo, da umetniška dejavnost vedno obstaja znotraj specifičnega načina produkcije in da ga reproducira oziroma, natančneje, da ga producira in spodbija, da je z njim sprijaznjena in ga uničuje. Umetniška dejavnost je vrsta delovne sile, njena edinstvena oblika. Ni naključje, da se vsi proizvodi umetniške dejavnosti tako lahko spremenijo v blago, po drugi strani pa se vsakemu takemu proizvodu prizna posebna vrednost, če se ga predstavi kot invencijo – z drugimi besedami, kot da gre za proizvod sui generis, ki je edinstven in ga ni mogoče poenosta-

9 TUKAJ / 9 UMETNIŠKE / 8 DANES / 8 IN / 8 IZ / 8 OD / 8 SVET / 8 TE / 8 V / 8 VEDNO / 8 VSE / 7 BOLJ / 7 KATEREM / 7 MORAMO / 7 NI / 7 PRAVZAPRAV /

viti. Pri umetniškem delu gre vedno za dve nerazločljivi stvari – pravzaprav kot to velja za vse objekte, ki se proizvajajo v eri kapitalizma: gre tako za aktivnost kot za blago. In na podlagi te dvostranskosti produktivne dejavnosti je mogoče razumeti, kar je po mojem mnenju notranja realnost sodobnega umetniškega razmerja: ne gre le za način, na katerega se producira umetnost, kar bi bilo mogoče razumeti kot enostavno produkcijo izdelkov, temveč tudi za način produkcije umetnosti, ki ni nič manj kot podoba, moč kreativnosti v svetu. Delovna sila – svobodna ptica v gozdu življenja. S tega vidika umetniško delo prevzame ontološki pomen, ki je značilen za vse oblike dela, ko te kažejo svoj ustvarjalni obraz. In pomen umetniškega dela bo toliko večji, kolikor bolj se bo prepletlo s kognitivnim delom skozi razvoj samih načinov produkcije, in sicer s prevzemanjem njihovih značilnosti: povezovanjem produkcije blaga s kroženjem blaga, lingvističnim analiziranjem reprodukcije, virtualnim in kooperativnim ovrednotenjem in tako naprej. Preučevanje umetnosti že dolgo vztraja pri tem ontološkem pomenu. Vedno sem bil mnenja, da je bil prispevek »dunajske šole« na prehodu iz devetnajstega v dvajseto stoletje v tem pogledu zelo pomemben. Zlasti ko avtorji te šole, med njimi Aloïs Riegl, analizirajo poznorimske in/ali bizantinske umetniške veščine. Pri tem opredeljujejo skupek družbenih sil in oblik, ki so vključene v umetniško izdelovanje [faire], in s tem zajamejo njegovo ontološko naddeterminiranost: to imenujejo Kunstwollen [umetniško hotenje], ki predstavlja edinstveno željo po ustvarjanju umetnosti in zgrinjanje vseh tehnik izdelovanja nad tiste, ki te tehnike uporabljajo, ter prekrivanje med objektom in subjektom v zgodovinskem procesu in skozi produkcijo. Kunstwollen je torej naddeterminacija dela in kot takšna poživlja umetniške veščine, te pa hrepenijo po Kunstwollen. Kar je bilo značilno za poznorimsko obdobje, se pravzaprav zgodi vedno znova. Kunstwollen je nemara res univerzalno za obdobje, ki ga opredeljuje, vendar v vsakem obdobju prevzame svojstveno obliko, in sicer skozi načine sestavljanja materialov, izbiranje načinov produkcije, ki jih uporablja, ter mobiliziranje okusov in potreb. Kunstwollen je namernost, ki v svoji uresničitvi v nobenem pomenu ne izgubi lastne prostorsko-časovne določenosti. In vendar je to namernost, ki obnavlja svojo epoho. Izpolnjuje jo tukaj in zdaj, na kognitiven način, z razkazovanjem dela kot »oblikujočo obliko« živečega. Tehnična sredstva postanejo mentalna (torej kognitivna) in obratno, inteligenca postane tehnika in delo. Opozoriti velja še na dve oporni točki iz zgodovine umetnostne kritike, in sicer na dela Wilhelma Diltheyja in Michela Foucaulta, pri čemer bo njuna relevantnost postala očitna v nadaljevanju. Pri Diltheyju se zdi, da je razmerje med načinom produkcije in umetniško izkušnjo na začetku artikulirano zelo drugače kot pri dunajski šoli: umetniško delo je proizvod posamičnega Erlebnis [doživetja] in umetniška izkušnja ima močne psihološke konotacije. V Diltheyjevi estetiki – ali, natančneje, v analizi »poetike«

vsakega od romantičnih in postromantičnih avtorjev, ki jih obravnava – pa se postopoma razvije analiza s koncepti zgodovinske strukture, tehnike izražanja in edinstvenosti umetniškega dojemanja, s tem pa pride do pogleda, ki je veliko bližji dunajskim teoretikom. Zanj je značilna naslednja posebnost: v umetniški produkciji se razmerje, ki obstaja med tistim, ki deluje, in tistim, na katerega se deluje, poglablja in postane motor ontološkega preoblikovanja akterjev. Foucault na drugi strani uporablja pojem episteme kot osnovno vodilo pri interpretaciji obdobij, vendar istočasno predstavlja razvoj obdobja, kot da je na robu inovacije, torej kot da je podrejen prelomu. Foucault pravzaprav zelo pogosto – in prav nič naključno – vztraja pri hibridizaciji, pri procesu posredovanja, v katerem se pojavijo in uresničijo transformacije episteme vsakega danega obdobja. Na vprašanje »Kaj je avtor?« odgovori že leta 1969, in sicer z »ali je pomembno, kdo govori« [»qui importe qui parle!«]. Dve leti pozneje, pri razpravi o Manetu, se v Foucaultovem diskurzu že ustalijo oblike, v katerih pride do metamorfoze umetniške poteze: Manet – »slika-objekt« – »temeljni pogoj, da se nekoč dokončno osvobodimo reprezentacije same ter da se dovoli prostoru poigrati se s svojimi čistimi in enostavnimi lastnostmi, s svojimi materialnimi lastnostmi«.1 Zakaj sta torej ta dva avtorja – Dilthey in Foucault, ki predstavljata nekakšen »prej« in »potem« v odnosu do prehoda, ki nas pripelje do postmoderne in do hegemonije nematerialnega dela na umetniškem področju – pomembna? Ker se z njima zgodovina in ontologija medsebojno silovito prepleteta. S to točko križanja pa se napove biopolitično. Vrnimo se zdaj na začetek tega predavanja, torej tja, kjer smo nehali slediti razvoju umetnostne zgodovine, v čas okoli leta 1968, na točko preobrata, za katero se nam je zdelo, da predstavlja konec množičnega delavca. Raziščimo fazo, ki se odpre v tem trenutku. Kot smo že videli, sta delo in umetnost – obema gospoduje globalizacija in zasičenost z izkušnjo življenja v kapitalizmu – postala abstraktna. Vendar pa se njun subjekt in objekt nanašata eden na drugega, v igri, ki je prav igra produkcije in v kateri ni več »zunanjosti«. Kam lahko torej umestimo pojavljanje »lepega« v prehodu iz moderne v postmoderno? Kako naj prečkamo abstrakcijo v želji po izdelovanju umetnosti? Ko ponovno odpiramo ta vprašanja, moramo najprej poudariti, da je že nastopila pomembna mutacija, nemara gre celo za antropološko metamorfozo. V našem obstoju, kot ga poznamo danes, ustvarjanje bržkone nima več nič skupnega s kakršno koli naravo. In če opustimo naše ustaljene načine razmišljanja, moramo priznati, da ne gre več niti za sublimacijo. Bolj kot to je ustvarjanje nezmernost, pretiravanje, ki v presežkih produktivnosti odkriva podobe. V času, ko je delovna sila že kognitivna, se povsod predstavlja želja po umetniškem izražanju; ko se množica delavcev 1

[Michel Foucault, Manet and the Object of Painting, prev. v ang. Matthew Barr; predgovor Nicolas Bourriaud. London: Tate Publishing, 2010, str. 79.]

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 41

7 SICER / 7 TAKO / 7 TEGA / 7 TEMVEČ / 7 TER / 7 UMETNIŠKEGA / 6 ABSTRAKCIJE / 6 ČE / 6 DOGODEK / 6 KAKO / 6 KOGNITIVNEGA / 6 KUNSTWOLLEN /

preoblikuje v multitudo posameznih proizvajalcev, umetniško dejanje prežema oblike življenja in te oblike življenja postanejo meso sveta. Mislim, da je Bernard Stiegler, ko je sledil Leroi-Gourhanu in Simondonu, še posebej učinkovito ponazoril ta prehod. Stiegler zajame to nagnjenost k poenotenju antropogeneze in tehnogeneze – na ta način se svet izpostavi na pravi pravcati tournant machinique2. Kognitivno delo producira objekte, ki spreminjajo subjekt. Ne več v metafizičnem pomenu, kot pri Heideggru, temveč na kritičen način, kot pri Kantu. Umetnost tako v celoti osvetli, prek tehnologije »razkrije« to »skrivnost resnice«, ki jo producirajo subjekti (v neprekinjenih medsebojnih odnosih). »Globoko« se razkrije pred očmi vseh, ko je spuščeno v krogotoke notranjega in zunanjega, konstituentnega in konstituiranega. Kantovski shematizem, ta dokončna slepa ulica moderne filozofije, okrog katere se izčrpavamo in si priznavamo »smrt človeka«, se nič več ne sklene v sublimnem, temveč v krogu konstitucije, med subjektom in tehničnim objektom, pri čemer slednji samega sebe predstavlja kot subjekt. Za Stieglerja postati človek prek protetičnih podaljškov, s katerimi se človek opremi, predstavlja končno usodo, ki jo začrta kognitivno delo. Metamorfoza je podoba ontološkega pomena umetniškega delovanja. Vseeno je tukaj potrebno natančnejše pojasnilo. Poskušali smo pojasniti, kakšna je učinkovitost nematerialnosti (kognitivnega dela) v odnosu do umetnosti. Ta prehod smo umestili v točko postmodernega preobrata ter v trenutek poenotenja antropogeneze in tehnogeneze. Danes pa se zdi, da se je položaj stabiliziral, in sicer zaradi več razlogov, ki jih tukaj ne bomo obravnavali. Nič več ne gremo v smeri postmoderne, pravzaprav smo že prešli vse, kar je »post«; sedaj smo v sodobnosti in ta sodobnost je dodatno poglobila transformacijo dela – iz nematerialnega, kognitivnega, afektivnega vse bolj postaja bios: postaja biopolitično delo, dejavnost, ki reproducira oblike življenja. Delo ima odslej nove lastnosti in s temi bi želel zaključiti. Prvič. Delo se sedaj predstavlja kot dogodek, gre torej za presežek, nezmernost življenja. Dogodek se loči od nepretrganosti ustaljenega horizonta življenja, vseeno pa je znotraj tega horizonta, je celo v njegovem središču, v tej umetni globini, ki je značilna za vsako potopitev v imanentno, torej v svet, ki je v celoti zgrajen, v katerem ni več nič naravnega. Dogodek ni več »zunanjost«, temveč je eksplozija v »notranjosti«, tam, kjer nezmožnost izhoda napoveduje ustvarjalni presežek. Drugič. Biopolitično delo se predstavlja kot multitudni dogodek. Poudarili smo že ontološko globino umetniškega dela in dejstvo, da to ontološko globino še vedno zaznamuje Kunstwollen, naddeterminira pa episteme. Dogodek, ki ga prepoznamo in interpretiramo v produkciji biopolitičnega dela, ima enake kolektivne in kulturne značilnosti kot sodobna industrija. To potrjuje multitudni značaj kognitivnega dela. Vseeno je potrebna previd2

[Gre za Stieglerjev koncept iz članka »Le Tournant machinique de la sensibilité«, Cahiers de la méthodologie, 2004, 18: 7–17), ki ga je objavil v soavtorstvu z Nicolasom Doninom.]

4 2 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

nost: ta značaj ne izraža zgolj koncepta interaktivnega sodelovanja. Hermenevtične šole (od Gadamerja do Eca in Jaussa) so poudarjale ta element; inter- ali transindividualna zastavitev pri Simondonu je opisovala njegovo fizionomijo in gibanje v konstituciji samih tehničnih objektov. Vse to pa ni dovolj, da bi lahko razumeli specifično osnovanost umetniškega pojava, ki ga producira kognitivno delo. Ta fenomen se namreč predstavlja kot nekaj, kar presega samega sebe, kar v obliki presežka transcendira (v tem svetu, ki ne pozna »zunanjosti«) neodvisnost in avtonomijo svoje produkcije. To nas privede do tretje točke, pri čemer še vedno zasledujemo ontološki pomen, ki nam ga je s takšno silovitostjo ponudila že dunajska šola, in sicer kot interpretativni znak umetnostnega pojava. Tukaj multitudni dogodek natančneje predstavimo kot presežek, ki je odprt skupnemu. Umetniška produkcija preči industrijo in snuje nove skupne jezike. Vsaka produkcija je tako komunikacijski dogodek; skupno pa se gradi prek multitudnih dogodkov in tako določa svojo zmožnost obnavljanja mehanizmov vednosti in delovanja, ki jih – danes, v času kognitivnega dela – imenujemo umetniški. Preden sklenemo, bi veljalo obravnavati še zadnjo točko. Poudarili smo biopolitično. Zdaj pa se v tem kontekstu ozrimo na teren estetike in si pobližje oglejmo zlasti Ovidove Metamorfoze. Ob njihovem branju se znajdemo potopljeni v mitsko predstavitev življenja, iz katere so odstranjeni vsi parametri nujnosti; izgubljeni smo v labirintu živalskih podob, zgodb o ljudeh in bogovih, o naravnih in tehničnih protezah, ki zavzemajo celoten prostor pripovedi. To je natanko tisto, kar danes uspe kognitivnemu delu (in načinu produkcije, na katero je vezano). Vsi odmevi mitičnosti, značilni za Ovida, dandanašnji umanjkajo. V tej spreminjajoči se magmi, kar je postal svet, v katerem živimo, se sedaj soočamo s stvarmi, za katere bi lahko rekli, da so kar preveč resnične, in takrat ta svet naselijo pošasti. Mi pa zatrepetamo. Želeli bi si, da to ne bi bilo resnično, in vendar je: to je narava sodobnosti. To smo prisiljeni priznati vsakič, ko se moramo spoprijeti s pošastmi, ki jih producirajo naša dejanja ali naše delo; vsakič se odnosi moči pomnožijo. Kot smo že poudarili v povezavi s »povratnostjo«, ki se neizbežno ustvari v odnosih med subjekti in objekti, ki so (oboji) machinique, pošast živi v vsakem od nas; pravzaprav je naša proteza, ki lahko povratno deluje na nas in neposredno sodeluje pri naši metamorfozi. Nevarnosti tega položaja se toliko bolj zavemo, vsakič ko osvetlimo oprijemljiv in telesni značaj nematerialnega dela, mesenost kognitivnega dela, skratka, ta skupni element življenja (biopolitično), ki nas vse konstituira. Gre pri tem za še en paradoks? Nedvomno. Globlje ko napredujemo v abstrakcijo in nematerialnost – se soočamo s pošastmi –, bolj smo pritegnjeni k eksistencialni kritiki, k določanju meril, ki vplivajo na telesnost. Zato moramo razumeti, da sodobnost – in način produkcije, ki ga prinaša s seboj – nastopa pod znakom nevarnosti, v stiku s pošastmi. Zato smo prisiljeni razmišljati o skupnem, odločati o pomenu obstoja, o smeri, ki jo morata ubrati tako dogodek kot multituda, da bi skupnemu dala smisel. Estetsko dejanje (ko ga interpretiramo v takšni obliki, kot smo to poskušali tukaj) naza-

6 OZIROMA / 6 PONOVNO / 6 PREK / 6 RAZVOJ / 6 ROJA / 6 TEJ / 6 TO / 6 UMETNIŠKO / 6 VENDAR / 5 BILO / 5 BO / 5 ČEMER / 5 KATERE / 5 LETA /

dnje na svoji poti sreča etično odločitev. Živimo v fazi transformacije, v tej metamorfozi prostora in časa, ki je opredeljena s sodobno akumulacijo dela in kulture. V tem procesu transformacije so telesa napeta. Nenehno nastopajo krize, za katere ni »zunanje« rešitve: smo tukaj in ne moremo pobegniti drugam. In vendar obstaja ta izjemni govor, ki smo ga sposobni izražati, ta ustvarjalna zmogljivost, ki jo znamo ponuditi. Zato bi morala umetnost, ki povzema produktivno in ontološko, dogodek in skupno, dati etični pomen temu zapletu, nam pomagati zgraditi tisto mnogokratno paradigmo, v kateri bo zmagoslavno biti-zadrugega, biti-skupen.

Virnove hermenevtike ne gre podcenjevati. Jo je pa treba razviti naprej, glede na to, da smo pravkar prepoznali homologijo med oblikovanjem roja in operativno naravo nematerialnega (in kognitivnega, afektivnega ...) dela. Skupno, ki se je razvilo v umetniške oblike, mora biti sedaj utelešeno v kolektivnih odločitvah, v skupni vladi oziroma natančneje, organizirati ga mora »upravljanje« zgrajenih oblik življenja, nad njimi in v njih. Lepota vsega skupaj je prav v tej gradnji etično-političnih meja skupnega, v tem upravljanju delovanja, saj izkušnja skupnega – v nasprotju z vsako iluzijo skupnosti – izraža natanko oblike življenja, ki so bogate in svobodne.

Ali je v tem kontekstu potemtakem mogoče ponuditi recept za oblikovanje stila, ki ga prežema etika? Spraševati se, to je kot spraševati se, ali je mogoče oblikovati novo »veliko zgodbo« [grand recit] o biti oziroma bolje, ali je mogoče približati se konkretni utopiji. Sam mislim, da je. V skladu s kritično analizo, ki sem jo ponudil, moramo naš predlog razviti naprej. Zato bi želel predavanje zaključiti s predlogom nekakšnega potovanja v treh fazah, skozi katere bi lahko opredelili stil umetniške produkcije, ki si ga je mogoče predstavljati za danes.

Prikličimo torej nazaj podobo lepega, ki jo je začel izražati kantovski shematizem, na kar sem opozoril na začetku. Onkraj sublimnega, ki bi bilo organizirano na limiti matematične neskončnosti, ali onkraj sublimnega, ki bi v skladu z drugim modelom poveličevalo neskončnost narave, moramo zahtevati tretji model, ki bo artikuliran z etičnim delovanjem, v konstituciji multitudnega telosa. Ta tretji model sublimnega se predstavlja na skrajnem robu, ki ga vzpostavi (spinozovska) ljubezen [amor], ko dopolni gibanje cupiditasa. Skupno kot etično sublimno, skupno kot estetsko sublimno. S tem presekom antropogeneze in tehnogeneze, ki je obenem tudi znak konstitucije in razodetja skupnega, moramo nasprotovati vsem spiritualističnim mistifikacijam. ..

Prva faza zajema potopitev v neskončno gibanje teles in dogodkov, ki nas obkrožajo – od podob življenja do izrazov vedenja. Torej začeti z dekonstrukcijo realnosti, ki jo zahteva takšna potopitev, ko jo resnično usmerja kritična želja. Golo življenje, revnost, kritična želja in konstrukcija realnega – to so elementi, ki sestavljajo [foucaultovski] diagram3 potopitve v pravo realnost. Šele takrat lahko sodelujemo pri sestavljanju roja singularnosti. Te se želijo stekati v skupno in pri tem ohraniti svojo svobodo, svojo raznolikost. Druga faza je refleksivna. Predstavlja se kot trenutek prepoznanja skupnega. Ni več potrebno delovanje zgolj v obliki multitude singularnosti, temveč v obliki ponovno sestavljenega roja; roja, ki organizira oblike svojega lastnega leta in gibanja, ki se ponujajo kot izvedljive. Tako se od spodaj, iz vsake in vseh singularnosti naenkrat, dvigne materialistični telos. Omejena potopitev (posamezne singularnosti) v mnogoterost roja tukaj najde dokončnost in kohezivnost ljubezni. Skozi ljubezen oziroma skozi tisto silo, ki se pri Spinozi oblikuje na podlagi conatus in cupiditas, se oblikujejo solidarnost teles in odločitve razuma. Tako v zapleteni mnogoterosti, ki sestavlja roj, nastopi resnična metamorfoza. Nematerialno delo nazadnje najde etično legitimnost, ki je strukturno povezana z njegovo zmožnostjo, da se na novo izumlja kot oblika življenja. Umetnost se opredeljuje kot oblika življenja, ki jo zaznamujeta revnost v njenem temelju in revolucionarna volja na vrhu roja-v-nastajanju. Tako dosežemo tretjo fazo tega gibanja. Pred nekaj leti je Paolo Virno »performanse« tovrstnega dela opredelil kot »mojstrovine«, pri čemer je prehitel številne intuicije in koncepte, ki so odtlej nastali okrog vprašanja nematerialnega dela. Moči te 3

[Gre za referenco na koncept diagrama [diagramme], ki ga M. Foucault razvije med drugim tudi v svojem delu Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison (1975). Slov. prev.: Nadzorovanje in kaznovanje: nastanek zapora, Ljubljana: Krtina, 2004. Op. prev.]

vidika umetnosti nas to privede do paradoksa naše zgodbe: razvoj umetnosti je abstrakcijo družbenih odnosov, v katerih obstajamo, preoblikoval v telesne podobe; in dal je pomen vitalnosti človeških teles – skozi podobe, ki se premikajo in pretakajo v procesu nenehnega preoblikovanja. TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 4 3

384 THE / 298 OF / 165 AND / 124 IN / 118 TO / 100 WHICH / 96 IS / 92 A / 71 IT / 63 THAT / 62 THIS / 49 WE / 44 LABOUR / 36 AS / 35 ARTISTIC /

METAMORPHOSES: L ART AND IMMATERIAL LABOUR1 ANTONIO NEGRI*

et us start by attempting to situate historically, and from a materialist point of view, the concept of plastic and figurative art – in other words by defining its possible (and at any event historically determinate) link with the structure and development of the modes of production. Is such an operation possible? Since we are here today to talk about art and immaterial labour, it seems to me that it would be useful to try: in fact, the “immaterial” character of “labour” in no sense diminishes its role as an absolute protagonist of history (including in the relations it entertains with artistic production); and, similarly, this immateriality does not empty out the activity of labour of its economic energy and ontological potenza which are required by capitalism precisely so that it can exploit them. So: is it possible to define art in these terms? I think it is. Even if one factors in the superficiality and vagaries of the art market, in other words of those artistic phenomena which are dictated by the circulation of capital, one can in fact trace a correspondence (rough, of course, but nonetheless real) between the various periods of artistic activity (what one might call the “style” and the “poetics” of art) on the one hand, and the forms of capitalist production and organization of labour on the other. So I would like to try to sketch some of the figures of this relationship, apologizing in advance for their schematic nature.

Excerpt from: Antonio Negri, Art and Multitude, Cambridge, Malden: Polity Press, 2011, pp. 101–123.

Talk given at the Tate Britain, 19 January 2008.

ViaNegativa@3 × 10 17Hz

4 4 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

Let us begin with the period which saw class struggle becoming central to capitalist development. From 1848 to 1870, this centrality is expressed through a massification – crude and powerful – of working class label in all its materiality. Does the “realism” of artistic expression (Courbet and Cézanne, for example) express this new historical condition of labour? I have always had the impression that this was the case, particular if we consider the force with which the denaturalization of the real and the structural materiality of the subject begin to make their appearance – in precise correspondence with the first major episodes of industrial and metropolitan centralization of exploitation of labour power.

31 PRODUCTION / 30 AN / 30 ARE / 30 BY / 30 HAVE / 28 WITH / 26 I / 26 ITS / 25 ON / 24 OTHER / 23 AT / 22 ART / 22 US / 21 HAS / 21 INTO / 21 ITSELF /

The period of impressionism, on the other hand, between 1871 and 1914, corresponds to a period in which capital was deepening the division and specialization of labour, while on the workers’ side we see the development of a subversive project of the selfmanagement of production. This is a first great moment of “emancipatory overdetermination” of the conditions of accumulation of capitalist production, a moment in which the skilled worker is the protagonist. The workers come to realize that the capitalist world, which represents their enemy, can be dissolved – and possibly rebuilt on other basis – if they could only grasp the key to production and re-appropriate it. Now, this dissolution and reconstruction of the world has powerful echoes of how the world of art was beginning to function in those same years. Creation lay in dissolution: that could be the slogan of the first phase of artistic transformation in the history of the present. This brings us to the October Revolution. All over the world, revolutionary thinking and subversive action were spreading like wildfire. In order to respond to this challenge, capitalism was obliged to impose a further massification onto the proletarians, who represented the base of production; to establish new norms for working-class consumption (through the welfare system); to push the level of abstraction to a maximum; and to introduce a “scientific” conception into the organization of labour. And it was precisely at this moment that “abstract form” also imposed itself in artistic production. This abstraction is simultaneously a representation of the abstraction of labour and – paradoxically from the workers’ point of view – the very material for an alternative imagination. Indeed, what is socialism if not the project to organize the abstraction of labour in autonomous fashion? Between 1917 in 1929, from the storming of the Winter Palace to the Great Depression, this abstraction which came to occupy the heart of artistic production is “expressionist”, which means that it contests heroically the real and present determinations of exploitation. In other words, it anticipates violently the abstraction of labour – an abstraction which it absorbs, appropriates and pushes to the limit in order to overturn it. So now we have abstraction traversing figurative art, destroying it and rebuilding it, and artistic production lives a true revolutionary passion, that is, the desire for a constructive aesthetics, formulated in powerfully epic terms. Following that, once it is coopted into the market and into the circulation of commodities, abstraction will take on forms that are increasingly analytical, still abstract, of course, but increasingly evanescent and often open to pure experimentation – at least each time when the crisis (and the renewing of the modes of production, which is its necessary consequence) permits it or when the workers’ struggles impose it. After 1929, the only aesthetic dimension which remains is that produced by the mass artist, in other words that which advances a pure constructive capacity – whatever forms this takes. And this is the evolution which, in a history of continuous experimentation, leads us finally to 1968. So this is how we arrived at the moment of intersection between abstraction and production; or, to

put it better, at the interweaving between the abstraction of the present mode of production and the representation of other possible worlds, at the abstraction of the image and the use of more and more diversified materials, at the simplification of the artistic gesture and at the geometrical destructuring of the real … Picasso and Klee, Duchamp and Malevic, Beuys and Fontana, Rauschenberg and Christo: despite the obvious differences between them, we recognize all of them as actors in one and the same creative experience. From now on we are faced with a new subject – a subject capable of demystifying the fetishized destiny that capital imposes on us – and with an abstract object. And what now? Is there anything else that we can draw from all this? 1968 arrives. At that point contemporary art is obliged to confront a new set of questions. How does an event come about? How can the passion and desire for the transformation of the here and now develop? How does revolution present itself today? How can the human being be entirely re-thought? How can the abstract become the subject of praxis? What kind of world does abstraction desire, and how does it desire it? What are the forms of life that correspond to this extreme gesture of transformation? Let us return to the basic argument. We began with a phase of re-appropriation and self-management, dominated by the development of the figure of the skilled worker (1848–1914) and by the struggles he has carried out, in other words dominated by the utopias and revolutions which he has expressed (a period which, at the moment of the Paris Commune, divided itself into the artistic current of “realism” and that of impressionism). Then came a revolutionary phase which opened with 1917 and led us through to 1968, and which took place entirely within the movement of abstraction of labour power – a phase which is divided in its turn, after 1920, into the artistic current of expressionism and that of abstract experimentation (during which the figure of the mass worker proposed itself as a hegemonic subject over/against the abstraction of labour and set in place the project of a socialist management of that abstraction). And here we are today into a new period: the constituent phase of the socialized worker [operaio sociale], of cognitive labour power. Now, here comes the big question: constituent of what, when, and where? It would be worth starting at the beginning. In our case, this means asking whether the phrase “immaterial labour” is apposite. In fact, paradoxically, to speak today of “immaterial labour” no longer means speaking of abstraction, but, on the contrary, of a real plunge into the concrete, into matter. So what we are dealing with here is no longer spirituality and vision from afar, but an immersion amidst bodies, in other words an expression of flesh. Immaterial labour makes material products, commodities and communication. It is socially organized through linguistic, cooperative, electronic and digital networks, which are all extremely material, and it takes place through types of association – and movements – which are multitudinarian. Therefore we are dealing here with an immateriality which is very full of flesh, very mobile

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 45

20 ABSTRACTION / 20 FROM / 19 BE / 18 ALL / 18 FOR / 18 WORLD / 17 COMMON / 17 LIFE / 17 ONE / 16 CAN / 16 FORMS / 16 IN / 15 NOW / 15 THE /

and very flexible: an ensemble of bodies. Now, from the point of view of art, this brings us to the paradox of this story: artistic development has transformed into corporeal figures the abstraction of the social relations in which we exist; and it has given importance to the vitality of flesh – through images which move and flow, in a process of continuous transformation. From Bacon to Warhol or Park Yong, the artist imagines, within a thick space, an indistinct magma; and he fearlessly considers the prospect of a world freed of its internal architecture. Henceforth artistic development takes place in biopolitical terms as much as in immaterial terms. The attempt to re-envisage social communication and to grasp its mobile figure is accompanied by a plunge into a bubbling and chaotic world, which is productive of forms of life. Both from the intensive and from the extensive point of view, the artistic paradox consists today in the wish to produce the world (bodies, movements) differently – and yet from within a world which admits of no other world other than the one which actually exists, and which knows that the “outside” to be constructed can only be the other within an absolute insidedness. Of course, the broad-brush description that I have given here does not pretend to offer a new narration of the history of art. My point is simply that artistic activity always exists within a specific mode of production, and that it reproduces it – or, more exactly, that it produces it and contests it, that it suffers it and destroys it. Artistic activity is a mode – a singular form – of labour power. It is no accident that all the products of artistic activity can so easily turn into commodities and that, by the inverse token, a product can on the contrary be accorded particular value if it is presented as being in reality an invention – in other words as a product sui generis, as a singular irreducibility. The work of art is always indissociably two things – incidentally, like all objects produced in the era of capitalism: it is both activity and commodity. And it is on the basis of this two-sidedness of productive activity that one can grasp what I would like to suggest is the inner reality of the contemporary artistic relationship: not only a manner of producing art which could be understood as a simple production of commodities, but also a manner of production in general which becomes the very figure of potenza, in other words of the beingcreative in the world. Labour power, a free bird in the forest of life. It is for this reason that, in my view, artistic activity has an ontological importance which is also that of all forms of labour considered from their creative angle. And labour will be able to come even more to the fore insofar as it will become increasingly cognitive through the development of the modes of production. Its characteristics change: we see the production of commodities being re-geared, their circulation, the emergence of the linguistic nature of reproduction, the virtual, networked, cooperative valorization of reproduction and so on. For a long time now the study of art has insisted on this ontological importance. I have always considered that the contribution of the Vienna School, at the turn of the twentieth century, was important in this regard. Notably when its writers, analysing, with Aloïs

4 6 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

Riegl, the late Roman and Byzantine craft, speak in terms of the ensemble of social forces and models which are included in the artistic faire [making], and thus grasp its ontological overdetermination. What comes to the fore, then, is the Kunstwollen, that is, the singular desire to make art, and the flourishing of all the techniques precisely around those who are thought to put them to work; or the overlapping between object and subject within the historical process, and through production: the Kunstwollen animates craft, and craft sighs for the Kunstwollen. Now, what happened in the late Roman period is, in reality, always the case. The Kunstwollen may be universal for the period it describes, but in each one it takes a particular form through the manner in which it puts materials together, in which it chooses the modes of production it uses, and in which it mobilizes tastes and needs. The Kunstwollen is an intentionality which, when it is realized, in no sense loses its own spatio-temporal determination; and yet it is an intentionality which renews its own epoch. It fulfils it here, now, in a cognitive manner, by exhibiting labour as a “forming form” of the living. The technical means becomes mental (that is, cognitive); and vice-versa, intelligence becomes technique and labour. I would like to make two further references to the history of art criticism – I have in mind the writings of Wilhelm Dilthey and Michel Foucault, and I hope that their relevance will become immediately apparent. In Dilthey the relationship between mode of production and artistic experience seems at the start to be articulated very differently from what the Vienna School proposes: the work of art is the product of an individual Erlebnis, and artistic experience has strong psychological connotations. Gradually, however, Dilthey’s aesthetics – or, more precisely, the analysis of the “poetics” of each of the romantic and post-romantic authors whom Dilthey addresses – develops the analysis in terms which are those of historical structure, of expressive techniques, and of the singularity of the artistic perception, and arrives with it at a conception which is much closer to that of the Viennese theorists. With this specific feature: in artistic production the relationship that exists between the one who acts and the one which is acted upon is deeper and deeper and becomes a motor of the ontological transformation of the actors. As for Foucault, as we know, he uses the notion of episteme as a keystone in the interpretation of a period; but at the same time he presents the development of the period as being on the brink of innovation, that is, subject to discontinuity. In reality, Foucault insists very often – and this is no accident – on hybridization, on the process of interface within which there emerge and are realized the transformations of the episteme of any given period. To the question “What is an author?”, he would reply, from 1969 on, “What does it matter who is speaking!”. And two years later, concerning Manet, Foucault’s discourse had already established the forms in which the metamorphosis of the artistic gesture takes place: Manet – the “picture–object” – “a fundamental condition for one finally to liberate oneself one day from representation itself

15 THROUGH / 14 COGNITIVE / 14 NO / 14 WOULD / 13 WORDS / 12 BUT / 12 HERE / 12 POINT / 12 WHEN / 11 AND / 11 BETWEEN / 11 MORE / 11 NOT / 11 OR /

and to allow space to play with its pure and simple properties, its material properties.”2 So these two authors – Dilthey and Foucault, who represent a kind of “before” and “after” in relation to the turning point that brings us to postmodernity and to the hegemony of immaterial labour on the artistic scene – why are they important? Because in them, from now on, history and ontology intersect powerfully with each other. It is – I think – at that point, thanks to this interweaving, that the biopolitical emerges. So let us now go back to the start of my talk, I mean to the moment when we stopped following the development of the history of art – around 1968, the turning point which in my view represented the end of the mass worker. Let us now explore the phase which opens at that moment. As we have already seen, art and labour – both of them dominated by globalization, by the saturation of the experience of life in capitalism – have become abstract. However, their subject and their object refer to each other, in a game which is precisely that of production, and in which there is no longer “outside”. So then, where are we to locate the emergence of “beauty” in the transition from modernity to postmodernity? How are we to traverse abstraction through the will to make art? In reopening these questions we first have to stress that we are facing an important mutation – perhaps even an anthropological mutation. Today, in our existence, the fact of creating has nothing to do with nature any more; and, if we abandon our habitual ways of thinking, we have to recognize that it is not even a sublimation any more. Creating is, rather, a hugeness, and excedence, something which unleashes a surplus of productivity. Now, precisely at a time when labour power is cognitive, the desire for artistic expression presents itself in all places; when the mass of workers transforms itself into a multitude of singular workers, the artistic act invests the forms of life, and these forms of life become the flesh of the world. I think that Bernard Stiegler, in the wake of Leroi-Gourhan or of Simondon, illustrated this turning point particularly effectively. Stiegler grasps the tendency towards the unification of anthropogenesis and technogenesis, and in this way the world exposes itself to a veritable “tournant nachinique”3 Cognitive labour produces objects which modify the subjects – no longer in metaphysical terms, as in Heidegger, but in critical manner, à la Kant – art brings fully into the light (in other words it unveils through technology) this “secret of truth” which is that subjects produce in a continuous interrelation with each other. Once it has been put into circulation, in the meanders which link the interior and the exterior, the constituent and the constituted, the “profound” can emerge before the eyes of all. Kantian schematism – this definitive impasse of modern philosophy around which exhausts him2 3

(Translator’s note: Michel Foucault, Manet and the Object of Painting, trans. Matthew Barr. Introduction by Nicolas Bourriaud. London: Tate Publishing, 2010, p. 79.) [Stiegler’s concept, which features as such in the title of his article “Le Tournant machinique de la sensibilité” (Cahiers de méthodologie, 2004, 18: 7–17), co-authored with N. Donin.]

n fact, paradoxically, to speak today of “immaterial labour” no longer means speaking of abstraction, but, on the contrary, of a real plunge into the concrete, into matter. So what we are dealing with here is no longer spirituality and vision from afar, but an immersion amidst bodies, in other words an expression of flesh. Immaterial labour makes material products, commodities and communication. It is socially organized through linguistic, cooperative, electronic and digital networks, which are all extremely material, and it takes place through types of association – and movements – which are multitudinarian. Therefore we are dealing here with an immateriality which is very full of flesh, very mobile and very flexible: an ensemble of bodies.

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 47

11 SUBJECT / 11 WHAT / 10 EACH / 10 EVENT / 10 IMMATERIAL / 10 IT / 10 ONTOLOGICAL / 10 PERIOD / 10 PRECISELY / 10 THEIR / 10 TODAY / 10 WE /

self and accomplishes his death – no longer finds its conclusion in the sublime, but in a circle which is that of constitution: between the subject and the technical object, because the latter presents itself as subject. With Stiegler, human becoming, extended by the prostheses with which man has equipped himself, constitutes the final destiny which cognitive labour prefigures in itself. Metamorphosis is the face of the ontological depths of the artistic act. A qualification, though. I have tried to understand the efficaciousness of immateriality (of cognitive labour) in its relation to art. I have identified this transition with the turning point of postmodernity, with the moment of the unification of anthropogenesis and technogenesis. Now, for different reasons which unfortunately I do not have the time to address here, the situation today seems to have become stabilized. We are no longer going towards postmodernity. Or rather, we have gone beyond all the “post”, we are in contemporaneity, and contemporaneity has further deepened the transformation of labour. Labour – which, as we have seen, was immaterial, cognitive and affective – is in the process of transforming itself into bios, into biopolitical labour, into activity which reproduces forms of life. From now on it has new properties. It is with these properties that I would like to conclude. First all, work now presents itself as an event – in other words as an excedence, as a living excess. The event detaches itself from the continuity of the ordinary horizon of life, and yet it is within that horizon, it even represents its centre. In this artificial depth in which you find yourself when you plunge into the world of immanence, that is, in this entirely constructed world in which the “natural” no longer exists, the event is not an “outside” but an eternal explosion. The impossibility of “going-outside”: this is, then, what announces creative excedence. Second: biopolitical labour is a multitudinarian happening. We have already stressed the ontological profundity of artistic labour and the fact that this ontological depth is still marked by a Kunstwollen, overdetermined by an episteme. Now, the event which we identify and interpret through the production of biopolitical labour has the same collective and cultural characteristics as those displayed by present-day industry. This confirms the multitudinarian character of cognitive labour. However, we should beware: this character does not express merely something of the order of interactive cooperation. The hermeneutic schools (from Gadamer to Eco and Jauss) have stressed this element; and the inter-individual or trans-individual reading of Simondon has described its physiognomy and its movements through the constitution of the technical objects themselves. But all this is not sufficient for us to grasp and understand the particular consistency of the artistic phenomenon produced by cognitive labour. In reality, this phenomenon presents itself as something which goes beyond itself, which transcends – in a world which no longer knows an “outside” – the independence and autonomy of its production: it is in this respect that it is given as multitudinarian excedence. This brings us to the third point, as we follow this “ontological depth” which the Vienna School had described, with such force, as

4 8 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

the interpretative sign of artistic production. In effect, we have to specify the multitudinarian event as an excedence which opens to the common. Now, artistic production traverses industry and constructs common languages. All production is consequently an event of communication; and the common is construed through multitudinarian events. And this is how it comes about, this capacity to renew the mechanisms of knowledge and action which – today, in the epoch of cognitive labour – we call artistic. I would like to consider one last problem before I stop. I have stressed biopolitical. Let us take a look at the classical poets in this light; and in particular let us look at Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Here we find ourselves again immersed in a mythical representation of life which removes from it all parameters of necessity; we lose ourselves in a labyrinth of animal figures, of stories of humans and gods, of natural and technical prostheses which occupy the whole space of the narration. This is precisely what cognitive labour (and the mode of production to which it is tied) succeeds in doing today. But all the mythical resonances – as had applied in Ovid – have nowadays disappeared. In this magma in transformation which the world we inhabit has become, we now come up against things which are, you could say, almost too real. Sometimes that world is peopled with monsters. We find ourselves trembling. We would wish that this was not the case – and yet it is: this is the nature of contemporaneity. We are obliged to admit it each time we have to deal with the monsters produced by our action and work; each time the relations of power multiply. As I have already stressed in relation to the “reversibility” which never fails to create itself in the relation between “machinique” subjects and “machinique” objects, the monsters live in each one of us; or rather it is a prosthesis of ours, which can act on us in return and can participate directly in our metamorphosis. We perceive the danger of this situation all the more as we bring to light the concrete and physical nature of immaterial labour, the flesh of cognitive labour – in short: this common element of life (the biopolitical) which constitutes us. Is there another paradox here? Definitely, yes: the more we advance into abstraction and immateriality – facing up the monsters – the more we are pushed to enact forms of tests which affect our corporeity, in other words to define the modalities of a critique of the existent. That is why we have to understand that contemporaneity – and the mode of production which it now brings with it – is taking place under the sign of danger, in contact with monsters. This compels us to think about the common, about a decision on the meaning of being, about the direction which must be taken both by the event and by the multitude, in order to give meaning to the common. In reality, the aesthetic act (when it is interpreted in the way we have attempted here) ends by finding ethical decision on its path. We are living in a phase of transformation, in this metamorphosis of space and time which the contemporary accumulation of labour and culture have determined. Within this process of transformation, bodies are stretched. There is a continued presence of crises without “external” solution: we are here, and we cannot es-

9 ACTIVITY / 9 BEING / 9 DEVELOPMENT / 9 LIKE / 9 LONGER / 9 MOMENT / 9 SO / 9 TIME / 9 TRANSFORMATION / 9 WAS / 9 WITHIN / 8 DESIRE / 8 DOES /

cape to elsewhere. And yet there is this extraordinary spoken word [parola] which we know how to express, this creative capacity which we know how to propose. And, because it comprises both the productive and the ontological, the event and the common, art should give ethical meaning to these complex knots, in other words it should help us to construct this multiple paradigm in which being-forthe-other – qua being-in-common – triumphs. In this context, is it then possible to offer prescriptions for constructing a style which is traversed by ethics? In asking the question, I think we are asking whether today it is possible to reach a new grand narrative about being, to approach a concrete utopia. I believe that it is. In line with the critical analysis I have offered, we need to drive our proposition forward. So I would like to end this talk by proposing a kind of journey in three stages toward a style of artistic production which can be envisaged for today. In my view, the first stage involves an immersion into the infinite movement of bodies and events which surround us – from images of life to expression of knowledge. We would need to begin this work of deconstruction of the real which that immersion demands when it is really oriented by critical desire. Naked life and clothed life, poverty and wealth, critical desire and the construction of the real – these are the elements that constitute the [Foucauldian] diagram4 of immersion in true reality. Only then can one participate in the composition of the swarm of singularities. Singularities wish to flow together into the common, but they also want to maintain their own freedom, their difference.

few years ago, Paolo Virno – and in this he was anticipating many of the intuitions and concepts which have since been generated around the subject of immaterial labour – has defined the “performances” of this kind of labour as “masterpieces”. One should not take lightly this hermeneutic anticipation by Virno. However, it needs to be developed further, given that we have just identified the homology between the formation of the swarm and the operative nature of immaterial (and cognitive, affective …) labour. The common, which has developed in artistic forms, must now be incarnated in a collective decision, in a common government. Or, more precisely, it must be organized by a “governance” of/over/ in the forms of life which have been constructed. The beauty of the thing is precisely in this construction of the ethical–political limits of the common, in this governance of acting, because the experience of the common expresses precisely, against any illusion of community, forms of life which are rich and free. Let us recover, then, the image of the beautiful which Kantian schematism had begun to formulate, as I reminded you earlier. Beyond a sublime which would be organized on the limit of mathematical infinity, or beyond one which, according to a second model, would be exalted by the immensity of nature, we must, I think, claim that there is a third model, articulated in ethical acting, in the constitution of a multitudinarian telos. This third model of the sublime presents itself at the extreme edge that (Spinozan) amor constructs when it completes the movement of cupiditas. The common as ethical sublime, the common as aesthetic sublime. We need to counter all spiritualistic mystifications with this intersecting of anthropogenesis and technogenesis, which is simultaneously the mark of the constitution and of the revelation of the common. ..

The second stage is reflexive. It presents itself as the moment of the recognition of the common. It is no longer only in the form of the multitude of singularities that one has to act, but like a recomposed swarm: a swarm which orgnanizes the forms of its own flight and those of its movement, which is given as a practicable and/or flyable plan. It is a materialist telos, which would rise up from below – of each singularity and of all singularities at the same time. The “poor” immersion (of the single singularity) in the multiplicity of the swarm then finds the finality and the cohesion of love. Through love – in other words through that force which, according to Spinoza, forms itself on the basis of conatus and cupiditas – what is constructed is the solidarity of bodies and the decisions of the mind. A veritable metamorphosis thus takes place within the complex multiplicity which the swarm has constructed. Immaterial labour has finally found an ethical legitimacy, which is structurally related to its capacity for reinventing itself as a form of life. Art defines itself as a form of life qualified by poverty at its base and by revolutionary will at the summit of its becoming-swarm. And now we have reached the third stage of this movement. A 4

(Translator’s note: this is an allusion to the specific concept of ‘diagram’ (diagramme) developed by Michel Foucault, for example in his Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison (1975).)

he work of art is always indissociably two things – incidentally, like all objects produced in the era of capitalism: it is both activity and commodity. TEO RETSK I B LOK / T H EORY 4 9

249 JE / 217 IN / 166 V / 134 DA / 134 NA / 121 ZA / 119 SE / 106 KI / 84 PA / 76 SO / 75 Z / 55 NE / 53 BI / 49 LAHKO / 48 TO / 46 TUDI / 37 S / 34 ZNANOSTI /

... takrat naj bi na ministrstu za kulturo in ministrstvu

DIVJE MISLI UMETNOST – ZNANOST – KULTURA

Lanski razpis, ki je na pobudo akcijskega plana direktorata za znanost in raziskave EU izšel iz sedmega okvirnega programa na oddelku

Lanski razpis, ki je na pobudo akcijskega plana direktorata Na iniciativo Janeza Potočnika je komisarjat

WILD THOUGHTS ART – SCIENCE – CULTURE

Tam smo na pobudo Janeza Potočnika, ki je bil takrat komisar Zakaj je po vašem mnenju tudi

je kustos in selektor na mednarodnih festivalih, v Evropski komisiji pa vodi galerijo Cosinus, ki je zaradi svoje strateške pozicije pri evropskem komisarju

see page 62

Po poslušanju kolegov bi lahko rekel takole: Kakšna pa je pokritost področja

umetnost

Današnje divje misli so posvečene vprašanju Vendar ministrstvo za kulturo ne podpira znanstveno-raziskovalne dejavnosti, ministrstvo Prepričan sem tudi, da bi morali biti danes tu prisotni ljudje z ministrstva

za visoko šolstvo

To je širši kulturni fenomen; mnenja sem, da sta obe

OKROGLA MIZA, 3. MAREC 2011 OB 17. URI, ro in MinistrstvoMINISTRSTVO za znanost in raziskave ZA povezala in sklenila dogovor KULTURO RS o medsebojnem sodelovanju med kulturno-umetniškimi in znanstvenimi projekti, ki popularizirajo Umetniki so namreč razumeli

POLONA TRATNIK, SREČO DRAGAN, Pred kakimi štirimi leti sem na Inštitutu Jožefa Stefana organiziral konferenco na temo JURIJ KRPAN, ... pri nas zelo žive, da je umetnost prepoznala svojo pomembno družbeno funkcijo v povezovanju z znanstvenim poljem in da ima pri tem lahko interes tudi JADRAN LENARČIČ, MIOMIR KNEŽEVIĆ Ali je pri tem prostor

niki in ki so imeli srečo, da so spoznali takšne ljudi, ki so odprti

ZAPISALA: MONIKA VREČAR. Zakaj je robotika zanimiva

Na festivalu Ars Electronica Ko gre za interdisciplinarne projekte, v katere je vključena Robotika zanima To je širši kulturni fenomen; mnenja sem, da sta obe, znanost in

nanstvenimi projekti, ki popularizirajo znanost v družbi ter kulturo

tudi in

... na kakšen način lahko

družitvi vseh treh akademij bi radi ustvarili LIMAUL (Laboratorij inštituta za medijsko Po poslušanju kolegov bi lahko rekel takole: Kakšna pa je pokritost področja

umetnost

sistem strukturno prilagojen spremembam, ki jih je v zadnjih petdesetih letih doživela ... ali na področju raziskovalne dejavnosti obstaja prostor za raziskovalno

pan, v svojih predavanjih in zapisih imenujete umetnost, ki jo podpirate, raziskovalna Jurij Krpan, v svojih predavanjih in zapisih imenujete

ratnik gledali malone sumljivo, saj so bili mnenja, da pri proizvajanju nove znanosti

mi štirimi leti sem na Inštitutu Jožefa Stefana organiziral konferenco na temo znanosti Zakaj je pomembno, da se Če se navežem na umetnost: sam ne vidim toliko povezave v tem, da Če se navežem na

o povezave med umetnostjo, tehnologijo in znanostjo v svetu in pri nas zelo žive, da je Današnje divje misli so posvečene vprašanju Če V prvi vrsti je treba imeti veliko znanja, nato je ključna njegova raznolikost, tretja stranica pa Brida@3 × 10 17Hz

je V Sloveniji

Današnje divje misli so posvečene vprašanju umetnost - znanost 5 0 R E FLE KTOR / R E FLECTO R

33 SMO / 32 KOT / 32 TEM / 32 ZELO / 30 ČE / 30 SEM / 30 TAKO / 29 ŠE / 26 JIH / 26 PRI / 25 PO / 24 UMETNOST / 22 DO / 22 O / 22 V / 21 BIL / 21 IZ /

kultura (in njihova dodana vrednost v družbi). -

magija.

magija. prav poseben fenomen. - umetnost z naslovom nova renesansa.

kot orodje za svoje delo, znanstveniki pa so poslušali in molče odšli, saj niso videli raz

pomembno, da se povezuje z umetnostjo - mogoče to pojasnjuje specifično za področje biote

znanost

, trikrat letno prirejali razstave, na k

raziskave

izdelal triletni akcijs

izšel iz sedmega okv

povezala in sklenila dogovor o meds

družbo, je razpisal proračun tudi za projekte, pri katerih gre za povezovanj ter ministrstvo za šolstvo.

tehnologijo

pa ne podpira umetniške dejavno

umetnost, del iste kulture, jaz tega ne ločujem.

misli so mesečni forumi, ki jihinorganizira v družbi terivje kulturo in umetnost na področju znanosti tehnologije. Ministrstvo za kulturo, da z njimi javno intervenira v prostor kulturnega razmisleka. Tema, ki se je lotevamo tokrat, je umetnost – znanost – kultura (in njihova dodana vrednost v družbi).

na univerzitetnem nivoju in kakšne so možnosti za to?

Povezave med znanostjo, tehnologijami in umetnostjo imajo veliko različnih pojavnosti, pri čemer so najbolj žlahtne prav tehnologijo in družbo lahko vsako leto vidimo predstavitev najnovejših dosežkov robotike: 2009 so predstavili geminoida, robota, ki je posnemal svojega ... tiste, kjer umetniki in znanstveniki sodelujejo pri skupnem proki jo podpirate, raziskovalna umetnost. jektu, od katerega imata koristi obe strani. Poznamo razvpite še posebej tista, ki se intenzivno povezuje z naravoslovno znanostjo, pa tudi s humanistiko in družboslovjem? primere iz znanstvenofantastične literature in nekaterih filmsprijazniti z minimalno pomočjo znanstvenikov, saj jim ne uspe uresničiti sodelovalnih struktur. skih kompleksnih del, ki so navdihnili cele skupine znanstvenikov, da predel iste kulture, jaz tega ne ločujem. maknejo meje vsakdanje realnosti. Na drugi strani pa so znankultura (in njihova dodana vrednost v družbi) stveniki in tehnologi ponudili umetnikom nova izrazna orodja in tehnologije, s katerimi tematizirajo fenomenologijo sodomagija bnosti, segajo prek kulturnih meja in ustvarjajo povsem nove na univerzitetnem nivoju in kakšne so možnosti za to? poetike. prepoznala svojo pomembno družbeno funkcijo v povezovanju z znanstvenim poljem in da ima pri tem lahko interes tudi znanost.

-znanost

: sam ne vidim toliko povezave v tem, da umetnost uporablja orodja znanosti ali tehnologije, to je namreč samoumevno. uporablja orodja znanosti ali tehnologije, to je namreč samoumevno. sodeluje z znanostjo? povezuje z znanostjo in obratno? nastopi v točki, kjer bi se fizikalno znanje prenašalo v prakso? z naslovom nova renesansa.

Pomembno raziskovalno delo v povezavi z znanstvenim in tehnološkim delom se odvija tudi zunaj industrijskih in akademskih laboratorijev, kjer umetniki, ki sodelujejo z znanstveniki in tehnologi, nenehno razvijajo izvirne oblike vmesnikov, tehnologije mešanih realnosti, podatkovnih baz, biotehnoloških okolij idr.

nima kaj iskati.

Tehnokultura spodbuja nove načine spoznavanja in učenja, ki potekajo v galerijah, muzejih, na prostem in v drugih lahko v interdisciplinarne projekte vključujemo zgolj v funkciji diseminacije rezultatov, pri tem pa upamo na razumevajoče recenzente, za kar neformalni nobenega zagotovila, ... nih prostorih. Z neposrednim dostopom do posameznikov, s ), ki je za zdaj še virtualen. participatornimi in interaktivnimi praksami umetniki in znanin ki vključujejo raziskave, ki odpirajo etična vprašanja, se področja po sili ločijo in znanstveno-raziskovalni del projekta se etično presodi po znanem ... stveniki nagovarjajo obiskovalce na način, ki jim omogoča, da ozavestijo in zavzamejo stališče do tehnološko pospešenega sveta, v katerem živimo. Zavest o tehnologijah pospeševanja (in njihova dodana vrednost v družbi). razvoja je slej ko prej pomembna, zato da javnost zavzame kritično držo do razvoja, ki nas vodi v prihodnost. na področju znanosti in tehnologije.

kultura

v okolju prenizka, je volumen tega bazena seveda nižen.

etičnih komisij ni tako prezentna, kar je do neke mere prednost. REFL E K TOR / R E F L EC TOR 51

21 SAJ / 21 TRATNIK / 21 UMETNIKI / 20 MED / 20 KO / 19 BILO / 19 POLONA / 18 OD / 18 TA / 18 UMETNOSTI / 18 ŽE / 17 NI / 17 ZNANOST / 16 TREBA /

olona Tratnik1 : Današnje Divje misli so posvečene vprašanju umetnost – znanost – kultura (in njihova dodana vrednost v družbi). Pobuda za diskusijo prihaja iz kulturnih krogov. Tema je izjemno aktualna in z njo bi želeli opozoriti na dejstvo, da so povezave med umetnostjo, tehnologijo in znanostjo v svetu in pri nas zelo žive, da je umetnost prepoznala svojo pomembno družbeno funkcijo v povezovanju z znanstvenim poljem in da ima pri tem lahko interes tudi znanost. V Sloveniji imamo zelo močno iniciativo za delovanje na tem področju, tudi nekaj zelo dejavnih umetnikov, umetniških in umetniško-znanstvenih skupin, vendar pa so institucionalne strukture za izvajanje takšne dejavnosti še zelo pomanjkljive.

Doc. dr. Miomir Knežević je diplomiral, magistriral in doktoriral na Biotehniški fakulteti UL, kjer zdaj predava. Je direktor podjetja Biobanka popkovnične krvi. Do lanskega leta je bil raziskovalec na Zavodu za transfuzijsko medicino, v letih 2006 do 2010 pa vodja Oddelka za zbiranje in shranjevanje človeških matičnih celic. Od samih začetkov leta 1997 (do 2003) je bil zaposlen pri podjetju Educell, eni prvih in vodilnih slovenskih ustanov za tkivni inženiring in celično terapijo (ki je leta 2008 pridobilo status Ustanove za tkiva in celice s strani Javne agencije RS za zdravila in medicinske pripomočke), in je torej pionir raziskav matičnih celic v Sloveniji in svetu. Ima tudi bogate izkušnje na področju povezovanja biotehnologije z umetnostjo.

V čast mi je, da se bom lahko pogovarjala s tako zanimivimi gosti. Dovolite, da vam jih predstavim:

Na začetku bi želela izhajati iz teme, ki sta jo odprla Dragan Živadinov in Miha Turšič, in sicer kulturalizacija vesolja.2 Omenim naj, da se nihče od tukaj prisotnih gostov ne ukvarja z raziskavami vesolja, vendar pa so me sodelavci z Inštituta za kineziološke raziskave Znanstveno-raziskovalnega središča Koper opozorili, da so sami opravljali pionirske raziskave v mikrogravitaciji, to so raziskave simulirane breztežnosti. Prof. dr. Jadran Lenarčič, pred nekaj leti ste gostili veliko svetovno ime, in sicer Gerda Hirzingerja, vodilnega tehnološkega raziskovalca na področju robotike in mehatronike. Kakšna je z vaše perspektive povezava med vesoljem in kirurgijo?

Red. prof. dr. Jadran Lenarčič, direktor Instituta Jožef Stefan, je diplomiral, magistriral in doktoriral na Fakulteti za elektrotehniko, kjer zdaj tudi predava. Njegovo ime je tesno vezano na Institut Jožef Stefan, kjer je neprekinjeno zaposlen od leta 1979 in kjer je bil leta 2001 izvoljen v naziv znanstveni svetnik. V letih 1985 do 1994 je bil vodja Laboratorija za robotiko, potem vodja Odseka za avtomatiko, biokibernetiko in robotiko (1994–2005), od leta 2005 pa je direktor tega, v svetu izjemno uveljavljenega raziskovalnega inštituta. Predava še v Novi Gorici in Bologni ter na drugih tujih univerzah. Red. prof. Srečo Dragan, pionir videa in novih medijev, ki je sicer diplomiral in magistriral iz slikarstva, je redni profesor za video in nove medije na ALUO UL. Srečo Dragan je začetnik video umetnosti na Slovenskem. Že leta 1969 je z Nušo Dragan posnel prvi video v bivši Jugoslaviji in bil konec šestdesetih let član razširjene skupine OHO. Leta 2007 je prejel prestižno Jakopičevo nagrado za uvajanje in dosežke na področju novih medijev v likovni umetnosti in leta 2006 priznanje ob Dnevu Jožefa Stefana za razširjanje polja klasičnih ustvarjalnih medijev ter povezovanje umetnosti in znanosti. Jurij Krpan, umetniški vodja Galerije Kapelica, je eden najpomembnejših svetovnih kustosov za zelo sodobne umetniške usmeritve. Bil je kustos in selektor na mednarodnih festivalih, v Evropski komisiji pa vodi galerijo Cosinus, ki je zaradi svoje strateške pozicije pri evropskem komisarju za znanost prav poseben fenomen. Leta 2008 je kuriral del festivala Ars Electronica, kjer je predstavil umetniški profil Galerije Kapelica, ki je v strokovnih krogih v svetu izjemno cenjena in morda celo najpomembnejša galerija na svetu. Odlikuje se z zelo prepoznavnim umetniškim kredom in vrhunsko produkcijo sodobne oziroma raziskovalne umetnosti. 1

Dogodek je vodila doc. dr. Polona Tratnik, ki je doktorirala iz filozofije in teorije vizualne kulture na UP FHŠ, magistrirala iz umetnosti in diplomirala iz slikarstva na UL ALU. Je znanstvena sodelavka na UP ZRS, docentka za filozofijo kulture na UP FHŠ in predsednica Slovenskega društva za estetiko. Je avtorica monografij In vitro. Živo onstran telesa in umetnosti (2010), Transumetnost. Kultura in umetnost v globalnih pogojih (2010) in Konec umetnosti. Genealogija modernega diskurza: od Hegla k Dantu (2009). Je ena od svetovnih pionirk bioumetnosti in od leta 2000 povezuje umetnost z biotehnologijo, v zadnjih letih pa si prizadeva tudi za povezovanje filozofije z naravoslovno znanostjo in umetnostjo.

5 2 R E FLE KTOR / R E FLECTO R

Jadran Lenarčič: Hirzinger je direktor najpomembnejšega svetovnega inštituta na področju robotike. Prvi evropski robot, ki je prišel v vesolje prek NASE, je bil iz njegovega laboratorija. Roboti, ki jih tam izdelujejo, se na osnovi naših analiz in študij uporabljajo tudi v kirurgiji. Med drugim v zadnjih letih izdelujejo tudi majhne robotke, ki letijo po zraku, snemajo fotografije in delajo tridimenzionalne modele najpomembnejših palač v Nemčiji, tako da je digitalizirana že cela vrsta nemških arhitektonskih znamenitosti. Polona Tratnik: Področja vašega raziskovanja so biokinetika, robotika, kinematika robotov. Kakšna so po vašem mnenju velika vprašanja, ki se vežejo na področje robotike, in kaj si lahko od nje obetamo v prihodnosti? Jadran Lenarčič: Robota je ustvaril umetnik, in sicer Karel Čapek v svoji drami. Tudi film Metropolis se je npr. naslanjal na robote, ko ti v realnem svetu (v znanosti) sploh še niso obstajali. Prvi roboti so tako nastali v šestdesetih letih, to so bili industrijski roboti. Ko sem se konec osemdesetih oz. v začetku devetdesetih let pričel ukvarjati z gibanjem človeka in ga skušal razumeti z robotskega, matematičnega vidika, so mi celo svetovni strokovnjaki govorili, da to nima nobenega smisla, saj je za robote značilno, da so mehanski in da je torej treba razvijati njihove mehanske lastnosti, ne pa oponašanja človeka. Danes pa je ena glavnih smeri v robotiki prav humanoidna robotika – t. j. roboti, ki oponašajo gibanje 2

Na začetku okrogle mize sta Dragan Živadinov in Miha Turšič predstavila KSEVT (Kulturno središče evropskih vesoljskih tehnologij), primer povezovanja umetnosti, tehnologije in znanosti, kjer umetnost nikakor ni podrejena znanosti, temveč igra celo odločilno vlogo pri načrtu kulturalizacije vesolja. Tega dela okrogle mize na tem mestu ne predstavljamo; v prihodnji številki Maske bo namreč nekaj prostora namenjeno Živadinovu in njegovemu delu. Op. ur.

15 NA / 15 TEGA / 15 ZNANSTVENIKI / 14 GA / 14 NAČIN / 14 PODROČJU / 14 PROJEKT / 14 RAZISKAVE / 14 UMETNOSTJO / 13 BILA / 13 BO / 13 KJER /

človeka. Če se navežem na umetnost: sam ne vidim toliko povezave v tem, da umetnost uporablja orodja znanosti ali tehnologije, to je namreč samoumevno. Če danes rečete znanstveniku ali inženirju, naj naredi novega najboljšega robota na svetu, bo najprej vprašal, za kaj bi tega robota uporabili, in naredil bo robota, prilagojenega namenu – npr. s šestimi potrebnimi motorji. Umetnik bi naredil robota s tristo motorji. Če pa se dva človeka s popolnoma drugačnimi izkušnjami in pogledi na svet povežeta v skupni projekt, se zgodi, kot temu sam pravim, fuzija. Ko združiš dva popolnoma različna svetova in ju tako rekoč na silo trčiš, pride do fuzije, ki povzroči neverjetno eksplozijo energije, in odpirajo se nove stvari, ki jih niti v sanjah ne poznamo. Združevanje znanosti in umetnosti vidim prav v takšni fuziji. Polona Tratnik: Robotika zanima tudi umetnost. Na festivalu Ars Electronica za umetnost, tehnologijo in družbo lahko vsako leto vidimo predstavitev najnovejših dosežkov robotike: 2009 so predstavili Geminoida, robota, ki je posnemal svojega stvaritelja Hiroshija Ishigura in je bil sposoben tudi zelo dobre verbalne komunikacije, leta 2010 so pokazali Asima, zelo spretnega gibljivega Hondinega robota. Nekaj vrhunskih umetnikov raziskuje robotiko in jo vključuje v svoje delo (npr. Stelarc), nekateri iz sebe ustvarjajo kiborga (npr. Kevin Warwick), tudi v Sloveniji je robotika v umetnosti dobro zastopana: Stefan Doepner, Borut Savski, Sašo Sedlaček, Nika Oblak in Primož Novak. Jurij Krpan, zakaj je robotika zanimiva za umetnost? Jurij Krpan: Ne vem sicer, zakaj je zanimiva za vsakega naštetega umetnika posebej, toda umetniki so si na splošno od nekdaj želeli, da bi v svoje skulpture vdahnili življenje. Ko so dobili možnost izražanja s kompleksnimi materiali, torej ko so postala določena znanja lažje dostopna, so to nemudoma izkoristili. Pigmalionov mit je na delu tudi danes. Ne vznika le iz notranjosti umetniškega ustvarjanja, temveč se umetniki s svojo kreativno občutljivostjo odzovejo na spremembe v družbi, ki je vsa potopljena v avtomate, stroje, najrazličnejše vmesnike in proteze, ki uporabnikom omogočajo, da so hitrejši, glasnejši, mobilnejši itn. Ob vsem tem pa smo velikokrat v nekakšni zadregi ob vprašanju, do katere mere nas tehnologija omogoča in kje onemogoča oziroma kdaj mi uporabljamo tehnologijo in kdaj ta vpreže nas. Ob tem se zastavlja vrsta vprašanj, ki jih umetniki tematizirajo, problematizirajo in raziskujejo, kar daleč presega golo fascinacijo in fetišiziranje tehnologije. Nedavno sem naletel na besedilo nekega japonskega znanstvenika (Naho Kitano),3 ki so mu italijanski kolegi očitali, da se je z Japonci težko pogovarjati o robotiki, češ da nimajo izdelanega etičnega odnosa do robotike kot take. V besedilu, ki ga je objavil kmalu zatem, se ukvarja prav s tem problemom in ugotavlja, da je bila robotika na zahodu vselej razumljena kot nekaj, kar nadomesti človekovo dejavnost. In ta drugi, ki se je v tej obliki kar naenkrat pojavil, proizvaja toliko tesnobe, da sprejetje robotike ni samoumevno. Na drugi strani pa pravi, da imajo Japonci 3

»Č

e danes rečete znanstveniku ali inženirju, naj naredi novega najboljšega robota na svetu, bo najprej vprašal, za kaj bi tega robota uporabili, in naredil bo robota, prilagojenega namenu – npr. s šestimi potrebnimi motorji. Umetnik bi naredil robota s tristo motorji. Če pa se dva človeka s popolnoma drugačnimi izkušnjami in pogledi na svet povežeta v skupni projekt, se zgodi, kot temu sam pravim, fuzija. Ko združiš dva popolnoma različna svetova in ju tako rekoč na silo trčiš, pride do fuzije, ki povzroči neverjetno eksplozijo energije, in odpirajo se nove stvari, ki jih niti v sanjah ne poznamo. Združevanje znanosti in umetnosti vidim prav v takšni fuziji.«

Naho Kitano, »Roboethics – a comparative analysis of social acceptance of robots between the West and Japan«. http://www.roboethics.org/atelier2006/docs/Kitano%20west%20japan.pdf.

REFL EK TOR / R E F L EC TOR 53

13 LETA / 13 ROBOTA / 13 STVARI / 12 DELO / 12 JADRAN / 12 KNEŽEVIĆ / 12 LENARČIČ / 12 MIOMIR / 12 NAMREČ / 12 PROJEKTA / 12 SI / 12 SLOVENIJI /

»U

metniki se s svojo kreativno občutljivostjo odzovejo na spremembe v družbi, ki je vsa potopljena v avtomate, stroje, najrazličnejše vmesnike in proteze, ki uporabnikom omogočajo, da so hitrejši, glasnejši, mobilnejši itn. Ob vsem tem pa smo velikokrat v nekakšni zadregi ob vprašanju, do katere mere nas tehnologija omogoča in kje onemogoča oziroma kdaj mi uporabljamo tehnologijo in kdaj ta vpreže nas. Ob tem se zastavlja vrsta vprašanj, ki jih umetniki tematizirajo, problematizirajo in raziskujejo, kar daleč presega golo fascinacijo in fetišiziranje tehnologije.«

drugačno zgodovinsko in kulturno ozadje, saj je že npr. iz njihovih šintoističnih romanov razvidno mišljenje, da ima vsak predmet svoj duh. Robot je tako konglomerat delov, ki imajo že sami po sebi duh. Nadalje piše tudi o tem, da je njihovo ministrstvo pričelo s programom, ki vključuje humanoidne robote, namenjene oskrbi starejših ljudi; ti jih jemljejo popolnoma samoumevno, ne pa kot nekaj tujega. Poudariti želim, da je zelo pomembno, v kakšno kulturno okolje plasiramo določeno tehnologijo. Bistvenega pomena je, kakšna je povezava med strokovnjaki in znanstveniki, ki plasirajo uporabne vmesnike in stroje, ter ljudmi, ki na drugi strani ozavestijo, kako in zakaj je ta tehnologija zanje potrebna. Ta zavest je pomembna in je kulturno vprašanje. Polona Tratnik: V slovenskem prostoru je Srečo Dragan ime, ki se vpisuje na sam začetek povezovanja umetnosti in znanosti. Bili ste pobudnik sodelovanja umetnikov z znanstveniki s področja robotike in zelo zgodaj ste začeli sodelovati z Institutom Jožef Stefan. Na kakšen način lahko umetnost sodeluje z znanostjo? Srečo Dragan: Naj poudarim, da je pomembno, v kakšnem kontekstu in času se stvari zgodijo, nikoli jih namreč ni mogoče razumeti samih po sebi. Devetdeseta leta so samo nadaljevanje avantgardnih gibanj z začetka dvajsetega stoletja in neoavantgard šestdesetih let. V devetdesetih letih nastopi čas za tehnoumetnost, ki proizvaja tehno imaginacijo in spodbuja raziskave, ki bi človeku omogočale izstop iz realnosti v virtualno realnost. Leta 1993 Virilio zapiše, da je svet okupiran z virtualno realnostjo, gre za čas zelo velikih sprememb. Pojavijo se ideje, kako človekovo gibanje postaviti v razširjeno realnost (angl. augmented reality) in virtualno realnost. Tak je bil projekt robota (robot je predvsem premikal kamero), ko smo ob razstavi Plečnikove arhitekture za novo demokracijo v Pragi na ljubljansko Tromostovje postavili robota, ki ga je gledalec prek interneta usmerjal v različne smeri urbanistične mreže Ljubljane. Zanjo vemo, da je po Plečniku trikotna in ne ekspanzionistično kvadratna ter tako predstavlja nekakšno duhovno strukturo Ljubljane. Če so na primer ljudje robota usmerili proti Čopovi, je ta smer kazala proti Tivoliju, kjer naj bi izvorno stal nikoli zgrajeni Plečnikov parlament. Druga stran je bila usmerjena proti Žalam itn. Proti vsem tem točkam se je torej gledalec lahko premikal. S praško univerzo je bilo dogovorjeno, da se bo projekt istočasno izvajal tako v Pragi kot pri nas, vendar je bil na koncu zaradi neodobravanja praškega predsedniškega protokola izveden le slovenski del projekta. Drugi del projekta je bila računalniška animacija, ki je prikazovala Plečnikov parlament kot 3D prostor, po katerem si se premikal z robotom. Šele z U3-jem, katerega selektor je bil Peter Weibel, smo naredili tako, da se je robot lahko premikal po galerijskem prostoru, po mreži, ki je predstavljala mrežo Ljubljane, in panoramo Ljubljane prenašal v virtualno realnost. To pa takrat ni bilo tako preprosto, saj je bilo znanstvenike treba prepričati, da gre tak projekt dejansko v kontekst bazičnih raziskav. Ko so na Institutu Jožefa Stefana imeli možnost, da je bilo prek radijske zveze mogoče robota premikati in si lahko potem prek interneta sliko, ki jo je beležila kamera, pošiljal spet na določeno točko, se je vzpostavila povezava polis – mediapolis – metropolis.

5 4 R E FLE KTOR / R E FLECTO R

12 SODELOVANJE / 12 TO / 12 TOREJ / 12 VELIKO / 11 KAR / 11 NAS / 11 SAM / 11 SEVEDA / 10 IMAJO / 10 JURIJ / 10 KOMISIJE / 10 KRPAN / 10 MOŽNOSTI /

Zadnji premik v tej zgodbi se navezuje na temo humanoidnega robota, ki je bila že v tistem času izredno popularna. Razvili smo računalniško vodeno platformo, ki je omogočala vstop v različne realnosti. Razstava Time is out of joint v Moderni galeriji je vsebovala robota, ki se je kot obiskovalec premikal od točke do točke, do nekih konceptualnih tabel, pomembno pa je bilo, da si ga lahko na izbrane točke v galeriji premikal prek interneta. Šlo je torej za proces in raziskavo, kjer se je predmet raziskave Instituta Jožefa Stefana pokril z Rhinom v Bonnu, kjer so raziskovali podobne stvari, v Ameriki je bila to Minerva, našega robota pa smo poimenovali Leonardo. Ni šlo za aplikativne raziskave, cilj je bil zastavljen znotraj vsakega posameznega projekta. Ves programski del so izvajali sodelavci z instituta, sodeloval je tudi Borut Rihavec iz Laboratorija za računalniški vid, sam pa sem moral pridobiti 10.000 tedanjih nemških mark za izvedbo projekta. Polona Tratnik: Jurij Krpan, večkrat podajate iniciative za povezovanje umetnosti in znanosti. Zakaj je pomembno, da se umetnost povezuje z znanostjo in obratno? Jurij Krpan: Ta potreba ni nova, niti ni zrasla na mojem zelniku. Že leta 1959 je znanstvenik Charles P. Snow napisal knjigo The Two Cultures, leta 1963 pa esej, v katerem je vpeljal pojem »tretje kulture«. Ugotavljal je, da je med znanstveniki in umetniki ter humanisti večji prepad kot kdajkoli. Predlaga različne načine povezovanja znanstvenikov in umetnikov ter zaključi s sintagmo »tretja kultura«. Kasneje so vzniknili teksti o četrti kulturi, o peti kulturi itn. Ta sintagma zato žal ni tako popularna, kot bi si želeli, saj je bila prevečkrat zlorabljena. Kakorkoli, odkar se srečujemo z dosežki uporabne znanosti, ki so tako radikalno spremenili naša življenja, ne moremo mimo strokovnih, teoretskih interpretacij, ki nam podajajo boljše razumevanje. Umetniki pa ne bi bili umetniki, če ne bi večkrat kar sami zarili rok v problem, v material, v stroje, jih razstavili in na ta način ugotavljali, zakaj in kako delujejo. Že v našem prostoru smo se zelo zgodaj srečali z umetniki, ki so problematizirali banalno in vsakdanjo stvar, kot je npr. tipkovnica. Tipkovnica je izum iz šestnajstega stoletja, skrajno primitiven, saj nas omejuje v izražanju, vendar zelo uporaben. V devetdesetih letih naredi Marcel-li Antunez Roca instalacijo, okolje, ki ga z gibanjem in gestami, ne da bi se dotikal fizičnega vmesnika, poganja brezžično. Tako se razvija telesna govorica, ki je do takrat še nismo srečali. Podobno se danes dogaja z mobilno telefonijo in z vsemi drugimi brezžičnimi napravami, ki jih uporabljamo, ko se premikamo in koreografiramo življenje na popolnoma nov način. Tudi z novimi touchscreen mobilniki tipkovnica počasi izginja, stik z aparatom, z vmesnikom, postaja vse bolj intuitiven. Napovedi, ki jih poznamo iz divjih razmišljanj umetnikov in ne nazadnje tudi iz znanstvene fantastike, postajajo vse bolj uresničljive. Računalniki, ki jih bomo nosili na sebi, biosimbiotične obleke, ki nam bodo pomagale uravnavati življenjske funkcije, vse to je tako rekoč že tukaj, nimamo pa še vzpostavljenega odnosa do tega oziroma imamo do nekaterih stvari aprioren odnos, ki vodi k neumnosti, nezainteresiranosti, posploševanju in je lahko celo nevaren. Polona Tratnik: Jadran Lenarčič, primarno delujete na področju znanosti, a ste si večkrat prizadevali za povezavo znanosti z

umetnostjo. Kakšni so interesi znanosti pri povezovanju znanosti z umetnostjo? Lahko umetnost nastopi v točki, kjer bi se fizikalno znanje prenašalo v prakso? Jadran Lenarčič: Današnja razprava že kaže natančno to, kar sem v začetku izpostavil. Na eni strani je umetnik, ki tematizira in deloma problematizira nove tehnologije, nova znanja, na drugi strani pa smo znanstveniki, ki ta znanja proizvajamo in v tem ne vidimo nič posebnega, vsaj ne na tak način, kot to počnejo umetniki. Pred kakimi štirimi leti sem na Institutu Jožefa Stefana organiziral konferenco na temo znanost-umetnost z naslovom Nova renesansa. Priznam, da sem bil po njej precej razočaran, saj sem nekako pričakoval, da bomo skupaj z ministrstvom povezali 80 vrhunskih slovenskih umetnikov in znanstvenikov in da se bo, če se bomo o tem začeli pogovarjati, prižgala iskrica za interdisciplinarno sodelovanje. V resnici pa je vse skupaj videti bolj kot vžigalica, pri kateri ogenj hitro ugasne. Umetniki so namreč razumeli znanost kot orodje za svoje delo, znanstveniki pa so poslušali in molče odšli, saj niso videli razloga za sodelovanje z umetniki. Moje gledanje, ki sem ga že takrat zagovarjal in bi ga želel še enkrat podati, pa izhaja z vidika kreativnosti. Neka nova ideja se po mojem mnenju ne razvije v človeku samem, ampak nastane na meji med njegovim spoznanjem in okoljem. Vmesno področje je, kot bi rekli matematiki, slabo pogojeno, kar pomeni, da zelo majhna sprememba povzroči velike eksplozije. Bolj ko vstopaš v notranjost, bolj je dobro pogojeno, to pomeni, da je manj senzibilno in se nič ne dogaja. Če je tvoje področje delovanja torej le v sodelovanju z enako mislečimi ljudmi, težko narediš prehod v področje neznanega. Ta prehod se zgodi takrat, kadar srečaš dve različni ideji. In ti dve ideji morata trčiti. Pri tem je seveda treba upoštevati tudi socialne, psihološke in druge vidike. Bistveno pa je, da če dve ideji trčita, ne nastane zgolj ena, temveč deset novih idej. To je temeljni proces ustvarjanja in človek ustvarja samo na tak način. Pod imenom Nova renesansa sem si sam takrat predstavljal nek nov fluid, ki bo vzniknil, če bomo Slovenci ponovno ustvarili področje sodelovanja med znanstveniki in umetniki ter povzročili t. i. fuzijo. Ko sem o tem govoril na nekem predavanju v Avstriji, so to fuzijo poimenovali Lenarčič’s cube. Govoril sem, da je ustvarjalnost volumen nekega bazena, pri katerem je vsaka od stranic bistvena za ustvarjalni proces. V prvi vrsti je treba imeti veliko znanja, nato je ključna njegova raznolikost, tretja stranica pa je kultura. Če je kultura v okolju prenizka, je volumen tega bazena seveda ničen. S tem hočem povedati, da znanstveniki v umetnikih nikakor ne vidijo orodij; če bi znanstveniki skupaj z njimi vendarle poskušali vzpostaviti delovne skupine, ki bi v skupnem projektu sledile določenemu cilju, bi lahko dobili popolnoma nove rezultate. In prav v tem je največja dragocenost tovrstnega povezovanja, v katerem lahko tudi znanstveniki vidijo smisel. Polona Tratnik: Miomir Knežević, midva sodelujeva že enajst let in prav tako predstavljava primer sodelovanja med umetnostjo in znanostjo. Zakaj je po vašem mnenju tudi za znanost pomembno, da se povezuje z umetnostjo – mogoče to pojasnite specifično za področje biotehnologije, tkivnega inženiringa oz. regenerativne medicine?

REFL EK TOR / R E F L EC TOR 55

10 NPR / 10 PRIMER / 10 SODELOVANJA / 10 TER / 9 DRUGI / 9 GRE / 9 KER / 9 LETIH / 9 NEKAJ / 9 PODROČJE / 9 POMEMBNO / 9 POPOLNOMA /

Miomir Knežević: Na to vprašanje lahko zelo hitro odgovorim: zaradi osebe. S teboj namreč rad sodelujem, zato lahko iz tega nastane marsikaj dobrega. Drug drugega lahko kaj naučimo in nastane nekaj novega, kot je o tem pred menoj govoril Jadran Lenarčič. Strinjam se, da je pregrada med znanostjo in umetnostjo relativno visoka, še posebej v naših glavah. Zanimivo je, da imate danes vsi umetniki s seboj zapiske, midva, ki prihajava s področja znanosti, pa sva brez njih. Morda to pomeni, da pričakujeva, da stvari ne bodo tako natančne, oprijemljive in izmerljive. Pri svojih kolegih, študentih in tudi pri sebi pogosto opažam, da se počutimo varni, če smo obdani s stvarmi, ki se jih da izmeriti in vrednotiti, ki so nam potemtakem v tem smislu poznane. Če to umanjka, lahko to zanikamo ali pa poskušamo stvarem dodati neko uporabno vrednost. Tako včasih pri svojem raziskovanju tudi nekoliko skrenemo s poti in se ukvarjamo s stvarmi, ki jih nihče ne potrebuje. Poudarjam pa, da lahko s stvarmi, ki se jih ne da uporabiti že takoj na prvo žogo, naredimo miselni preboj, ki raziskovanje premakne na popolnoma drugo raven. Do takega preboja lahko pride, če znanstvenik sodeluje z umetnikom, saj slednji nima takšnih miselnih omejitev, kot se pojavljajo v znanosti, temveč razmišlja povsem svobodno. Končni rezultat njegove svobode pogosto ni nekaj uporabnega, čeprav seveda lahko razpravljamo tudi o uporabnosti umetnosti. V vsakem primeru pa tak element vzbudi kreativnost, ki ti omogoča lažje in boljše delo. V znanosti se moramo osvoboditi prevelike specializacije zgolj na svojih področjih; umetnik namreč lahko opazi še druge možnosti znanosti in tehnologij. Kar se na primer kakemu znanstveniku ne zdi nič posebnega, lahko umetnik postavi v popolnoma novo luč in v znanstveniku spodbudi drugačno mišljenje o njegovem delu, preoblikuje ustaljene koncepte. Ko sem bil še zaposlen na Zavodu za transfuzijsko medicino, so me ob najinih skupnih projektih s Polono Tratnik gledali malone sumljivo, saj so bili mnenja, da pri proizvajanju nove znanosti umetnost nima kaj iskati. Kasneje, ko so ti projekti stekli in smo se o njih pogovarjali med seboj, so začeli tudi na svoje lastno delo gledati drugače. O podobnih izkušnjah je prej govoril že Jadran Lenarčič: želel je združiti znanstvenike in umetnike, ker je čutil, da bi bilo to dobro za oboje, oni sami pa morda niso čutili enako. Zato je še toliko bolj pomembno, da je podobnih srečanj še več, pa tudi, da se spodbuja čim več interdisciplinarnih pilotskih projektov. Na podlagi takšnih poskusov lahko nastane kaj zanimivega in razvijejo se lahko v resne projekte. Predvsem pa je pomembno, da umetnik tako postane na nek način razlagalec in stik znanosti s preostalim svetom. Znanstvenik namreč v svojem navdušenju včasih pozabi, kako je nekatere stvari mogoče zlorabiti. Najti mora pravo mesto svoje dejavnosti. Sam sem se od Polone Tratnik veliko naučil, po tej izkušnji drugače gledam na svoje delo, se družim z drugimi ljudmi, berem druge revije, in to je zame osebno bogastvo. Polona Tratnik: Miomir Knežević, radi poudarjate, da je za biotehnologijo in biomedicino pomembno, da se ljudje prek povezave z umetnostjo informirajo o njej, o realnih možnostih v znanosti. To je morda tudi nekakšna preventiva, da ljudje ne zapadejo bodisi strahovom bodisi pretiranemu navdušenju, se pravi čustvom, ki so lahko škodljiva.

5 6 R E FLE KTOR / R E FLECTO R

Miomir Knežević: Področje, s katerim se ukvarjam, včasih zbuja veliko etičnih dilem, to pa zato, ker posredno vpliva na spremembo družbe. Táko je na primer vprašanje kloniranja ali embrionalnih matičnih celic ... Za znanstvenika je to vse zgolj tehnika in pogosto nam niti na misel ne pride, da drugi ljudje gledajo drugače na to. Velikokrat se nekatere stvari znanstveniku ne zdijo sporne – na primer to, da ženska vzame svojo jajčno celico, jo oplodi s svojo telesno celico in rodi samo sebe. Govorim teoretično, seveda. Menim, da je treba razvijati diskusije, zakaj so takšne stvari problematične. Cela vrsta možnosti je, ki se znanstveniku zdijo zanimive za izvedbo, vendar imajo lahko hude posledice. Ker umetnik gleda drugače na te stvari, lahko v znanstveni diskurz vnese zadržke, po drugi strani pa znanstveniku omogoči drugačen pogled. Polona Tratnik: Kljub temu da obstaja močan interes za povezovanje umetnosti in znanosti, pa na poti k temu pogosto nastopajo težave in ena takih je gotovo institucionalizacija omenjenih povezav. Jurij Krpan, v svojih predavanjih in zapisih imenujete umetnost, ki jo podpirate, raziskovalna umetnost. V Sloveniji imamo Javno agencijo za raziskovalno dejavnost RS, ki opravlja strokovne, razvojne in izvršilne naloge v zvezi z izvajanjem sprejetega Nacionalnega raziskovalnega in razvojnega programa v okviru veljavnega proračunskega memoranduma in državnega proračuna ter druge naloge pospeševanja raziskovalne dejavnosti, skladno z namenom ustanovitve. Ali na področju raziskovalne dejavnosti obstaja prostor tudi za raziskovalno umetnost? Ali je državni oz. evropski sistem strukturno prilagojen spremembam, ki jih je v zadnjih petdesetih letih doživela umetnost, še posebej tista, ki se intenzivno povezuje z naravoslovno znanostjo, pa tudi s humanistiko in družboslovjem? Naj dodam, da ste bili pobudnik velikega razpisa Evropske komisije za povezovanje umetnosti in znanosti, objavljenega lansko leto, na katerega se je kljub zapletenosti in visokim razpisnim zahtevam odzvalo zelo veliko število umetniško-raziskovalnih skupin, kar je ljudi iz Evropske komisije presenetilo. Kakšne so institucionalne možnosti za to, kako bi se takšne vrste prakse lahko realizirale v prihodnje? Jurij Krpan: Treba je poudariti, da si prizadevamo za sodelovanje in ne za instrumentaliziranje enih ali drugih. Naša pobuda je šla kot nekakšen spin off Galerije Kapelica naravnost v hišo Evropskega komisariata v Bruselj. Tam smo na pobudo Janeza Potočnika, ki je bil takrat komisar za znanost in raziskave, trikrat letno prirejali razstave, na katerih smo predstavljali umetnike, ki se ukvarjajo s tovrstno umetnostjo. Pri tem sta nam pomagala Ministrstvo za zunanje zadeve in Ministrstvo za kulturo. Čeprav je bila to zelo eksotična iniciativa, nam je že takrat uspelo razmeroma hitro premakniti zelo veliko stvari. Premik se je zgodil v borih treh letih. Ni šlo samo za razstave, pri tem je bilo odločilnih več korakov. Eden od njih je bil tudi ta, da smo skupaj z direktoratom izdali tematsko urejeno brošuro, imenovano Art and Science: Creative Fusion, s katero smo znanstvenemu svetu predstavili, kakšno naj bi bilo povezovanje umetnosti in znanosti. Sodeloval sem tudi na nekaj delavnicah, ki so jih organizirali na direktoratu. Ena od teh je bila na oddelku za materiale; tema je bila komuniciranje nanoznanosti oziroma znanosti nanotehnologije. Tam

9 PROJEKTE / 9 PROJEKTOV / 9 STE / 9 STRANI / 9 SVOJE / 9 ZNANOSTJO / 8 ALI / 8 DEL / 8 DOBRO / 8 DRAGAN / 8 ETIČNE / 8 ITN / 8 KAKO / 8 LJUDJE /

smo takoj prišli v konflikt, saj so oni kazali lepe renderinge dinamike raznih atomčkov in tako naprej in to imenovali artworks, jaz pa sem ves čas sitnaril, da se je treba povezovati, da je treba odpirati laboratorije, iskati možne povezave itn. In sedaj pridemo do čisto praktične ravni. Naših poskusov nismo mogli institucionalizirati, kot je to naredila npr. SymbioticA v Avstraliji, kjer imajo svoj studio na medicinski univerzi. Naši umetniki pa so na različne načine sami našli poti do znanstvenikov in začeli z njimi sodelovati, ustvarjati t. i. mini konzorcije, ki smo jih v okviru Kapelice, kolikor se je le dalo, omogočali. Vendar je ves čas prihajalo do tega, da smo se, finančno podhranjeni, pojavljali v vlogi fehtarja, ki znanstvenikom le krade čas in denar, ki ju imajo že tako premalo. Težava je v tem, da vsakič, ko vstopiš v konzorcij, ne vstopiš kot enakovreden partner, temveč kot fehtar. Zaradi tega na koncu seveda trpi projekt, nihče nima časa, da bi se spraševal o pomembnih vprašanjih, kot so npr. etične razsežnosti, o katerih smo govorili prej. Na iniciativo Janeza Potočnika je komisariat za znanost in raziskave EU izdelal triletni akcijski načrt, ki je vključeval podpiranje sodelovanja med umetnostjo in znanostjo. V Sloveniji takih priporočil in možnosti še vedno nimamo: če bi se namreč želel nek konzorcij z umetniki in znanstveniki vzpostaviti, se mu umetniki uradno ne morejo pridružiti kot enakovredni partnerji, ker nimajo potrebnih znanstveniških kvalifikacij in izobrazb, ki so za razpisovalce nujne. Tako imamo primere nekaterih uspelih prijav, kjer so umetniki zamolčani, kljub temu da v konzorcijih igrajo bistveno vlogo. Edina dva razpisa pri nas, na katera se lahko umetniki v Sloveniji prijavijo, je tisti za promocijo znanosti in pa Noč znanosti, vendar je razpisanega denarja relativno malo, razpis pa je napisan tako omejujoče, da umetnikom onemogoča razvoj resnega projekta. Priporočilo Evropske komisije je bilo, da odprejo možnost za namensko financiranje, ki je sorazmerno s financiranjem znanstvenih projektov. Proračun za kulturne projekte je namreč v primerjavi z znanstvenimi zanemarljiv. Lanski razpis, ki je na pobudo akcijskega plana Direktorata za znanost in raziskave EU izšel iz Sedmega okvirnega programa na Oddelku za znanost in družbo, je razpisal proračun tudi za projekte, pri katerih gre za povezovanje znanosti in umetnosti; ta je bil 2.500.000 €. Na prvi pogled je to lepa vsota, vendar gre pri tem za enkratni, pilotski projekt, izkazalo pa se je tudi, da sami razpisovalci niso dobro vedeli, kaj pravzaprav razpisujejo, tako da so megalomanski razpisni pogoji vključevali deset partnerjev iz desetih držav za posamezni projekt za tri leta, glede na to pa je bilo denarja seveda odločno premalo. Izkazalo se je, da je razpis namenjen velikim igralcem na sceni, tako da je bilo začudenje, ki so ga kasneje pokroviteljsko izrazili nad tem, da se Galerija Kapelica ni prijavila na ta razpis, popolnoma deplasirano, saj ko smo se želeli v konzorcij povezati z resnimi igralci, so se oni povezali s še večjimi, kot so Ars Electronica, muzeji tehnologij in znanosti, mreža evropskih muzejev znanosti ECSITE itn. A ne glede na to so bile podeljene finance le za dva konzorcija, čeprav se je prijavilo štirideset konzorcijev, in če jih je imel vsak samo deset, to pomeni, da je bilo štiristo prijaviteljev. Ko nas je letos v Bruslju mreža muzejev znanosti ECSITE znova povabila k sodelovanju, sem jih vprašal, kako so v Bruslju sploh prišli do Kapelice. Odgovorili so, da je bilo naše ime večkrat omenjeno, predvsem pa jim je bilo neuradno dano na znanje, da je bil na pilotski razpis izre-

»Č

e je tvoje področje delovanja torej le v sodelovanju z enako mislečimi ljudmi, težko narediš prehod v področje neznanega. Ta prehod se zgodi takrat, kadar srečaš dve različni ideji. In ti dve ideji morata trčiti. Pri tem je seveda treba upoštevati tudi socialne, psihološke in druge vidike. Bistveno pa je, da če dve ideji trčita, ne nastane zgolj ena, temveč deset novih idej. To je temeljni proces ustvarjanja in človek ustvarja samo na tak način.«

REFL EK TOR / R E F L EC TOR 57

8 NAM / 8 POVEZAVE / 8 PRAV / 8 PREK / 8 RAVNI / 8 RAZISKOVALNE / 8 SAMI / 8 SICER / 8 SVETU / 8 TAKRAT / 8 UMETNIK / 8 UMETNIKOV / 7 BOMO /

»Z

notraj univerze nam je uspelo vzpostaviti modul, v okviru katerega se povezujeta znanstvena misel in umetniški koncept. Študent akademije je iniciator projekta, vzpostavi se delovna skupina, ki se za projekt odloči na podlagi lastne afinitete. Ker gre za novomedijske interaktivne projekte, to poteka znotraj Laboratorija za računalniški vid na FRI (Fakulteta za računalništvo in informatiko). Te povezave so se izkazale za zelo uspešne, saj je vsako leto narejenih najmanj deset interaktivnih projektov.«

den odziv, da je za sodelovanje med umetniki in znanstveniki veliko zanimanje in da je takim sodelovanjem treba odpreti pot. Na komisiji so direktorici mreže ECSITE predlagali, naj v prijavah na različne razpise vključujejo sodelovanje z umetniki, ne glede na to, da ne gre za art and science, s čimer pa se bo vršil pritisk, da bi pilotski projekt, ki je bil razpisan leto poprej, stopil v redno financiranje. To je ena od možnih poti. Prepričan sem tudi, da bi morali biti danes tu prisotni ljudje z Ministrstva za visoko šolstvo, znanost in tehnologijo ter z Ministrstva za šolstvo. Leta 2005, ko smo ob neki drugi priložnosti sodelovali z Ministrstvom za promet in zveze in z Ministrstvom za visoko šolstvo, smo navkljub temu, da so projekt podprli (to je bil 5. trienale sodobne slovenske umetnosti v Moderni galeriji), ugotovili, da ni pravne možnosti za to, da nam namenjeno subvencijo podelijo. Takrat naj bi se Ministrstvo za kulturo in Ministrstvo za znanost in raziskave povezala in sklenila dogovor o medsebojnem sodelovanju med kulturnoumetniškimi in znanstvenimi projekti, ki popularizirajo znanost v družbi ter kulturo in umetnost na področju znanosti in tehnologije. Predlog dogovora, ki smo ga takrat pripravili, sedaj stoji že šest let in če bi bil dogovor med ministrstvoma izpeljan, bi bil lahko prvi korak k uresničitvi financiranja tovrstnih projektov. Vesel sem, da so se današnje Divje misli zgodile, saj sem prepričan, da je treba tovrstne dileme predstaviti javnosti in jih še intenzivneje razreševati, tudi na ravni formaliziranja teh povezav. Polona Tratnik: Jadran Lenarčič in Miomir Knežević, oba dobro poznata svet znanosti. Kakšne naj bi bile po vajinem mnenju možnosti za institucionalizacijo povezave med umetnostjo in znanostjo? Običajna pot, po kateri pride do povezave med umetnikom in znanstvenikom, je takšna, da je umetnik tisti, ki pristopi in ki, če ima srečo, naleti na znanstvenika, ki je dovolj odprt in pripravljen na sodelovanje. Potem pa se zaplete, saj imajo umetniki veliko volje in morda tudi časa, a pomanjkljivo znanje s področja znanosti. Na drugi strani pa so znanstveniki zaprti v svoje strukture dela, v programske in projektne okvire, in pravzaprav nimajo prav veliko časa niti prostora za kakšne druge posvetitve. Posledično se mora večina umetnikov, ki jih zanima sodelovanje z znanstveniki in ki so imeli srečo, da so spoznali takšne ljudi, ki so odprti za umetnost, sprijazniti z minimalno pomočjo znanstvenikov, saj jim ne uspe uresničiti kompleksnih sodelovalnih struktur. Poleg tega morajo vsako delo v laboratorijih odobriti pristojne osebe, nato so tu še finančne ovire, saj raziskave precej stanejo, pa pritiski podpornikov kulture po količinski produkciji projektov itn., skratka, cela vrsta težav, zaradi katerih je situacija zelo težka. Kakšne bi bile realne možnosti za urejeno obliko sodelovanja, kje bi bilo treba pričeti spreminjati sistem in kako? Jadran Lenarčič: Vesel sem, da danes v uri in pol še nisem slišal, da je Institut Jožefa Stefana kriv, da ni denarja, ker ga vsega poberemo. Naj poudarim, da smo znanstveniki v Sloveniji organizirani projektno. To pomeni, da iz proračuna ne dobimo nobenega denarja, temveč ga dobimo po projektu. Če se torej od nekod pojavi umetnik in predlaga delo na nečem drugem, mu lahko znanstvenik največkrat zgolj odgovori, da nima časa, ker mora delati na projektu. To je en vidik sodelovanja med znanstveniki in umetniki. Drugi pa je naslednji: če se znanstvenik odloči za sodelovanje z

5 8 R E FLE KTOR / R E FLECTO R

7 DEJAVNOSTI / 7 ENA / 7 KATERIH / 7 LE / 7 NAJ / 7 POVEZOVANJA / 7 RAZLIČNE / 7 ROBOTIKE / 7 TAKŠNE / 7 TEMU / 7 TI / 7 VENDAR / 7 VSE / 6 ČAS /

umetnikom, ne vedoč, kakšne rezultate lahko pričakuje, ga grabi panika. To pa zato, ker bo medtem njegov kolega v sosednji sobi na podlagi svojega raziskovanja izdal znanstveno publikacijo in bo na naslednjem razpisu za raziskovalne projekte dobil nov projekt, sam pa ga ne bo dobil. Na Jožefu Stefanu nas je sicer res zelo veliko, 930 zaposlenih, od tega 750 znanstvenikov, toda 500 od teh je zaposlenih za določen čas trajanja projekta. Če raziskovalec ne dobi naslednjega projekta, je na cesti. V takih okoliščinah pa si marsičesa ni mogoče privoščiti kar tako. Kljub temu sem mnenja, tudi na podlagi lastnih izkušenj, da obstajajo potencialno velike možnosti sodelovanja in da bi bilo smiselno, da bi bila Slovenija v tem smislu pogumnejša in razpisala kak resen projekt, kot na primer Pompidoujev center. Če tega ne bomo počeli, bomo ostali majhni in bo vsak zbiral denar le za svoj projekt, do velikih projektov pa na ta način ne bomo nikoli prišli. To je širši kulturni fenomen; mnenja sem, da sta obe, znanost in umetnost, del iste kulture, jaz tega ne ločujem. Polona Tratnik: Vendar Ministrstvo za kulturo ne podpira znanstveno-raziskovalne dejavnosti, Ministrstvo za visoko šolstvo, znanost in tehnologijo pa ne podpira umetniške dejavnosti. Jadran Lenarčič: Pustimo ministrstva. Če se ministri delijo, še ne pomeni, da smo tudi mi razdeljeni. Spet se malo hecam. Bojim pa se, da je res, da je sodelovanje pri tovrstnih interdisciplinarnih projektih skoraj nemogoče. Mi imamo sicer CRP-je (ciljne raziskovalne programe), prek katerih bi se dalo izpeljati kak projekt te vrste, toda za to je potrebna močna politična volja. Polona Tratnik: Naj omenim, da sem sama sicer dejavna na področju humanistike in trenutno delamo na projektih, pri katerih povezujemo humanistiko z biotehnologijo, biomedicino, biologijo in kineziologijo. Gre torej za interdisciplinarne povezave. Dejansko pa ugotavljamo, da so razpisi v veliki meri taki, da ne omogočajo vključitve umetnosti. Umetnost lahko v interdisciplinarne projekte vključujemo zgolj v funkciji diseminacije rezultatov, pri tem pa upamo na razumevajoče recenzente, za kar ni nobenega zagotovila, pa tudi ne formalne osnove za podporo takšne vrste interdisciplinarnosti ali celo transdisciplinarnosti. Miomir Knežević: Včasih je drugače vrteče se kolesje težko vzpostaviti in če se to poskuša napraviti na silo, se lahko vse skupaj razleti. Še enkrat pa poudarjam, da institucionaliziranje sprva pogosto prinese razočaranje, saj je ogromno energije vložene v to, da se dva pola magneta približata. Ko na osebni ravni obstaja interes, se možnost za sodelovanje najde in tako daje zgled tudi prihodnjim tovrstnim projektom. Težava pa je v tem, da je cena znanstvenih projektov ponavadi izjemno visoka, tako da je znanstvenike zgolj z nekim umetniškim ciljem težko motivirati za sodelovanje. Če pa umetniku ponudiš vpogled v znanstvene projekte, bo ta lahko v tem videl zanimive stvari, ki jih bo uporabil za lastno umetniško raziskavo. Na tak način smo delovali tudi mi oziroma še delujemo. Če bi sodelovanje izvajali po dekretu, pa bi zelo verjetno prihajalo do pomanjkanja motivacije na obeh straneh. Zato sam poudarjam pomembnost sodelovanja na osebni ravni. S takšnimi modeli je treba tudi mladim pokazati možnosti delovanja izven

ustaljenih okvirjev in spodbujati nadaljnje delo v tej smeri. Kot je omenil Jadran Lenarčič, so težave pri vzpostavljanju sodelovanja največkrat povezane z našo miselnostjo, vezano na majhne cilje. Tujina je pomemben zgled, tam naletimo na popolnoma drugačne modele razmišljanja. Konec koncev pa je pomembna institucija; ta je tista, ki zagotovi denar, opredmeti takšne raziskave na nacionalni ravni, komunicira z državljani itn. Polona Tratnik: Srečo Dragan, sami imate veliko izkušenj z univerzitetnim delovanjem. Kakšna pa je pokritost področja umetnost – znanost na univerzitetnem nivoju in kakšne so možnosti za to? Srečo Dragan: Po poslušanju kolegov bi lahko rekel takole: umetnost – znanost – magija. Tako nemogoče je to videti na prvi pogled. Sam mislim, da tehnoumetnost proizvaja tehno imaginacijo in da nujno sproža uspešna povezovanja. Znotraj univerze nam je uspelo vzpostaviti modul, v okviru katerega se povezujeta znanstvena misel in umetniški koncept. Študent akademije je iniciator projekta, vzpostavi se delovna skupina, ki se za projekt odloči na podlagi lastne afinitete. Ker gre za novomedijske interaktivne projekte, to poteka znotraj Laboratorija za računalniški vid na FRI (Fakulteta za računalništvo in informatiko). Te povezave so se izkazale za zelo uspešne, saj je vsako leto narejenih najmanj deset interaktivnih projektov. Čeprav na FRI tega predmeta nimajo in torej to institucionalno ni vzpostavljeno, pa imajo pogoje za modeliranje vizualnih komunikacij in delajo interaktivne module. Takšni projekti na univerzitetni ravni torej potekajo. Študente zelo zanima delo v skupinah sodelavcev, kjer so kompetence in odgovornosti zelo različne. Študenti, ki delajo novomedijske projekte, gradijo svoj način sodelovanja med avtorjem in producentom. V zadnjih desetih letih, kolikor to poteka, vse kaže na uspešen razvoj tovrstnih sodelovanj. Lahko pa bi se to naprej razvijalo v okviru univerzitetnih institucij. Ob združitvi vseh treh akademij bi radi ustanovili LIMAUL (Laboratorij inštituta za medijsko umetnost), ki je za zdaj še virtualen. Tehno imaginacija je tako po mojem mnenju zanimiva tako za umetnike kot za znanstvenike. Tudi pri znanstvenem delu je gotovo potreben vstop v polje, ki nima nobenega cilja, in to so seveda bazične raziskave. Vsekakor sem sam glede povezovanja umetnikov in znanstvenikov optimist; sistem povezovanja zelo dobro razvijamo. Polona Tratnik: Miomir Knežević, vi ste ena ključnih figur na področju raziskav matičnih celic v Sloveniji. Pred kratkim ste iz raziskovalne dejavnosti večinsko prešli v gospodarsko. Postali ste direktor Biobanke popkovnične krvi in s tem prestopili na področje gospodarstva. Je to slovenski, morda evropski, svetovni trend, torej upad temeljnih raziskav in porast aplikativnosti oz. usmerjenosti v neposredne ekonomske učinke? Se gospodarstvo in raziskovanje po vašem opažanju izključujeta? Miomir Knežević: Ne. Zase pač lahko rečem, da sem že prej precej nihal med različnimi disciplinami. Bil sem že direktor, nato sem nekaj časa učil v šoli, pa celo v vrtcu. Na nek način nisem dovolj vestno gradil kariere v klasičnem smislu, se pravi specializirano znotraj ene panoge. Po eni strani se mi zdi dobro sem in tja preiti

REFL EK TOR / R E F L EC TOR 59

6 CELO / 6 DANES / 6 DIREKTOR / 6 DRUGE / 6 GLEDE / 6 IMAMO / 6 IN / 6 JO / 6 KAJ / 6 LET / 6 MI / 6 MINISTRSTVO / 6 MNENJU / 6 MORDA / 6 NIMA /

na področje gospodarstva, saj na ta način vidiš še drugo plat znanosti, ki zna biti včasih zelo surova in prilagojena potrebam trga. Težko si je namreč privoščiti razvijanje izdelkov, ki jih nihče ne bo kupil. Po drugi strani pa primanjkuje podjetij, ki ne bi bila razvita v skladu s trenutnimi trendi, kar je zelo oportunistično in kot taka ne prispevajo nobene dodane vrednosti. Druga plat tega pa je, da se znanstvene oz. raziskovalne dosežke skuša pripeljati do tolikšne aplikativnosti, da jih je trg pripravljen sprejeti. Trg je zadnja verifikacija dobrega izdelka. Podobno je s projekti. Če tvojega projekta nihče noče kupiti, je z njim najverjetneje nekaj narobe. V podjetjih obstaja možnost, da deluješ globalno in nimaš omejitev, s katerimi se soočaš na primer pri delu v javnih zavodih, tako da se nekateri projekti lahko v tem smislu razvijejo precej daleč. Je pa seveda spet res, da ljudje ponavadi vidijo samo uspehe, ne pa tudi neuspehov. In neuspeh je v podjetništvu zelo trd. Kar več let gradiš, gre lahko hitro po zlu, podjetje gre v stečaj, ljudi, ki si jih prej vabil k sodelovanju, je treba odpuščati, to pa so boleče izkušnje. Pogosto se izkaže, da so ljudje v Sloveniji premalokrat pripravljeni vložiti osebno odgovornost in tvegati. To pa je ena ključnih dimenzij tega dela. Nekateri pravijo, da sam ne ravnam vselej racionalno, toda menim, da imam v podjetništvu precej več kreativne svobode in želim nekatere od svojih idej tudi realizirati. Polona Tratnik: In zopet povezati gospodarstvo z raziskovanjem. Miomir Knežević: Absolutno. Polona Tratnik: Ali je pri tem prostor tudi za umetnost? Miomir Knežević: Sam mislim, da vsekakor je. Delujem namreč na mejnem področju, mejnem zato, ker je močno povezano z etiko. Gre namreč za shranjevanje popkovnične krvi, s čimer smo v Sloveniji pravi fenomen. Javna debata o tem se ponavadi zelo napihuje bodisi v pozitivno bodisi v negativno smer, resnica pa je seveda nekje vmes. Ljudje so razcepljeni, napredka znanosti pogosto ne razumejo in lahko marsikdaj zavrnejo dobre ideje. Razlag skozi znanstveni diskurz seveda ne razumejo, če pa razlaga poteka na komercialni ravni, je pogost sklep ta, da hočeš imeti profit od tega. Umetnik pa je tu lahko neke vrste posrednik, saj prav na etičnem področju, ki je izredno občutljivo, osmišlja določene stvari. Pri komuniciranju z ljudmi je namreč treba biti zelo previden, še posebej, če so ti v posebnem hormonskem stanju, tako kot nosečnice. To predstavlja velik izziv in sam mislim, da ga lahko v sodelovanju z umetniki lažje izpeljemo. Polona Tratnik: Naj se za konec nekoliko pomudimo še pri vprašanju etike. Pri biotehnoloških raziskavah je treba za izvedbo projekta pridobiti priglasitev Nacionalne etične komisije. Države imajo etično presojo rešeno na različne načine, npr. v Srbiji se etična vprašanja rešujejo institucionalno (v okviru posamezne institucije), kakor so se pri nas pred časom, podobno npr. v Veliki Britaniji delujejo institucionalne etične komisije, ki tudi na področju humanistike sprejemajo ali zavračajo predloge raziskav, celo doktorskih disertacij. Ko gre za interdisciplinarne projekte, v katere je vključena tudi umetnost in ki vključujejo raziskave, ki odpirajo etična vprašanja, se področja po sili ločijo in znanstveno-

6 0 TEOR E TS KI B LOK / T HEO RY

raziskovalni del projekta se etično presodi po znanem postopku, glede umetniškega segmenta pa so zadeve manj jasne. Vprašanje etike v zvezi z umetnostjo je posebno. Tako pri našem projektu Lasje in vitro s soglasjem za biotehnološki del ni bilo težav, prišlo pa je do zadrege etične komisije glede umetniškega segmenta projekta. Jurij Krpan, kakšno je vaše stališče o etičnih vprašanjih in njihovi obravnavi v zvezi z umetnostjo? V Londonu je ena sama galerija dobila državno soglasje, torej dovoljenje za razstavljanje živih tkiv. Sami ste razmišljali o iniciativi za ustanovitev etične komisije za področje umetnosti. Jurij Krpan: V resnici je ta ideja prišla od Miomirja Kneževića. V sodelovanju z njim smo ugotovili, da znanstvenik lahko trči ob mejo legitimnosti in legalnosti, naprej pa ne more, in preseči to mejo je pri nas izreden problem. Prav ta meja, in morda tudi malo prek nje, pa je območje, kjer se ponavadi gibljemo umetniki. Zgodovina Galerije Kapelica nas uči, da smo lahko izpeljali veliko projektov, ki jih ne bi potrdila nobena etična komisija. V Sloveniji kultura etičnih komisij ni tako prezentna, kar je do neke mere prednost. Ko pa se poskušamo vzpostaviti kot enakovredni sogovorniki znanstvenikom, je treba vstopiti v dialog z neko moralo, ki je skupek splošnih družbenih dogovorov. Pri tem bi radi svoj del bremena odgovornosti prevzeli nase. Ne bom rekel, da projekti, ki smo jih izvedli doslej, niso bili odgovorno izvedeni, saj smo vedno poskrbeli za primerno mero strokovnega znanja in varnosti, kljub temu pa etične komisije za izvedbo naših projektov nismo konzultirali. V resnici bi lahko sami ustanovili etično komisijo, ki bi bila sestavljena iz predstavnikov religije, političnih strank, drugih strokovnjakov; seveda bi to morali biti ljudje, ki so o stvareh, o katerih se odločajo, primerno poučeni. To bi bila lahko prva stopnica, s katero bi pokazali družbeno odgovornost in zrelost za vstop v širši proces produkcije pomenjanja, vednosti, vrednot itn. Mnenje takšne etične komisije pa bi bilo lahko zelo dobro izhodišče za nacionalno komisijo za posamezna področja. Morda bi bilo znotraj te problematike zanimivo razmišljati o tem, na kakšen način sestaviti takšno komisijo. Polona Tratnik: Prišli smo do zanimive zaključne točke, ki je lahko vsem v razmislek in podlaga za nadaljnje delo. Jurij Krpan: Rad bi opozoril še na eno stvar v zvezi z našo strukturo izobraževanja. Mislim, da smo na ravni izobraževanja v tej državi zelo nenapredni in smo še daleč od ustanovitve kake Hochschule für Medienkunst, kot jo imajo na primer v Kölnu ali pa v Oslu na Fakulteti za arhitekturo. Na omenjenih institucijah sem tudi sam predaval in iz prve roke lahko povem, kako stvari izgledajo. To so resne institucije, ki imajo napredne katedre, opremo in so vpete v razvojne procese napredne družbe. Tudi na ta način, z ustanavljanjem podobnih šol, daje družba jasen signal prihajajočim generacijam. V to debato bi se morali vključiti tudi predstavniki šolstva. Tako imamo na primer tako fakulteto za glasbo kot fakulteto za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo, v Sloveniji pa ni enega oddelka, ki bi se ukvarjal z elektroakustično glasbo, s sodobno glasbo, z raziskovanjem zvoka na tak način, da o povezovanju med glasbo, gledališčem in vizualnimi praksami niti ne govorim. Tu bi bile po mojem mnenju potrebne bistvene spremembe.

6 OB / 6 PODROČJA / 6 POGOSTO / 6 POMENI / 6 POVEZOVANJE / 6 PREMIKAL / 6 PRI / 6 PROJEKTI / 6 SAMO / 6 SODELOVANJU / 6 SREČO / 6 TAK /

Miomir Knežević: Rad bi dodal še tole: smisel etičnih komisij ni cenzorska komisija, temveč podajanje kredibilnega mnenja in nudenje varnosti samemu umetniku, usmerjanje in svetovanje. Tudi v znanosti, če izhajamo iz medicinske etike, ta obstaja zato, ker se včasih v želji po znanstvenem napredku pozablja na nekatere druge vidike, ki zadevajo dostojanstvo in varnost človeka. Posvetovalna skupina ti lahko olajša tako delo kot življenje. Bog ne daj pa, da se gremo neke cenzorske zadeve, ker smo potem znova v srednjem veku. Polona Tratnik: S tem vprašanjem sem hotela biti tudi nekoliko izzivalna, saj se etična komisija na področju humanistike, kot kaže primer v Veliki Britaniji, preveša v cenzorsko komisijo. Vprašanje etične komisije je verjetno treba še temeljito premisliti, da se iniciativa, ki želi primarno omogočiti formalno ureditev kompleksnih povezav med umetnostjo in znanostjo, ki vključujejo raziskovalno delo v umetnosti in komuniciranje znanstvenih rezultatov v umetnosti, še posebej na čutne načine, ne sprevrže v svoje nasprotje. ..

Brida@3 × 10 17Hz

TEO RETS K I B LOK / T H EORY 6 1

ciety and culture and art You work primarily

the field

456 THE / 306 OF / 255 AND / 191 TO / 179 A / 176 IN / 158 THAT / 149 IS / 122 FOR / 94 THIS / 83 WE / 74 ARE / 71 I / 71 WITH / 69 WHICH / 66 WAS /

n in establishing links between art and

the world

... you both know

WILD THOUGHTS museums ART – SCIENCE – CULTURE

thematically; its purpose was to show

nology, the ecsite network of european

ayers, such us Ars Electronica, various

e sphere of business every now and then, for this enables you to see the other side

ted, for artists have a lot of will and perhaps a lot of time, too, but their knowledge

o which artists can apply - the call for projects that promote science and the night Above all, however, it is important that the artist can thus become an interpreter from too much specialisation in one’s own field, artists can see other possiblities

ople use their links to art as source of information about them, about the real possiblities

ientists collaborate with artists, for the latter have no mental limitations capable of those The predictions formulated in the artists’ wild thought and

science

e Metropolis, too, drew on robots at a time when robots did not exist yet in real life (this is

ROUND TABLE: 3 MARCH 2011, 5 P.M., How is the field THE MINISTRY OF CULTURE RS Today’s Wild Thoughts are dedicated to the question

POLONA TRATNIK, After hearing my colegues, I could say SREČO DRAGAN, JURIJ KRPAN, Does this decline in basic research and the intensification JADRAN LENARČIČ, MIOMIR KNEŽEVIĆ Anyhow, ever since we first experienced the achievements

out mutual collaborationbetween and scientific projects, which TRANSCRIBED cultural-artistic BY MONIKA VREČAR

rtant social function

establishing

field of classic creative media and for

ur opinion, what kind of options should there be for institutionalising

e subject is very topical and we wish to use it to point to the fact that

of applied promote

TRANSLATED BY POLONA PETEK

s for proposals in Slovenia to which artists can apply - the call for projects that

fact that the interest

art -

the

st the iniciative - which is primarlly meant to enble a formal organisation of the complex

links

nd which was organised thematically; its purpose was to show the world of science what

between

In Slovenia, Srečo Dragan is a name associated with the very beginning of forging

he EU commissariat for science and research drew up a three-year action plan, which included support for collaborations Mionir Knežević, we have been collaborating for eleven years and, in doing so, we exemplify collaboration This is a broader cultural phenomenon; I belive that Such a fusion is precisely where I see the union of

science

eement about mutual collaboration between cultural-artistic and scientific projects, which promote science in a broader society and culture

and

He also has numerious experiences in establishing links between biotechnology You were thinking about proposing an iniciative to establish an ethics committee for How is

the field

ommissionar for science and research, suggested, we organised exhibition three times a year, in which we presented artists that do this sort Jurij Krpan, in your lectures and texts, you describe the kind

... end results of their freedom is often far from useful, although, of course, we could now launch into a debate about the usefulness Every year at Ars Electronica, the festival Today’s Wild Thought are dedicated to the question What is your stance regarding ethical issues and their treatment

Živadinov::Zupančič::Turšič@3 × 10 17Hz

The question of ethics

in relation

ng, the majority of artists who are interested in collaborating with scientists adn who are lucky enough to have met the people who are open ... you like to stress that it is important for biotechnology and biomedicine that people use their links 6 2 R E FLE KTOR / R E FLECTO R

... your work primarily in the field of science; however, on several occasions, you strived to link science Why is robotics interesting

does not

technology

support artistic activities.

, the ecsite network of european museums of science.

63 NOT / 61 AS / 58 ART / 57 IT / 53 HAVE / 52 SCIENCE / 50 THEY / 44 ARTISTS / 44 CAN / 43 AT / 41 BE / 41 THE / 38 VERY / 37 PROJECTS / 37 YOU /

and the ministry for education and sport.

then decided to get together and conclude an agreement about mutual col

art

is relatively high, especially in our minds. ; it was a budget of 2.500.000 EUR. are both part of the same culture, I do not draw any distinctions between.

and

research

centre of Koper have pointed out that they have themselves conducted pioneering

, suggested, we organised exhibitions there three times a year, in which we prese

drew up a three-year action plan, which included support for collaborations betwe

as part of seventh framework programme at the department of science and societ

Phd degrees from the

faculty of electrical engeneering, the University of Ljubljana, where he now holds

biotechnical faculty, the University of Ljubljana, where he now works as a lecture

its link to the rest of the world. the night of science (noÄ? znanosti); the money available for these projects is scant and the wording of the calls for proposals is ... orientation towards immediate economic effects constitute a Slovenian, perhaps a European or even a global trend. well.

a tool for their work, whereas the scientists listened and left without saying a word, for they saw no reason to collaborate with the ...

in the is

ild Thoughts are monthly forums, organised by the Ministry of Culture in order to intervene publicly into the broader society and culture and art in the field of science and technology. space of cultural reflection. The topic we are going to tackle this isthem art â&#x20AC;&#x201C;is science â&#x20AC;&#x201C; culture (and their added valuelinks. in society). strong, the path leads towards them is thick with difficulties andtime one of certainly the institutionalisation of these establishment of the links between science and art?

rather poor.

The links between science, technologies and art transpire in many different ways, among which the most precious are preare very alive, localy and internationally, that art has recognised its important social function in establishing links ... cisely those in which artists and scientists collaborate on a was joint project that benefits makes it particulary distinct phenomenon; in 2008, as a curator of a part of the Ars Electronica festival, he ... all of them. There exist notorious exinvol amples of science fiction literature and cinema inspiring whole is strong, the path that leads t groups of scientists to shift the boundaries of everyday reality. On the other hand, scientists and technologists have given fusion, art- which we plu : creative ists new means of expression and technologies, with which should be artlike. ists thematise the phenomenology of the present, reach beyond ) and thus exert pressure to g cultural boundaries and create entirely new poetics.

and

art

science

, which

the field of science, and that this can be of interest to science as well.

links to it, the fact that art uses the tools of science and technology does not see

Significant research in connection to scientific and technologiit was The New Renessanse. cal work isentitled also conducted outside of industrial and academic whose investigations raise ethical questions, arescientists considered,and the fields are focib laboratories, where artists, who collaborate with and artisticcontinually dissemination of scientific results, particularly in senuous ways - sh technologists, develop original forms of interfaces, mixed-realities technologies, databases, envimaking of the new biotechnological science. ronments, etc. last five decades, especially art that is strongly related to n

the

field of science and technology.

Techno-culture inspires new modes of cognition and learning, Slovenia. which take place in galleries, museums, in the open air and in this? other informal spaces. Artists and scientists have direct access relatively high, especially in our minds. and interactive practo individuals and they use participatory tices distinct. to address audiences in a way that enables them to raise you support as research art. awareness and assume a position regarding the technologically enhanced world in which we live. Theas awareness of the techis strongly related to natural sciences well as humanities and social sciences nologies that make possible the acceleration of development is has recognised its important social function in establishing links between art and the field of science, and that t important for the public to assume a critical position regarding uses the tools of science and technology does not seem very significant to me, for this is ... the development that leads us into the future.

that

collaborate with science?

links up with science and vice versa? appear at the point where physical knowledge is transferred into practice? REFL EK TOR / R E F L EC TOR 6 3

35 S / 34 AN / 34 RESEARCH / 32 BETWEEN / 32 FROM / 32 IN / 31 SCIENTISTS / 31 WOULD / 30 HOWEVER / 30 WORK / 29 HE / 29 INTO / 29 SUCH /

Polona Tratnik:1 Today’s Wild Thoughts are dedicated to the question of art – science – culture (and their added value in society). The initiative for this debate has come from cultural circles. The subject is very topical and we wish to use it to point to the fact that the links between art, technology and science are very alive, locally and internationally, that art has recognised its important social function in establishing links between art and the field of science, and that this can be of interest to science as well. In Slovenia, the initiative for work in this area is very strong, and there are also some very active artists, artistic and artisticscientific groups; however, the institutional structures for carrying out such activities are still very inadequate. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to talk to such interesting guests. Let me introduce them: Professor Dr. Jadran Lenarčič, the Director of the Jožef Stefan Institute, received his Bachelor of Science, Master of Science and PhD degrees from the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, the University of Ljubljana, where he now holds a professorship. His name is closely linked with the Jožef Stefan Institute, where he has been working since 1979 and where he was elected to the title of Scientific Councillor in 2001. From 1985 to 1994, he was the Head of the Robotics Laboratory, then the Head of Automatics, Biocybernetics and Robotics (1994–2005), and since 2005, he has been the Director of this internationally exceptionally wellestablished research institute. He also lectures in Nova Gorica and Bologna as well as at some other foreign universities. Professor Srečo Dragan, a pioneer of video and new media, who received his Bachelor and Master’s degrees in Fine Arts, holds a professorship in video and new media at the Academy of Fine Arts and Design (ALUO), the University of Ljubljana. He is the originator of video art in Slovenia. As early as 1969, with Nuša Dragan, he made the very first video in the former Yugoslavia and he was a member of the expanded group OHO at the end of the 1960s. In 2007, he received the prestigious Rihard Jakopič Award for the introduction of new media into fine arts and for achievements in this area, and in 2006, on Jožef Stefan’s Day, he received an award for expanding the field of classic creative media and for establishing links between art and science. Jurij Krpan, the Artistic Director of the Kapelica Gallery, is one of the world’s most important curators, specialising in very contemporary artistic directions. He has curated international festivals; he runs the Cosinus Gallery in the European Commission building in Brussels, whose strategic position close to the European Com1

The event was moderated by Senior Lecturer Dr. Polona Tratnik, BA and MA (Fine Arts, UL ALU), PhD (Philosophy and Theory of Visual Culture, UP FHŠ). She is a Research Associate at UP ZRS, a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy of Culture at UP FHŠ, and the President of the Slovene Society of Aesthetics. She is the author of In Vitro: Live Beyond the Body and Art (In vitro. Živo onstran telesa in umetnosti, 2010), Transart. Culture and Art in Global Conditions (Transumetnost. Kultura in umetnost v globalnih pogojih, 2010) and The End of Art. Genealogy of Modern Discourse: from Hegel to Danto (Konec umetnosti. Genealogija modernega diskurza: od Hegla k Dantu, 2009). She is one of the world’s pioneers in bioart and has been working on establishing links between art and biotechnology since 2000; recently, she has been striving to connect philosophy to natural science and art.

6 4 R E FLE KTOR / R E FLECTO R

missioner for Science makes it a particularly distinct phenomenon; in 2008, as a curator of a part of the Ars Electronica festival, he introduced the artistic profile of the Kapelica Gallery, which is held in very high esteem by the expert circles around the world and which may well be the most important gallery in the world. It distinguishes itself with a very recognisable artistic credo and a top-notch production of very contemporary and research art. Senior lecturer Dr. Miomir Knežević received his Bachelor of Science, Master of Science and PhD degrees from the Biotechnical Faculty, the University of Ljubljana, where he now works as a lecturer. He is the CEO of Biobank for Umbilical Cord Blood (Biobanka popkovnične krvi). Until last year, he was a researcher at the Blood Transfusion Centre of Slovenia; from 2006 to 2010, he was the Head of the Unit for Collection and Processing of Haematopoietic Stem Cells. From the beginning in 1997 to 2003, he was employed in the company Educell, one of the first and leading Slovenian institutions for tissue engineering and cell therapy (which gained the status of Tissue Establishment in 2008 from the Agency for Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices of the Republic of Slovenia), and is therefore a pioneer in the field of stem cell research in Slovenia and worldwide. He also has numerous experiences in establishing links between biotechnology and art. I would like to start with the topic introduced by Dragan Živadinov and Miha Turšič, namely, the culturalisation of space.2 I should mention that none of our guests here are involved in space research; however, our collaborators from the Institute for Kinesiology Research at the Science and Research Centre of Koper have pointed out that they have themselves conducted pioneering research into micro gravitation, that is, research in simulated weightlessness or zero-gravity. Prof. Dr. Jadran Lenarčič, a few years ago, you hosted an event with a world-renowned guest, Gerd Hirzinger, a leading technological researcher in the field of robotics and mechatronics. From your perspective, what is the connection between space and surgery? Jadran Lenarčič: Hirzinger is the director of the world’s most important institute in the field of robotics. The first European robot, which went into space with NASA, came from his laboratory. On the basis of our analyses and studies, the robots manufactured there are also used in surgery. Lately, among other things, they have also been producing very small robots that can fly, take photos and make three-dimensional models of the most important palaces in Germany, so that a whole series of German architectural sights has already been digitalised. Polona Tratnik: Your areas of expertise, then, are biokinetics, robotics, the kinematics of robots. In your opinion, what are the great questions concerning the field of robotics and what can we 2

At the beginning of the discussion, Dragan Živadinov and Miha Turšič introduced KSEVT (Kulturno središče evropskih vesoljskih tehnologij/Cultural Centre of European Space Technologies), an example of linkage between art, technology and science, in which art is by no means subordinate to science, but rather plays a decisive role in planning the culturalisation of space. We are not presenting this part of the discussion here; Živadinov and his work will be presented in the next issue of Maska. (Ed.)

28 THERE / 28 THINGS / 26 DO / 26 ONE / 25 HAS / 24 LINKS / 24 NEW / 24 OUR / 24 OUT / 24 PROJECT / 24 THEIR / 23 ON / 23 OTHER / 22 THEM /

expect from it in the future? Jadran Lenarčič: The first robot was created by an artist, namely, Karel Čapek, in one of his plays. The movie Metropolis, too, drew on robots at a time when robots did not yet exist in real life (that is, in science). The first robots, which appeared in the 1960s, were industrial robots. When I started studying human movement in the late 1980s and at the beginning of the 1990s and tried to understand it from a robotic, mathematical point of view, there were even some world-renowned experts who told me that this was ridiculous, for what characterised robots was precisely that they were mechanical and that, therefore, their mechanical properties – rather than their abilities to imitate humans – needed to be developed further. Today, however, one of the main streams in robotics is precisely the so-called humanoid robotics, that is, robots imitating human movement. As for art and links to it, the fact that art uses the tools of science and technology does not seem very significant to me, for this is a matter of course. If today you asked a scientist or an engineer to make the best new robot in the world, they would first ask you what you would use this robot for, and then they would make a robot designed precisely for this purpose – with six requisite engines, for instance. An artist, on the other hand, would create a robot with three hundred engines. If, however, two people with entirely different experiences and worldviews enter into a joint project, something happens – something that I call fusion. When you combine two entirely different worlds and you force them to collide with one another, so to speak, fusion occurs, which causes an unbelievable explosion of energy, and new things open up, things that we could not have even dreamed of before. Such a fusion is precisely where I see the union of science and art. Polona Tratnik: Art, too, is interested in robotics. Every year at Ars Electronica, the festival of art, technology and society, we can see presentations of the latest achievements in robotics: in 2009, they introduced Geminoid, a robot that imitated its creator Hiroshi Ishiguro and was capable of very accomplished verbal communication; in 2010, they showed Asimo, Honda’s very skilled and flexible robot. Some top artists, such as Stelarc, are exploring robotics and incorporating it into their work; Kevin Warwick, for instance, is turning himself into a cyborg; in Slovenia, too, robotics is well represented in art: Stefan Doepner, Borut Savski, Sašo Sedlaček, Nika Oblak and Primož Novak. Jurij Krpan, why is robotics interesting to art? Jurij Krpan: I do not know why it is of interest to any of the mentioned artists in particular; however, artists in general have always wanted to breathe life into their creations. Whenever they got the opportunity to express themselves in complex materials, that is, whenever certain types of knowledge became more easily accessible, they immediately seized the opportunity. The myth of Pygmalion is still at work today. It does not spring solely from within artistic creativity; rather, artists with their creative sensitivity respond to the changes in a society submerged in automata, machines, a wide range of interfaces and prosthetics, which enable their users to be faster, louder, more mobile, etc. Yet, despite

“I

f today you asked a scientist or an engineer to make the best new robot in the world, they would first ask you what you would use this robot for, and then they would make a robot designed precisely for this purpose – with six requisite engines, for instance. An artist, on the other hand, would create a robot with three hundred engines. If, however, two people with entirely different experiences and worldviews enter into a joint project, something happens – something that I call fusion. When you combine two entirely different worlds and you force them to collide with one another, so to speak, fusion occurs, which causes an unbelievable explosion of energy, and new things open up, things that we could not have even dreamed of before. Such a fusion is precisely where I see the union of science and art.” REFL EK TOR / R E F L EC TOR 6 5

21 POLONA / 21 TRATNIK / 20 BEEN / 20 BY / 20 ROBOT / 20 SLOVENIA / 20 WERE / 19 ABOUT / 19 EVEN / 19 FIELD / 18 ALSO / 18 DIFFERENT / 18 OR /

“W

ith their creative sensitivity, artists respond to the changes in a society submerged in automata, machines, a wide range of interfaces and prosthetics, which enable their users to be faster, louder, more mobile, etc. Yet, despite this, we are often at a loss when faced with questions such as: To what extent does technology enable us? At what point does it become disabling? Or, when do we use technology and when does it start using us? Further questions arise here, and artists thematise, problematise and explore them in ways that exceed pure fascination with or fetishisation of technology.”

this, we are often at a loss when faced with questions such as: To what extent does technology enable us? At what point does it become disabling? Or, when do we use technology and when does it start using us? Further questions arise here, and artists thematise, problematise and explore them in ways that exceed pure fascination with or fetishisation of technology. Recently, I have come across a text by a Japanese scientist (Naho Kitano),3 whose Italian colleagues reproached him for the difficulties they had when trying to discuss robotics with the Japanese, namely, the difficulties arising from the absence of an elaborate ethical stance as regards robotics as such among the Japanese. In the text, which he published soon after this debate, Naho Kitano explores precisely this problem and he ascertains that, in the West, robotics has always been understood as something that displaces human activity. And this other, which has appeared all of a sudden in this shape, produces so much anxiety that the acceptance of robotics is not a matter of course. On the other hand, the scientist claims that the Japanese have a different historical and cultural background, for, ever since their Shintoist novels, it has been clear that they believe that every object has its own spirit. A robot is thus a conglomerate of parts that, in themselves, already have spirits. Furthermore, Naho Kitano reports that their ministry has launched a programme that includes humanoid robots designed to nurse elderly people; the latter perceive them as selfevident, not as something alien. What I want to emphasise here is the importance of the type of cultural environment into which we wish to introduce certain technology. What is essential here is the type of relationship between experts and scientists, who introduce functional interfaces and machines, and people in general, who become aware of how and why they need this technology. This awareness is important and it is a cultural issue. Polona Tratnik: In Slovenia, Srečo Dragan is a name associated with the very beginning of forging links between art and science. You were the initiator of collaboration between artists and scientists in the field of robotics, and you started collaborating with the Jožef Stefan Institute very early on. How can art collaborate with science? Srečo Dragan: Let me emphasise the importance of the context and the time in which things take place, for they can never be understood in isolation. The 1990s are only a continuation of the early 20th century avant-garde movements and of the neo-avantgardes of the 1960s. In the 1990s, the time was ripe for techno-art, which produces techno-imagination and inspires research that would enable humans to step out of reality and into virtual reality. In 1993, Virilio wrote that the world was occupied with virtual reality, that this was a time of great changes. Ideas appeared about the possibility of transferring human movement into an augmented reality and into virtual reality. Such was, for instance, the robot project (for the most part, the robot was simply moving the camera), when on the occasion of the exhibition of Plečnik’s 3

6 6 R E FLE KTOR / R E FLECTO R

Naho Kitano, “Roboethics – a comparative analysis of social acceptance of robots between the West and Japan”. http://www.roboethics.org/atelier2006/docs/Kitano%20west%20japan-pdf.

18 SCIENCE / 18 SCIENTIFIC / 18 THESE / 18 THIS / 17 COLLABORATION / 17 COULD / 17 ETHICS / 17 WHAT / 16 ALL / 16 PEOPLE / 16 ROBOTICS / 16 SCIENTIST /

architecture for a new democracy in Prague, we put a robot on the Three Bridges (Tromostovje) in Ljubljana, and the viewers were able to direct it, via the Internet, in different directions along the urbanistic grid of Ljubljana. As regards the latter, we know that, according to Plečnik, it is triangular and not expansionistically square, and as such, it represents some kind of a spiritual structure of Ljubljana. If people directed the robot towards Čopova street, for instance, this direction pointed towards Tivoli, where Plečnik’s never-built parliament building was initially meant to be located. The other side was directed towards Žale, etc. The viewer, then, was able to move towards all these points. We had an agreement with the Prague university that the project would be carried out simultaneously in Prague and in Ljubljana; however, eventually, only the Slovenian part was carried out due to the disapproval of the Prague presidential protocol. The second part of the project was a computer animation, which showed Plečnik’s parliament building as a three-dimensional space, within which one was able to move by means of a robot. It was only with U3, whose selector was Peter Weibel, that we were able to make the robot move in the gallery space, along the grid that represented the grid of Ljubljana, and thus transpose the panorama of Ljubljana into virtual reality. This, however, was not exactly simple at the time, for we had to convince the scientists that a project like this actually fitted into the context of basic research. As soon as the Jožef Stefan Institute was able to use a radio connection to move the robot and then send the image, recorded by a camera, via the Internet back to a certain point, the link polis–mediapolis–metropolis was established. The last shift in this story relates to the topic of the humanoid robot, which was already extremely popular at the time. We developed a computer-operated platform, which made it possible to enter different realities. The exhibition Time is Out of Joint at the Museum of Modern Art (Moderna galerija) involved a robot, which moved like a visitor from one point to another, to some conceptual tables; what was important in all this, however, was the fact that one could move the robot to specific points in the gallery by means of the Internet. In other words, this was a process and a research project, in which the object of investigation at the Jožef Stefan Institute overlapped with the Rhine in Bonn, where they had been conducting research into similar things; in America, this was the Minerva, whereas our robot was named Leonardo. This was not applied research; the aim of each investigation was set within its own boundaries. The software part was carried out entirely by the collaborators from the institute, we were also working together with Borut Rihavec from the Computer Vision Lab, and I had to secure 10,000 German marks for the realisation of the project. Polona Tratnik: Jurij Krpan, you often propose initiatives for establishing links between science and art. Why is it important that art links up with science and vice versa? Jurij Krpan: This need is not new, nor is it flour from my mill. As early as 1959, scientist Charles P. Snow wrote a book called The

Two Cultures, and in 1963, he published an essay, in which he introduced the notion of “the third culture”. He ascertained that there existed a greater gulf between scientists and artists than ever before. He proposed several ways of establishing links between scientists and artists, and concluded his thoughts with the phrase “the third culture”. Later on, new texts appeared proposing the fourth culture, the fifth culture, etc. This is why this phrase, unfortunately, is not so popular as we might wish, for it has been abused much too often. Anyhow, ever since we first experienced the achievements of applied science, which have so radically changed our lives, we have not been able to avoid expert, theoretical interpretations, which give us a better understanding. And artists would not be artists if they did not, all by themselves, dig into the problem, the material, the machines, take them apart and thus determine their function and purpose. In Slovenia, if we consider things locally, artists who problematised banal, commonplace objects, such as a keyboard, appeared very early. The keyboard is an invention of the 16th century, an utterly primitive one, for it limits our expression; yet, it is very useful. In the 1990s, Marcel-li Antunez Roca created an installation, an environment that was operated in a wireless mode, with movement and gestures, yet, without touching a physical interface. Thus, a bodily language developed that we had not encountered before. Similar things are happening today with mobile telephony and all other wireless devices that we use while we move and choreograph our life in a completely new way. With the new touchscreen mobiles, too, the keyboard is gradually dying out; the contact with the device, with the interface, is becoming increasingly intuitive. The predictions formulated in the artists’ wild thoughts and in science fiction are becoming more and more feasible. Computers that we would wear on our bodies, biosymbiotic clothes that would help us regulate our vital functions, all this is already happening, as it were; however, what we have not done as yet is establish a relation to these innovations; or rather, we have an a priori relation to certain things, which fosters stupidity, lack of interest, generalisations, and it can even be dangerous. Polona Tratnik: Jadran Lenarčič, you work primarily in the field of science; however, on several occasions, you strived to link science to art. What are the interests of science in the establishment of links between science and art? Can art appear at the point where physical knowledge is transferred into practice? Jadran Lenarčič: Today’s debate points precisely to that which I emphasised at the beginning. On the one hand, there is the artist who thematises and, to some extent, problematises new technologies, new kinds of knowledge; on the other hand, there are scientists who produce these new kinds of knowledge and we do not see this as anything special, at least not in the way that artists do. About four years ago, I organised a conference at the Jožef Stefan Institute; its topic was science – art and it was entitled The New Renaissance. I admit, I was pretty disappointed after the conference, for somehow I expected that we would be able, together with the ministry, to bring together eighty top-level Slovenian artists and scientists and that, once we started discussing these issues, this would set off a spark of interdisciplinary collaboration. As it

REFL EK TOR / R E F L EC TOR 67

15 ARTISTIC / 15 HAD / 15 SO / 15 THEN / 15 TOO / 14 COURSE / 14 IF / 14 MORE / 14 MY / 14 TIME / 13 DOES / 13 FACT / 13 HIS / 13 IMPORTANT / 13 LENARČIČ /

happened, it all seemed more like a matchstick whose fire went out very quickly. Namely, the artists understood science as a tool for their work, whereas the scientists listened and left without saying a word, for they saw no reason to collaborate with the artists. My view, however, which I defended back then and which I would like to lay out once again, stems from the perspective of creativity. In my opinion, a new idea does not develop within a human being; rather, it emerges at the boundary between his/her cognition and the environment. The in-between space, as mathematicians would say, is badly conditioned, which means that even a tiny change causes huge explosions. The more you enter the interior, the better conditioned it is, that is, it is less sensitive and nothing happens. If you only collaborate with like-minded people, it is difficult for you to cross over into the unknown. This crossover happens when you encounter two different ideas. And these two ideas must collide. Of course, here, we also need to take into account social, psychological and other aspects. What is crucial here, however, is the fact that the collision of two ideas produces not one, but ten new ideas. This is the basic process of creativity and humans are only creative in this manner. Back then, with the title The New Renaissance, I imagined a new fluidity, which would emerge if Slovenians recreated the sphere of collaboration between scientists and artists and brought about the so-called fusion. When I spoke about this in a lecture in Austria, they dubbed this fusion Lenarčič’s cube. I said that creativity is the volume of a pool, in which every dimension is crucial to the creative process. First, one needs to have a lot of knowledge; second, the diversity of knowledge is key; and the third dimension is culture. If the culture of an environment is too low, the volume of this pool, of course, is null. By this I mean that scientists certainly do not see artists as tools; if scientists tried to establish work groups with artists and pursue a set goal in a joint project, we could get completely new results. And this is the greatest value of these links, which can make sense to scientists, too. Polona Tratnik: Miomir Kneževič, we have been collaborating for eleven years and, in doing so, we exemplify collaboration between art and science. Why, in your opinion, is it important for science, too, to forge links with art? Perhaps you could explain this specifically with regard to biotechnology, tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Miomir Knežević: I can answer this question very quickly: this has to do with the person as such. Namely, I like collaborating with you, which is why many good things can come out of this. We can teach each other stuff and something new can come of it, which is what Jadran Lenarčič was talking about just now. I agree that the barrier between science and art is relatively high, especially in our minds. It is interesting that the artists have come to this meeting with notes, whereas the two of us scientists have come without them. Perhaps this means that we expect that things would no longer be so precise, tangible and quantifiable. I often notice in my colleagues, students and even myself that we feel safe if we are surrounded by things that can be measured and evaluated, that is, things that are familiar to us in this sense. If this is not the case, we can deny it or we can try giving things a use value of some sort. Sometimes, in our

6 8 R E FLE KTOR / R E FLECTO R

investigations, we veer off course and explore things that nobody really needs. But I emphasise that things that appear useless at first sight can enable a mental breakthrough, which takes research to an entirely different level. Such breakthroughs can happen when scientists collaborate with artists, for the latter have no mental limitations comparable to those in science; artists think freely. The end result of their freedom is often far from useful, although, of course, we could now launch into a debate about the usefulness of art. In any case, such an element inspires creativity, which enables easier and better work. In science, we must break free from too much specialisation in one’s own field; artists can see other possibilities of science and technology. An artist can shed completely new light on something that a scientist does not consider anything special; this can inspire the scientist to start thinking differently about his/her work; it can reshape established concepts. While I was still working at the Blood Transfusion Centre of Slovenia, my collaborative projects with Polona Tratnik were almost looked upon with suspicion, for my colleagues thought that there was no space for art in the making of new science. Later on, when these projects were well under way and I was discussing them with my co-workers, they even started viewing their own work in a different light. Jadran Lenarčič spoke earlier about similar experiences: he wanted to bring together scientists and artists, because he felt that this would benefit both, but they did not seem to feel the same. This is why it is even more important to have more meetings of this kind and to encourage as many interdisciplinary pilot projects as possible. On the basis of such experiments, interesting things can emerge and they can develop into serious projects. Above all, however, it is important that the artist can thus become an interpreter of science and its link to the rest of the world. For, in his/her enthusiasm, the scientist sometimes forgets that some things can be misused. S/he has to find the proper place for his/her activity. I have learnt a lot from Polona Tratnik; this experience has made me see my work differently and I hang around different people, I read different magazines; to me, this constitutes personal wealth. Polona Tratnik: Miomir Knežević, you like to stress that it is important for biotechnology and biomedicine that people use their links to art as a source of information about them, about the real possibilities in science. Perhaps this also prevents them from falling prey to fear or excessive enthusiasm, that is, to emotions that can be harmful. Miomir Knežević: The field in which I work can sometimes create a lot of ethical dilemmas, because it induces social change, albeit indirectly. Such is, for instance, the issue of cloning or the issue of embryonic stem cells… To a scientist, this is all merely technique and often the thought that other people might view this differently does not even enter our minds. Some things simply do not appear controversial to a scientist – say, a woman taking her own ovum, fertilising it with her own somatic cell and giving birth to herself. Theoretically speaking, of course. I believe we must promote discussions about why such things are problematic. When it comes to realisation, there are numerous options that a scientist finds interesting, but they can have serious repercussions. Since artists see these things differently, they can introduce reservations

13 LIKE / 13 MIOMIR / 13 OWN / 13 SHOULD / 13 US / 13 WHO / 12 FIRST / 12 IF / 12 ITS / 12 JADRAN / 12 KIND / 12 KNEŽEVIĆ / 12 PROPOSALS / 12 SOME /

into scientific discourse, while they also enable scientists to see things differently. Polona Tratnik: Despite the fact that the interest in establishing links between art and science is strong, the path that leads towards them is thick with difficulties and one of them is certainly the institutionalisation of these links. Jurij Krpan, in your lectures and texts, you describe the kind of art that you support as research art. In Slovenia, we have ARRS, the Slovenian Research Agency, which performs professional, development and executive tasks related to the National Research and Development Programme within the frame of the valid budget memorandum and the state budget, as well as other tasks that promote research activities consistent with the agency’s purpose. In the field of research activities, is there space for research art? Is the state system, or rather, the European system, structurally attuned to the changes undergone by art in the last five decades, especially art that is strongly related to natural sciences as well as the humanities and social sciences? Let me add that you were one of the initiators of a huge call for proposals with the European Commission for projects linking art and science, which was announced last year and which, in spite of its complexity and exacting criteria, received a very large number of applications from artistic-research groups, which surprised the people in the European Commission. What are the institutional chances of such practices being carried out in the future? Jurij Krpan: It must be emphasised that we strive for collaboration and not for instrumentalisation of one or the other. Our initiative was a spin-off of sorts, starting at the Kapelica Gallery and going straight into the building of the European Commissariat in Brussels. As Janez Potočnik, then the Commissioner for Science and Research, suggested, we organised exhibitions there three times a year, in which we presented artists that do this sort of art. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Culture assisted us in this endeavour. While this was a very exotic initiative, we managed to shift a great many things relatively quickly. The shift happened in just three years. This was not just about the exhibitions; rather, several steps were crucial. One of them was the booklet entitled Art and Science: Creative Fusion, which we published together with the directorate and which was organised thematically; its purpose was to show the world of science what links between art and science should be like. I also collaborated in a few workshops organised by the directorate. One of them took place in the department of materials; its topic was communication of nanoscience, that is, the science of nanotechnology. We immediately came into conflict there, for they were showing beautiful renderings of the dynamics of various atoms, whereas I kept nagging them that we need to forge links, open new laboratories, search for possible connections, etc. And now we have reached the purely practical level. We were unable to institutionalise our experiments in a way that SymbioticA in Australia has done; they now have their own studio at the faculty of medicine. Our artists, however, found access to scientists on their own and in various ways, and they started collaborating with them, creating so-called mini consortia, which we at the Kapelica Gallery facilitated as

“I

f you only collaborate with like-minded people, it is difficult for you to cross over into the unknown. This cross-over happens when you encounter two different ideas. And these two ideas must collide. Of course, here, we also need to take into account social, psychological and other aspects. What is crucial here, however, is the fact that the collision of two ideas produces not one, but ten new ideas. This is the basic process of creativity and humans are only creative in this manner.”

REFL EK TOR / R E F L EC TOR 6 9

12 WHEN / 11 AND / 11 NO / 11 ONLY / 11 PART / 11 SPACE / 11 TECHNOLOGY / 11 WAY / 11 WHERE / 11 WORLD / 10 COLLABORATE / 10 ESTABLISH / 10 EUROPEAN /

“W

ithin the university, we have managed to establish a module that brings together scientific thinking and artistic concepts. A project is initiated by a student of the academy and then a work group is established, which decides to carry out the project because of their own affinity to it. Since these are interactive new media projects, they are carried out in the Computer Vision Lab at the Faculty of Computer and Information Science. These connections have proven very successful; every year, at least ten different interactive projects are completed.”

70 R E FLE KTOR / R E FLECTO R

much as possible. Yet, because of our financial “undernourishment”, we continually found ourselves in the role of “scroungers”, merely stealing time and money from scientists who do not have enough time or money to begin with. The trouble, then, is the fact that, every time you enter a consortium, you do not enter as an equal partner, but rather as a scrounger. Eventually, of course, this affects the project; nobody has the time to ask important questions, such as those concerning the already mentioned ethical dimensions. On Janez Potočnik’s initiative, the EU Commissariat for Science and Research drew up a three-year action plan, which included support for collaborations between art and science. In Slovenia, such recommendations and options are still lacking; namely, if a consortium of artists and scientists were to be established, artists would not be able to join as equal partners, for they do not have the scientific qualifications and education inevitably required by those who write calls for proposals. There are examples of successful applications in which artists are concealed despite the fact that they play a crucial role in those consortia. There are only two relevant calls for proposals in Slovenia to which artists can apply – the call for projects that promote science and the Night of Science (Noč znanosti); the money available for these projects is scant and the wording of the calls for proposals is so limiting that it prevents artists from developing serious projects. The recommendation of the European Commission was to find a way for purposive financing, which would be proportionate to the financing of scientific projects. For the budget for cultural projects, compared to the one for scientific ventures, is insignificant. Last year’s call for proposals, which was issued on the initiative of the action plan of the EU Directorate for Science and Research as part of the Seventh Framework Programme at the Department of Science and Society, also included a budget for projects that entail establishing links between science and art; it was a budget of €2,500,000.00. At first sight, this was a nice sum; however, this was a one-off, pilot project. And it also turned out that the writers of the call for proposals themselves did not have a clear idea of what kind of projects they were actually calling for; the megalomaniacal requirements included ten different partners from ten different countries for each three-year project; given this, the budget was obviously inadequate. It turned out that the call for proposals was written for the big players on the scene; the subsequent surprise, utterly patronising, about the fact that the Kapelica Gallery did not turn in an application was of course totally out of place; when we wanted to establish a consortium with serious players, they teamed up with even bigger players, such as Ars Electronica, various museums of science and technology, the ECSITE network of European museums of science, etc. Irrespective of that, only two consortia got financed while there were forty applications, and if every consortium had only ten partners, this means that there were four hundred applicants. When this year in Brussels the ECSITE network invited us to collaborate with them, I asked them how on earth they even found the Kapelica Gallery. They said that our name had been mentioned on several occasions, but above all, they were told, unofficially, that the pilot call for proposals had been met with extraordinary response, that there was a lot of interest in collaborations between artists and scientists, and that the way for such collaborations should be cleared. The Com-

10 INSTITUTE / 10 JURIJ / 10 KRPAN / 10 LEVEL / 10 LOT / 10 MAKE / 10 ME / 10 MINISTRY / 10 OFTEN / 10 RATHER / 10 ROBOTS / 10 SEE / 10 STEFAN /

mission suggested to the Director of ECSITE to include collaborations with artists in their applications to various calls for proposals (regardless of the fact that these calls do not concern art and science) and thus exert pressure to get regular financing for last year’s pilot project. This is one option. I also believe that our discussion today should include people from the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Education and Sport. On a different occasion in 2005, we collaborated with the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology; despite the fact that they had endorsed our project (the fifth triennial of contemporary Slovenian art at the Museum of Modern Art), we found out that there was no legal possibility for us to get the subsidy that had been earmarked for us. The Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology then decided to get together and conclude an agreement about mutual collaboration between cultural-artistic and scientific projects, which promote science in the broader society and culture and art in the field of science and technology. The proposed agreement, which we prepared then, has been at a standstill for six years; however, if the two ministries concluded the agreement, this could be the first step towards financing such projects. I am glad that today’s Wild Thoughts are taking place, for I am certain that the public needs to be informed about such dilemmas and that these dilemmas need to be tackled even more vigorously, and also at the level of formalising these links. Polona Tratnik: Jadran Lenarčič and Miomir Knežević, you both know the world of science very well. In your opinion, what kind of options should there be for institutionalising the links between art and science? The usual path that brings artists and scientists together has the artist approach the scientist; if s/he is lucky, the scientist is sufficiently open-minded and willing to collaborate. Then, however, things get complicated, for artists have a lot of will and perhaps a lot of time, too, but their knowledge of science is rather poor. On the other hand, scientists are caught in their work structures, in programme and project frameworks, and they usually do not have much time or space for any other commitments. Accordingly, the majority of artists who are interested in collaborating with scientists and who are lucky enough to have met the people who are open to art must reconcile themselves to getting minimal assistance from the scientists, for they are unable to produce complex structures of collaboration. Furthermore, all lab work must be authorised; there are also financial limitations, for this kind of research is rather costly; the supporters of culture demand more and more productions, etc., etc. In short, a whole series of problems makes the situation very difficult. What are the realistic possibilities for a settled form of collaboration, where should we start changing the system and how? Jadran Lenarčič: I am very glad that, as yet, no one at this round table has suggested that the Jožef Stefan Institute is to blame for the lack of money, that the institute gets all available funding. Let me emphasise that Slovenian scientists are organised through projects. This means that we do not get any money from the budget; funding is allocated to projects. If an artist turns up and suggests working together on something else, the scientist

is usually forced to reply that s/he has no time, for s/he needs to work on a project. This is one aspect of collaboration between artists and scientists. The other aspect could be articulated as follows: if a scientist decides to collaborate with an artist without knowing what kind of results s/he may expect, s/he is likely to panic. The reason for this panic is the fact that, in the meantime, his/her colleague next door will publish a scientific monograph based on his/her research and thus win a new project at the next call for proposals, whereas our scientist will not. Indeed, the Jožef Stefan Institute has a lot of employees, 930 to be precise, 750 of which are scientists; however, five hundred of them are employed on contracts that expire at the end of their projects. If a researcher does not get another project, they are out of work. In such circumstances, one cannot afford being reckless. Despite this, I believe, also on the basis of my own experiences, that there are potentially huge possibilities for collaboration and that, reasonably, Slovenia should show more courage in this sense and issue a call for a serious project, such as the Centre Pompidou. If we do not do this, we will remain small and everybody will keep collecting resources for their own projects, while we will never even get to bigger projects. This is a broader cultural phenomenon; I believe that science and art are both part of the same culture, I do not draw any distinctions here. Polona Tratnik: Yet, the Ministry of Culture does not support scientific research activities, whereas the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology does not support artistic activities. Jadran Lenarčič: Let’s leave the ministries aside. The ministers may be divided, but this does not necessarily mean that we are divided, too. I am joking again, a little. I am afraid, though, that participation in such interdisciplinary projects is all but impossible. We do have CRPs (ciljni raziskovalni programi/target research programmes) that could enable the realisation of such projects; however, this would require strong political will. Polona Tratnik: Let me mention that I work in the field of the humanities and that we are currently involved in projects in which we link the humanities to biotechnology, biomedicine, biology and kinesiology. In short, these projects involve interdisciplinary links. However, we have come to the conclusion that calls for proposals usually do not allow art to be part of the projects. Art can be included in interdisciplinary projects only as a means of disseminating the results, and, even so, one needs favourable reviewers, which is hardly a matter of course, and there is no formal basis to support this kind of interdisciplinarity or even transdisciplinarity. Miomir Knežević: Sometimes it is difficult to establish an apparatus whose wheels are turning differently, and if you try to do it by force, it can all fall apart. However, I must emphasise again that institutionalisation, initially, often brings disappointment, for a lot of energy is invested into bringing together the two poles of the magnet. Where there is interest at a personal level, you find a way to collaborate and this sets a good example for future projects of this kind. The trouble, however, is that the price of scientific projects is usually extremely high, which is why it is difficult to

REFL E K TOR / R E F L EC TOR 7 1

10 TOGETHER / 10 TWO / 10 WELL / 10 YEAR / 9 ARTIST / 9 BELIEVE / 9 BUT / 9 CALL / 9 CULTURE / 9 ENTER / 9 ESTABLISHING / 9 ETC / 9 ETHICAL /

persuade scientists to collaborate with you if artistic objectives are all you have got. If, however, you offer an artist an insight into scientific projects, s/he may see interesting things in them and s/he will use them in his/her own artistic research. This is the way we have worked thus far. If collaboration had been carried out by decree, however, we would have probably run out of motivation on both sides. This is why I stress the importance of collaboration at a personal level. And we should use such models to show younger generations how it is possible to work outside of established frameworks and we should encourage further work in this direction. As Jadran Lenarčič has mentioned, the difficulties accompanying the establishment of collaboration are usually related to our small-mindedness. Important examples to follow are found abroad; there, we can find utterly different models of thinking. In the end, however, institutions matter; they secure money, they render such research tangible at a national level, they communicate with the citizens, etc. Polona Tratnik: Srečo Dragan, you have a lot of experience with work within the university. How is the field of art – science dealt with at the university level and what kind of options are there for work in this area? Srečo Dragan: After hearing my colleagues, I could say: art – science – magic. It seems so impossible at first sight. For my part, I believe that techno-art produces techno-imagination and that it necessarily leads to successful linkages. Within the university, we have managed to establish a module that brings together scientific thinking and artistic concepts. A project is initiated by a student of the academy and then a work group is established, which decides to carry out the project because of their own affinity to it. Since these are interactive new media projects, they are carried out in the Computer Vision Lab at the Faculty of Computer and Information Science. These connections have proven very successful; every year, at least ten different interactive projects are completed. The Faculty of Computer and Information Science does not offer this subject, so this collaboration is not institutionalised; however, they do have the conditions for modelling visual communication and they do carry out interactive modules. At the university level, then, such projects do exist. Students are very interested in team work with participants having different competences and responsibilities. The students involved in new media projects construct their own kind of collaboration between the author and the producer. Over the past ten years, which is how long these projects have existed, everything points to a successful development of such collaborations. And they could be developed even further within the frame of university institutions. Following the integration of all three academies, we would like to establish LIMAUL (the Laboratory of the Institute for Media Art), which, for now, exists only virtually. In my opinion, techno-imagination is interesting for artists as well as scientists. Surely, scientific work, too, requires entering a purposeless field; this, of course, constitutes basic research. I am an optimist as regards linkages between artists and scientists; we are doing good work developing the system of linkages.

72 R E FLE KTOR / R E FLECTO R

Polona Tratnik: Miomir Knežević, you are one of the key figures in the field of stem cell research in Slovenia. Recently, you have made a major transition from research to business activities. You have become the CEO of Biobank for Umbilical Cord Blood and thus entered the sphere of business. Does this decline in basic research and the intensification of applied science and orientation towards immediate economic effects constitute a Slovenian, perhaps a European or even a global trend? In your opinion, are business and research mutually exclusive? Miomir Knežević: No. I can say for myself that I have always oscillated between different disciplines. I had been a CEO before, then I was a teacher at school, I even worked at a kindergarten. I could say that I have never been very conscientious about developing my career in a classical way, that is, by specialising in a single branch. On the one hand, I think it is good to enter the sphere of business every now and then, for this enables you to see the other side of science, which can be very brutal and marketdriven. Namely, it is difficult to afford developing products that no one would buy. On the other hand, there are not many business companies that are not organised in a way that is consistent with current trends, which is very opportunistic; as such, business companies contribute no added value. A corollary of this are the attempts to make scientific and research achievements applicable enough for the market to accept them. The market is the ultimate verification of a good product. Projects are similar in this sense. If nobody wants to buy your project, there is probably something wrong with it. Business companies have the option to operate globally and without limitations confronted by those who work in public institutions; as a result, some projects can go quite far in this respect. It is also true, however, that people usually notice only success stories, not failures. And failure in business is very harsh. What you have been building for several years can go to rack and ruin very quickly, the company goes bankrupt, the people whom you had previously invited to collaborate with you must be sacked – these are painful experiences. It often turns out that people in Slovenia are not prepared to take personal responsibility and take risks. But this is a key dimension of this kind of work. Some people say that I do not always act rationally; however, I believe that business gives me much more creative freedom and I wish to carry through some of my ideas. Polona Tratnik: And re-establish the links between economy and research. Miomir Knežević: Absolutely. Polona Tratnik: Is there space for art in this? Miomir Knežević: I certainly think so. I work in what might be called a fringe area, for it is strongly related to ethics. We store umbilical cord blood, which makes us a unique phenomenon in Slovenia. Public debates about this are usually very inflated, either positively or negatively, while the truth, of course, is somewhere in between. People are divided, they often do not understand scientific progress, and many a time they can reject perfectly sound

9 GET / 9 HER / 9 HERE / 9 INTERESTING / 9 IT / 9 JOŽEF / 9 KNOWLEDGE / 9 LJUBLJANA / 9 MUST / 9 NOW / 9 ON / 9 POINT / 9 USE / 9 WE / 9 WHY /

ideas. Of course, explanations in scientific discourse are hardly intelligible to them, whereas explanations in commercial terms often lead to the conclusion that the person behind the idea wants to make profit from it. Artists can function as go-betweens here, for in the sphere of ethics, which is extremely delicate, they can make sense of certain things. You need to be very careful when you communicate with other people, particularly if they are in a hormonally precarious state, like pregnant women. This is a great challenge and I believe that it can be tackled more successfully in collaboration with artists. Polona Tratnik: Let’s stay with the issue of ethics for the end of this meeting. Every project in the field of biotechnological research must obtain ethical clearance from the National Ethics Committee. Different states handle ethical judgement in different ways. In Serbia, for instance, ethical issues are solved institutionally (that is, within a particular institution), which was also standard practice in Slovenia a while ago; similarly, in the United Kingdom, there are institutional ethics committees, which confirm or reject research proposals, even PhD theses, and they handle the field of the humanities, too. When interdisciplinary projects, which include art and whose investigations raise ethical questions, are considered, the fields are forcibly separated and the scientific research part of the project is ethically assessed according to the familiar procedure; as regards artistic segments, however, things are a bit blurry. The question of ethics in relation to art is distinct. We had no problems getting ethical clearance for the biotechnological part of our project Hair In Vitro (Lasje in vitro), whereas its artistic segment bewildered the ethics committee. Jurij Krpan, what is your stance regarding ethical issues and their treatment in relation to art? In London, a single gallery was given state consent, that is, permission, to display live tissues. You were thinking about proposing an initiative to establish an ethics committee for the field of art. Jurij Krpan: In fact, this was Miomir Knežević’s idea. Through our collaboration with him, we figured out that a scientist could reach the limit of legitimacy and legality and could not go further; in Slovenia, it is extremely difficult to go beyond this limit. This limit, however, and perhaps even the area just beyond it, is precisely where we, artists, usually move. The history of the Kapelica Gallery has taught us that a lot of projects that would not get clearance from any ethics committee could be carried through. In Slovenia, the culture of ethics committees is not very present, which is an advantage to some extent. However, when we try to establish ourselves as equal partners to scientists, we need to enter a dialogue with a certain morality, which is a cluster of common social agreements. When this happens, we wish to assume our share of responsibility. I shall not say that the projects that have been carried out until now have not been done responsibly, for we have always ensured sufficient expert knowledge and safety; we have not, however, consulted ethics committees. In fact, we could ourselves establish an ethics committee, consisting of representatives of religion, political parties, other experts… Of course, its members would need to be suitably informed about things that they would make decisions about. This could be the first step,

which would show that we are socially responsible and mature enough to enter a broader process of the production of meaning, knowledge, values, etc. And the opinions of this ethics committee could serve as an excellent starting point for national committees responsible for specific areas. Perhaps an interesting thing to consider here is the question of how to form such a committee. Polona Tratnik: We have reached an interesting closure that provides food for thought and can serve as a basis for future work. Jurij Krpan: I would like to draw attention to another thing, which is related to our structure of education. I believe that, at the level of education, our country is very non-progressive and we are as yet very far from establishing a high school for media art, comparable to those at the faculties of architecture in Cologne (Hochschule für Medienkunst) or Oslo. I have lectured at those institutions and I can tell you firsthand how things work there. Those are serious institutions with progressive departments and equipment and they are integrated into the development processes of advanced societies. In this way, too, that is, by establishing schools such as these, the society gives a clear signal to future generations. Representatives of education should participate in this debate. For instance, while we do have the faculty of music and the faculty of theatre, radio, film and television in Slovenia, there is not a single department in the entire country that would study electro-acoustic music or contemporary music or explore sound in this manner; not to mention the establishment of links between music, theatre and visual practices. In my opinion, this is where radical changes are needed. Miomir Knežević: I would like to add this: the point of ethics committees is not to act as a censorship board, but rather to formulate credible opinions and offer safety, guidance and advice to artists. In science, too, if we take medical ethics as a starting point, ethics committees exist because sometimes, driven by the desire for scientific progress, we forget some other aspects that concern human dignity and safety. An advisory body can make your work and life much easier. God forbid, however, that we should engage in censorship, for this would put us straight back into the Middle Ages. Polona Tratnik: My question was intended to be a bit provocative, for ethics committees in the humanities, as the UK example demonstrates, are turning into censorship boards. The question of ethics committees should probably be thought through carefully lest the initiative – which is primarily meant to enable a formal organisation of the complex links between art and science, which involve research in art and artistic dissemination of scientific results, particularly in sensuous ways – should turn into its opposite. ..

REFL EK TOR / R E F L EC TOR 73

145 IN / 110 V / 105 JE / 92 KI / 87 SE / 84 DA / 74 NA / 43 PA / 39 LAHKO / 38 ALI / 38 KOT / 38 TELESA / 38 ZA / 37 SO / 37 TELO / 33 S / 33 Z / 32 BI /

»PREUČITI MORAMO PROCESE, PREK KATERIH POTEKA PLESNO USTVARJANJE, KAJTI PREPRIČANA SEM, DA SE PRAV V TEH PROCESIH ODRAŽAJO NEKATERE TEORIJE O TEM, KAKŠEN JE SVET IN KAKŠEN BI LAHKO BIL.« INTERVJU S SUSAN FOSTER INTERVJU PRIPRAVILA KATJA ČIČIGOJ PREVEDLA TANJA PASSONI

MihaCiglar@3 × 10 17Hz

74 IN TE R VJU / IN TE RVIEW

Pri ogledu plesne predstave se običajno osredotočamo samo na tisto, kar vidimo na odru, in le redko upoštevamo družbenoekonomski kontekst produkcije predstave ter učinek, ki ga ta ima nanjo. Prav to vprašanje je bilo predmet serije predavanj, ki jih je za mednarodni festival sodobnega plesa Springdance v Utrechtu (14.–24. april 2011) pripravila Susan Foster, profesorica koreografije, zgodovine in teorij telesa na Kalifornijski univerzi v Los Angelesu (UCLA). Izkoristili smo priložnost in se z njo pogovorili o pojmu »najetega telesa« (angl. hired body), kakor je sama poimenovala rezultat tendenc v poučevanju sodobnega plesa, ter o nekaterih nasprotnih primerih, ki smo jih lahko med drugim opazili tudi v delih, predstavljenih na festivalu Springdance.

li lahko pojasnite, od kod izvira pojem najetega telesa /angl. hired body/ in kaj pomeni? Katere primere prepoznavate kot nasprotne različnim vrstam najetih teles? Leta 1987 sem objavila esej z naslovom »Dancing Bodies« (Plesoča telesa), v katerem sem odločno zagovarjala povezavo med poučevanjem plesa in koreografsko produkcijo. Po porastu tehnik in izobraževalnih programov, ki so v petdesetih, šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih minulega stoletja proizvajali vsak svojo telesnost, sem spoznala, da sem priča regresivnemu oženju možnosti in posledično poenotenju videza med plesalci, nastopajočimi v različnih predstavah. Izvedbe plesalcev v delih Grahama, Limona, Aileyja in Cunninghama, kontaktna improvizacija ali t. i. pedestrian dance1 so si postajale med seboj vse bolj podobne. To poenotenje videza sem povezovala z novimi režimi poučevanja, v katerih so plesalci začeli redno študirati balet in tej vsakodnevni rutini dodali še dodatne ure vadbe sodobnega plesa, kontaktne improvizacije in elementov borilnih veščin. Prožno, gibko »najeto« telo, ki se je na odru pojavilo kot produkt tega izobraževalnega režima, je bilo obenem tudi produkt novih oblik pokroviteljstva in pritiska na koreografe, da bi dela producirali hitro in ekonomično.

Oblika plesa, pri katerem je hoja sama plesni gib. Op. prev.

32 TO / 27 MED / 27 SEM / 27 TEM / 26 NE / 26 O / 20 JIH / 20 OD / 20 TUDI / 19 PLESA / 19 TELESU / 19 V / 18 ALI / 18 GA / 17 NAJETEGA / 16 KAR / 15 KAKO /

Organizatorji festivala Springdance so me povabili, da predstavim pojem »najetega telesa«, zato sem se odločila, da ga bom obravnavala v kontekstu globalnega prizorišča s posebnim poudarkom na njegov morebitni vpliv na plesno formo po vsem svetu, ki se na tem prizorišču producira. V tem pogledu se mi najeto telo kaže kot preobraženo v tri nove oblike telesa – baletno, industrijsko in sproščeno2 telo. Baletno telo kultivira geometrijo oblike in virtuoznost v običajnem pomenu besede, ki se kaže v gibčnem raztezanju nog, breztežnih skokih in piruetah. Industrijsko telo daje poudarek naporu in čutnosti, medtem ko se poskuša »prodajati«. Sproščeno telo pa izraža nevtralnost in učinkovitost izvedbe, ki plesalca odvezuje zavezanosti vsebini plesa. Za vsako od teh treh hegemonskih teles sem podala nasprotne primere, predlagala sem pristope k plesu, ki kontekstualizirajo ali spodkopavajo učinek globalnega poenotenja in spektakla. Kot alternativo baletnemu telesu sem predlagala singularno telo, ki je močno vpeto v tradicijo in tesno vezano na skupnost. Nasproti industrijskemu telesu sem postavila procesualno telo, ki s plesom ne proizvede nekega produkta, kot nasprotje sproščenega telesa pa sem predlagala volontersko telo, ki ni obremenjeno z učinkovitostjo, pač pa si prizadeva za spremembo znotraj svoje skupnosti.

li lahko na kratko opredelite »najeto telo« v odnosu do splošnejšega pojmovanja standardne prakse, po kateri koreografi najemajo plesalce? V čem se razlikujejo in ali med njimi obstaja kakšna povezava? Pojem najetega telesa je zgodovinsko specifičen, vezan je na določen trenutek v produkciji plesnih predstav. Povezan je z določenimi oblikami ekonomskih pritiskov, ki se izvajajo na producente, koreografe, plesalce in ne nazadnje tudi na gledalce v smislu njihovih pričakovanj – kaj pravzaprav pričakujejo od plešočega telesa. »Najeto telo« je poskus specifične obravnave takega izvajanja pritiskov na plesalce, ki vpliva na njihove odločitve o tem, kako naj se izurijo, da jih bodo najemali – v bolj tradicionalnem pomenu – kot profesionalne plesalce.

ako se ti pritiski odražajo na plešočem telesu, ki ga vidimo na odru?

Ko sem prvič pisala o najetem telesu v svojem eseju iz leta 1987, so se ti pritiski komaj začeli, od takrat naprej pa se samo stopnjujejo. Koreografi imajo na voljo vse manj časa za proizvajanje novih del in sodelovanje s plesalci. Ker si ne morejo privoščiti, da bi eno izvajalsko skupino obdržali vse leto, se raje odločajo za tako imenovane »začasne skupine« (angl. pick-up company). Organizirajo avdicije in se s plesalci kakih šest tednov pripravljajo na predstavo. Plesalci morajo biti pripravljeni na delo z različnimi koreografi, koreografi pa na delo z različno formiranimi plesalci. V poznih osemdesetih letih minulega stoletja je poučevanje plesa sprožilo proces, ki je privedel do tega, kar sem poimenovala »najeto telo«: plesalce, ki obvladajo tako balet kot kontaktno improvizacijo. Hip-hop takrat še ni bil tako popularen, zato so se urili v 2

V angleščini »released body« označuje tip telesnosti, ki se oblikuje kot posledica sodobnoplesnega treninga, zlasti »release« tehnike, ki temeljijo na neprestanem sproščanju tradicionalno rigidne plesne tehnike in plesalčevega telesa. Op. K. Č.

borilnih veščinah in jogi in s tem razvili to, kar sem poimenovala »prožno gibko telo«, ki je sposobno vsega. Toda to je tudi pomenilo, da so številni koreografi delali z istim naborom plesnih tehnik, ki so jim bile na voljo, zato so si njihova dela postajala vse bolj podobna.

li bi lahko dejali, da se je v glavnem namenu poučevanja sodobnega plesa in njegovem učinku zgodil obrat od virtuoznosti k vsestranskosti? Del tega, kar pojmujemo kot virtuoznost plesalca, se je danes spremenilo v vsestranskost: od plesalcev se pričakuje poznavanje različnih zvrsti in slogov in v tem se danes kaže ena vrsta virtuoznosti. Kljub temu pa so standardne predpostavke o virtuoznosti še kako žive in imajo opraviti s sposobnostjo plesalca, da vzpostavi ravnotežje, z načinom raztezanja nog, višino skoka, s sposobnostjo padanja na najbolj strahotne možne načine itn. Skratka, opraviti imajo s tem, kako telo na odru najprej spraviti v kočljiv položaj in ga nato rešiti iz njega. Virtuoznost ima različna pojmovanja glede na različno obdobje, kraj in čas plesa.

di se, da alternative najetemu telesu, ki ste jih navedli, prihajajo večinoma iz plesnih solov ali plesnih predstav, v katerih imajo plesalci pomemben avtorski prispevek v smislu invencije giba in konceptualizacije samega dela. Kako je najeto telo povezano z načini produkcije plesne predstave in z distribucijo moči znotraj produkcijskega procesa? Ali je bolj participatorni, »demokratični« način produkcije plesnih predstav tisti, ki omogoča vznik alternativ najetemu telesu? Menim, da ni nujno, da je koreograf obenem tudi plesalec, da bi predstavljal alternativo najetemu telesu, čeprav je to razumljiv izhod za koreografe, saj imajo, ker so plesalci oni sami, plesalca dlje časa na razpolago. V zadnjih dvajsetih do tridesetih letih se je funkcija koreografa nasploh spremenila. Postali so sodelavci in menedžerji poklicnih poti, odgovorni so za pridobivanje sredstev za projekt iz različnih virov in dolžni sodelovati s podporniki, producenti, plesalci in avtorji iz drugih medijev, s katerimi delajo. To pa se bistveno razlikuje od načina dela koreografov v času začetkov modernega plesa. Ti so imeli določeno vizijo in pokrovitelja, ki jo je podpiral, plesalci pa so bili zgolj instrument za uresničitev te vizije. Danes pa plesalci pogosto soustvarjajo s koreografom. Vendar menim, da to hkrati tudi prikriva bistvene razlike med njimi glede tega, kdo pobere zasluge za predstavo, kdo zaslovi in kako kdo napreduje v svojem poklicu.

otemtakem sodelovanje ni nujno bolj emancipatorni način produkcije plesnih predstav oziroma način, da se izognemo najetemu telesu? Nekateri so mnenja, da je temu tako, da sodelovanje dejansko prispeva k večji emancipatornosti, drugi so sicer enakega mnenja, vendar ne dovolijo, da bi sodelovanje zares postalo emancipa-

IN TE R VJ U / I N T E R V I E W 75

15 PLESALCI / 15 PLESNE / 15 PLESNIH / 15 ŠE / 14 SI / 13 BOLJ / 13 TA / 13 TAKO / 12 NAČIN / 12 PO / 12 PRAKSE / 11 IZ / 10 K / 10 PLES / 10 PRIMER /

»V

zadnjih dvajsetih do tridesetih letih se je funkcija koreografa nasploh spremenila. Postali so sodelavci in menedžerji poklicnih poti, odgovorni so za pridobivanje sredstev za projekt iz različnih virov in dolžni sodelovati s podporniki, producenti, plesalci in avtorji iz drugih medijev, s katerimi delajo. To pa se bistveno razlikuje od načina dela koreografov v času začetkov modernega plesa. Ti so imeli določeno vizijo in pokrovitelja, ki jo je podpiral, plesalci pa so bili zgolj instrument za uresničitev te vizije. Danes pa plesalci pogosto soustvarjajo s koreografom. Vendar menim, da to hkrati tudi prikriva bistvene razlike med njimi glede tega, kdo pobere zasluge za predstavo, kdo zaslovi in kako kdo napreduje v svojem poklicu.«

76 IN TE R VJU / IN TE RVIEW

torno. Različno je od primera do primera. A tudi soustvarjalnost plesalcev je povezana s pojmom najetega telesa: plesalec mora obvladati vse, danes mora celo ustvarjati gibe sam in prispevati ideje. Ker se od koreografa zahteva hitro delo, ta prosi plesalca, naj prispeva svoje ideje v zvezi z gibi, koreograf pa jih nato priredi po svoje.

di se, da ekonomski in časovni pritiski, ki jih zaznavate na globalnem prizorišču, proizvajajo nomadske plesalce, ki se selijo od projekta do projekta brez vsakršne pripadnosti določeni izvajalski skupini. Ali obstaja kakšna povezava med najetim telesom in pojmom »nomadizma«? O tem pojmu sem spregovorila v povezavi z dvema zgodovinskima primeroma: pri prvem gre za ameriške staroselce z začetka 20. stoletja, ki so zapuščali domove, da so lahko plesali, pri drugem pa za plesalce z Malija s konca minulega stoletja, ki so dom zapuščali zato, da bi preživeli. V obeh primerih sem poskušala pokazati, kako so posamezni plesalci našli nek smoter v svojem delovanju in v tem pogledu obstaja tesna vez med najetim telesom in nomadstvom. Koncept nomadstva, kakor ga uporabita Deleuze ali Braidottijeva, nosi v sebi pozitivni potencial, potencial dezidentifikacije z različnimi normativnimi praksami in hegemonističnimi strukturami s ciljem izboriti si boljše življenje. To pa ima drugačen pomen od tistega, ki ga sama poudarjam s konceptom najetega telesa. Nomadizem daje plesalcem možnost, da dosežejo nek učinek, koncept najetega telesa pa ni osredotočen na zmožnost posameznikov, da bi dosegli učinek, temveč na vrste pritiskov, ki jih nanje izvaja sistem.

enem svojih predavanj ste dejali: »Ne obstaja univerzalno telo ali univerzalni tip gibanja. »Univerzalno« je ideološka operacija.« Kaj pomeni ta ideološka operacija univerzalnosti? Tukaj sledim poststrukturalistični teoriji. Roland Barthes v Mitologijah in drugih besedilih govori o »naravnem« kot o ideološki operaciji: vsak, ki trdi, da je nekaj naravno, pravzaprav poskuša uveljaviti določeno agendo, vsiliti neko dejstvo, ki navzven ne vzbuja pomislekov in se zdi samoumevno in ga upravičuje kot edino in najboljše. Menim, da je »univerzalno« še eden v vrsti pojmov, ki učinkujejo podobno: vsak, ki trdi, da je nekaj univerzalno, poskuša uveljaviti dejstvo, ki pod krinko »univerzalnosti« naj ne bi bilo vprašljivo, kar pa lahko sproži vprašanje, ali je tisto nekaj zares univerzalno ali ne.

akšen učinek ima koncept »univerzalnosti«, ko ta postane oznaka za določeno plesno tehniko?

Označiti plesno prakso za »univerzalno«, pomeni postaviti to prakso za normo in jo upravičiti kot tako: »ker je univerzalna«. Release tehnika pogosto namiguje na »univerzalne« koncepte anatomske zgradbe in njeno razmerje do težnosti, to pa so koncepti, ki naj bi pripadali vsem telesom ne glede na plesno zvrst, v kateri se izražajo. Kar se skriva za oznako release tehnike kot univerzalne, je ideja, da proizvaja učinkovitost gibanja, kot da je

10 TEGA / 9 ČE / 9 DO / 9 KER / 9 NI / 9 STE / 9 ZATO / 8 INDUSTRIJSKO / 8 NAJETO / 8 ODRU / 8 PLESALCE / 8 PREDSTAVE / 8 PRI / 8 PRODUKCIJE /

to tisti bistveni atribut, h kateremu stremi ples nasploh. Toda kdo pravi, da mora biti vsak ples učinkovit?

e je vsaka posamezna plesna tehnika vezana na kontekst in je univerzalnost zgolj ideološka operacija, kako pojasnjujete odnos med plesom in njegovim družbenim kontekstom? Kakšna je povezava med plesno prakso in vsakodnevnimi idejami o gibanju in telesu v družbenem kontekstu? Kakšna je povezava med prakso najetega telesa in širšimi, vsakodnevnimi sodobnimi videnji telesnosti? Menim, da ples soustvarja in se aktivno vključuje v svoje kulturno okolje, da obenem odraža in ustvarja kulturne vrednote. Številni smo poskušali najti povezave med tem, kar se dogaja znotraj plesa, med argumenti, ki se uveljavljajo znotraj posamezne plesne prakse, in med tem, kar se dogaja v kulturnem okolju. Najeto telo se v tej luči kaže kot tesno povezano z novejšimi prepričanji, da je identiteta performans. Če bi lahko uprizorili katerikoli družbeni spol katerikoli dan v tednu, bi lahko en dan oblekli delovne hlače, drugi pa mini krilo, en dan bi bili queer, naslednji pa straight, in kdor meni, da lahko telo preobleče v atribute določenega družbenega spola ali spolne usmerjenosti, si s tem odpira različne identitetne možnosti. V določenem pogledu tudi najeto telo razmišlja o sebi na podoben način: različne tehnike, ki jih obvladuje, lahko razumemo kot identitete, ki jih lahko uprizori in ki jih to »najeto telo« lahko med seboj pomeša in združi na različne načine in po želji.

oda ali ne obstaja določeno protislovje ali vsaj trenje med videnjem identitete kot performansa (in kontingenco plesne tehnike v povezavi z njo) in funkcijo univerzalizacije, ki jo imajo nekatere plesne tehnike? Kako se kaže medsebojni vpliv med zahtevo po univerzalnosti ali temeljnostjo določenih plesnih tehnik in težnjo po demokratičnem usmerjanju pozornosti k čimveč tehnikam pri poučevanju sodobnega plesa? Kako to vpliva na produkcijo »najetega telesa«? Pri najetem telesu ne gre za demokratično vključevanje različnih plesnih tehnik in podeljevanje specifičnosti in individualnosti letem, pač pa za združevanje različnih tehnik v skupno ekonomijo gibanja, ki je podrejena pričakovanjem spektakla in virtuoznosti. Plesalec lahko dobi občutek, da se včasih daje poudarek kontaktni improvizaciji, spet drugič pa baletu, toda vse te oblike vadbe so prilagojene, tako da se ujemajo med seboj. Dejala bi, da predpostavke o uprizarjanju identitete delujejo na isti način. Čeprav se tako uprizarjanje utegne zdeti osvobajajoče ali demokratično, je v osnovi polno pritiskov, kot je zahteva po mnogostranskosti ali uspešnosti, ki podpirata interese hegemonističnih struktur moči.

li lahko pojasnite povezavo med tremi različnimi tipi najetega telesa in kontekstom plesne produkcije in distribucije, v katerem se ti pojavljajo? Naj poudarim, da sem te tri primere najetega telesa izbrala zato, ker govorim o najetem telesu v kontekstu globalnega prizorišča, kjer se odvijajo predstave, ki si jih ogleda veliko ljudi. Te običajno

prinašajo kombinacijo lokalnih ali kulturnih razlik in spektakla večinske produkcije. Znotraj tega konteksta razbiram tri tipe najetega telesa: baletno telo, ki privilegira linije in navidezno lahkotnost, industrijsko telo, ki daje poudarek naporu in spolni izraznosti, in sproščeno telo, ki postavlja v ospredje učinkovitost in nevtralnost.

povezavi z baletnim telesom ste omenili brazilsko skupino Grupo Corpo, ki elemente lokalnega plesa sambe vpenja v okvire baletne tehnike in jih tako naredi sprejemljive za globalno in zlasti zahodno občinstvo. V brazilski kulturni tradiciji je sicer močno ukoreninjena ideja o prevzemanju zahodnih kulturnih praks, ki se imenuje »kanibalizacija« (sega v čas modernizma /modernismo/ v literaturi in kulturi). Gre za subverzivno dekonstrukcijo fragmentov kolonialne kulture prek njihovega prevzemanja in spreminjanja. Ali menite, da je to nemara način, kako je skupina Grupo Corpo dojeta oziroma želi biti dojeta v Braziliji, ali gre bolj za spodletel poskus subverzivnega tipa kanibalizacije, ker (nemara nenamerno) temelji na funkciji »univerzalizacije« zahodne kulturne prakse (baleta)? Da, menim, da morda želijo ustvariti tako podobo o sebi v Braziliji in da jim je to pri določeni skupini brazilskega občinstva tudi uspelo. Sama sem jih kot primer najetega telesa uporabila bolj zato, da sem lahko spregovorila o načinu njihovega delovanja na globalnem prizorišču, zunaj Brazilije, kjer so jim predvsem brazilski kritiki očitali, češ da s predstavljanjem zadovoljnega ljudstva podlegajo kolonialističnim silam.

akšna je torej vloga baleta v njihovem delu – zakaj se ga poslužujejo?

Ne verjamem, da si je koreograf svoj slog zamislil na ta način. Čeprav je izučen za baletnika, je balet želel spremeniti, ga narediti bolj brazilskega in vanj vnesti druge oblike plesa in telesnih veščin, ki so mu jih nudili plesalci, s katerimi je delal. Sledil je svoji umetniški viziji, nikakor pa ni šlo za nenadno odločitev, da potrebuje balet, da bo postal mednarodno uspešen. Med uresničevanjem umetniške vizije pa je ta slučajno postala izjemno priljubljena.

a festivalu Springdance smo lahko videli še eno predstavo, ki na globalnem prizorišču predstavlja dolgo plesno tradicijo. V mislih imam izrazito ritmični step Bare Soundz Saviona Gloverja. Zakaj je to po vašem mnenju nasprotni primer baletnemu telesu, ki ste ga poimenovali »singularno telo«?

To je nasprotni primer, ker nikoli ne poskuša »prodati« giba ali uporabiti telesa za spektakularno uprizoritev. Čeprav je Gloverjeva plesna predstava svojevrstna, izjemna in zelo zanimiva tako za gledanje kot poslušanje, pa izraža vrednote določene skupnosti in posebno estetiko, ki je bila skozi svojo dolgo zgodovino deležna podpore določene skupine ljudi. Avtor pravzaprav predstavlja vizijo določene skupnosti.

I N TE R VJ U / I N T E R V I E W 77

8 SMO / 8 TEH / 8 VSE / 7 DOLGO / 7 IMA / 7 IMAJO / 7 KAKOR / 7 KAŽE / 7 MENIM / 7 NEKAJ / 7 PAČ / 7 PLESALCA / 7 POSKUŠA / 7 POVEZANO / 7 TE /

čem se kaže razlika med Gloverjevim stepom in denimo stepom Freda Astaira, ki vanj vplete nekatere baletne tehnike in uprizoritveni slog? Naj v prvi vrsti pojasnim, da ne govorim o Gloverjevih osebnih pogledih, težnjah in željah o dojemanju njegove plesne predstave, pač pa o tem, kar vidim na odru in kar lahko iz tega razberem. Kar zadeva najosnovnejše prvine gibanja, Glover ne uporabi telesa, da bi nam razkril vse njegove linije, prefinjene oblike in eleganco, kakor to stori Fred Astair, pač pa ga uporabi za generiranje zvoka, pri čemer ga ne zanima toliko predstavitev sebe kot njega samega, temveč kot nekoga, ki je zatopljen v dejanje proizvajanja teh zvokov in v izvajanje plesa. Nasprotno pa Fred Astair vedno postavlja v ospredje določen plesni lik, pa naj bo to noro zaljubljen moški ali vljudni aristokrat, ki zgolj slučajno tudi pleše. V tem se kaže glavna razlika.

akšen je pravzaprav odnos med stepom, ki ga uporablja Glover, in kulturnim kontekstom oz. skupnostjo, ki ste jo prej omenili? Glover ohranja dolgo tradicijo stepa, povezanega z afroameriško kulturo, ki pa se ga pogosto poslužujejo beli plesalci in glasbeniki. Ta tradicija, ki je znana pod izrazom »hoofing« (udarjanje s čevlji ob tla, op. prev.), je izrazito nespektakularna in usmerjena k skupnosti, odvija se znotraj določene skupnosti plesalcev, ki soustvarjajo gibanje, plešejo drug z drugim, gib prenašajo naprej, si izmenjujejo ritem itn. in tako prek plesa hkrati vzpostavljajo nekakšen telesni dialog z občinstvom. To je bilo tudi videti na odru.

čem se predstava I Am a Demon (Demon sem) Picheta Klunchuna, ki je bila na ogled tudi v Ljubljani (Mladi Levi 2010), razlikuje od najetega telesa? Zakaj je Klunchunov pristop, ki iztrga khon iz svojega izvornega konteksta z jasnim namenom, da ga predstavi zahodnemu občinstvu, nasprotje različnih uporab nekaterih azijskih ali afriških plesnih praks znotraj konteksta baletnega ali sodobnega plesa, ki bi jim lahko očitali nov tip eksoticizma? Po mojem mnenju Klunchun uporablja nekatere tipe zahodnjaških gledaliških tehnik, da bi khon svetovnemu občinstvu predstavil kot pomemben sodobni ples in mu ponudil nov način videnja tradicionalne plesne forme. Ta ples oživlja s tem, ko ga prinaša v sedanjost; v enem svojih intervjujev je dejal, da ga s tem »ojača«. Toda sama menim, da tega ne počne, da bi uspel ali si preprosto pridobil sloves na svetovnem prizorišču, pač pa ker si zares želi, da bi čim večje število ljudi spoznalo to posebno estetsko prakso. V tem vidim glavno razliko: vprašanje je, zakaj nekdo pleše.

e se osredotočimo na gibanje na odru – v čem prepoznavate »izmenjavo« plesne prakse in ne le spektakularni način prezentacije lokalnih plesnih praks, kar pogosto vidimo v zahodnjaških predstavah, ki uporabljajo plesne prakse drugih kultur? Zares zanimivo se mi zdi, koliko časa je Klunchunov pogled obr-

78 IN TE R VJU / IN TE RVIEW

njen stran od občinstva in ne vanj. Kolikor se spomnim, se tako začne predstava. Očitno je, da poskuša nekaj pokazati, vendar ne prikazuje sebe, kako to počne, kar velja za spektakularni pristop. Želi, da ples sam najde pot do ljudi brez njegovega posredovanja. Sebe kot plesalca, kot plesni lik, poskuša, podobno kot Savion Glover, narediti skoraj »nevidnega«.

a festivalu Springdance smo videli še eno predstavo, ki bi lahko sprožila razpravo o odnosu med zahodnimi sodobnimi plesnimi tehnikami glavnega toka in azijskimi kulturnimi tradicijami. V mislih imam predstavo japonske skupine Contact Gonzo, ki temelji na kontaktni improvizaciji z nekoliko bolj nasilnimi gibi. Ali gre za kreativno in ironično uprizoritev prevzete zahodnjaške plesne prakse, ki se poigrava z zahodnjaškimi stereotipi o Japoncih, ali za nekritični pristop? Japonska eksperimentalna plesna tradicija ima dolgo zgodovino estetskih vrednot in različic, do katerih pa žal nimam dostopa. O tem so namreč večinoma pisali japonsko govoreči raziskovalci in na voljo je le nekaj prevodov … Ko torej govorim o skupini Contact Gonzo, mi je zaradi nedostopnosti konteksta eksperimentalnih plesnih praks na Japonskem zares težko ugotoviti, na kaj se skupina odziva ali kakšne plesne prvine prevzema. Osebno menim, da njihova predstava ne vsebuje samo vplivov zahoda, saj smo v njej videli butoh, številne različice post-butoha in še vrsto drugih estetskih gibanj, ki so se razvila na Japonskem v zad-njih sedemdesetih ali osemdesetih letih. Nemara res prevzemajo nekatere prvine iz rokoborbe ali kontaktne improvizacije, dvomim pa, da sta prevzemanje zahodnih plesnih prvin ali njihova kritika glavni cilj te plesne skupine.

akšen je odnos te predstave do tradicije zahodnjaških konvencij o odrski uprizoritvi? Opaziti je močan in izrazito ironičen odklon od teh konvencij. Menim, da sledijo nekakšni liniji post-butoha. Butoh daje večji poudarek procesu in nenehnemu postajanju kot pa produktu. Zato butoh večinoma temelji na nekakšni improvizaciji oziroma je ta ključni vidik te prakse. Predstava skupine Contact Gonzo je očitno improvizirana.

e je najeto telo povezano z zahodnimi koncepti spektakelske uprizoritve, ali vrnitev k drugim oblikam plesnih praks predstavlja alternativno možnost najetemu telesu (v mislih nimam umetnikovega namernega iskanja alternativ, pač pa bolj učinek teh praks na gledalca)? Lahko to možnost iščemo v vrnitvi k manj poznanim praksam z dolgo tradicijo in ali obstajajo tudi nasprotne prakse med tistimi, ki uporabljajo zahodne tradicije glavnega toka? Moj cilj pri opisovanju teh raznolikih teles je preseči ločnico med tradicionalnim in netradicionalnim. Imamo vrsto sodobnih koreografov z različnimi izkušnjami, ki eksperimentirajo s svetovnim prizoriščem plesnih predstav. Ne gre za to, ali je ples tradicionalen ali ne, saj v svetu obstajajo različno dolge in trdno vzpostavljene plesne tradicije z globoko preučenimi in kultiviranimi estetskimi načeli, za

6 ČEM / 6 ČEPRAV / 6 DRUGIH / 6 GIBA / 6 GIBANJA / 6 GRE / 6 MI / 6 NAJETEMU / 6 NEKATERE / 6 OBLIKE / 6 PLESALCEV / 6 PLESNO / 6 PRAKS /

katere potrebuješ leta, da se jih priučiš, in ki nudijo tudi pedagoške programe, kjer se jih ljudje lahko učijo, če so si za to pripravljeni vzeti čas. Nemara so to bolj jasni primeri singularnega telesa (kot nasprotje baletnemu), čeprav ne gre toliko za vprašanje biti ali ne biti singularno telo. Prej ima opraviti s tem, zakaj nekdo predstavi določen ples na globalnem prizorišču? Kaj želi sporočiti gledalcu in zakaj?

e se zdaj osredotočimo na »industrijsko telo« kot še en primer »najetega telesa«: dejali ste, da za razliko od baleta, ki poskuša izpostaviti lahkotnost giba, industrijsko telo rado izpostavlja telesni napor. Pa vendar se zdi, da to telo kljub vsemu zakriva dejanski napor, ki je potreben za produkcijo tovrstnega telesa. Če smo še bolj neposredni: četudi se telesa znojijo, je njihov znoj sijoč, seksi in privlačen; njihov napor je spektakulariziran in izraža nerealen imperativ »telesne pripravljenosti«, ki namiguje na to, da koristi vselej odtehtajo izgube. Kako je industrijsko telo po vašem mnenju povezano s sodobnimi vsakodnevnimi ideologijami telesa in njegovega napora? Ponovila bom, kar sem prej povedala v zvezi z identiteto kot performansom – neka študentka mi je nekoč dejala: »En dan lahko oblečem delavski kombinezon, naslednji dan mini krilo, nikakor pa ne morem od doma brez maskare.« Menim, da je industrijsko telo povezano z družbenospolnimi vlogami, denimo v tem, da vsakdo še vedno čuti potrebo po privlačnem videzu, zlasti ženske. Na splošno se na mlade izvaja močan pritisk, še posebej na ženske, da bi bili videti spolno privlačni in zapeljivi. Zato domnevno ni nič narobe, če delaš na tem, vendar ti mora uspeti. In uspeh industrijskega telesa je prav v tem, da prikazuje ljudi, ki jim to uspeva, in dokaže, da če se potrudiš, lahko uresničiš to dragoceno željo po spolni privlačnosti in zapeljivosti.

li lahko povlečemo vzporednice med sodobnim industrijskim telesom in zgodnjim kapitalističnim industrijskim telesom holivudskih muzikalov, npr. množične koreografije Busbyja Berkeleyja v tridesetih in štiridesetih letih minulega stoletja, s kolektivnimi stvaritvami, ki so ustvarjale osupljive geometrične vzorce, v katerih posamezni plesalec skoraj izgine in postane del mehanizma kot serijski produkt na fordističnem tekočem traku? V čem se sodobno industrijsko telo razlikuje od zgodnjega modernega industrijskega telesa? Ali je to kako povezano s spremembami v sodobnih načinih produkcije (iz fordizma v postfordizem) v poznih kapitalističnih družbah in s spremembo položaja kulturne industrije ter kako se to odraža v plesu? Ali je tako branje po vašem mnenju preveč alegorično? Temeljito bi si morala pogledati Berkeleyjeve filme, ker jih že dolgo nisem gledala. Kolikor pa se spomnim, od plesalcev ne zahteva hujšega napora. Njihova naloga je bolj ta, da se neopazno integrirajo v skupino s preprostimi, večkrat ponovljenimi koraki. Nemara bi lahko potegnili vidno vzporednico med fordizmom in globalnim kapitalizmom, kakor se kažeta v plesu. V takem primeru si industrijsko telo predstavljam v vlogi vlagatelja tveganega kapitala na področju plesa.

»‘N

ajeto’ telo se v tej luči kaže kot tesno povezano z novejšimi prepričanji, da je identiteta performans. Če bi lahko uprizorili katerikoli družbeni spol katerikoli dan v tednu, bi lahko en dan oblekli delovne hlače, drugi pa mini krilo, en dan bi bili queer, naslednji pa straight, in kdor meni, da lahko telo preobleče v atribute določenega družbenega spola ali spolne usmerjenosti, si s tem odpira različne identitetne možnosti. V določenem pogledu tudi najeto telo razmišlja o sebi na podoben način: različne tehnike, ki jih obvladuje, lahko razumemo kot identitete, ki jih lahko uprizori in ki jih to »najeto telo« lahko med seboj pomeša in združi na različne načine in po želji.«

I N TE R VJ U / I N T E R V I E W 79

6 PREDSTAVO / 6 PRIZORIŠČU / 6 RAZLIČNIH / 6 SKUPINE / 6 SODOBNEGA / 6 SPRINGDANCE / 6 TEHNIK / 6 TEHNIKE / 6 TELESOM / 6 TO / 6 UČINEK /

»P

ojem koreografije sem obravnavala v številnih knjigah in člankih, v svoji zadnji knjigi Choreographing Empathy (Koreografiranje empatije) pa sem kritično pretehtala uporabo tega izraza v svojih prejšnjih delih, kjer sem ga s preveliko lahkoto označila za utopičnega. V zadnji knjigi sem poskušala pokazati, da ima ta izraz zgodovino, povezano s kolonizacijo, hegemonističnimi silami in strukturami moči. Kratek odgovor se zato glasi: ne vem več, kaj je koreografija. Daljši pa: še vedno verjamem, da je treba premisliti procese, skozi katere se ustvarjajo plesne prakse, saj sem prepričana, da se prav v teh procesih odražajo nekatere teorije o tem, kakšen je svet in kakšen bi lahko bil.«

se tri tipe najetega telesa bi lahko povezali s tistim, kar je Sloterdijk imenoval »kinetični gon« moderne, za katero je značilen kapitalistični imperativ neprestanega gibanja produktivnosti. Zdi se, da ti trije tipi najetega telesa namigujejo na idejo o uspešnosti tega gona. Sklicujem se na navidezno lahkotnost baletnega telesa, privlačni napor industrijskega telesa in navidezno svobodo in učinkovitost sproščenega telesa – pri čemer vsa telesa podpirajo idejo o uspešni ekonomiji gibanja, o učinkoviti proizvodnji in potrošnji. Ali bi lahko prepoznali odporniške ali nasprotujoče prakse v tistem, kar je André Lepecki poimenoval »izčrpavajoči ples«, torej v praksah padanja, spotikanja, negotovosti in krhkosti giba, ki stremi k mirovanju? Ali bi lahko bil primer tega rekonstrukcija predstave THEM (ONI) Ishmaela HoustonaJonesa, ki je bila uprizorjena tudi na festivalu Springdance? Menim, da je predstava THEM odličen primer »procesualnega telesa«, ki je nasprotje »industrijskemu telesu«, deloma ker je telo v nenehnem razvoju in nikoli ne miruje toliko, da bi lahko izražalo jasen produkt. Predstava je improvizirana, zato se današnja rekonstrukcija močno razlikuje od premierne predstave leta 1989, hkrati pa lahko v eni sami noči vidimo nekatere interakcije, ki prikazujejo tipičen način, kako se dve telesi srečata in soočata brez vsakršne predpriprave. To ni delo enega samega plesalca, pač pa v njem nastopa več teles, ki poskušajo najti način, kako skupaj naprej.

aj pa uporaba padca, negotovih gibov itn. in uporaba teles, ki niso v skladu s prevladujočimi standardi, kot so na primer bolehna, krhka, stara telesa ali gibi, ki namigujejo na to krhkost? V predstavi THEM so taki gibi prisotni, zasledimo pa jih lahko tudi v splošni praksi, ki plesalce spravlja v posebne telesne položaje, ki jih klinični diskurz prepoznava kot »anomalije«. Ali imajo te prakse v sebi odporniški potencial? Da, seveda. Take so izvajalske skupine, ki jih sestavljajo plesalci z mešanimi sposobnostmi, kot so denimo ljudje na vozičku, ki plešejo ob drugih plesalcih itn. – Ta ideja se mi zdi nadvse zanimiva. Na Springdanceu smo videli predstavo Gina, v kateri avtorica komentira svojo postavo, kar je še en način nasprotovanja baletnemu ali industrijskemu telesu. Gre za koreografske odločitve o tem, koga vključiti v ples. Pri tem se mi zdi tudi zanimivo, kakšni so gibi teh plesalcev, v kakšnem sosledju se odvijajo in kako tovrstne odločitve lahko proizvedejo alternative industrijskemu telesu. Čeprav v predstavi Them nastopajo na primer izurjeni plesalci brez mešanih sposobnosti, je kakovost giba tista, ki ponuja alternative ali nasprotne primere najetemu telesu.

aj pa uporaba vsakodnevnih gibov na odru, ki so nam najbolj poznani iz dela The Show Must Go On (Predstava se mora nadaljevati) Jérôma Bela, pojavljajo pa se tudi v številnih drugih poznejših predstavah. Ali lahko take gibe razumemo kot alternativo industrijskemu telesu? Menim, da je imelo to gibanje dolgo časa odporniški potencial in je bilo nadvse učinkovito pri usmerjanju pozornosti občinstva

8 0 IN TE R VJU / IN TE RVIEW

6 ZAKAJ / 6 ZNOTRAJ / 5 BILO / 5 BITI / 5 BREZ / 5 ČASA / 5 DAJE / 5 DAN / 5 DELA / 5 DELO / 5 EN / 5 GIBI / 5 INDUSTRIJSKEMU / 5 JIM / 5 JO / 5 KAJ /

k lastnim pričakovanjem, k temu, kaj gledalec misli, da bo videl v gledališču in zakaj zahaja vanj. Prepričana sem, da je imelo to delo močan kritični naboj v poskusu, da bi nam pomagalo na novo premisliti, kakšna je funkcija umetnosti, kako konsumiramo umetnost in zakaj.

aj je »volontersko telo« kot alternativa osvobojenemu telesu? Omenili ste primer plesa flash mob – v čem se ta oblika razlikuje od sproščenega telesa? Zlasti pa, ali med njima obstajajo razlike glede učinkovitosti giba? Volontersko telo še zdaleč ni učinkovito, zlasti zato, ker njegov trud nima nekega jasnega namena ali rezultata. Preprosto pleše zaradi plesa samega, kot se temu reče.

di se, da to, kar opisujete kot »volontersko telo«, uteleša deleuzovski lokalizirani, delni, rizomatični odpor proti strukturam moči, ki zavrača možnost totalizirane in globalne mobilizacije in raje izbere lokalizirane taktične strategije, da bi omajal prevladujoče režime intelegibilnosti. Toda kako lahko pojasnimo prilaščanje tovrstnega odpora s strani kulturne industrije in sektorja odnosov z javnostmi? Ali lahko to razumemo kot še en primer subverzivne prakse, ki se vpenja v dominantni diskurz, kakor se je zgodilo v primeru sproščenega telesa? Ali so potemtakem vse oblike odpora vezane na ta začarani krog nenehne produkcije kritike in njenega vključevanja v dominantne diskurze in ali v plesnih praksah vendarle vidite kakšen znak odpora, ki utegne preseči ta začaran krog? Mislim, da sta na tem mestu prikladni strategija in taktika, kakor ju pojmuje Michel de Certeau. Kulturna industrija, kot ste temu rekli, se pogosto polasti neke taktike in jo spremeni v strategijo. Občasno se zadostno število taktik lansira hkrati, da bi prekinile ta »začaran krog« in sprožile resno spremembo, vsaj za nekaj časa.

ekoč ste dejali, da bi koreografija (kakor lahko razberem iz teh alternativ) lahko odpirala nove prostore, ustvarjala nove svetove in v njih izumljala nove vrste gibov. Menite, da bi koreografija lahko imela takšno domala utopično funkcijo (nekaj takšnega lahko vidimo tudi v drži Borisa Charmatza v njegovi predstavi Levée les conflits (Odprava konfliktov), ki temelji na Barthesovem pojmu politične nevtralnosti)? Ali tudi vi razumete koreografijo v tem smislu? Pojem koreografije sem obravnavala v številnih knjigah in člankih, v svoji zadnji knjigi Choreographing Empathy (Koreografiranje empatije) pa sem kritično pretehtala uporabo tega izraza v svojih prejšnjih delih, kjer sem ga s preveliko lahkoto označila za utopičnega. V zadnji knjigi sem poskušala pokazati, da ima ta izraz zgodovino, povezano s kolonizacijo, hegemonističnimi silami in strukturami moči. Kratek odgovor se zato glasi: ne vem več, kaj je koreografija. Daljši pa: še vedno verjamem, da je treba premisliti procese, skozi katere se ustvarjajo plesne prakse, saj sem prepričana, da se prav v teh procesih odražajo nekatere teorije o tem, kakšen je svet in kakšen bi lahko bil. ..

LukaPrinčič@3 × 10 17Hz

I N TE R VJ U / I N T E R V I E W 8 1

339 THE / 251 OF / 176 TO / 158 AND / 145 A / 131 IS / 118 IN / 106 THAT / 103 BODY / 77 I / 66 IT / 56 DANCE / 49 THIS / 48 WITH / 45 AS / 42 BE / 42 HIRED /

“WE NEED TO WORK OUT THE PROCESSES THROUGH WHICH DANCES GET CREATED AND I THINK THAT WE COULD FIND REFLECTED IN THOSE C PROCESSES CERTAIN THEORIES ABOUT WHAT THE WORLD IS AND WHAT IT COULD BE”

When viewing a dance piece, we usually only focus on what is presented on stage and seldom consider the socio-economic context of its production and the effect it has upon what is presented to us. The latter is precisely what informed the lectures given at the international festival of contemporary dance Springdance in Utrecht (April 14–24, 2011) by Susan Foster, professor of choreography, history and theories of the body at UCLA. We took the chance to speak with her about the notion of the “hired body”, as she termed the result of tendencies in contemporary dance training, as well as about some counterexamples to it, which could be identified as well among the pieces presented at Springdance.

an you describe where the notion of the hired body comes from and what it stands for? What are the counter-examples to the different types of hired bodies?

INTERVIEW WITH SUSAN FOSTER QUESTIONS POSED BY KATJA ČIČIGOJ

JanezJanša@3 × 10 17Hz

82 IN TE R VJU / IN TE RVIEW

In 1987, I published an essay entitled “Dancing Bodies” that argued strongly for the connection between dance training and choreographic production. After what seemed to be a proliferation of techniques and training programs, each producing a unique kind of physicality throughout the 1950s, 60s and 70s, I felt that I was witnessing a regressive narrowing of options and a resulting uniformity of appearance among dancers performing in different kinds of works. Dancers’ performances in concerts of works by Graham, Limon, Ailey and Cunningham, contact improvisation or pedestrian vocabularies were all beginning to look more and more alike. I connected this homogenization of appearance to new regimens of training in which all dancers had begun to study regularly ballet, and to supplement this daily routine with additional classes in modern dance, contact improvisation and martial arts forms. The rubbery, resilient “hired” body that emerged onstage as the product of that training regimen was equally the product of new forms of patronage and pressure on choreographers to produce works quickly and economically.

38 OR / 37 THEY / 37 YOU / 36 WHAT / 35 ON / 34 ARE / 34 HAVE / 34 THINK / 30 WAY / 29 FOR / 29 WHICH / 27 AT / 26 NOT / 25 ABOUT / 25 DANCERS /

I was asked by Springdance to revisit this notion of the “hired body” and I proposed to look at the hired body in the context of the global stage and to focus specifically on how it might be influencing dancing form around the world produced on that stage. From that perspective, it appears to me that the hired body has morphed into three new kinds of bodies – the balletic body, the industrial body and the released body. The balletic body cultivates a geometry of shape and the standard notions of virtuosity associated with high extensions of the legs, weightless jumps and multiple turns. The industrial body emphasizes its labor and its sexiness while selling itself. And the released body promotes a neutrality and efficiency of execution that disencumbers the dancer from being committed to what it is dancing about. For each of these three hegemonic bodies, I also proposed counter-examples, approaches to dancing that contest or undermine the workings of global uniformity and spectacle. Countering the balletic body, I proposed the singular body, a body that was highly trained in a tradition and with strong connections to a community. Contesting the industrial body, I considered the processual body, a body that doesn’t produce a product through its dancing. Disrupting the released body, I proposed the volunteer body, a body unconcerned with efficiency but instead gambling on making a difference in its community.

ould you briefly reflect upon the “hired body” in contrast with the more general notion of dancers being hired by a choreographer? How do they differ and is there any relationship between them? The notion of the hired body is historically specific, tied to a certain moment in concert dance production. It is connected to certain kinds of economic pressures that have been brought to bear on producers, choreographers, dancers, and also from viewers in terms of their expectations – of what they want to see from the dancing body. The “hired body” is an attempt to talk specifically about the pressuring of dancers in this sense, which influences the decisions they have to make on how to train in order to be hired in a more traditional sense of the term, to be professional performers.

in many different ways. In the late 80s, dance training initiated a process that produced what I call the “hired body”: dancers would train in ballet, but also in contact improvisation; hip-hop was not so popular at the time, but they would train in martial arts and yoga, and then they would develop what I called a “rubbery resilient body”, a body that could do anything; but this also meant that now many choreographers would be working with the same range of dance techniques at their disposal, and thus each choreographer’s work started to look more similar to all the others.

s it appropriate to say that in the main aim of contemporary dance trainings and in the results they have, there seems to be a shift from virtuosity to versatility? I think that part of what is seen as virtuosity today has become versatility: dancers are expected to be knowledgeable about a lot of different genres and styles and this is today a mark of virtuosity. But underlying that, standard assumptions of virtuosity are still operative, which have to do with the way you can balance, the way you can extend your legs, how high you can leap, in what kind of daunting way you can fall, etc. – with how you can put your body in a precarious situation on stage and at the same time overcome this precarious situation. Virtuosity has been defined differently in different times and places and for different forms of dance.

he counter-examples to the hired body that you identified seemed to come mostly from dance solos or from dance pieces where the dancers would bring in a significant authorial contribution in terms of the invention of movement and the conceptualization of the piece. How is the notion of the hired body connected to the means of production of a dance piece and the distribution of power within the production process? Is a more participatory, “democratic” way of producing dance pieces what enables counter-examples to the hired body to emerge?

hat do these pressures amount to with regard to the dancing body as we see it on stage?

I do not think that the choreographer necessarily has to be the dancer in order to be a counter-example to the hired body, although this is an obvious resource for choreographers because they have access to that dancer for a longer period of time since the dancer is themselves.

When I wrote about the hired body for the first time in an essay in 1987, this was just beginning to happen, and now, I think it has been happening more and more since then. Choreographers are forced to produce a new work in a shorter and shorter period of time, they have less and less time to collaborate with dancers, they cannot afford to keep a company going year-round, so they decide to have something called a “pick-up company” instead. They hold auditions, and they work with dancers for maybe six weeks for a particular performance. The dancers have to anticipate that they will be working with many different choreographers and the choreographers have to anticipate that they will be working with dancers who have been trained

The function of the choreographer in general has changed in the last 20 to 30 years. Choreographers have become collaborators and managers of careers, so they are responsible for getting the different funding for the project and collaborating with the funders, the producers, the dancers and the authors of the other media they are working with. That is very different from the way that early modern dance choreographers used to work, when they had a specific vision and a patron who would support that vision and the dancers who were instruments for executing it. Now the dancers are often co-creators with the choreographer. However, I think that this also masks over the fundamental differences in terms of who gets credited for the

I N TE R VJ U / I N T E R V I E W 8 3

22 DANCING / 22 FROM / 22 MOVEMENT / 21 BUT / 20 INDUSTRIAL / 20 MORE / 19 ALSO / 19 DIFFERENT / 19 DO / 19 THE / 18 ALL / 18 COULD / 18 HE /

“T

he function of the choreographer in general has changed in the last 20 to 30 years. Choreographers have become collaborators and managers of careers, so they are responsible for getting the different funding for the project and collaborating with the funders, the producers, the dancers and the authors of the other media they are working with. That is very different from the way that early modern dance choreographers used to work, when they had a specific vision and a patron who would support that vision and the dancers who were instruments for executing it. Now the dancers are often cocreators with the choreographer. However, I think that this also masks over the fundamental differences in terms of who gets credited for the piece, who gets famous and how people advance in their profession.”

8 4 IN TE R VJU / IN TE RVIEW

piece, who gets famous and how people advance in their profession.

o collaboration is not necessarily a more emancipatory way of producing dance pieces or a way of escaping the hired body? Some people think that it is, and actually make it be more emancipatory, while others think that it is, but don’t allow it to become so. It is very different from case to case. The way this is connected to the notion of the hired body is that the dancer has to be good at everything, now even at generating movement and contributing ideas. The choreographer has to work very quickly, so s/he asks the dancer to generate ideas for the movement and then arranges them.

t seems that the economic and time pressures you described on the global stage tend to produce nomadic dancers, traveling from one project to another, not being tied to a particular company. Is there any relationship between the hired body and the concept of “nomadism”? I talked about this notion in connection to two historical examples: Native Americans at the beginning of the 20th century who had to leave their homes in order to dance, and dancers from Mali at the end of the century who had to leave their homes in order to eat. I tried to show in each case how individual dancers could carve out some sense of agency, and in this sense there is a strong connection between the hired body and nomadism. In the way that Deleuze or Braidotti are using the concept of nomadism, it is seen as having a positive potential, the potential of disidentification with different normative practices and hegemonic structures in order to negotiate a better life; and this is a different focus than the one I am setting up by positing the concept of the hired body. Nomadism gives possible occasions to dancers for negotiating some agency, while the hired body as a concept doesn’t focus on individuals’ ability to create agency, it focuses more on the kinds of pressures brought upon them by the system.

n one of your lectures, you said: “There is no universal body or universal type of movement. ‘Universal’ is an ideological operation.” What is this ideological operation of universality? Here, I follow poststructuralist theory. For instance, Roland Barthes in Mythologies and his other texts talks about the “natural” as being an ideological operation: anybody who claims that something is natural is actually trying to push forward a particular agenda, to put forward a claim that apparently doesn’t need to be examined, that seems to be obvious, legitimizing something as the best or the only way. I think that “universal” is another of those terms that functions in a similar way: anybody who claims something is universal is putting forward a claim about something that under the guise of being “universal” seemingly does not call for further examination, which might

18 HOW / 18 STAGE / 18 THERE / 17 AN / 17 BY / 17 CAN / 17 HAS / 17 WOULD / 16 ITS / 16 PERFORMANCE / 16 WE / 15 BETWEEN / 15 EXAMPLE / 15 SEEN /

shed light upon whether it really is universal or not.

ow does this concept of “universality” function when it becomes the label of a specific dance technique?

The label “universal” is a way of making a specific dance practice become the norm and justifying why it should be the norm: “because it is universal”. For example, release technique frequently references “universal” concepts of anatomical structure and its relation to gravity, and these are seen as pertaining to all bodies regardless of the tradition in which they are dancing. What is masked over in the labeling of the technique as universal is the idea that it produces an efficiency of movement, as if that is a desired attribute of all dancing. But who is to say that all dancing should be efficient?

f every particular dance technique is context-specific and universal is just an ideological operation, could you talk a bit about the relationship between dance and its social context? What is the connection between a dance practice and the everyday ideas of movement and body in a particular social context? What is the connection between the practice of the hired body and the broader, everyday contemporary way of viewing the body?

I believe that dance participates in and creates its cultural surrounding, that it reflects but also generates cultural values. Many of us have tried to connect what is going on in dance, what is put forward as an argument within a dance and what is going on in its cultural surrounding. The hired body seems to be connected very strongly to the recent beliefs around identity as performance. If you could perform any gender on whatever day of the week, one day you could wear overalls and the next day a mini-skirt, one day you could be queer and the next day you could be straight, and if you also think that you can accessorize your body by giving it the attributes of a certain gender or sexual orientation, you are creating all these different possibilities for yourself as an identity. And this is, in a sense, how the hired body thinks of itself: the several techniques that it masters are seen as identities to be performed, which the “hired body” is able to mix up and put together in different ways at will.

ut is there not a contradiction or at least a tension between viewing identity as a performance (and the contingency of a dance technique in analogy to it) and the function of universality certain dance techniques come to have? What is the interplay between the claim to universality or fundamentality of certain dance techniques and the tendency to democratically distribute attention to as many techniques as possible in contemporary dance trainings? How do they work in producing “the hired body”? The hired body does not democratically incorporate multiple dance techniques, giving each a specificity and individuality. It fuses together multiple techniques into a single economy of movement that services the expectations for spectacle and

virtuosity. The dancer might feel that one day they are emphasizing the training from contact improvisation and another day their accomplishments from ballet, but each of these training systems has been modified so as to fit with the others. I would argue that the assumptions about performing one’s identity function in the same way. It seems liberatory or democratic, but there are underlying pressures, such as being versatile or being successful that are working to further the interests of hegemonic power structures.

ould you explain a little the connection between the three main types of the hired body and the context of dance production and distribution in which they appear? I need to emphasize that the reason for choosing these three examples of the hired body is that I am talking about the hired body in the context of the global stage, where certain kinds of performances are circulating around the world and are being seen by lots of people. These performances usually contain a certain combination of local or cultural difference and mainstream spectacle. Within this context, I think there are three kinds of hired bodies: the balletic body, which privileges line and a seeming effortlessness, the industrial body which privileges hard work and sexual expressiveness, and the released body, which privileges efficiency and neutrality.

n connection to the balletic body, you mentioned the Brazilian group Grupo Corpo, which incorporates elements of local samba dancing within the framework of a balletic technique, which makes the local elements digestible to global and especially Western audiences. In Brazilian cultural tradition, there is a strong notion of appropriation of Western cultural practices called “cannibalization” (dating back to the times of modernismo in literature and culture) – which is seen as a subversive way of deconstructing pieces of colonial culture, appropriating and transforming them. Do you think this might be the way Grupo Corpo is seen or wants to be seen in Brazil, or would this be a failed attempt at this subversive kind of cannibalization, since it (maybe unintentionally) relies upon the function of “universalization” of a Western cultural practice (ballet)? Yes, I think they might want to be seen in this way in Brazil and that they effectively are seen in this way by a certain group of Brazilian audiences. Using them as an example of the hired body, I was talking more about the way they function on the global stage, outside of Brazil, where the critique has been largely launched by Brazilian critics, claiming that they capitulate to colonialist forces in their representation of happy people.

o what is the role of ballet in their work – why do they use it?

I do not think that this is the way the choreographer came to envision his style. He was trained as a ballet dancer but he also wanted to change ballet, to make it more Brazilian and bring

IN TE R VJ U / I N T E R V I E W 8 5

15 THEIR / 15 WHAT / 14 BEING / 14 COUNTER / 13 CERTAIN / 13 CONTEXT / 13 GLOBAL / 13 PRACTICES / 13 SEE / 13 THESE / 13 TIME / 13 VERY / 13 WESTERN /

in other forms of dancing and other forms of bodily knowledge that he had access to because of the dancers he was working with. So he pursued his artistic vision, it is not that he suddenly decided that he needed ballet to become internationally successful. He pursued his artistic vision and it just so happened that it became extremely popular.

e have seen another performance here at Springdance that presents a long-lived dance tradition on the global stage: Savion Glover’s Bare Soundz, a rhythmically powerful tap dance performance. Why do you think this is a counter-example to the balletic body – what you termed the “singular body”?

It is a counter-example because it never tries to “sell” movement, to put up the body for some kind of spectacular presentation. Even though Glover’s performance is extraordinary, exceptional and quite dazzling to watch and to hear, his performance works in the service of promoting a certain community’s values and a particular aesthetics that has a very long history of support of a particular group of people; he is promoting a particular community’s vision.

ow does Glover’s use of tap dancing contrast with, for example, Fred Astaire’s tap dancing, which incorporates some balletic techniques and style of presentation? First of all, I cannot talk about Glover’s personal views, wishes and desires on how his dance is perceived. What I am talking about is what I see on stage and what I can deduce from that. In terms of the most basic movement values, Glover is not trying to open up the body so that you can see all the lines of the body, how it makes graceful shapes or how it exudes elegance, the way Fred Astaire does. Glover is placing the body in the service of generating sounds, and he does not really care so much about presenting himself outside of the self that is immersed in the action of producing these sounds and doing this dancing. In contrast, Fred Astaire is always projecting a persona; he is always being the nutty guy who is madly in love or the debonair aristocrat who is madly in love, who also happens to be dancing. This is the basic difference.

hat exactly is the relationship between the tap dance as used by Glover and the cultural context or the particular community you mentioned before?

I think Glover is perpetuating a long tradition of tap dancing associated with African-American culture, often appropriated by white dancers and musicians. This tradition called “hoofing” is explicitly anti-spectacular and community-oriented, within a community of dancers that share the movement, dance with each other, pass the movement on, trade rhythms etc., and thereby create a kind of bodily conversation with each other through dancing, with others watching at the same time. This is also what we have seen on stage.

8 6 IN TE R VJU / IN TE RVIEW

ow does Pichet Klunchun’s I Am a Demon, which we have also seen in Ljubljana (Mladi Levi 2010), contrast the hired body? Why is Klunchun’s approach, which extricates khon from its original context with the explicit aim of presenting it to a Western audience, a counter-example to the different usages of certain Asian or African dance practices within a balletic or contemporary dance context, which might be charged with a new type of exoticism? I think that Klunchun is using certain kinds of Western theatrical techniques to present khon as relevant for global audiences today, and to give them a new way of seeing a traditional dance form. He is rejuvenating it; he is bringing it into the present; in one of his interviews, he says he is making it stronger. But I think that he is not doing that in order to succeed personally or simply to become more popular on the global stage. He is doing that because he really wants this distinctive aesthetic practice to be known to more people. And I think this is the main difference: the question is why you dance.

n terms of the movement presented on stage – where could you see this “sharing” of a dance practice instead of a more spectacular way of presenting local dance practices, which is frequent in Western appropriations of other culture’s dance practices? I think it is really interesting how much time he spends facing sideways and not facing the audience. That is how the piece begins as I recall. He is explicitly trying to show something, but he is not trying to show himself showing it, which would be a spectacular approach. He wants the dance itself to reach out to people; he does not want himself to do this reaching out. He tries to make himself, his stage persona, almost “invisible,” the same way Savion Glover does.

here was another performance here at Springdance that might open up the discussion of the relationship between mainstream Western contemporary dance techniques and Asian cultural traditions. I am talking about the performance by the Japanese group Contact Gonzo, based on contact improvisation with a more violent twist. Is it a creative and ironic appropriation of a Western dancing practice that plays with Western stereotypes of the Japanese or is it an uncritical appropriation? What I know about Japanese experimental dance tradition is that it has a long history of aesthetic values and modifications that I do not have access to. Mostly only Japanese-language scholars have written about it and there are very few translations… So when I talk about Contact Gonzo, this inaccessibility of the context of experimental dancing practices in Japan makes it is really difficult to establish what Contact Gonzo is reacting to or what they are appropriating. My understanding is that their performance certainly does not consist only of Western influences. We could see butoh, all different varieties of post-butoh and a lot of different aesthetic movements that

13 WHO / 12 BALLETIC / 12 CONTEMPORARY / 12 CULTURAL / 12 DOES / 12 IT / 12 KINDS / 12 SO / 12 WAS / 12 WORK / 11 BODIES / 11 KIND / 11 NOTION /

have developed in Japan in the last 70 or 80 years. I think that they could be appropriating ideas from wrestling or contact improvisation, but I don’t think that appropriation or critique of the West is their main interest at all.

hat is the relation of this performance to the tradition of Western conventions of stage presentation? It seemed to be quite a strong departure from that in a very ironic way.

I think that they follow a kind of post-butoh lineage. There is a very strong emphasis in butoh on process and on continually becoming, instead of emphasizing the product. So a lot of butoh is based on a certain type of improvisation, or this is a crucial aspect of its practice in any case. Contact Gonzo’s performance is clearly improvised.

f the hired body is connected to Western concepts of spectacle presentation, is the return to other forms of dance practices a potential for countering the hired body (and I do not intend an intentional countering on the part of the artist, but more the effect these practices have when viewed)? Can this potential come from returning to lesser known practices with a long-standing tradition, or could there also be countering practices that use mainstream Western traditions?

One goal I have in describing all these different types of bodies is to get beyond the divide of what is traditional and what is non-traditional. I think we have all kinds of contemporary choreographers from different backgrounds experimenting with the global concert dance stage. It is not a matter of being traditional or non-traditional. I think there are several traditions of dance in the world that are long-standing and well-established, with deeply examined and cultivated aesthetic principles, taking years and years and years to learn and which also have pedagogies where people can learn them if they take the time to study. Maybe these are more obvious examples of the singular body (a counter-example to the balletic body), but it is not so much a question of being or not being the singular body. It has to do with why someone would present a particular dance on the global stage? What do they want viewers to get from it and why?

f we turn to the “industrial body”, as another example of the “hired body”: you said that in contrast with ballet, which tries to emphasize the effortlessness of the movement, the industrial body rejoices in showing off its physical effort. Yet it seems to me that the industrial body is nevertheless masking the real effort needed to produce these kinds of bodies. To put it boldly: even if they sweat, their sweat is shiny and sexy and glamorous; their effort is spectacularized, promoting the unrealistic imperative of “fitness” with the idea that the gains strongly outweigh the losses. How do you think the industrial body is tied to contemporary everyday ideologies of the body and its effort?

“T

he hired body seems to be connected very strongly to the recent beliefs around identity as performance. If you could perform any gender on whatever day of the week, one day you could wear overalls and the next day a mini-skirt, one day you could be queer and the next day you could be straight, and if you also think that you can accessorize your body by giving it the attributes of a certain gender or sexual orientation, you are creating all these different possibilities for yourself as an identity. And this is, in a sense, how the hired body thinks of itself: the several techniques that it masters are seen as identities to be performed, which the “hired body” is able to mix up and put together in different ways at will.” I N TE R VJ U / I N T E R V I E W 87

11 ONE / 11 PARTICULAR / 11 PEOPLE / 11 TECHNIQUES / 11 UNIVERSAL / 10 CONNECTION / 10 IN / 10 MIGHT / 9 BALLET / 9 DANCER / 9 DAY / 9 EXAMPLES /

“I

have written a lot of books and articles using the notion of choreography and in the last book that I have written, Choreographing Empathy, I deployed a critique of my usage of the term earlier, about how I had too easily thought of it as a utopian term. I tried to show in my latest book that it has a past associated with colonization, hegemonic forces and power structures. So the short answer would be: I don’t know what choreography is anymore. But the longer answer would be that I still think that we need to work out the processes through which dances get created and I think that we could find reflected in those processes certain theories about what the world is and what it could be.”

I would repeat what I said before in connection to the identity as performance – one of my students once said: “I can wear overalls one day and a mini-skirt the next day, but I would never go out of the house without my mascara.” I think that the way that the industrial body relates to gender roles, for example, is that everyone still needs to look glamorous, and especially women. There is in general a lot of pressure on young people to have a kind of sexual allure or sexual presence, but especially on women. So it’s supposedly ok to work at that, but you have to succeed. And the brilliance of the industrial body is that it shows people succeeding at it. It shows that if you work at it you can have these precious, desired things such as sexiness and glamour.

s there a connection between the contemporary industrial body and the early capitalist industrial body of Hollywood musicals, i.e. Busby Berkeley’s mass choreographies in the 30s and 40s, with their collective formations creating stunning geometrical patterns where the singular dancer almost disappears, becoming part of the mechanism, as one of the serial products on the Fordist assembly line? How does the contemporary industrial body differ from the early modern industrial body? Could there be a connection with changes in contemporary modes of production (from Fordism to Post-Fordism) in late capitalist societies and the change in the status of the cultural industry and how could this be reflected in dance? Or is this too much of an allegoric reading? I would have to look closely at the Berkeley films, which I have not seen for a long time; but as I recall, the dancers aren’t working that hard. Their labor consists more in integrating themselves seamlessly into the group with simple steps repeated many times. You probably could construct some revealing comparisons between Fordism and global capitalism as these are manifested in dancing, in which case I imagine the industrial body would be the venture capitalist of dance.

e could view all three types of the hired body as being connected to what Sloterdijk termed modernity’s “kinetic drive” with its emblem in the capitalist imperative of a perpetual movement of productivity. The three types of the hired body seem to imply the idea of the success of this drive. I am referring to the balletic body’s seeming effortlessness, the industrial body’s glamorous effort and the seeming liberty and efficiency of the released body – all promoting the idea of a successful economy of movement, of an efficient production and consumption. Could we see resisting or countering practices in what André Lepecki has termed the “exhausting dance” in practices of falling, stumbling, uncertainty and fragility of movement tending to stillness? Could an example of that be the reconstruction of the performance THEM by Ishmael Houston-Jones, which was also performed at Springdance? I think THEM is a great example of the “processual body”, which

8 8 IN TE R VJU / IN TE RVIEW

9 GLOVER / 9 HIS / 9 NEW / 9 PRACTICE / 9 PRODUCTION / 9 TRADITION / 8 ANOTHER / 8 CHOREOGRAPHERS / 8 EACH / 8 FUNCTION / 8 HOW / 8 LONG /

is a counter-example of the “industrial body”, partly because it is a body that is constantly evolving and that is never stable enough to present a clear product. The performance is improvised, so there are big differences between today’s reconstruction and 1989’s premiere, but also within a given night you can see some kinds of interactions that are very specific to the way that two bodies happen to meet and have to deal with it, without prearrangement. And this is not a solo piece either; there are many bodies trying to figure their way to continue together.

hat about specifically the use of falling, uncertain movement, etc., and the use of bodies that are not in line with the dominant standards, i.e. sick, fragile, old bodies or movements that indicate this kind of fragility? We could see this type of movement in THEM, but we can also see this in the general praxis of involving dancers with specific physical conditions, seen by the clinical discourse as “anomalies.” Do they have countering potential? Yes, certainly. For instance, companies with mixed abilities, with people in wheelchairs dancing alongside everybody else, etc. – I think this is a very interesting idea. Here at Springdance we saw the performance Gina, with the author making comments about her size, which is another way of contrasting the balletic or the industrial body. Those are choreographic ideas of who to include in the dance, but I am also interested in what movements they do and in what order, and how these kinds of decisions can provide alternatives to the industrial body. For instance, in THEM, there are trained dancers without mixed abilities, yet it is the quality of the movement that provides alternatives or counter-examples to the hired body.

hat about the usage of very everyday movement on stage, most famously in Jérôme Bel’s The Show Must Go On, but present in several dance performances ever since. Can this type of movement provide an alternative to the industrial body? I think it did have a countering potential for a long time, and it was very effective in terms of calling audiences’ attention to their expectations, to what they think they are going to see in the theater and why they are going there. I think it did very important critical work in trying to helps us reconsider what is the function of art, how do we consume art and for what purpose.

t seems to me that what you describe as “the volunteer body” embodies a kind of Deleuzian localized, partial, rhizomatic resistance to power structures, rejecting the possibility of a totalized and global mobilization, choosing instead localized tactical strategies to de-stabilize dominant regimes of intelligibility. But how can we make sense of the appropriation of this type of resistance by the cultural industry and the PR sector? Can we view it as another instance of a subversive practice being incorporated within the dominant discourse as the released body has been? Are then all kinds of resistances tied to this infernal circle of never-ending production of critique and its incorporation within dominant discourses, or do you see in dance practices any hint of resistance that might transcend this infernal circle? I think that Michel de Certeau’s notions of strategy and tactic might be pertinent here. Often, a tactic gets appropriated by the cultural industry, as you call it, and turned into a strategy. Occasionally, a sufficient number of tactics are launched all at the same time so as to disrupt the “infernal cycle” and even promote serious change, at least for awhile.

ou said once that choreography (as I understand, in these kinds of countering instances) can be a way of opening new spaces, creating new worlds and navigating new types of movements through them. Do you think choreography can have this kind of almost utopian function (something we might see also in Boris Charmatz’s attitude with his Levée les conflits relying upon Barthes’ notion of political neutrality)? Is your understanding of choreography in line with that? I have written a lot of books and articles using the notion of choreography and in the last book that I have written, Choreographing Empathy, I deployed a critique of my usage of the term earlier, about how I had too easily thought of it as a utopian term. I tried to show in my latest book that it has a past associated with colonization, hegemonic forces and power structures. So the short answer would be: I don’t know what choreography is anymore. But the longer answer would be that I still think that we need to work out the processes through which dances get created and I think that we could find reflected in those processes certain theories about what the world is and what it could be. ..

hat is the “volunteer body” as the counter-example to the released body? You mentioned the example of flash mobs – how do they counter the released body? In particular, is there a difference in the efficiency of the movement? The volunteer body is not at all efficient, particularly because it lends its labor for no clear purpose or results. It is simply dancing for the hell of it, as we would say in English.

I N TE R VJ U / I N T E R V I E W 8 9

29 V / 28 IN / 18 NA / 17 JE / 15 KI / 12 NE / 11 SKUPNOSTI / 9 KOT / 9 UMETNOSTI / 8 SE / 8 Z / 8 ZA / 7 ALI / 7 IZ / 7 MED / 7 S / 6 BI / 6 DOGODKA / 6 TE /

Paloma Madrid: Dance At Home

SKUPNOSTNO V UMETNOSTI ICAF – INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ARTS FESTIVAL, ROTTERDAM, 30. MAREC–3. APRIL 2011 KATJA ČIČIGOJ

»D

ružbeni mandat kulturne produkcije se je premestil iz pozicije relativne avtonomije k poziciji, v kateri se od kulture pričakuje, da bo bodisi socializirala trg – četudi tvegajoč, da bo kolonizirana s strani trga v procesu te subverzivne afirmacije – ali politizirala družbo. Njene privilegirane forme so kulturna industrija in participatorna umetnost ali umetnost skupnosti.« V luči zgornjih besed Tomislava Medaka1 se tema letošnjega International Community Arts Festival v Rotterdamu2 izkaže za več kot poljubno tematsko povezavo. Vprašanje o (ne)moči umetnosti skupnosti pomeni prevpraševanje samega raison d’être te kulturne forme: možnosti delovanja z, za in na skupnost. Možnost tega delovanja, kot sugerira umestitev zgornjega citata v Medakovo predavanje, namreč še zdaleč ni samoumevna, saj utegne politizacija umetnosti prikrivati depolitizacijo družbe in javne sfere. Obenem se danes principi kolaboracije in participacije selijo iz umetniških v poslovne vode, vse bolj razširjene oblike umetnosti skupnosti pa so pahnjene v medsebojno tekmovanje na prostem trgu za pozornost gledalcev ali javna sredstva; »skupnost« postaja ena najbolj profitabilnih znamk, ki prinašajo javno podporo njenim razglaševalcem, »umetnost« pa je vse pogosteje zreducirana na funkcijo ustvarjanja »kulturnega kapitala«. V tem kontekstu je resnična moč umetnosti skupnosti – ki jo je njen ustanovitelj Augusto Boal imenoval »vaja za revolucijo« – več kot vprašljiva ne glede na dobre namere ustvarjalcev. To vse bolj kliče po prevprašanju domnevno neproblematične povezave krovnih terminov tega umetniškega modusa – povezave med umetnostjo in skupnostjo, med ustvarjanjem in političnim delovanjem. Omenjena tema je sicer z izjemo delnih artikulacij na seminar-

9 0 R EC E N Z IJE , R E FLEKSIJ E / REVIEWS, EXT ENSIO NS

V javnem predavanju z naslovom Dispositives of communicative capitalism – Articulated Societies, Overarticulate Public, Obfuscated Politics, ki ga je imel v Cankarjevem domu 7. 3. 2011 v okviru Maskinega Seminarja sodobnih scenskih umetnosti. »The Power of Community Arts« je bila tema pete edicije festivala ICAF pod umetniškim vodstvom Eugena van Ervena.

6 TEMVEČ / 6 UMETNIŠKEGA / 6 VSE / 5 BOLJ / 5 DA / 5 DOGODEK / 5 FORME / 5 OD / 5 PARTICIPACIJE / 5 UMETNOST / 4 MOČ / 4 NI / 4 PO / 4 PROSTOR /

jih ostala v ozadju številnih projektov na ICAF-u, ki so predstavljali svoje prispevke skupnosti brez radikalne avtorefleksije. Zato je vredno posvetiti pozornost dvema projektoma, ki v nasprotju s tem s svojo nekonvencionalno formo postavljata pod vprašaj ne zgolj ambivalentno povezavo med umetnostjo in socialno-političnim učinkovanjem, temveč sežeta še dlje, v prevpraševanje ustaljenih predpostavk o ontologiji in institucionalno-ekonomskem kontekstu umetniškega dogodka in njegovem odnosu do skupnosti ustvarjalcev in odjemalcev. Dance At Home Palome Madrid »profanira« umetniški dogodek v dobrino, ki jo je moč »užiti« kar na domu po predhodnem naročilu. Ekonomsko-socialni kontekst te »profanacije« je treba razumeti v Agambenovem smislu vrnitve nečesa iz sakralizirane domene v skupno rabo: ples sodelujočih neprofesionalcev iz vsakokratne skupnosti si je moč izposoditi v javni knjižnici. Odjemalec tako ne kupi izkušnje, kakor v konvencionalni potrošnji plesnih dogodkov, temveč si izposodi javno dobrino – plesni dogodek. Vendar kljub vsakdanjosti gibanje plesalcev nikoli ne ustreza ustaljenim vzorcem vsakdanje motorike – domači uporabni objekti prek nenavadnih gibalnih sekvenc postajajo nedomači; tkejo se nove prostorske in medtelesne relacije. Avtorica v skladu s svojim opusom, ki obsega pretežno site-specific projekte, tudi tokrat pod vprašaj postavi specifični prostor umetniškega dogodka, tako da dogodek prevzame vlogo reflektorja, ki prostor prikaže v novi luči – tokrat prostor doma, enega glavnih »fetišev« buržoazne kulture, hkrati pa emblematični prostor zasebnosti nenadoma naseli javni plesni dogodek. Ta obenem »razdomači« tudi klasična razmerja znotraj umetniškega dogodka. Plesalci sicer nikoli eksplicitno ne spodbujajo gledalcev k participaciji. Gledalec je, sorodno kakor v projektu Borisa Charmatza héâtreélévision (2002), soočen prav z realnim svojega gledanja, ki tukaj ni ločljivo od gibanja, če dogajanje naseljuje vse mogoče kotičke stanovanja, ki jih ni mogoče zajeti z enostavnim pregledom – in ko gledalec zaznava lastno zaznavanje, se ove tudi odločitve: gledati/sodelovati. Dance At Home ni klasični primer participatorne umetnosti skupnosti, ki bi s pomočjo »simultane dramaturgije« (po Boalu) gledalcem-igralcem (spectactors) omogočila vajo v reševanju konfliktov. Projekt ne vsebuje vsebinskega politično-utopičnega sporočila. »Moč« tega projekta sloni na njegovi »dividualni formi«, kot bi dejal Rancière, ki s svojo socialno-kontekstualno liminalnostjo prevprašuje prevladujočo »distribucijo čutnega« – delitev na javni umetniški dogodek in zasebno življenje, na plesalce in gledalce, na gostitelje in goste, na umetnost in življenje ne da bi te delitve zabrisal. Tudi skladatelj Merlijn Twaalfhoven je zaslovel predvsem po svojih site-specific projektih, v katerih je z glasbo zbližal npr. skupnosti turških in grških prebivalcev Cipra ali prebivalcev z obeh strani betlehemskega zidu. Skupnost, ki jo naslavlja v svojem The Air We Breathe, je bolj konvencionalna – skupnost umetniškega dogodka. Tudi to zaznamujejo močne politične konotacije, če pomislimo na nepreštevne teoretizacije političnega potenciala gledališke skupnosti. Tovrstno utopično vero je tok zgodovine že prevečkrat postavil pod vprašaj, da bi lahko danes še nastopila v obliki povsem neproblematične afirmacije. Po-

tencialno politični naboj obravnavanega dela je tako bolj kot na ravni tovrstne vsebine moč ponovno iskati na ravni forme, ali bolje, specifične ne-forme, nedoločljivosti narave dogodka in razmerij med udeleženci. V tem interaktivnem koncertu neprofesionalni pevci vstopajo iz parterja; občasno jih vodi skladatelj, občasno sami vodijo segmente občinstva in ustvarjajo kompleksno polifonično, kontrapunktno zborovsko skladbo. Ta oblika interaktivnosti presega užitek participacije – pomen namreč nosi prav kvaliteta te participacije oz. njen produkt in ne zgolj sama procesualnost ali gola izkušnja soustvarjalnosti, kot je značilno za sodobno »ideologijo participacije«. Ne gre zgolj za premestitev odnosa aktivno-pasivno med pevci in poslušalci, temveč za premestitev domen virtuoznosti-vrednotenja. V nasprotju z drugimi konceptualnimi gestami (npr. Jérôme Bel – The Show Must Go On) afirmacija ideje »vsak lahko ustvarja umetnost« ne poteka s presaditvijo neumetniškega v umetniški kontekst, temveč prav z vključitvijo vsakega v ustvarjanje nečesa, čemur lahko pripišemo umetniške kvalitete (estetska učinkovitost, kompleksnost kompozicije, dovršenost izvedbe …). Tudi tu smo priča svojevrstni »profanaciji« kot povratku umetnosti iz domene profesionalnega servisa v domeno skupnostne ustvarjalnosti – glasba tu dobesedno postane the air we breathe. Če si sposodimo sintagmo Miklavža Komelja, Twaalfhoven občinstvo vključi v ustvarjanje »umetnosti za vse«, ki nima nujno forme množične kulture, npr. unisonega refrenskega brundanja na koncertu zabavne glasbe, temveč kompleksne glasbene kompozicije. Ta formalno emancipatorna gesta ne afirmira le moči številnosti mnoštva, temveč radikalno vero v zmožnost »kakovostnega« skupnega delovanja. Specifična struktura participacije v obeh projektih se tako močno razlikuje od klasične participatornosti, ki prevladuje v modusu umetnosti skupnosti, ki naj bi imela terapevtski ali politični učinek, in četudi naj bi se zoperstavila pojmovanju umetnosti kot potrošnega objekta, danes vse bolj postaja privilegirani objekt na trgu umetniških izkustev. Nasprotno je v obravnavanih projektih umetniška izkušnja iztrgana iz te instrumentalne domene in postane lokus prevpraševanja statusa umetniškega dogodka kot javnega dobrega in odnosov med njegovimi udeleženci. Kaj pričakujemo od ustvarjalcev in kaj ustvarjalci pričakujejo od občinstva? Kaj tvori specifično delo gledalcev in kaj izkušnjo ustvarjalcev? Oba projekta našo pozornost usmerjata na tukaj in zdaj odločitve med gledati in delovati. ..

Viri in literatura: Agamben, Giorgio, Profanazioni, Rim: Nottetempo, 2005. Komelj, Miklavž, Kako misliti partizansko umetnost?, Ljubljana: Založba cf, 2009. Medak, Tomislav, Dispositives of communicative capitalism – Articulated Societies, Overarticulate Public, Obfuscated Politics. Javno predavanje v Cankarjevem domu 7. 3. 2011 v okviru Maskinega Seminarja sodobnih scenskih umetnosti. Rancière, Jacques, Emancipirani gledalec, Ljubljana: Maska, 2010.

RECEN ZI JE, REFL EKS IJE / REV I E W S , E X T E N S I ON S 9 1

131 THE / 82 OF / 31 AND / 24 TO / 22 IS / 21 A / 21 ART / 19 IN / 16 COMMUNITY / 14 FROM / 13 BY / 12 THIS / 11 BE / 11 EVENT / 11 THAT / 9 ARTISTIC / 9 FORM

Paloma Madrid: Dance At Home

COMMUNALITY IN ART “T ICAF – INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ARTS FESTIVAL, ROTTERDAM, MARCH 30–APRIL 3, 2011 KATJA ČIČIGOJ TRANSLATED BY MELITA SILIČ

he social mandate of cultural production shifted from the position of relative autonomy to the position where culture is expected to either socialise the market – despite risking being colonized by the market in the process of this subversive affirmation – or to politicise the society. Its privileged forms are the cultural industry and participatory or community art.” In light of Tomislav Medak’s1 words, the topic of this year’s International Community Arts Festival in Rotterdam2 turns out to be more than just an arbitrary thematic relation. To bring up the issue of community art’s power(lessness) is to revisit the very raison d’être of this cultural form: the possibility of performing an activity with and for the community and one that has an effect upon it. As suggested by the above-mentioned quotation from Medak’s lecture, the possibility of said activity is anything but obvious due to the fact that the politicisation of art might conceal the depoliticisation of society and the public sphere. Simultaneously, the principles of collaboration and participation today move from the artistic to the corporate waters whilst increasingly expanded forms of community art are forced to compete in the free market for the attention of spectators or public funds; the “community” is becoming one of the more profitable brands around, providing public support to its agents, whereas “art” is ever more often reduced to the function of “cultural capital” production. In this context, the true strength of community art – called “practicing for revolution” by one of its champions, Augusto Boal – is more than disputable regardless the authors’ good intentions. Indeed, the allegedly unproblematic relations of this artistic mode’s umbrella terms – relations between art and community, between creation and political activity – should be revisited. With the exception of partial articulations at seminars, said 1

9 2 R EC E N ZIJE , R E FLEKSIJ E / REVIEW S, EXT ENSIO NS

From a public lecture entitled Dispositives of Communicative Capitalism – Articulated Societies, Overarticulate Public, Obfuscated Politics, held at Cankarjev Dom on March 7, 2011, as part of the Seminar on Contemporary Performing Arts organized by Maska. “The Power of Community Arts” was the topic of the fifth ICAF under the artistic direction of Eugene van Erven.

/ 9 OR / 9 S / 8 AN / 8 ITS / 7 BETWEEN / 7 BUT / 7 NOT / 7 POLITICAL / 7 PROJECTS / 7 PUBLIC / 7 THE / 6 ACTIVITY / 6 IN / 6 MORE / 6 PARTICIPATION /

topic remained in the background of a number of projects at ICAF that presented their contributions to the community without any radical self-reflection. Thus, attention should be drawn to two projects; unlike the general trend, their unconventional form not only questions the ambivalent relation between art and socio-political activity but explores further and re-addresses the predominant presumptions about the ontology and institutionaleconomic context of the artistic event and its relation to the community of authors and consumers.

Such a utopian belief has way too often been questioned by the course of history to be presented today in a form of completely unproblematic affirmation. The potential political charge of this work can be – rather than in terms of content – identified in terms of form, or better yet, its specific non-form, the indefinable nature of the event and relations between its participants. In this interactive concert, nonprofessional singers come from the stalls; occasionally they are conducted by the composer and occasionally it is they who conduct the segments of audience and create a complex polyphonic, counterpoint choir composition. This form of interactivity surpasses the pleasure of participation – other than processuality or the bare experience of co-creation characteristic of contemporary “ideology of participation”, it is the quality of this participation or its product that is relevant. It is not just about the transposition of the relation active-passive between the singers and listeners, but the transposition of virtuosity-evaluation domains. Unlike other conceptual gestures (for example, Jérôme Bel’s The Show Must Go On), the affirmation of the idea “anyone can make art” is not implemented by transplanting the non-art into the art context, but by integration of everyone in the production of something that can be attributed artistic qualities (aesthetic efficiency, complexity of composition, impeccable execution…). Here, too, we witness a unique “profanation” as the return of art from the domain of professional service to the domain of community creativity – indeed, music literally becomes the air we breathe. Borrowing the syntagm of Miklavž Komelj, Twaalfhoven includes the audience in the creation of “art for everyone”, which does not necessarily take the form of mass culture, i.e. unisonic refrain humming at a popular music concert but a form of complex music composition. This formally emancipatory gesture does not only affirm the strength of a multitude’s plurality but also a radical belief in the possibility of a “quality” common activity.

Dance At Home by Paloma Madrid “profanes” the art event into a commodity that might be “consumed” at home upon being pre-ordered. The economic and social context of this “profanation” has to be considered in Agamben’s sense of returning the thing from the sacralised domain to common use: the dance of inexperienced participants from the community can be borrowed from the local library. Unlike the conventional consumption of dance events, the customer doesn’t purchase an experience but rather borrows a public good – a dance event. At the same time, regardless the commonness, the dancers’ movements never fit the established patterns of mundane motorics – indeed, through unusual movement sequences, the familiar useful objects become un-familiar; new spatial and intercorporeal interactions emerge. In line with the rest of her oeuvre, which encompasses mainly site-specific projects, the author again questions the specific site of the artistic event so that the event assumes the role of reflector shedding a new light on the space – this time it is the space at home, one of the principal “fetishes” of the bourgeoisie culture, and simultaneously, the emblematic space of intimacy is suddenly inhabited by a public dance event which “de-familiarises” the classical relations within an artistic event. However, the dancers never explicitly encourage the spectators to participate. Similarly as in the project héâtre-élévision (2002) by Boris Charmatz, the spectator is confronted with the reality of their watching, which – in this case – cannot be separated from the movement if the activity inhabits every possible corner of the apartment which cannot be captured with a simple checking around; and when the spectator perceives their own perception, they also become aware of the decision: watch/participate. Dance At Home is not a classical example of participatory community art that would – by way of “simultaneous dramaturgy” (according to Boal) – allow the spectators an exercise in conflict solving. The project does not contain a utopian-political message. Its “strength” is based on – in words by Rancière – the “dividual form” that through its socio-contextual liminality revisits the dominant “distribution of the sensible” – the division between the public artistic event and private life, dancers and spectators, hosts and guests, art and life, without erasing these divisions.

In both projects, the specific structure of participation is significantly different from the classical participation dominating in the mode of community art that is supposed to have therapeutic or political effect and yet today – although it should oppose the notion of art as a consumer object – is ever more becoming a privileged object in the market of artistic experience. In the addressed projects, the art experience is – quite the contrary – extracted from this instrumental domain and becomes the locus of revisiting the status of the art event as a public good and the relations between its participants. What do we expect from authors and what do authors expect from the audience? What forms the specific work of spectators and what forms the experience of authors? Both projects direct our attention to the here and now of the decision – either to watch or to act. ..

Site-specific projects also made famous the composer Merlijn Twaalfhoven, who employed music in order to bring together the communities of the Turkish and Greek populations on Cyprus or the inhabitants from the both sides of the Bethlehem wall. The community addressed in his The Air We Breathe is somewhat more conventional – the community of an artistic event that is also characterised by political connotations if countless theoretisations of an art community’s political potential are considered.

Sources and literature: Agamben, Giorgio, Profanazioni, Rome: Nottetempo, 2005. Komelj, Miklavž, Kako misliti partizansko umetnost? [How To Think Partisan Art?], Ljubljana: Založba cf, 2009. Medak, Tomislav, Dispositives of Communicative Capitalism – Articulated Societies, Overarticulate Public, Obfuscated Politics. Public lecture at Cankarjev Dom, March 7, 2011, as part of the Seminar on Contemporary Performing Arts organized by Maska. Rancière, Jacques, Emancipirani gledalec (Le spectateur émancipé), Ljubljana: Maska, 2010.

RECEN ZIJE, REFL EKS IJE / REV I E W S , E X T E N S I ON S 9 3

31 JE / 19 V / 16 NA / 15 IN / 12 KI / 10 NAGRADE / 9 PA / 9 SE / 9 SO / 8 Z / 8 ZA / 7 MED / 7 STVARNOSTI / 6 KOT / 6 PO / 6 S / 5 BI / 5 BILO / 5 GLEDALIŠKE /

NOVE GLEDALIŠKE I STVARNOSTI: NOVE PO RAZLIKOVALNIH LASTNOSTIH ALI (ZGOLJ) PO NEDAVNEM NASTANKU? EVROPSKA GLEDALIŠKA NAGRADA 2011 ANA PERNE

zvor evropske gledališke nagrade (projekt je nastal leta 1986) je v želji po vzpostavljanju medkulturnih vezi ali tudi, če uporabimo krilatico, medkulturnega dialoga. Projekt, ki je bil s strani organov EU prepoznan kot »organizacija evropskega kulturnega interesa« (in je kot tak tudi deležen finančne podpore), si tako za cilj postavlja mednarodno seznanjanje s kulturno raznovrstnim gledališkim ustvarjanjem. Od svojih začetkov nagrajuje pomembna gledališka imena (posameznike ali organizacije), na primer prvo leto francosko režiserko Ariane Mnouchkine, v osmi izdaji pa denimo podeli posebno nagrado srbskemu festivalu BITEF. Osrednji evropski gledališki nagradi, ki upošteva umetniško pot in je tako rekoč »življenjska«, projekt že ob tretji podelitvi priključi nagrado za nove gledališke stvarnosti, s katero usmerja pozornost k novim umetniškimi izrazom (imena preteklih nagrajencev so zgovorna: med njimi Christoph Marthaler, Royal Court Theatre, Socìetas Raffaello Sanzio, Josef Nadj, Alvis Hermanis …). Tudi letošnja evropska gledališka nagrada je bila dodeljena pomembnemu ustvarjalcu, nemškemu režiserju Petru Steinu, med drugim znanemu po monumentalnih uprizoritvah, ki je v svojem umetniško najbolj prepoznavnem obdobju (v sedemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja) vodil berlinsko gledališče Schaubühne. Še ena, posebna nagrada je šla v roke ruskemu igralcu in režiserju Juriju Ljubimovu, ustanovitelju Gledališča na Taganki, ki je odigralo pomembno vlogo v času sovjetskega režima. Pri nagradi za nove gledališke stvarnosti pa je bilo zaznati nekoliko inflacije, saj je bilo, kljub temu, da se je obseg nagrade skozi leta postopno širil, v letu 2011 nagrajencev kar šest: štirje posamezniki in dve gledališči. Morda je na število nagrajencev vplival enoletni premor med 13. in letošnjo 14. izdajo nagrade – festivalsko organiziranega dogodka, ki je že doživel premor (celo daljše vrste), po njem pa prvotno domovanje v sicilski Taormini zamenjal za nomadsko življenje in se letos odvil v Sankt Peterburgu (simboličnem »oknu v Evropo«, sicer tokratnem soorganizatorju in sofi-

9 4 R EC E N Z IJE , R E FLEKSIJ E / REVIEWS, EXT ENSIO NS

5 K / 5 NAGRAJENCEV / 5 OB / 5 TUDI / 4 DA / 4 GLEDALIŠKA / 4 PREDSTAVE / 4 RAZLIČNIH / 4 SICER / 4 ŠE / 4 ŽE / 3 ČE / 3 DELU / 3 DENIMO / 3 DRUGIM /

nancerju). A bolj kot na premor velja opozoriti na vidik, ki se pojavlja kot nekakšen kriterij podeljevanja nagrade: žirija je namreč upoštevala doslej še nenagrajena geografska območja. Nekajdnevna gledališka manifestacija, ki jo je gostilo mesto z bogato gledališko tradicijo (ob delu dobitnika posebne nagrade in delu enega izmed šesterice nagrajencev je na ogled ponudilo še nekaj predstav tamkajšnje aktualne produkcije), je v sklopu novih stvarnosti torej predstavljala ustvarjalnost različnih geografskih koordinat. In zdi se, da je upoštevanje teh imelo prednost pred upoštevanjem kriterijev estetskega značaja (ob katerem bi bile mestoma lahko tudi koordinate znotraj meja »ustreznosti«, če bi bil le pogled usmerjen k še kakšnemu pripadniku določenega območja). Sklopu novih stvarnosti gre posebna pozornost, saj nagrade takšne vrste pomenijo afirmacijo in doprinesejo k prepoznavnosti ustvarjalcev, pod pojmovnim znamenjem novega pa hkrati podajajo sliko svežih umetniških usmeritev – kot jo, seveda, s svojim izborom izriše žirija. Samo ime nagrade vzbudi povezavo z njenim izhodiščnim namenom, zato so (vsaj do neke mere) drugačni umetniški prijemi tako rekoč pričakovani. Dela, s katerimi so se predstavili nagrajenci, pa so sprožala vprašanja tipa »Kaj naj bi bilo tu novega?« in predvsem porodila dvom o utemeljenosti posameznih nagrad. Ob, na primer, predstavah portugalskega Teatra Meridional – prikazane so bile »epski«, v resnici ilustrativen 1974, uprizoritveno potovanje skozi nedavno portugalsko zgodovino, predstava pripovedovalskega žanra Cabo Verde in delo v nastajanju Specialisti – je na kredibilnosti dejansko začel izgubljati sam institut nagrade, saj so predstave izkazale že preizkušene postopke in ponekod celo pustile vtis amaterizma. Slovak Viliam Dočolomanský, ki s svojim mednarodnim gledališkim studiem Farma v pečini sicer deluje v Pragi, razvija gibalno in glasbeno gledališče, pri čemer z gojenjem zanimanja za lokalno raziskuje tradicije različnih kultur, da bi jih pretvoril v uprizoritveno obliko. Toda iz odigrane predstave z velikopoteznim naslovom Gledališče je predvsem zazevala idejna praznina. Islandskemu gledališču Vesturport, za katero je značilno precej svobodno prirejanje klasičnih del, bi lahko pripisali oznako fizično, a pri tem poudarili, da gre predvsem za spajanje cirkuških oziroma akrobatskih elementov z gledališkim materialom. Skrbno gradijo na celoti uprizoritvenih komponent (med drugim sodelujejo z Nickom Cavom); rezultat so predstave preproste narativne gradnje, osredotočene na določen segment izvirne predloge, ki znajo nagovoriti mladostniške generacije in jim je tudi mogoče nadeti oznako popa. Izmed dveh izvedenih uprizoritev gre vendar izpostaviti Metamorfozo (po Kafki), ki izpelje učinkovit poudarek z izpostavljanjem reakcij družine na svojega preobraženega/ drugačnega člana. Nemajhno je bilo presenečenje ob ogledu predstave Sreča v režiji Andreja Mogučija, nekakšne opere za otroke skoraj triurne dolžine. Ruski nagrajenec sicer kaže nagnjenje k spektakelskemu uprizarjanja oziroma vključevanju številnih elementov, k nenehni polnosti. Z ustvarjanjem preostalih dveh nagrajencev se je bilo zaradi različnih dejavnikov mogoče seznaniti le delno, a, paradoksalno, prav ti imeni vzbujata največje zanimanje. Finski režiser Kristian Smeds med

miselno se je torej vprašati: se je ob upoštevanju »geografije« namen nagrade spremenil? V čem je dejansko novost gledaliških stvarnosti, ki jih nagrajuje? Kaj pravzaprav nagrajuje? In koliko so pri tem »evropskem kulturnem interesu« na delu interesi negledališke oziroma neumetniške narave?

drugim prevprašuje določena uprizoritvena razmerja (denimo odnos igralec – gledalec), angleška režiserka Katie Mitchell pa je znana po zelo nadrobnem pristopu, pa tudi vključevanju video medija. Nove gledališke stvarnosti so morda res zbir različnih izrazov – med njimi je sicer mogoče najti določene sorodnosti (v denimo teži, ki jo nosi gibalna komponenta) –, niso pa vselej odraz novega z vsebovanimi razlikovalnimi lastnostmi glede na že znano. Smiselno se je torej vprašati: se je ob upoštevanju »geografije« namen nagrade spremenil? V čem je dejansko novost gledaliških stvarnosti, ki jih nagrajuje? Kaj pravzaprav nagrajuje? In koliko so pri tem »evropskem kulturnem interesu« na delu interesi negledališke oziroma neumetniške narave? Letošnji izbor je nedvomno pokazal na delovanje drugih interesov, posledično pa na očitno potrebo po prevetritvi nagrade. Seveda le, če nomadska gledališka manifestacija ne ubira smeri, ko bodo nove gledališke stvarnosti delovale bolj kot izsek tega, kar v sedanjem času nastaja na evropskem uprizoritvenem področju. V tem primeru se razlikovalni člen med prestižnim nagradnim dogodkom in raznimi festivalskimi oblikami pač zabrisuje. ..

RECEN ZIJE, REFL EKS IJE / REV I E W S , E X T E N S I ON S 9 5

84 THE / 48 OF / 32 A / 32 TO / 20 IN / 17 AND / 13 AS / 12 PRIZE / 12 THEATRE / 11 BE / 11 FOR / 11 THE / 9 IS / 9 WAS / 9 WHICH / 8 NEW / 8 THIS / 7 BY /

NEW THEATRICAL REALITIES: NEW DUE TO DIFFERENTIATING FEATURES OR (JUST) THEIR RECENT PRODUCTION? EUROPE THEATRE PRIZE 2011 ANA PERNE

he origin of the Europe Theatre Prize (founded in 1986) can be attributed to the desire for establishing intercultural relations or – using a well-known phrase – intercultural dialogue. Endorsed by the EU bodies as an “European cultural interest organisation” – and as such also EU funded – it aims for the international promotion of culturally diverse theatre productions. Since its beginning, it has awarded relevant theatre protagonists (individuals or organisations); in 1986, this was the French director Ariane Mnouchkine, whilst at the eighth edition, a special prize was given to the Serbian BITEF Festival. This principal Europe Theatre Prize, a project which takes into consideration the artistic career and is – so to speak – for “lifework”, added, at its third edition, the prize for New Theatrical Realities, focused on new artistic expressions (the names of the prize winners speak for themselves: Christoph Marthaler, Royal Court Theatre, Socìetas Raffaello Sanzio, Josef Nadj, Alvis Hermanis, etc.).

TRANSLATED BY MELITA SILIČ This year’s Europe Theatre Prize was also granted to an important artist, the German director Peter Stein – also renowned for his monumental productions – who was, in his most distinctive artistic period (1970s), the director of the Berlin-based Schaubühne theatre. Another prize, the Special Prize was granted to the Russian actor and director Yuri Lyubimov, founder of the Taganka Theatre, which played an important role during the Soviet regime. As to the New Theatrical Realities, one couldn’t help but notice some inflation; notwithstanding the fact that the prize has gradually “expanded” in number over the years, there were as many as six winners in 2011 – four individuals and two theatres. The number of winners might be attributed to a one-year break between the 13th and this year’s 14th edition. Organised as a festival, this event witnessed a break before (an even longer one) and afterwards exchanged its original venue in Taormina (Sicily) for a somewhat nomadic life, being held this year in St. Petersburg (a symbolic “window to Europe”, and the 2011 edi-

9 6 R EC E N ZIJE , R E FLEKSIJ E / REVIEWS, EXT ENSIO NS

7 THEATRE / 6 AN / 6 DIRECTOR / 6 SOME / 6 THAT / 6 WINNERS / 6 WITH / 5 ALSO / 5 ARTISTIC / 5 AT / 5 BEING / 5 ITS / 5 PRIZE / 5 REALITIES / 5 VARIOUS /

tion’s co-organiser and co-financer). However, rather than a break, we would like to point out another aspect, which indeed appears to be the criterion for the prize-awarding: the jury voted for thus far not-yet-awarded geographical regions. The several days’ long theatre event, hosted by a city with a rich theatre tradition (in addition to the work of the Special Prize winner as well as that of one of the six prize winners, some of the current local theatre productions were also showcased), presented within the new realities section the creativity of various geographical coordinates. And apparently this criterion had the advantage over that of aesthetic nature (which could have, in some cases, “fit” the geographical coordinates, if only the purview had included a few other representatives of the particular region in question). The section of new realities deserves special attention. Indeed, such awards bring affirmation and contribute to the artists’ visibility, whilst the connotation of new at the same time provides an insight into the latest artistic trends – outlined, of course, by a jury through its selection. The very name of the prize evokes a relation with its original intention, thus (at least to a some extent) different artistic approaches are – so to say – expected. However, the works presented by the winners trigger questions such as “What was new here?” and in particular raise doubt as to the appropriateness of individual prizes. For example, the performances of the Portuguese Teatro Meridional – comprising the “epic”, which was actually the illustrative 1974, a performative journey through recent Portuguese history, a performance of a narrative genre, Cabo Verde, and a work-in-progress Specialists – actually affected the credibility of the prize’s institute itself, because they employed proven techniques and at some points even gave the impression of amateurism. The Slovak Viliam Docolomanský – who, along with his international theatre studio Farm in the Cave, based in Prague – develops a physical and musical theatre and, due to his interest in the local, investigates the traditions of various cultures in order to transform them into a performative form. However, the performance with the bold title The Theatre was mainly characterised by complete lack of ideas. The Island Vesturport Theatre, known for a rather free adaptation of classical works, could be classified as physical theatre that is mainly focused on the integration of circus and acrobat elements in the theatre material. They carefully build the integrity of performative components (they also collaborate with Nick Cave, among others); the result are performances of a simple narrative construction focused on a particular segment of the original and able to address teenagers – they could well be labelled pop. However, of the two staged performances, The Metamorphosis (based on Kafka) deserves to be mentioned due to an efficient focus achieved by exposing family reactions to their transformed/different member. The performance Happiness by Andrey Moguchiy was somewhat of a shock – some sort of children’s opera of nearly three hours in length. The Russian prize winner seems to be inclined to spectacle performances, i.e. the integration of a number of elements, of which there is a constant abundance. Due to various factors, we were able to get to know the work of two other winners only

in part, though – interestingly enough – these two names proved to be the most appealing: among other things, the Finnish director Kristian Smeds investigates certain performative relations (such as the relation actor–spectator), whilst the English director Katie Mitchell is known for a very detailed approach as well as the incorporation of the video media. New theatrical realities could well be a “pick of the crop” of various expressions – which do share certain similarities (the relevance of the so-called physical component) – but they are not always a reflection of the new that would include features making them distinctive from what has already been seen. It therefore makes sense to ask: Has the consideration of “geography” affected the purpose of the prize? What is actually new about the theatrical realities being awarded? What is actually being awarded? And to what extent is this “European cultural interest” subject to interests that have nothing to do with theatre or art? Undoubtedly, this year’s selection made the involvement of other interests obvious, which consequently requires the prize to be “squared”. Unless, of course, this nomad theatre event takes the direction where new theatrical realities will instead really be more of a small section of what is being produced in the European performing arts. In which case, the distinction between a prestigious awards event and various festival forms is being blurred. ..

t therefore makes sense to ask: Has the consideration of “geography” affected the purpose of the prize? What is actually new about the theatrical realities being awarded? What is actually being awarded? And to what extent is this “European cultural interest” subject to interests that have nothing to do with theatre or art? RECEN ZIJE, REFL EKS IJE / REV I E W S , E X T E N S I ON S 97

65 IN / 49 V / 38 JE / 32 KI / 28 SE / 25 NA / 20 DA / 15 S / 15 TUDI / 14 NE / 14 SO / 12 BI / 12 ZA / 11 KOT / 10 PA / 9 PRI / 9 STVARI / 8 JIH / 8 KAR / 8 KO /

Photo: Sunčan Stone

DOTIK S TAKTOM OB INSTALACIJI SUPEROHM TANJE VUJINOVIĆ JANEZ STREHOVEC TANJA VUJINOVIĆ: SUPEROHM, D.D.V H.D. ŠTUDIJA #15 Instalacija (objekti, prilagojena elektronika, računalniki, procesiranje videa in zvoka v živo) Produkcija: Ultramono, www.ultramono.org Izvršni producent: Jan Kušej Galerija Kapelica, Ljubljana, 10.–21. oktober 2011

Projekt Superohm, postavljen oktobra 2011 v Galeriji Kapelica v Ljubljani, sodi med Diskretne dogodke v hrupnih domenah (petnajsta študija), kar najprej pomeni, da je dogodek in s tem udeleženčeva intervencija v času, prav tako pa so tu hrupne domene, iz česar izhaja, da je za dogodek bistven tudi njegov zvočni učinek, kar je sicer prav tako spremljevalka drugih projektov Tanje Vujinović. Dogodek ne implicira zgolj časovne razsežnosti; nekaj se dogaja le, če smo tam priče tudi intenzivni udeleženosti, in ta je v primeru »Diskretnih dogodkov« diskretna. Do nje pride takrat, ko stvari ne zgolj gledamo, kar je sicer značilno za gledalčev obisk razstav tradicionalnih umetniških artefaktov, ampak stopimo z njimi v intenziven in individualiziran odnos, ki vključuje celostni čutni in emocionalni aranžma. Tak aranžma predpostavlja nagovor vseh čutov, tudi dotika, vključenega v kinestetični dispozitiv, kajti statični angažma dotika ne privede do veliko podatkov. Potrebno je obiskovalčevo/uporabnikovo kroženje v prostoru instalacije, dotikanje objektov v gibanju, njihovo pospeševanje in zaustavljanje, usmerjanje in nalaganje. Za kakšne objekte gre pri tem? Spominjajo na živa bitja, recimo plišaste psičke, pa tudi na (nič nevarne) plazilce in živahne kozličke. Opremljeni so s senzorji, sposobni so tako programiranega kot naključnega obnašanja; premalo so pametni, da bi bili pravi roboti, in hkrati preveč, da bi jih obravnavali kot navadne igrače. Proizvajajo zvoke (konstituirajo hrupne domene) in njihovo gibanje je vključeno v umetno življenje na peskovniku (igrišču), na katerega so položeni. Delimo jih lahko na tri vrste: na največje in najbolj lene, ki se napajajo z elektriko v središču peskovnika, potem na psičke-avtomobilčke (če jih obiskovalci porinejo, se veselo zapeljejo v določeni smeri) in na skakajoče in prekopicajoče se plišaste kozličke, ki demonstrirajo (kot bi bili nekakšne vrtavke) še največ življenja. Vse, kar se dogaja na peskovniku, je snemano s kamerami nad njim, in modulirani posnetki se v živo projicirajo na zaslon v ozadju instalacije, prav tako pa umetno življenje v peskovniku (temelječe na interakcijah med različnimi analognimi in digi-

9 8 R EC E N Z IJE , R E FLEKSIJ E / REVIEW S, EXT ENSIO NS

8 PRAV / 8 TAKO / 8 Z / 7 ALI / 7 DOTIKA / 7 K / 7 OBJEKTI / 7 OBJEKTOV / 7 TEM / 6 DO / 6 GRE / 6 VUJINOVIĆ / 5 AMPAK / 5 GA / 5 MED / 5 PESKOVNIKU /

agovorjene niso le kinestetične, ampak tudi motorične sposobnosti obiskovalca/uporabnika, kajti od uvodnega (bojazljivega) opazovanja stvari, ki so pred njim (ko stopi v galerijski prostor), preide k veliko bolj aktivnemu, tudi raziskovalnemu odnosu do okolja in objektov v njem. Stvarem začenja odvzemati tujost in to mu uspe prek dotika, ki omogoča neposrednost, izkustvo materialnosti in vključevanje sestavin okolja v njegovo telesno shemo (koncept Mauricea Merleau-Pontyja).

talnimi komponentami sistema – objekti, opazovalci, svetlobnimi viri, kamerami, nadzornimi in krmilnimi napravami) ustvarja zvočno pokrajino, ki ji velja prisluhniti in skušati vplivati nanjo z novimi kinestetičnimi posegi v objekte, postavljene na peskovnik-igrišče. Video in zvočne mape, generirane na podlagi interakcij objektov, opazovalcev in pametnih naprav, proizvajajo vrste podatkov, ki jih zbirajo in obdelujejo računalniški programi. Superohm kot projekt novomedijske umetnosti je sicer izziv za teorijo spričo kompleksnih interakcij med komponentami sistema, ki vodijo k umetnemu življenju, temelječem na hibridnih stanjih med analognim ter digitalnim in algoritmičnim. V praksi so to senzorji, stroboskopske in LED luči, video kamere, mikrofoni in zvočniki, računalniške komponente in mehanski deli v plišastih objektih-psičkih, kozličkih in plazilcih. Prav tako se pri tej instalaciji srečujemo z modularnim pristopom – fleksibilne komponente je mogoče prilagoditi novim postavitvam v drugih prostorih, pomembno pa je tudi, da avtorica sama opravlja programerska dela pri svojih projektih. Vendar pa je tisto, kar je velik izziv za pisca tega besedila, prav nagovor taktilne percepcije, ki ga vzpostavlja to delo. Takšna percepcija je bistvena, da se opravi pot od (ne)običajnega čutnega izkustva k intenzivnemu dogodku, in tu imajo pomembno vlogo prav hibridni objekti v obliki plišastih psičkov, plazilcev in kozličkov. Oblečeni so v obstojen, topel in tipu prijazen tekstil (tu lahko pomislimo na neoavantgardista Josepha Beuysa, ki je tudi uporabljal tople materiale, kot so mast, vosek in pliš), ki obiskovalca kar vabi k dotikanju, potem božanju in kasneje k odločnemu prijemu takšne napol žive igrače. Nagovorjene niso le kinestetične, ampak tudi motorične sposobnosti obiskovalca/uporabnika, kajti od uvodnega (bojazljivega) opazovanja stvari, ki so pred njim (ko stopi v galerijski prostor), preide k veliko bolj aktivnemu, tudi raziskovalnemu odnosu do okolja in objektov v njem. Stvarem začenja odvzemati tujost in to mu uspe prek dotika, ki omogoča neposrednost, izkustvo

materialnosti in vključevanje sestavin okolja v njegovo telesno shemo (koncept Mauricea Merleau-Pontyja). Stvari, ki so tam, ga iznenada začno zanimati. Poseže mednje in kot otrok uživa, ko vidi, da je njegova aktivnost proizvedla določene spremembe v okolju, ki se mu od tistega trenutka naprej izkazuje kot do njega odprto, njemu prijazno. Svoje posege vidi tudi dokumentirane na videoprojekciji dogajanja v realnem času, prav tako pa sliši zvočne spremembe, ki jih povzroča njegova interakcija z objekti. Za kakšno interakcijo gre pri tem? Bistveno je prav njegovo dotikanje objektov, pa tudi njihovo premikanje, usmerjanje in preusmerjanje, pospeševanje in zaustavljanje. Pri tem je pomembno, da ne gre za stvari, ki bi se izmikale dotikajoči se roki ali jo zapeljevale, tu ni posegov v prazno ali vstran, ampak gre za dotike in prijeme, ki so namenjeni prijaznim, toplim površinam objektov, ki sestavljajo glavni in prepoznavni del Superohma. Sto drugih gledalcev/uporabnikov in tudi teoretikov, ki se srečajo s projekti Vujinovićeve, pritegne sto drugih stvari (kvalitet, lastnosti, razsežnosti), toda pisec tega zapisa se najrajši osredotoči na njene izvirne in kot-da-žive objekte. Percepcija tega projekta v smislu doslej zapisanega nikakor ni edina možnost, kako vstopiti v instalacijo. Pametne tehnologije omogočajo še posebej v umetniških projektih s področja novomedijske umetnosti dispozitiv, ob katerem se posameznici zastavljajo bistvena, celo eksistencialna vprašanja. Omogočajo čistino, obdano z atmosferami, ki dihajo vprašanja, kot bi šlo za Odisejo 2000, Solaris, Stalkerja, Iztrebljevalca, Matrico in Avatarja. Nekaterim gledalcem/uporabnikom instalacije Vujinovićeve je taktilen in motoričen vstop vanjo, opisan v prejšnjih odstavkih, nedvomno tuj. Zanje je lahko instalacija polna ugank in emocionalnih nelagodnosti spričo zapletenega dispozitiva, v katerega jih spravlja to delo. Malo stvari jim je jasnih, pred kamerami in senzorji se počutijo nemočni, ugotavljajo, da so opazovani in da je vsak njihov korak v prostoru mapiran in zasledovan. Prav tako občutijo nelagodje pred objekti

RECEN ZIJE, REFL EKS IJE / REV I E W S , E X T E N S I ON S 9 9

5 SICER / 5 SUPEROHM / 5 TEGA / 5 TO / 4 DRUGIH / 4 KAKO / 4 KAMERAMI / 4 LAHKO / 4 LE / 4 MU / 4 NI / 4 NJEGOVO / 4 PRED / 4 TU / 4 ŽIVLJENJA /

Photo: Sunčan Stone

v peskovniku pred sabo; vprašajo se, ali so živi, polživi ali le simulacije življenja? Superohm je interaktivna instalacija, ki sodi v koncept druge tehnike (izraz Walterja Benjamina), za katero je bistveno, da ne temelji na izkoriščanju narave in je ne spremlja odtujitev, ampak predpostavlja igriv odnos med človekom in okoljem. In ker gre za tehniški sistem, je obiskovalcu/uporabniku tudi jasno, da objekti izkazujejo dvojno naravo; so robotske igrače (predvsem ta aspekt umetnega življenja v »peskovniku« je pritegnil avtorja tega zapisa), hkrati pa vmesniki, prek katerih izkuša gledalec/ uporabnik kompleksen sistem umetnega življenja, izraženega tudi v vizualnih in zvočnih manifestacijah, ki generirajo diskretne dogodke emocionalnega nelagodja, ko se gledalec/uporabnik sreča s situacijo, ki je ne obvlada in ki potuji njegovo/ njeno vsakdanjo percepcijo. Ker vztrajamo pri interpretaciji, ki poudarja taktilno in motorično zaznavo, naj zapišemo, da delo s takšnimi vmesniki na samosvoj način spodbuja in oblikuje uporabnikove gibe, značilne za prav takšno konfiguracijo objektov-igrač. Pri tem je vsekakor relevanten tudi modificiran feedback sile, namreč informacija o učinkih, kako se mu stvar upira, potem ko zadene obnjo, se jo dotakne ali jo odrine, porine ali postavi na glavo. Uporabnik Superohma je spodbujen k hibridni zaznavi, pri kateri prihaja do povezovanja čutov v novih zaznavnih oblikah. Kot poseben primer takšne, na podlagi dela s sodobnimi vmesniki in pametnimi napravami profilirane zaznave, naj omenimo taktilno gledanje, temelječe na sodelovanju vida in dotika v realnem času. Uporabnik se dotika objektov in ko vidi, da je to povzročilo spremembe na projicirani pokrajini (vizualnem, s kamerami v živo snemanem sistemu), začne z novo serijo dotikov, ki imajo znova vizualni feedback. Ko se dotikamo, nam sicer glavne podatke o dotaknjeni stvari dobavlja njena geometrija; ko s prsti sledimo konturam posameznega predmeta, postaja geometrija tistega predmeta vod-

100 R EC E N ZIJE , R E FLEKSIJ E / REVIEW S, EXT ENSIO NS

nica prstov in dlani. Ona določa, kako se bodo gibali prsti, ko bodo naleteli na vdolbine in izbokline, ona jih bo poslala zdaj navzgor in drugič navzdol. Ničta točka dotika je zato seganje v prazno, se pravi, da organ dotikanja v svoji nameri, da se nečesa dotakne, ne trči ob stvar, ki bi se mu upirala ali kako drugače odreagirala na njegovo gibanje, usmerjeno k njej. To dejstvo je izhodišče za postopek, ki ga lahko poimenujemo zapeljevanje dotika. Do njega pa pri Superohmu ne pride, pri njem ni nobenega izmikanja, »toplo oblečeni objekti« se uporabniku ne upirajo, temveč spodbujajo kultiviran, do določene mere odmaknjen dotik, ki upošteva vmesniško naravo dotikanja. To je dotik (kot sicer eminentni čut bližine, podobno kot voh), ki ne grabi, ampak ohranja do stvari distanco, je dotik s taktom. Strah ga je profanosti grabljenja, noče poškodovati stvari, v gibanju raziskuje površino, »hvaležen« je stvari, da je smel tako blizu, toda noče neposredno stopiti v stvar. Dotik (v obliki zadržanega prijema s taktom) omogoča torej uporabniku vstop v instalacijo Vujinovićeve in temeljno orientacijo v njej. Omenili smo že, da projekt omogoča tudi drugačna branja in drugačne vstope in pristope. Ko gre za modularna, hibridna in kar se da kompleksna dela novomedijske umetnosti, nikakor ni le enoznačnih in zapovedanih modusov zaznavanja. Avtor tega zapisa najde veliko pri tem delu, če stopa vanj v taktilnem pristopu, nič manj zanimiv pa ne bi bil pristop s stališča programerja, ki bi se začel najprej ukvarjati s softverskimi podlagami projekta. Opustil bi taktilni pristop, nič ne bi bilo z emocijami in atmosferami izrednega, ki jih dihajo hrupne domene; edino, kar bi ga zanimalo, bi bila koda projekta in aranžma hardverskih komponent, ki omogočajo sledenje gibanja v tem umetelnem okolju. ..

103 THE / 65 AND / 65 OF / 55 IN / 48 A / 38 TO / 37 IS / 23 THAT / 22 IT / 19 AS / 19 THIS / 18 WHICH / 17 ARE / 16 OBJECTS / 15 TOUCH / 14 BY / 13 USER

Photo: Sunčan Stone

THE TOUCH WITH TACT ON THE SUPEROHM INSTALLATION BY TANJA VUJINOVIĆ JANEZ STREHOVEC TRANSLATED BY MELITA SILIČ TANJA VUJINOVIĆ: SUPEROHM, D.E.I.N.D. * STUDY#15 Installation (objects, loudspeakers, video projection, custom electronics, computers, live video and sound processing) Production: Ultramono, www.ultramono.org Executive producer: Jan Kušej Kapelica Gallery, Ljubljana, 10 October – 21 October, 2011

The Superohm project, exhibited in October 2011 at the Kapelica Gallery in Ljubljana, is part of the Discreet Events in Noisy Domains (fifteenth study) series, which first of all means that it is an event, and thereby the participant’s intervention in time, and there are also noisy domains – hence the effect of sound is an essential component of the event, which has been a constant in Tanja Vujinović’s projects. This event doesn’t only imply the temporal dimension; indeed, something happens only if we bear witness through intensive participation, which is, in the case of “Discreet Events”, a discreet one. This occurs when things are not just observed – which is characteristic of the spectator’s visit to traditional art shows – but rather when an intense and individualised relationship comprising a comprehensive sensory and emotional arrangement is established with them. Such an arrangement presumes the involvement of all of the senses, including touch incorporated in a kinaesthetic dispositif due to the fact that a static engagement of touch does not result in a lot of data. It requires a visitor’s/user’s circulation in the space of the installation, touching objects in motion, their acceleration and stopping, directing and loading. What are the objects involved? They remind one of living beings, such as stuffed dog toys, as well as (completely harmless) reptiles and vivacious baby goats. They are fitted with sensors and capable of programmed and random behaviour alike; not smart enough to be real robots and too smart to be considered ordinary toys. They produce sounds (constituting noisy domains) and their movement is incorporated into an artificial life in the sandbox (playground) in which they are placed. They can be divided into three types: the largest and laziest, which are supplied with electricity in the centre of the sandbox, the dogcar toys (if pushed by visitors, they gladly move in a particular direction) and jumpy and tumbling stuffed baby goats, which demonstrate the most life (as if they were sort of spinning tops). Everything that is happening in the sandbox is being recorded by the cameras above, and the modulated shots are projected live onto the screen in the installation’s background, whereas

RECEN ZI JE, REFL EKS IJE / REV IE W S , E X T E N S I ON S 1 0 1

/ 12 AN / 12 THE / 12 THEY / 10 ON / 9 NOT / 9 OR / 9 THINGS / 9 WITH / 8 HER / 8 INSTALLATION / 8 PERCEPTION / 8 SUPEROHM / 7 ALSO / 7 BE / 7 BUT /

the artificial life in the sandbox (based on interactions between various analogue and digital components of the system – objects, spectators, light sources, cameras, controller devices) generates a soundscape that one should listen to as well as try to affect it by the ever new kinaesthetic interventions upon the objects placed in the sandbox-playground. The video and sound maps generated on the basis of interactions between objects, visitors and smart devices produce data streams collected and processed by computer software. Being a project of new media art, Superohm is a challenge to theory due to complex interactions between system components, which lead to artificial life based on hybrid states between the analogue and digital as well as the algorithmic. The components include optic sensors, stroboscopic and LED lights, video cameras, microphones and loudspeakers, computer components and mechanical parts in the stuffed object-dogs, baby goats and reptiles. This installation also features a modular approach – flexible components can be adapted to new settings in other spaces and it is also important that the author herself is a programmer in her projects. However, what the contributor of this text considers a huge challenge is to address the tactile perception established by this work. Indeed, such perception is essential in order to pave the way from (un)usual sensory experience to intensive event, and hybrid objects in the form of stuffed dogs, reptiles and baby goats play an important role in this. They are dressed in durable, warm and touch-friendly textile (which reminds one of the neo-avant-garde artist Joseph Beuys, who also used warm materials, such as grease, wax and plush) that literally invites the visitor to touch it, caress it, until the eventual, resolute taking hold of these half-alive toys. Not only the kinaesthetic, but also the motor skills, of the visitor/user are addressed, because from the initial (timid) observation of things in front of her (when she first enters the gallery space), she passes on to a considerably more intense and investigative relationship with the environment and the objects within. The visitor/user starts taking away the strangeness from these things, which is accomplished through touch, which allows directness, the experience of materiality and incorporation of environmental components into her body schema (Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s concept). The visitor/user is suddenly interested in the things that are there. She reaches for them and, like a child, enjoys seeing that her activity has produced certain changes in the environment, which demonstrates itself henceforth as being an open and friendly one. In addition to this, she sees her interventions documented in real time in a video projection as well as hears sound changes generated by her interaction with the objects. What is this interaction all about? It is about the visitor/user touching the objects, as well as moving them, directing and redirecting, accelerating and stopping. It is important that the things do not evade the touching hand or seduce it, there are no empty interventions or asides; this is about touches and grasps aimed at amiable and warm surfaces of objects constituting the princi-

102 R EC E N ZIJE , R E FLEKSIJ E / REVIEWS, EXT ENSIO NS

pal and distinctive part of Superohm. A hundred other visitors/ users and theoreticians who encounter Vujinović’s projects are attracted by a hundred other things (qualities, properties, dimensions), but the author of this text prefers to concentrate on her original as-if-alive objects. The perception of this project as described above is definitely not the only possibility to enter this installation. Particularly in new media art projects, smart technologies enable a dispositif that makes the artist ask essential and even existential questions. They allow for an opening in space surrounded by atmospheres, which “breathe” questions as if it were 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, Stalker, Blade Runner, The Matrix or Avatar. Undoubtedly, some visitors/users of Vujinović’s installation may find the tactile and motor entry in it as described in the previous paragraphs totally alien. Due to the complex dispositif produced by this work, they might find this installation enigmatic and emotionally discomforting. There are only a few things clear to them, they feel helpless in front of cameras and sensors, they realise they’re being watched and that every step they take in the space is being mapped and monitored. They feel uncomfortable in front of objects in the sandbox; they wonder whether they are alive, half-alive or merely simulations of life? Superohm is an interactive installation that belongs to the concept of “second technique” (Walter Benjamin’s term), which is not based on exploitation of nature and is not accompanied by alienation but rather presumes a playful relationship between human and environment. And due to the fact that it is a technical system, it is clear to the visitor/user that these objects reflect a double nature: they are robot toys (this aspect of the artificial life in the “sandbox” in particular attracted the author of this article) and simultaneously interfaces allowing the spectator/user to experience a complex system of artificial life also expressed in visual and sound manifestations that generate discreet events of emotional discomfort when the spectator/user confronts a situation she doesn’t control and which alienates her everyday perception. Due to the fact that we insist on interpretation focused on tactile and motor perception, let us note that work with such interfaces in an original way stimulates and forms user’ movements that are characteristic of such a configuration of object-toys. A modified force feedback is also of relevance, i.e. the information on the object’s resistance after being hit, touched or pushed away, pushed or turned upside-down. The Superohm user is stimulated to a hybrid perception that results in an integration of senses in new perceptive forms. As a special example of such profiled perception originating from work with contemporary interfaces and smart devices, we would like to refer to tactile seeing, based on the collaboration of sight and touch in real time. The user touches the objects and when she sees this has generated changes in the projected landscape (a visual, live camera-recorded system), she starts a new series of touches, which again produce a visual feedback.

7 COMPONENTS / 7 LIFE / 7 NEW / 7 SANDBOX / 7 SHE / 7 THEY / 7 VISITOR / 7 WHEN / 6 ARTIFICIAL / 6 IF / 6 ONLY / 6 PROJECT / 6 SUCH / 6 TACTILE /

When we touch, the principal data about the object touched is supplied by its geometry; when our fingers follow the contours of a particular object, its geometry becomes a guide for our fingers and palms. The geometry defines the movement of our fingers when they hit upon hollows and protrusions; it will send them either upwards or downwards. Therefore, the zero point of touch is reaching into a void, i.e. in its intention to touch something the organ of touch does not strike against a thing that would resist it or react to its movement directed towards it in any other way. This fact is a starting point for a procedure we might call the seduction of touch – which doesn’t occur in Superohm, there is no evasion involved, “warm dressed objects” do not resist the user but rather stimulate a cultivated, to a certain extent remote touch, which considers the interface nature of touching. This is a touch (as an otherwise eminent sense of proximity, similar to smell) that doesn’t grasp but rather keeps things at a distance; it is a touch with tact. It is afraid of the profanity of grasping, it doesn’t want to damage things, it investigates surfaces in motion, it is “grateful” to a thing allowing it to get so close but it doesn’t want to directly enter the thing. A touch (in the form of a reticent grasp with tact) thus allows the user to enter Vujinović’s installation and provides fundamental orientation in it. It has already been mentioned that the project allows different readings and different entry points and approaches. When it comes to modular, hybrid and the highest possible complex works of new media art, there are definitely no unambiguous and prescribed modes of perception. The author of this article discovers a lot in this work if entering it from a tactile approach, though a programmer’s approach, who would first address the software of this project, wouldn’t be any less interesting. A programmer wouldn’t apply a tactile approach, there wouldn’t be any emotions or atmospheres of the extraordinary, raised by noisy domains; she would only be interested in the code of this project and the arrangement of the hardware components that allow movement monitoring in this artificial environment. ..

ot only the kinaesthetic, but also the motor skills, of the visitor/user are addressed, because from the initial (timid) observation of things in front of her (when she first enters the gallery space), she passes on to a considerably more intense and investigative relationship with the environment and the objects within. The visitor/user starts taking away the strangeness from these things, which is accomplished through touch, which allows directness, the experience of materiality and incorporation of environmental components into her body schema (Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s concept).

RECEN ZIJE, REFL EKS IJE / REV IE W S , E X T E N S I ON S 1 0 3

7€

143-144

ZIMA/WINTER

2011

Iz naslednje številke / From the forthcoming issue

SODOBNA UMETNOST IN NOVE DRUŽBENE PARADIGME II. / CONTEMPORARY ART AND NEW SOCIAL PARADIGMS II ur. / ed. Janez Strehovec

UVODNA PREDSTAVITEV / INTRODUCTION / Janez Strehovec ORNAMENT MNOŽIC / THE MASS ORNAMENT / Siegfried Kracauer SUBVERTIRANE INTENCE IN MOŽNOST ZA »NAJDENO« KOLEKTIVNOST V DELU MASS ORNAMENT NATALIE BOOKCHIN / SUBVERTED INTENTIONS AND THE POTENTIAL FOR “FOUND” COLLECTIVITY IN NATALIE BOOKCHIN’S MASS ORNAMENT / Jaimie Baron SODOBNA UMETNOST – ZNANILKA NOVIH SOCIALNIH PARADIGEM? / CONTEMPORARY ART – A HERALD OF NEW SOCIAL PARADIGMS? / Mojca Puncer UMETNIŠKO DELO V ČASU VIHARJEV NA FINANČNIH TRGIH / THE ARTWORK IN THE AGE OF TURMOIL IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS / Janez Strehovec

TEORIJE UPRIZORITVENIH PRAKS / THEORY OF PERFORMING ARTS (TEHNO)DISPOZITIVI V SODOBNIH UMETNIŠKIH PRAKSAH: NOORDUNG 1995–2045:: DRAGANA ŽIVADINOVA / THE TECHNODISPOSITIFS OF THE CONCEPTUAL TIME MACHINE NOORDUNG BY DRAGAN ŽIVADINOV / Bojan Anđelković KAKO PRISTOPITI K UMETNOSTI V POST ... IN POSTPOST ... DOBI / HOW TO APPROACH ART IN A POST … AND POSTPOST … ERA / Tomaž Toporišič VALIE EXPORT / Alenka Spacal

TEORIJE NOVIH MEDIJEV / THEORY OF NEW MEDIA “BIG BROTHER REALLY IS WATCHING YOU!” / Beat Suter REVERSED REMEDIATION / Saskia Korsten

ViaNegativa@3 × 10 17Hz

RECENZIJE, REFLEKSIJE / REVIEWS, EXTENSIONS

NAZADNJE IZŠLO Informacije in naročila: ana.ivanek@maska.si. Marc Augé NEKRAJI. UVOD V ANTROPOLOGIJO NADMODERNOSTI

www.maska.si

njiga Nekraji. Uvod v antropologijo nadmodernosti je temeljno delo urbane antropologije (izvirno objavljeno leta 1992 pri francoski založbi Seuil), ki je doživelo že številne prevode. V njej avtor tematizira aktualne pojave v sodobni globalni družbi; ukvarja se zlasti s prostori, ki jih imenuje nekraji. To so zanj letališča, nakupovalna središča, hoteli, avtoceste itn. V teh ambivalentnih prostorih poteka nenehno gibanje, potrošnja, komunikacija; v njih ni sorodnih simbolnih povezav, ni igre identitet. Obstajajo kot prehodni, anonimni, funkcionalni prostori, ki jih zaznavamo le parcialno in nepovezano. Nasprotni pol nekraja zanj predstavlja antropološki kraj, ki je nosilec identitete, razmerij in zgodovine ter si ga najlaže zamišljamo v obliki konkretnega prostora, ki za nekoga predstavlja pomembno simbolično vozlišče kulturnih pomenov, spominov, doživljajev, izkustev (npr. žrtveni oltar, rojstni kraj, javni trg ipd.). Gre za prvo knjižno objavo tega avtorja v slovenščini. Knjigi je dodana spremna študija dr. Matjaža Uršiča. 15 € Uredili: Barbara Sušec Michieli, Blaž Lukan in Maja Šorli DINAMIKA SPREMEMB V SLOVENSKEM GLEDALIŠČU 20. STOLETJA

nanstvena monografija Dinamika sprememb v slovenskem gledališču 20. stoletja si jemlje za predmet svojih raziskav slovensko gledališče v preteklem stoletju. Gre za konstitutivno stoletje slovenskega gledališča, saj ga je to dokončno utrdilo in potrdilo kot moderno, evropsko in profesionalno utemeljeno družbeno, kulturno in umetniško institucijo. Dejstvo, da je monografija nastala natanko deset let po koncu stoletja, je nemara razlog, da se njeni prispevki lahko odmaknejo od doslej prevladujočih modelov slovenskega gledališkega zgodovinopisja. Študije v tej knjigi tako predstavljajo pomembno širitev, dopolnilo in revizijo gledališke zgodovine na Slovenskem, hkrati pa prispevajo k nadaljevanju razprave o vrednotenju posameznih gledaliških zvrsti, obdobij, dosežkov in osebnosti obravnavanega časa. V primerjavi z dosedanjimi publikacijami ponujajo prispevki tudi temeljitejši vpogled v tradicionalno marginalizirane gledališke pojave, v recepcijo in družbeno kontekstualizacijo gledališke umetnosti. 25 € Janez Janša, Maja Murnik (ur.) ZID OBJOKOVANJA

bornik Zid objokovanja na novo kontekstualizira razmerja med posameznikom in njegovimi čustvi, izraženimi med umetniškim dogodkom. Zamisel terminalnega gledalca, gledalca, ki je obenem ustvarjalec, izvajalec in priča, je tukaj prignana do skrajno intimne situacije, v kateri se gledališče iz institucije javnega dogodka spreminja v situacijo intimnega preizpraševanja čustvenih spominov. Zbornik izvirnih člankov obsega tekste, ki se ukvarjajo z mestom joka v sodobni družbi, z vprašanjem (individualnega in kolektivnega) spomina ter s statusom čustev v umetniškem dogodku. Avtorji člankov so Marina Gržinić, Barbara Orel in Blaž Lukan. Knjiga vključuje bogato vizualno gradivo o razvoju projekta Zid objokovanja Janeza Janše. Besedila so v slovenskem in v angleškem jeziku. 5 € Gerald Raunig UMETNOST IN REVOLUCIJA. UMETNIŠKI AKTIVIZEM V DOLGEM 20. STOLETJU

aunig je pisec alternativne umetnostne zgodovine dolgega 20. stoletja, v katerem zaobjame dogodke od pariške komune leta 1871 do protiglobalizacijskih protestov v Genovi leta 2001. V svojem delu postreže z analizo različnih umetniških gibanj, od Courbeta in Sergeja Eisensteina do situacionistov, avstrijskih akcionistov in PublixTheatreCaravan. Skozi elokventno utemeljevanje zgodovine in njenih primerov, skozi teoretsko misel Deleuzea in Guattarija (naslanjajoč se na teorijo in razlago termina »stroj«) Raunigu uspeva raztegniti poststrukturalistično teorijo revolucije in jo povezati s splošnejšo idejo umetnosti in aktivizma. 19 €