k-bulletin nr.3 <kollektive/arbeit>
| Stolen Ideas. The Subversion of the Genius Participants: Regula Burri, video artist and sociologist; Hans-Christian Dany, artist and critic; Mirjam Fischer, art historian and organizer; Gülsün Karamustafa, artist; Verena Kuni for Oldboysnetwork, art historian; Rachel Mader, art historian and organizer; Ralf Palandt, film maker (super-8); Panthograph - east/west-european artist group; Andrea Saemann, artist; schauplatz (Anna-Lisa Ellended / Albert Liebl), performance artists Themes and Subjects: Stealing as a cultural practice is a hype, parts of which got simply commercelised and other parts still belong to a working-manner that intends to be critical by using and thereby subverting common cultural codes and signs. Even within an art or/and cultural context the stealing of codes and signs has a very long and differenciated tradition: whereas for a long time (till the end of the nineteeth century) copying was part of any artistic training, from the beginning of the twentieth century on stealing and/or copying became basically the essential ingredience of an artistic avantgarde (the most famous examples still are Duchamp, the PopArtists in the sixties etc.). As much as the attitude of this avantgardistic practices is an expression of the knowledge on the mechanisms of the art system, very soon they became part of strategies of artistic careers which even today seem to be useful and valid: Taking part in the practices and discourses of an artistic avantgarde still is a much more a garantee to be listened to than creating far from a subcultural, popular or any other kind of mainstream.# That a lot of this Avantgardisms have their roots in a critical or - as i already mentioned - in a subcultural context is a phenomenon which should e investigated: why most of the subcultural issues go mainstream every once in a while, is this a unavoidable mechanism and at which point a certain widespread of an idea is welcome and why and when it's nothing but a unpleasant popularization etc. These are a range of questions which by talking about 'stolen ideas' are of interest. Before this background 'sampling as a tactical behaviour' is always walking on the edge, but still is a very useful strategy of appropriation, of stubborn production and behaviour towards hegemonial narration and practices, not only be criticising social conditions but also a heretical voice whitin an artistic context. Freely interpreted 'sampling' could be used as a metaphor for the constitution of the subject in postmodern theories. Subjects depend on cultural and social codes and a critical practice must be aware of their starting points and their ideological basis. Although postmodernism was relieving us from a bunch of 'modern restrictions', critical positions towards the still strongly existing unequalties didn't become easier, just think e.g. of theincreasingly coming closer of economical and cultural discourses. Out of this more theoretical thoughts I defined several thematical fields out of which we might discuss aspects of contemporary, critical practices. The invited artists and theoreticians represent activities in the field of appropriation of codes and signs, of subvertive strategies, of a critical practices and thoughts etc. Stolen ideas does not just talk about the &Mac226;subversion of the genius', but is a metaphor for a critical research of activities and processes within the art system, which in a very nonobvious way influence an as well critical and traditional art practice, which focus on the difficulties of appropriation etc. Networking: Networking is one of this notions that is very much used in very traditional (economical and social) as well as critical contexts (e.g. feminism, subcultural and leftist political circles) and that seems to be filled up with plenty of basically positiv projections. On the one side criticesed as &Mac226;insider-behaviour' and on the other side appreciated as ideal instrument in order to build up solidarity within minoritaries, in the art context networking is one more hint on the idea, that artistic production happens out of a singular position. Especially on internet the idea of networking was euphorically welcome and by activating mailing-lists and all kind of sites a lot of international oriented groups were built up. Inhowfar these groups can be used for more than an information-transfer and/or -widespread, especially thinking of the fact, that live in general has a very strong local touch.# Politics: Basically linked to the reception of what art history calls &Mac226;classical modernism' - mostly this notion refers to abstraction - the idea, that art and politics are to differentiated and non-touching fields has become very popular. Allthough there always have been explicitly politicised artists and even kind of movements, making political gestures within an art context or work with techniques which traditionally belong to an artistic practice still seems difficult to be accepted and taken serious. There are very ambigous ideas about what the political in art might be: those who act in what generally is called representational critic blame the more explicit working artist for using a propaganda style, while latter blame the first of elitism and too much theory and not enough practical thoughts. Allthough this description is slightly exaggerated, there is a certain common sense about the difficulties on using art as a political manifestation. I guess that the documenta X represents a lot of ambiguities of this discours. How can you be political and not at a certain point justify your actions towards a concrete use - something which is fact for political behaviour in general. How can you be explicit whitin an art context whitout being a &Mac226;victim' of the common and hegemonial power of appropriation the art system develops towards any kind of possible hip? Or even more generally asked: can art be a useful tool for political statements and where and why? Appropriation and Interpretation: The notion of sampling also means to change the perspective: before you produce you consume. Within Cultural Studies this phenomenon is called appropriation and has the intention to point out the idea, that consuming not only is a passiv activity. But at what point consuming can be turned into something activ or even critical doesn't seem that obvious and is a constant walk on the edge. How do you proceed to subvert the pictures, codes and signs you want to use and criticise thereby? What are strategical thoughts in order to avoid to simply make another product among all the others? Can there be a recepie for heretical actions or is the most efficent strategy the constant movement? Konzept: Rachel Mader <rachelmader@yahoo.com> Cf. Bürger, Peter, concerning the history, tradition and use of the notion 'avantgarde' and Groys, Peter, concerning the economy of the new within a cultural context. Cf. concerning subcultur: Gelder, Ken, Thornton, Sarah (Ed.), The Subcultures Reader; Kester, Grant H. (Ed.), Art, Activism and Oppositionality. Cf. Hall, Stuart (Ed.), Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices. Cf. von Osten, Marion, Hoffmann, Justin (Ed.), Das Phantom sucht seinen Mörder. Cf. Lippard, Lucy, The Lure of the Local; concercing critic of technology authors like Saskia Sassen, Giaco Schiesser, Günter Anders, Susanne Lummerding etc. |