Eric Pougeau piece that will be presented at the show.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Eric Pougeau at the Louisiana Hotel
Eric Pougeau has a new gallery - Eva Hober in Paris. Eric is also participating in the CURATING CONTEST show at the Hotel la Louisiane. The show is organized by Olivier Robert gallery at 60 rue de Seine 75006 Paris from Dec. 12 to Dec. 22 décembre 2007. The openning is on Dec.12. At 10 PM Eric will perform with Pearl & John.
Eric Pougeau piece that will be presented at the show.
Eric Pougeau piece that will be presented at the show.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
ARTOUT in the news in Russia
AFISHA, Moscow society & entertainment magazine rented Georgy Ostretsov using Artout and run a five-page account of the experience in its December (n.27) issue.
Арт кромешный
Текст: Светлана Репина
В Москве появилась контора Artout, работающая как служба эскорта. Только вместо девушек и секса Artout предоставляет клиентам художников, писателей и оперных певцов. «Афиша» решила разобраться в происходящем и заказала себе на целый день художника Георгия Острецова
Кафе «Жан-Жак»
В «Жан-Жаке» я встречаюсь с художником Гошей Острецовым — он давно и вполне успешно проводит свои перформансы в Европе, а в России его выставляет Марат Гельман. Нам предстоит провести вместе целый день. И я выступаю в роли клиента — хочу, чтобы он нарисовал мне картину и устроил какую-нибудь культурную программу. Кстати, Гошин час по прайсу Artout стоит 400 долларов. «Это оплата сервис-коммуникации, — рассуждает художник. — Очень смелый проект, поэтому мы можем относиться к нему благосклонно. Мне важно отобразить эпоху, создать прецедент нового языка, а деньги потом придут. Разве у искусства задача — заработать деньги?» — «А представь, какой-нибудь русский медведь из Уренгоя, — начинаю я, — ну там, я не знаю, он устал от жизни, ему все надоело, теперь он жаждет искусства, но в своем понимании…» — «Какой медведь, а-а, человек, — перебивает он. — Да, знаю таких, медведицы тоже есть, и много. Всяким богатым папикам прикольно иметь в собственной компании художников. Потом еще кино про них снимать. Например, они едут в путешествие и берут художников, чтобы поднять статус путешествия, а художники ведь любят халяву. Это не меценатство, они именно берут художника, чтобы развлекаться: им нужен умный человек в компании. Это существует. Тот же Кулик недавно в Монголию ездил». Интересуюсь у Гоши нашей культурной программой, но больше всего меня волнует — что мы будем рисовать. Почему-то предлагаю нарисовать купюру 500 евро. Гоша отказывается: «Давай все-таки создадим произведение искусства». — «Отлично, — говорю. — Только что мы будем рисовать? Не Путина же…» — «А давай мадам Путину».
«Винзавод»
В просветительских целях мы отправляемся на «Винзавод», побродить по выставкам и там же нарисовать «Портрет первой леди» (из соображений политкорректности мы решили назвать картину так). Для начала зашли к Гельману — Гоша хотел показать свои работы, но их уже сняли и вот-вот повесят художества Мэрилина Мэнсона. Идем в соседнее помещение, что-то вроде склада-запасника, и разглядываем творения музыканта. «Мэнсон — это курьез, — комментирует Острецов. — Как рисунки Андрея Макаревича. В принципе, никому не запрещено мазюкать. А вообще это какие-то дети нерожденные, да?»
Идем дальше. Заходим во все попадающиеся на пути галереи. В Photographer.ru мы встречаем местного начальника Безукладникова и сообщаем, что собираемся рисовать первую леди. «Я думаю, потом вам нужно продать этот портрет Путину, — с серьезным выражением лица заявляет Андрей. — Ну когда он выйдет на пенсию, займется бизнесом и коллекционированием».
Далее по плану выставка, организованная журналом «Арт-хроника», под сомнительным названием «Премия Кандинского» (Гоша говорит, что в Польше уже есть такая премия и давно). «Чей это был отбор — непонятно. А вот, кстати, Врубель, — кивает Гоша на гигантского гопника. — Это выставлялось недавно в Галерее Гельмана».
Гоша комментирует практически каждый объект на выставке — скульптуры, анимации, картины. Мы приходим к выводу, что все сделано очень качественно, точно выверено. Но ничего нового и сверхвыдающегося мы не обнаружили. «Только время сможет определить — искусство это или нет. Как говорил Маяковский, зайдите ко мне через 200 лет. Время рисует за человека. Вот, например, смотри, Сергей Сайгон — молодой художник, взял и начал работать под Костю Латышева. Костя уже давно в этой стилистике работает. — Мы проходим мимо экрана с очередной тридэшной анимацией. — И разницы-то нет. Многие начинают работать под кого-то. Простому человеку сложно отличить рыночное искусство от музейного. Нужно быть очень серьезным специалистом. Да, я отличаю. У меня, как у художника, есть очень четкое мнение. Но это мнение может со временем меняться — сейчас мне нравится, а потом может разонравиться».
У местных граффитчиков Гоша раздобыл ключи от одной из мастерских — там мы и будем рисовать. Из соседнего помещения раздаются «Яблони в цвету» — там Алексей Калима со своей беременной женой разгребают завал после вчерашнего открытия «Премии Кандинского». «Да, угорели вчера, — сообщает он нам, убирая с прохода прямоугольную ржавую штуку с красной надписью «Кислота». — А зачем вам рисовать первую леди, лучше сделать плакат и идти на демонстрацию, сегодня ж 7 ноября, поздравляю, кстати. Вот, кстати, хачапури, угощайтесь». После хачапури мы закрываемся в нашей каморке, берем холст метр на метр, и Гоша разводит краски.
«Мне очень нравится серебряный фон, давай сделаем. Потому что золотой означал бы святость. Но серебряный тоже — такая народная дешевая позолота», — предлагает Гоша. Я, в свою очередь, настаиваю на зеленом: первая леди на пленэре. Мне хочется изобразить ее на лугу. «Да, конечно, у нас же совместное творчество, — соглашается Гоша. — Опять же, «Завтрак на траве», да, точно! Делим полотно на две ровные части — серебряный верх и зеленый низ. Нам же нужна перспектива. Мадам Путина — это прежде всего собирательный образ. Образ дамы, властительницы, первой леди, высшей женственности. А я прежде всего — русский художник, поэтому стараюсь воплощать в своем творчестве русскую традицию. Сейчас ты увидишь и элементы Серова, и Репина, а также дымковской игрушки — в этом нет ничего зазорного: наши женщины похожи на матрешек…»
Мы заканчиваем грунтовать. Получается почти Куинджи с его лунным светом. «Ну вот, теперь можно и подпись ставить», — смеется Острецов.
Я нахожу на столе среди дисков, карандашей и красок детскую книжку Сутеева и начинаю читать вслух рассказ про гриб и лягушку, в это время Гоша изображает силуэт женщины со сложенными, как у Моны Лизы, руками. Через несколько секунд появляются декольте, шляпка, манжеты и грудь. Я предлагаю нарисовать горящую избу и красного коня — как символ настоящей русской женщины. «Ты меня заставила делать такую живопись, м-да. Но мы не отчаиваемся», — на самом деле Гоша явно получает удовольствие от нашей импровизации.
«Заказ художника через Artout — это возможность понять психологию и работу мысли художника, — говорит Острецов, делая трафарет коня. — Возможность попытаться проанализировать мотивы художника. И одновременно задать ему вопросы. Так процесс творчества становится понятнее». Тут для пущего реализма я решаю подрисовать волосы. Гоша дает добро, и я приступаю. При этом немного нервничаю, поскольку рисовать не умею вообще.
«Слушай, я понял, — восклицает Гоша, когда волосы готовы, — ты внесла в картину элемент пластического идиотизма. У тебя, кстати, отличное чувство симметрии. И талант. Ты сделала картину более невменяемой. То, что нужно, — нужно уходить от эстетического, не должно быть легкости, нужно пройти через испытания».
Мы включаем радио, оно настроено на волну радио «Дача». «О, — говорит Гоша, — как раз лубочная музыка. У нее курносый нос, нет?» Красные кони готовы, в голове изба горит. Вдруг Гоша неожиданно одним махом делает аэрозолем зеленую маску. Теперь все вроде как на месте — художник доволен.
«Можно ставить подпись. Вместе подписываемся, а?» — смеется Гоша. Но я хочу, чтобы он подписывал картину без меня. Упаковав «Путину» в целлофан и перевязав ее белым скотчем, мы отправляемся выпить за нас всех, а главное, за искусство в кафе «Маяк». Едем на метро.
Московский метрополитен
В моих руках «Первая леди», Гоша стоит рядом и рассуждает о том, что в нашем обществе потребления нет культуры производства: «Вот когда люди начнут покупать заводы, чтобы создавать там музеи, тогда можно говорить уже о штучных произведениях и об их потреблении. А у нас за последние 10 лет ничего не изменилось — холст и масло, все! Даже графика не ценится: бумагу не считают произведением искусства».
Кафе «Маяк»
В «Маяке» мы ждем заказанного, и Гоша показывает мне фотографии своего недавнего перформанса в Париже. В одной из галерей буржуазного района Марэ он выступил так: снял вывеску, вместо нее повесил свою — «Салон красоты». Сделал на фасаде несколько трафаретных надписей: «Здесь хорошо вые…анные сучки», «Каждый художник должен знать, где его миска с едой», «Также е…ем пидорасов в жопу».
Я распаковываю «Путину» и предлагаю Гоше устроить аукцион и заработать. «Я против аукционов при жизни, умру — пожалуйста». — «Тогда нужно оценить картину, знаешь, для проформы», — говорю я. Оказывается, что за соседним столиком сидят-выпивают знакомые кураторы — Алексей Новоселов из Московского музея современного искусства на Петровке и Алена Лапина из галереи «Рефлекс». После нескольких виски и долгих переговоров они оценили картину в 15 тысяч евро. «Первоначальная цена, да, а за двенадцать точно возьмут», — обнадежила меня Алена.
На следующий день я решила самостоятельно найти покупателя. Изучив записную книжку, позвонила Марату Гельману. «Знаете, мне для драматургии репортажа было бы здорово продать картину, ну вы понимаете…» — говорю я. «Да, понимаю, что у вас в голове, — ответил мне Марат. — Но я сотрудничаю лично с Гошей, поэтому давайте через него или вместе с ним».
Звоню Игорю Маркину. У него в коллекции Острецова нет и в ближайшее время не запланировано. В общем, феерического финала не получилось, зато теперь «Портрет первой леди» Георгия Острецова висит у меня дома.
http://www.afisha.ru/article/55/
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Per Platou in Paris
Per Platou speaking at Paris/Berlin round table, Paris/Berlin Festival, Palais de Tokyo, Paris, 1-12-2007
Saturday, December 1, 2007
The Geopolitics of Pimping
By Suely Rolnik
Translated by Brian Holmes
Birth of a Flexible Subjectivity
Until the early 1960s we lived beneath a disciplinary Fordist regime that reached its height in the “American way of life” triumphant in the postwar period, when a politics of identity reigned in subjectivity, along with a rejection of the resonant body. These two aspects are in fact inseparable, because only to the extent that we anesthetize our vulnerability can we maintain a stable image of ourselves and the other, that is, our supposed identities. Without this anesthesia, we are constantly deterritorialized and led to reconfigure the outlines of our selves and our territories of existence. Until the early 1960s, the creative imagination operated mainly by sneaking away to the fringes. That period came to an end in the course of 1960s-70s as a result of cultural movements that problematized the governing regime of the time, calling for “l'imagination au pouvoir.” Those movements brought the dominant mode of subjectivation into crisis, and it soon collapsed along with the entire structure of the Victorian family at its Hollywood apogee – a structure which had been fundamental for the regime whose hegemony began to fade at that moment. A “flexible subjectivity”[5] was then created, accompanied by radical experimentation with modes of existence and cultural creation which shattered the “bourgeois” lifestyle at its politics of desire, with its logic of identity, its relation to otherness and its culture. In the resulting “counter-culture,” as it was called, forms were created to express that which was indicated by the resonant body affected by the otherness of the world, at grips with the problematics of its time. The forms thus created tend to transmit subjectivity’s incorporation of the forces that shake up the environment and deterritorialize it. The advent of such forms is inseparable from a becoming-other of the self, but also of the environment. It can be said that the creation of these new territories has to do with public life, in the strong sense of the phrase: the collective construction of reality moved by the tensions that destabilize the reigning cartographies, as these affect the body of each person singularly, and as they are expressed on the basis of that singular affect. In other words, what each person express is the current state of the world – its meaning, but also and mainly, its lacks of meaning – as it presents itself within the body. So, the singular expression of each person participates in the endless tracing of a necessarily collective cartography.
Today these transformations have consolidated themselves. The scenario of our times is completely different: we are no longer beneath the regime of identity, the politics of subjectivation is no longer the same. We all now have available a flexible and processual subjectivity as instituted by the counter-cultural movements, and our force of creation in its experimental freedom is not only favorably viewed and welcomed, but is even stimulated, celebrated and frequently glamorized. However, in all this there is a “but,” which is hardly negligible. In the present, the most common destiny of flexible subjectivity and of the freedom of creation that accompanies it is not the invention of forms of expression motivated by an attention to sensations that signal the effects of the other’s existence within our resonant body. What guides us in this creation of territories for our post-Fordist flexibility is an almost hypnotic identification with the images of the world broadcast by advertising and mass culture.
By offering ready-made territories to subjectivities rendered fragile by deterritorialization, these images tend to soothe their unrest, thus contributing to the deafness of their resonant body, and therefore to its invulnerability to the affects of the time that are presented within it. But that may not be the most deadly aspect of this politics of subjectivation, which instead is the very message that such images invariably convey, independently of their style or their target-public. At stake here is the idea that there exist paradises, that these are now in this world and not beyond it, and above all, that certain people have the privilege of inhabiting them. What is more, such images transmit the illusion that we could be one of these VIPs, if we simply invested all our vital energy – our desire, affect, knowledge, intellect, eroticism, imagination, action, etc. – in order to actualize these virtual worlds of signs in our own existence, through the consumption of the objects and services they propose to us.
What we are faced with here is a new élan for the idea of paradise developed by Judeo-Christian religions: the mirage of a smoothed-over, stable life under perfect control. This kind of hallucination has its origin in the refusal of one’s vulnerability to the other and to the deterritorrializing turbulence that he or she provokes; and also in the disdain for fragility that necessarily derives from such an experience. This fragility is nonetheless essential because it indicates the crisis of a certain diagram of sensibility, its modes of expression, its cartographies of meaning. By disdaining fragility, it does not call up the desire for creation anymore; instead it provokes a sentiment of humiliation and shame whose result is the blockage of the vital process. In other words, what the Western idea of a promised paradise amounts to is a refusal of life in its immanent nature as an impulse to continuous processes of creation and differentiation. In its terrestrial version, capital has replaced God in his function as keeper of the promise, and the virtue that makes us worthy of it now becomes consumption: this is what constitutes the fundamental myth of advanced capitalism. In such a context, it is at the very least mistaken to consider that we lack myths today: it is precisely through our belief in this religious myth of neoliberalism, that the image-worlds produced by this regime turn into concrete reality in our own existence.
Flexible Subjectivity Surrenders to its Pimp
In other words, the “cultural” or “cognitive” capitalism that was conceived as a solution to the crisis provoked by the movements of the 1960s-70s absorbed the modes of existence that those movements invented and appropriated their subjective forces, especially that of the creative potential, which at the time was breaking free in social life. The creative potential was in effect put into power, as was called for by those movements. Yet we know now that this rise of the imagination to power is a micropolitical operation that consists in making its potential into the major fuel of an insatiable hypermachine for the production and accumulation of capital – to the point where one can speak of a new working class, which some authors call the “cognitariat.”[6] This kind of pimping of the creative force is what has been transforming the planet into a gigantic marketplace, expanding at an exponential rate, either by including its inhabitants as hyperactive zombies or by excluding them as human trash. In fact, those two opposing poles are interdependent fruits of the same logic; all our destinies unfold between them. This is the world that the imagination creates in the present. As one might expect, the politics of subjectivation and of the relation to the other that predominates in this scenario is extremely impoverished.
Currently, after almost three decades, it is possible to perceive this logic of cognitive capitalism operating within our subjectivity. Yet in the late 1970s, when its installation began, the experimentation that had been carried out collectively in the decades before in order to achieve emancipation from the pattern of Fordist and disciplinary subjectivity was quite difficult to distinguish from its incorporation into the new regime. The consequences of this difficulty are that the cloning of the transformations proposed by those movements was experienced by a great many of their protagonists as a signal of recognition and inclusion: the new regime appeared to be liberating them from the marginality to which they had been confined in the “provincial” world that was now fading away. Dazzled by the rise to power of their transgressive and experimental force of creation which was now thrusting them beneath the glamorizing spotlights of the media, launching them into the world and lining their pockets with dollars, the inventors of the transformations of earlier decades frequently fell into the trap. Many of them surrendered themselves voluntarily to their pimp, becoming the very creators and constructors of the world fabricated by and for the new-style capitalism.
This confusion undoubtedly stems from the politics of desire that characterizes the pimping of subjective and creative forces – a kind of power-relation that is basically exerted through the sorcery of seduction. The seducer conjures up a spellbinding idealization that leads the seduced to identify with the seducer and submit to him: that is to say, to identify with and submit to the aggressor, impelled by an inner desire, in hopes of being recognized and admitted into the seducer’s world. Only recently has this situation become conscious, which tends to break the spell. This transpires in the different strategies of individual and collective resistance that have been accumulating over the last few years, particularly through the initiative of a new generation which does not in any way identify with the proposed model of existence and understands the trick that has been played. It is clear that artistic practices – through their very nature as expressions of the problematics of the present as they flow through the artist’s body – could hardly remain indifferent to this movement. On the contrary, it is exactly for this reason that these questions emerged in art from the early 1990s onward, as mentioned at the outset. Using different procedures, these strategies have been carrying out an exodus from the minefield stretching between the opposite and complementary figures of luxury and trash subjectivity, the field in which human destinies are confined in the world of globalized capitalism. Amidst this exodus, other kinds of worlds are being created.
From
http://transform.eipcp.net/transversal/1106/rolnik/en
Translated by Brian Holmes
Birth of a Flexible Subjectivity
Until the early 1960s we lived beneath a disciplinary Fordist regime that reached its height in the “American way of life” triumphant in the postwar period, when a politics of identity reigned in subjectivity, along with a rejection of the resonant body. These two aspects are in fact inseparable, because only to the extent that we anesthetize our vulnerability can we maintain a stable image of ourselves and the other, that is, our supposed identities. Without this anesthesia, we are constantly deterritorialized and led to reconfigure the outlines of our selves and our territories of existence. Until the early 1960s, the creative imagination operated mainly by sneaking away to the fringes. That period came to an end in the course of 1960s-70s as a result of cultural movements that problematized the governing regime of the time, calling for “l'imagination au pouvoir.” Those movements brought the dominant mode of subjectivation into crisis, and it soon collapsed along with the entire structure of the Victorian family at its Hollywood apogee – a structure which had been fundamental for the regime whose hegemony began to fade at that moment. A “flexible subjectivity”[5] was then created, accompanied by radical experimentation with modes of existence and cultural creation which shattered the “bourgeois” lifestyle at its politics of desire, with its logic of identity, its relation to otherness and its culture. In the resulting “counter-culture,” as it was called, forms were created to express that which was indicated by the resonant body affected by the otherness of the world, at grips with the problematics of its time. The forms thus created tend to transmit subjectivity’s incorporation of the forces that shake up the environment and deterritorialize it. The advent of such forms is inseparable from a becoming-other of the self, but also of the environment. It can be said that the creation of these new territories has to do with public life, in the strong sense of the phrase: the collective construction of reality moved by the tensions that destabilize the reigning cartographies, as these affect the body of each person singularly, and as they are expressed on the basis of that singular affect. In other words, what each person express is the current state of the world – its meaning, but also and mainly, its lacks of meaning – as it presents itself within the body. So, the singular expression of each person participates in the endless tracing of a necessarily collective cartography.
Today these transformations have consolidated themselves. The scenario of our times is completely different: we are no longer beneath the regime of identity, the politics of subjectivation is no longer the same. We all now have available a flexible and processual subjectivity as instituted by the counter-cultural movements, and our force of creation in its experimental freedom is not only favorably viewed and welcomed, but is even stimulated, celebrated and frequently glamorized. However, in all this there is a “but,” which is hardly negligible. In the present, the most common destiny of flexible subjectivity and of the freedom of creation that accompanies it is not the invention of forms of expression motivated by an attention to sensations that signal the effects of the other’s existence within our resonant body. What guides us in this creation of territories for our post-Fordist flexibility is an almost hypnotic identification with the images of the world broadcast by advertising and mass culture.
By offering ready-made territories to subjectivities rendered fragile by deterritorialization, these images tend to soothe their unrest, thus contributing to the deafness of their resonant body, and therefore to its invulnerability to the affects of the time that are presented within it. But that may not be the most deadly aspect of this politics of subjectivation, which instead is the very message that such images invariably convey, independently of their style or their target-public. At stake here is the idea that there exist paradises, that these are now in this world and not beyond it, and above all, that certain people have the privilege of inhabiting them. What is more, such images transmit the illusion that we could be one of these VIPs, if we simply invested all our vital energy – our desire, affect, knowledge, intellect, eroticism, imagination, action, etc. – in order to actualize these virtual worlds of signs in our own existence, through the consumption of the objects and services they propose to us.
What we are faced with here is a new élan for the idea of paradise developed by Judeo-Christian religions: the mirage of a smoothed-over, stable life under perfect control. This kind of hallucination has its origin in the refusal of one’s vulnerability to the other and to the deterritorrializing turbulence that he or she provokes; and also in the disdain for fragility that necessarily derives from such an experience. This fragility is nonetheless essential because it indicates the crisis of a certain diagram of sensibility, its modes of expression, its cartographies of meaning. By disdaining fragility, it does not call up the desire for creation anymore; instead it provokes a sentiment of humiliation and shame whose result is the blockage of the vital process. In other words, what the Western idea of a promised paradise amounts to is a refusal of life in its immanent nature as an impulse to continuous processes of creation and differentiation. In its terrestrial version, capital has replaced God in his function as keeper of the promise, and the virtue that makes us worthy of it now becomes consumption: this is what constitutes the fundamental myth of advanced capitalism. In such a context, it is at the very least mistaken to consider that we lack myths today: it is precisely through our belief in this religious myth of neoliberalism, that the image-worlds produced by this regime turn into concrete reality in our own existence.
Flexible Subjectivity Surrenders to its Pimp
In other words, the “cultural” or “cognitive” capitalism that was conceived as a solution to the crisis provoked by the movements of the 1960s-70s absorbed the modes of existence that those movements invented and appropriated their subjective forces, especially that of the creative potential, which at the time was breaking free in social life. The creative potential was in effect put into power, as was called for by those movements. Yet we know now that this rise of the imagination to power is a micropolitical operation that consists in making its potential into the major fuel of an insatiable hypermachine for the production and accumulation of capital – to the point where one can speak of a new working class, which some authors call the “cognitariat.”[6] This kind of pimping of the creative force is what has been transforming the planet into a gigantic marketplace, expanding at an exponential rate, either by including its inhabitants as hyperactive zombies or by excluding them as human trash. In fact, those two opposing poles are interdependent fruits of the same logic; all our destinies unfold between them. This is the world that the imagination creates in the present. As one might expect, the politics of subjectivation and of the relation to the other that predominates in this scenario is extremely impoverished.
Currently, after almost three decades, it is possible to perceive this logic of cognitive capitalism operating within our subjectivity. Yet in the late 1970s, when its installation began, the experimentation that had been carried out collectively in the decades before in order to achieve emancipation from the pattern of Fordist and disciplinary subjectivity was quite difficult to distinguish from its incorporation into the new regime. The consequences of this difficulty are that the cloning of the transformations proposed by those movements was experienced by a great many of their protagonists as a signal of recognition and inclusion: the new regime appeared to be liberating them from the marginality to which they had been confined in the “provincial” world that was now fading away. Dazzled by the rise to power of their transgressive and experimental force of creation which was now thrusting them beneath the glamorizing spotlights of the media, launching them into the world and lining their pockets with dollars, the inventors of the transformations of earlier decades frequently fell into the trap. Many of them surrendered themselves voluntarily to their pimp, becoming the very creators and constructors of the world fabricated by and for the new-style capitalism.
This confusion undoubtedly stems from the politics of desire that characterizes the pimping of subjective and creative forces – a kind of power-relation that is basically exerted through the sorcery of seduction. The seducer conjures up a spellbinding idealization that leads the seduced to identify with the seducer and submit to him: that is to say, to identify with and submit to the aggressor, impelled by an inner desire, in hopes of being recognized and admitted into the seducer’s world. Only recently has this situation become conscious, which tends to break the spell. This transpires in the different strategies of individual and collective resistance that have been accumulating over the last few years, particularly through the initiative of a new generation which does not in any way identify with the proposed model of existence and understands the trick that has been played. It is clear that artistic practices – through their very nature as expressions of the problematics of the present as they flow through the artist’s body – could hardly remain indifferent to this movement. On the contrary, it is exactly for this reason that these questions emerged in art from the early 1990s onward, as mentioned at the outset. Using different procedures, these strategies have been carrying out an exodus from the minefield stretching between the opposite and complementary figures of luxury and trash subjectivity, the field in which human destinies are confined in the world of globalized capitalism. Amidst this exodus, other kinds of worlds are being created.
From
http://transform.eipcp.net/transversal/1106/rolnik/en
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
