Wednesday, February 25, 2009
For the second of Dia’s projects at the Hispanic Society, New York-based artist Zoe Leonard presents her monumental work, Analogue (1998-2007), a series of nearly 400 photographs, along with a selection of rare maps and navigational charts dating back to the fifteenth century from the Hispanic Society’s extensive collection.
Saturday, February 28, 2009, 4pm
The Problem of Belief in Art
Gregg Bordowitz, writer, film and video maker discusses the work of Zoe Leonard
For the past seven years I have been obsessed with events in the Middle East, principally Iraq. It has been on my mind constantly, either at the forefront, or as a nagging buzz at the back of it. No doubt it has had an effect on many decisions I have made and actions I have taken. In that respect for better or worse it has changed me. I suspect I can’t be the only person to have felt this.
In the U.K., military and civilian life is segregated. It is not common to meet soldiers in everyday life and there are few Iraqi refugees given asylum in the country, so firsthand accounts are few and far between. I have read a ton of books and articles about the war, but short of going to Iraq itself, there is no substitute for meeting someone who has actually lived there, or been there, hence the core part of this project. In a sense I am selfishly doing this for my own benefit simply to plug the many gaps that exist in my knowledge and to satisfy the arguments that have been going on in my head for the best part of this century.
Over a six-week period at the New Museum in New York, (February 11–March 22, 2009) British artist Jeremy Deller has invited journalists, Iraqi refugees, soldiers, and scholars to share their memories of the last decade in and out of Iraq. In one-on-one conversations with New Museum visitors, their stories will elucidate the present circumstances in Iraq from many points of view. At the end of March, “It Is What It Is: Conversations About Iraq” will travel across the country from New York to California, with conversations conducted at more than ten public sites along the way. Sergeant Jonathan Harvey, an American veteran of the Iraq War, Esam Pasha, an Iraqi citizen, and Deller will be aboard a specially outfitted RV, along with Nato Thompson, Creative Time Curator, who will document the journey. Expanded versions of “It Is What It Is” will take place at the Hammer Museum, Los Angeles, in April and May of 2009, and at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, in October and November of 2009.
Perhaps the most ambitious project that Jeremy Deller has undertaken to date, with more than ten institutions involved as sponsors and/or hosts, and participants projected in the thousands over a nine month period, the goal of “It Is What It Is: Conversations About Iraq” is modest: to encourage conversation about our world. Conversations about the war and the country of Iraq are few and far between in the United States. Outside of the hyperbole of the media and the rising death counts in the papers, Americans find it difficult to intellectually connect with a country to which we are paradoxically and inextricably tied. As we enter the seventh year of our conflict in Iraq, many Americans outside of the Army have never met an Iraqi citizen or had contact with a soldier who has served time in Iraq. “It Is What It Is” is a project that attempts to redress this information gap, albeit in a small way, and in an unconventional context. It is a project that strives to present a broad, informational, nonpartisan perspective of Iraq through firsthand encounters between the general public and those who have significant scholarly research to impart, military experiences to describe, and heritage to share.
Bringing together the multifaceted perspectives of a diverse group of people from places that are geographically, economically, and politically distanced is a task that is well suited to the environment of an art gallery. One of the most basic challenges of contemporary art practice is to forge a connection between art and what is going on around us every day, but while few people would deny that art comes out of life, there is still great skepticism surrounding the relevance of art to how we actually live. “It Is What It Is” is one in a long line of projects on precisely this subject that Jeremy Deller has dreamed up over the past decade. The goal of Deller’s work has been to both examine and celebrate elements of the everyday—from our musical obsessions to our local customs, to the struggles that we might encounter in our workplace for fair compensation, or in the street for our political beliefs. His method is to look at these aspects of life as art—and not to take these aspects and make art out of them. This is a crucial distinction. “It Is What It Is” highlights straightforward conversation—as is— supporting, appreciating, and respecting it in a manner that indicates to us that in its richness, it can achieve the level of art.
“It Is What It Is” puts a premium on discussion that is open-ended. Skipping easy categories of “for” or “against,” the invited conversationalists bring to the table their wide experiences in order to broadly describe political and social issues that affect those in Iraq as well as those outside. These conversations might be a bit messy, which is good, as black-and-white readings of this situation have been of little use up to now. “It Is What It Is: Conversations About Iraq” does not promise to solve the problems between the U.S. and Iraq, but it posits that there is beauty that approaches art in human contact and intellectual exchange—that is, in simply talking amongst ourselves.
Frankfurt kökenli bir mimar olan Nikolaus Hirsch Städelschule'de hocalık yapmaktadır. Londra'daki Architectural Association'da, Giessen Üniversitesi Uygulamalı Tiyatro Çalışmaları Enstitüsü'nde ve Philadelphia'daki Pennsylvania Üniversitesi'nde çeşitli akademik görevlerde bulunmuştur. Çalışmaları arasında ödül kazanmış olan Dresden Sinagogu, Hinzert Arşiv Merkezi gibi yapılar ile Bruno Latour ve Peter Weibel tarafından düzenlenen "Making Things Public" (ZKM) ve "Indian Highway" (Serpentine Gallery, 2008) gibi sergilerin mekan düzenlemeleri yer alır. Hirsch'in kurumsal modeller üzerine araştırmaları, William Forsythe ile birlikte gerçekleştirdikleri Bockenheimer Depot Theather, Anton Vidokle ile birlikte Berlin'de gerçekleştirdikleri Unitednationsplaza, European Kunsthalle, Delhi'de Cybermohalla Hub ve Rirkrit Tiravanija'nın "The Land" işi için yapılan bir stüdyo yapısı gibi projelerle sürmektedir.
Hirsch'in çalışmaları "Neue Welt" (Frankfurter Kunstverein, 2001), "Utopia Station" (2003 Venedik Bienali), "Can Buildings Curate" (Architectural Association, Londra ve Storefront Gallery, New York, 2005), Thomas Bayrle'nin "40 Years Chinese Rock'n Roll" (MMK Frankfurt, 2006) ve "Horn Please" (Kunstmuseum Bern, 2007) sergilerinde gösterilmiştir. Berlin Volksbühne'deki "ErsatzStadt: Representations of the Urban" sergisinin küratörlüğünü yapmış olan Nikolaus Hirsch aynı zamanda Goldsmiths Üniversitesi'ndeki "Curating Architecture" programının bir üyesidir. Mimari, sanatsal ve küratöryel modeller arasındaki ilişki üzerine makale ve röportajlarından derlenen "On Boundaries" adlı kitabı 2008 yılında Sternberg Press tarafından yayınlanmıştır.
28 Şubat, Cumartesi, 17:30
Tomtom Mahallesi, Yeni Çarşı Caddesi,
Kaymakam Reşat Bey Sokağı, No:11a Galatasaray
Konferans İngilizce'dir, simultane çeviri vardır.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Benim başıma gelmez demeyin: Campaign against UK Home Office Restrictions on Non-EU Artists and Academics
The Manifesto Club is coordinating a campaign against these regulations. The campaign is led by Manick Govinda, artists’ adviser at Artsadmin, and has won support from artists, musicians, gallery directors, academics and students. Together we call for these parochial and suspicious regulations to be reconsidered, and affirm the vital contribution made by global artists and scholars to UK cultural and intellectual life.
The petition was launched with a letter in the Observer, signed by high-profile arts figures including artist Antony Gormley, Sandy Nairne, director of the National Portrait Gallery, and Nicholas Hytner, director of the Royal National Theatre. See the news story of the petition launch.
The regulations, which were officially put into effect on 27 November 2008, have meant a number of artists have been refused entry. Read testimonies below, and email firstname.lastname@example.org to post a comment.
The Russian artist and academic, Dmitry Vilensky, was invited by The Showroom Gallery and Afterall Journal in London to give a seminar on his work on 17 January 2009. The gallery was forced to cancel the seminar when Vilensky’s visa application was rejected, on the grounds that he was not allowed to be paid a fee for participating in the seminar. A further appeal, with the proviso that he was not to be paid, was also rejected. Vilensky had never faced such restrictions on his many professional visits to other European countries.
The Russian pianist Grigory Sokolov’s show at the Barbican was cancelled because of the necessity for the new biometric visa. For years Sokolov was able to apply for his visa by proxy, but the new regulations meant he would have had to personally travel from Verona, where he lives, to Rome, to provide fingerprints. His replacement show, scheduled for April 2009 at the Royal Festival Hall also had to be cancelled, after he lost a year-long battle to agree a mobile visa solution.
Chinese artist Huang Xu was refused a visa to attend his exhibition at London’s October Gallery, due to open on 12 February 2009.
British artist Anne Bean was selected for the Visiting Arts and Delfina Foundation ‘artist-to-artist international scheme’, and she wishes to invite a young Kurdish-Iraqi artist to the UK. Yet the invited artist is required to travel 900 kilometres to Beirut in person to apply for her visa and ID card, and may have to stay there for up to three weeks to await the outcome of her application.
West African jazz band Les Amazones de Guinée had to pay £3500 to travel from Guinea to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to obtain fingerprints for their visas. This was a waste of time and money, however, since the band was refused entry to the UK.
End pernicious controls on artistic freedom
As professionals committed to the principles of internationalism and cultural exchange, we are dismayed by new Home Office regulations which will curb our invitations to non-EU artists and academics to visit the UK. All non-EU visitors now must apply for a visa in person and supply biometric data, electronic fingerprint scans and a digital photograph.
The Home Office's 158-page document also outlines new controls over visitors' day-to-day activity: individuals must show that they have at least £800 of savings, which have been held for at least three months prior to the date of their application; the host organisation must keep copies of the visitor's passport and their UK biometric card, a history of their contact details; and if the visitor does not turn up to their studio or place of work, or their where-abouts are unknown, the organisation is legally obliged to inform the UK Border Agency.
We believe that these restrictions discriminate against our overseas colleagues on the grounds of their nationality and financial resources and will be particularly detrimental to artists from developing countries and those with low income. Such restrictions will damage the vital contribution made by global artists and scholars to cultural, intellectual and civic life in the UK.
Iwona Blazwick, director, Whitechapel Gallery; Antony Gormley, artist; Eddie Berg, artistic director, BFI Southbank; Sandy Nairne, director, National Portrait Gallery; David Lan, the Young Vic; John E McGrath, theatre director; Malcolm Purkey, artistic director and acting CEO, Market Theatre Foundation, South Africa; Nicholas Hytner, the Royal National Theatre; Nicolas Kent, Tricycle Theatre; Brett Rogers, director, the Photographers' Gallery; David Barrie, director, the Art Fund; Jeremy Deller, artist; and 49 others
To sign the petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/MCvisit/petition.html
Monday, February 23, 2009
New York U.S.A.
J’ai vu New York
New York U.S.A.
J’ai jamais rien vu d’au
J’ai jamais rien vu d’aussi haut
Oh ! C’est haut, c’est haut New York
New York U.S.A.
J’ai vu New York
New York U.S.A.
J’ai vu New York
New York U.S.A.
J’ai jamais rien vu d’au
J’ai jamais rien vu d’aussi haut
Oh ! C’est haut, c’est haut New York
New York U.S.A.
Empire States Building oh ! c’est haut
Rockfeller Center oh ! c’est haut
Internationnal Building oh ! c’est haut
Waldorf Astoria oh ! c’est haut
Panamerican Building oh ! c’est haut
Bank of Manhattan oh ! c’est haut
Saturday, February 21, 2009
In the 21st century New York is just one more art town among many, and no longer a particularly influential one. Contemporary art belongs to the world.
But there will be many, many changes for art and artists in the years ahead. Trying to predict them is like trying to forecast the economy. You can only ask questions. The 21st century will almost certainly see consciousness-altering changes in digital access to knowledge and in the shaping of visual culture. What will artists do with this?
Will the art industry continue to cling to art’s traditional analog status, to insist that the material, buyable object is the only truly legitimate form of art, which is what the painting revival of the last few years has really been about? Will contemporary art continue to be, as it is now, a fancyish Fortunoff’s, a party supply shop for the Love Boat crew? Or will artists — and teachers, and critics — jump ship, swim for land that is still hard to locate on existing maps and make it their home and workplace?
I’m not talking about creating ’60s-style utopias; all those notions are dead and gone and weren’t so great to begin with. I’m talking about carving out a place in the larger culture where a condition of abnormality can be sustained, where imagining the unknown and the unknowable — impossible to buy or sell — is the primary enterprise. Crazy! says anyone with an ounce of business sense.Right. Exactly. Crazy.
yazının tamamı için:
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Bugün Türkiye'de son gözaltılar haricinde 250'nin üzerinde, yaşları
13-18 arasında değişen çocuk, TC'nin de imzalamış olduğu BM (Birleşmiş
Milletler) Çocuk Hakları Bildirisi'ne aykırı olarak yargılanıyor ve
hapis yatıyorlar. "Terörist" olarak damgalanan bu ÇOCUKLARIN kimisine
23 yıla yakin ceza isteniyor, öğrenimleri duruyor, çocuklara uygun
olmayan koşullarda hapsediliyorlar ve pedagog desteği alamıyorlar.
Bugün Türkiye'deki (ki hepimizin çocukları, kardeşleri beklenmedik bir
anda maruz kalabilir) bu UTANÇ'ın sebebi 2006 yılında çıkarılan
Terörle Mücadele Yasası'nda, çocuklara COCUK gibi davranılmasının es
geçilip "yetişkin" gibi davranılmasıdır. Eğer yasadaki 9 ve 13.
maddeler çıkarılırsa ÇOCUKLAR, BM Çocuk Hakları Bildirisine uygun
olarak yargılanıp eğer ondan sonra da gerekiyorsa, yetişkin
hapishanesi koşullarında değil, çocuk ıslahevlerinde kalacaklardır.
Bu çocukların ÇOCUK olduklarının hakkini uluslar arası anlaşmalar
çerçevesinde geri alabilmek için bir kampanya başlatıyor ve sizin de
kampanyada çağrıcı olmanızı rica ediyoruz.
Tümden sivil bireylerden oluşan çağrıcılar, hem insanları imza
kampanyasına katılmaya, hem de inisiyatif, platform, dernek, vakıf,
parti ve diğer kurumları komisyonda temsilci düzeyinde yer almaya
Çağrıcılar cevapladığında alt yürütme komisyonları kurulup, İngilizce
olarak uluslar arası versiyonu da açılacak imza kampanyasının
büyümesi, uluslararası çocuk örgütleri ve medyayla ilişki kuracak.
Medyada konuyu gündemde tutacak.
Yeterli imza toplandığında da, yasa değişim önergesi olarak da
kullanılabilecek birer mektup, BM ve diğer uluslar arası temsilcilerle
ve uluslararası basının eşliğinde Başbakan ve İç İşleri Bakanı'na
Ciddi bir sivil baskı oluşturmamız gerekiyor.
Sustuğumuz, harekete geçmediğimiz her gün, çocuklar ÇOCUK DEĞİLLERMİŞ
GİBİ bir gün daha hapiste olacaklar.
Sivil çağrıcılar arasında olmak isterseniz lütfen,
COCUKHAKLARI2@gmail.com adresine acil bildirir misiniz?
Bir "çocuğun" suçu ve cezası ne olabilir?
Dünyadaki tüm çocuklara bayram armağan etmiş bir ülke Türkiye.
Birleşmiş Milletler Çocuk Hakları Sözleşmesi'nin ilk imzacılarından.
Çocukların öncelikli yararını sağlamaya, büyüme ve gelişmelerini
desteklemeye ve çocuklar arasında ayrım gözetmemeye söz vermiş.
Ancak Türkiye'nin hapishanelerinde aylardır adaleti bekleyen çocuklar var.
Ailelerine, evlerine ve okullarına dönmeyi bekliyorlar.
Diyarbakır, Adana, Gaziantep, Şırnak ve diğer illerde yaşları 12 ile
18 arasında değişen, çoğu ilköğretim öğrencisi 250'den fazla çocuk
sokak protestolarına katıldıkları ve polise taş attıkları gerekçesiyle
Bu cocuklar TC'nin de imzalamış oldugu BM (Birleşmiş Milletler) Çocuk
Hakları Sözleşmesine aykırı olarak yargılanıyor ve hapis yatıyorlar.
Haklarında istenen hapis cezaları 23 yıla kadar çıkıyor.
Yargılanma sebepleri sokak protestolarında taş atmak.
Verilmek istenen ceza ise neredeyse dünyada yaşadıkları günlerin iki
Onlar okul çocukları, okulları öylece kaldı. Aileleri ile
görüştürülmeyenler bile var. Sağlık durumları her gün daha kötüye
Çocuklukları dört duvar arasında ölüyor!
Tanıdığımız, sevdiğimiz herhangi bir çocuktan tek farkları bu.
Çocuklarla birlikte çocuklar için adalet istiyoruz!
Tüm çocukların ağır ceza mahkemelerindeki davaları görevsizlik kararı
verilerek çocuk mahkemelerine devredilsin.
Tutuklu yargılanan çocukların tutukluluk halleri bitirilsin ve
ailelerine, evlerine dönebilmeleri sağlansın.
Çocukların yaşlarını çok aşan gerekçelerle mahkûm edilmelerine, dört
duvar arasına hapsedilmelerine rıza göstermeyin!
Ve bir kere daha düşünün;
Bir "çocuğun" suçu ve cezası ne olabilir?
müzeleri yıkılan, yağmalanan; akademi öğrencilerine güvenlik duvarları dekore ettirilen bağdad'dan bir sergi haberi. adı "insaniyet ışıkları"; sadr'ın koruması altında. ve ny times'ın durum okuması...
And so Baghdad’s first Sadrist art exhibition, titled “Beacons of Humanity,” collected 80 works of art by 39 Iraqi artists and displayed them for three days on the eve of a Shiite holiday commemorating the martyrdom of the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, Imam Hussein, which culminates in Karbala on Monday.
Some of the works are jarring, challenging fundamentalist interpretations of Islam that forbid depictions of human figures. Others suggest peace, reconciliation and the triumph of good over evil. For Iraqis, the mere fact of the exhibition was a sign that Iraq’s artistic traditions might have not only survived years of war and chaos, but also emerged reinvigorated.
Hassan Nassar, who owns a gallery called Madarat, one of the few that stayed open during the worst of Iraq’s violence, called the Sadrists’ patronage of the arts welcome, if unexpected.
For Baghdad’s artists, anyway, the opening of any gallery space amounts to an artistic revival after years of despair. Art suffered like everything else during the country’s descent into sectarian warfare. Museums and galleries closed. Art sales evaporated, depriving artists of means to live.
Many fled the country, among them Akram Naji, a ceramicist who went to Syria for medical treatment and stayed for two years. He returned last year and, for the exhibition, created a triptych of bright ceramic forms. The colors, he said, were a response to the violence.
The exhibition took place in a gallery and studio called Biyarq, which means flag. It is located in a worn house in Baghdad’s Waziriya neighborhood, a cultural region of sorts, anchored by the Academy of Fine Arts.
Its director, Hasim Hamid al-Hashami, opened the gallery six months ago as an artistic oasis, with workshops and lectures as well as exhibitions. Standing on the gallery’s roof, he gestured to a lot below, spotted with weeds and broken furniture, and imagined a theater for the performing arts. There are already separate studios for painters, designers, sculptors, actors and playwrights.
The gallery is even putting up Adel Dawod, 39, a painter who recently arrived from Nasiriya, striving to make it in his country’s capital. “I wanted to live the life of art in Baghdad,” he said.The gallery is independent, an artists’ collective, but it welcomed the Sadrists’ commission: a series of works focused on Imam Hussein’s example of resistance and martyrdom in the fight against injustice, a foundation of Shiite faith.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Capital: 'There's nothing remotely like it'
Francis Wheen's 'biography' of Capital – part of the Books that Shook the World series – reminds us why Marx's classic is so unique.
Marx’s Das Kapital: A Biography, Francis Wheen, London: Atlantic (Books that Shook the World series), 2006.
I first read Capital when I was a student in the mid-Seventies. The onset of recession and an upsurge of trade union militancy after 30 years of postwar boom and political stability provoked a wave of interest in Marxism and the Marxist theory of capitalist crisis.
In his excellent ‘biography’ of Marx’s classic work (to which he gives its original German title), Francis Wheen, following his sympathetic ‘carbuncles and all’ biography of Marx, notes how the popularity of Marx’s Capital has fluctuated according to the cyclical rhythms of the capitalist economy. In periods of slump, in the 1870s and 1880s, and in the interwar years, ‘catastrophist’ interpretations of Marx’s work as a theory of the inevitability of capitalist collapse were in the ascendant. While those of a conservative disposition supported whatever measures seemed necessary to bolster the existing order, many radicals believed that they simply had to wait for capitalist breakdown to usher in a new order of society. By contrast, in periods of boom, in the decades before the First World War and after the Second, ‘harmonist’ theorists argued that events had refuted Marx’s gloomy prognosis. They claimed that the capitalist system had overcome its disintegrative trends through imperialist expansion and state intervention. Many socialists now abandoned the goals of revolution in favour of the pursuit of reforms within the existing system.
In Britain in the Seventies the emergence of inflation and unemployment rapidly exposed the political weakness of the labour movement and had a disorienting impact on the left. While catastrophists greeted every bankruptcy as the harbinger of revolution, harmonists insisted that the welfare state and military expenditure had stabilised the system and bought off the working class, necessitating the quest for a new agency of change. It was at this moment that I fell in with a small group of people who repudiated both these facile arguments and the philistine approach towards theory on which they were based. They recognised that, if we were to acquire a deeper grasp of the dynamics of capitalist society, instead of merely spouting Marxist slogans it was necessary to embark on a deeper study of Marx.
So we read Capital. When I say we read Capital, I mean we read Capital, in a group, out loud, line by line, paragraph by paragraph (at least in the early chapters), discussing and arguing over every page, through volumes one, two and three, even unto ‘Theories of Surplus Value’, sometimes referred to as ‘volume four’. In retrospect, this approach sounds rather like that of students of the Bible, the Talmud or the Koran, but this was not a process of rote-learning, rather one of active collective engagement with the most important attempt to capture the process of capitalist development in theory. I have never read any other book in this way, but, as Wheen observes, Capital is unique, there is ‘nothing remotely like it’: Capital is ‘entirely sui generis’. Numerous academic commentators have observed that reading Capital is not easy, but, as Marx observed, ‘beginnings are always difficult in all sciences’, and Capital above all offers an intensive introduction to Marx’s dialectical method. ‘I assume, of course’, Marx wrote to Engels, ‘a reader who is willing to learn something new and therefore to think for himself.’
In Capital, subtitled ‘a critical analysis of capitalist production’, Marx does not present a theory of capitalist crisis as such, but seeks to capture the process of reproduction of capitalist society in its totality. Capital analyses the dynamics of capitalist production and reveals the limitations of capitalism as a mode of production in its incapacity to develop consistently the productive potential of society and achieve social progress. Marx’s dialectical method aims to depict in a theoretical form the development of a social system which is simultaneously a process of producing the material needs of society and a process for ensuring the profitable expansion of value.
Capital begins, famously, with the commodity, ‘the simplest social form in which the product of labour in capitalist society presents itself’. Marx explores the twofold character of the commodity, as use-value and exchange-value, revealing in an elementary form the contradictory character of capitalist production. This contradictory character deepens with the development of the money form, discussed in the third chapter. The separation of economic processes into two phases – production and exchange – implies ‘the possibility, and no more than the possibility, of crises’. However, ‘the conversion of this mere possibility into reality is the result of a long series of relations’ that are the subject of the rest of the work, as it proceeds from the simplest and most fundamental concepts to more complex and developed categories, ascending from the abstract to the concrete.
For Marx, the distinctive feature of capitalism is the way in which the labour of society is allocated between different branches of production through the exchange of commodities as equivalents, as exchange values. The law of value operates in capitalist society as the only possible, albeit indirect, mechanism through which social labour can be distributed. Hence under capitalism the social character of labour appears as the objective character of the products of labour; social relations between people appear – and can only appear – as relations between things. Just as market relations conceal the operation of the law of value, the money form conceals the social character of labour and the social relations between producers. As a result, human beings are dominated by the products of their own labour, objects are endowed with supernatural qualities and money acquires divine power. Marx emphasises that the objective economic basis of this ‘fetishism of commodities’ meant that it could only be abolished through a fundamental reorganisation of society:
‘[T]he life process of material production does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan.’
Marx shows how the process of capital accumulation tends towards falling profitability expressed in periodic crises. However, contrary to the interpretations of many admirers as well as critics, Marx does not advance a mechanistic thesis of collapse or predict the inevitable downfall of capitalism. He recognises that crises are both an expression of declining profitability and a mechanism for restoring it. He identifies a series of counteracting tendencies to the dominant disintegrative dynamic of capitalism. His analysis supports neither fatalists eagerly anticipating the fall of capital nor those who believe that revolutionary will is in itself sufficient to bring the system to an end. The key factor in the fate of capitalism was the role of class struggle, as the subjective bearer of change in the objective conditions given by the tendency towards breakdown.
Reading Capital provided an invaluable methodological training as we engaged in the campaigns of the late Seventies and the Eighties, seeking to give organisational expression to an anti-capitalist outlook. Having gone back to Marx, we were able to move forward to attempt to grasp new developments in capitalist society through discovering the mediating links between appearances and the inner movement of capital, in the process developing the basic elements of an anti-capitalist programme.
By the late Eighties, however, the dialectic of subject and object had swung decisively in favour of capitalist stabilisation. The historic defeat of the working-class movement that emerged in the 1840s, when Marx began work on Capital, became complete, inaugurating an unprecedented period of capitalist hegemony. Now that Capital had apparently lost its subversive potential, it once again became popular, even trendy. In that brief moment of capitalist triumphalism in the early Nineties, Marx was celebrated as the prophet of globalisation and patron of turbo-charged capitalism. Yet before long, Marx’s catastrophist themes were once again in vogue, as gloomy promoters of apocalyptic scenarios endorsed Marx’s warnings of the environmentally destructive and socially corrosive consequences of capitalist enterprise. Yet Marx anticipated the transcendence of the capitalist order through the quest for the higher development of the productive potential of society. He never envisaged an era of decadence in which the capitalist system would curtail its own development in the pursuit of fashionable nostrums such as ‘sustainability’ or ‘environmental protection’.
Francis Wheen provides a useful introduction to Capital, setting this great work in both its historical context and in the context of the life of its author. He writes perceptively on ‘Capital as literature’, noting its elements of the Gothic novel, Victorian melodrama, black farce, Greek tragedy and satirical utopia. He observes that Capital is ‘saturated with irony’, and that its metaphorical style, its ‘abstruse explanations and whimsical tomfoolery’, reflect Marx’s attempt ‘to do justice to the mysterious, topsy-turvy logic of capitalism’. Capital itself offers appearances that are paradoxical, mystifying, contrary to everyday observation. As Marx observed in an earlier pamphlet: ‘It is also a paradox that the earth moves around the sun, and that water consists of two inflammable gases. Scientific truth is always a paradox if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things.’
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
DATES: Part I at Gasworks: 15 February – 5 April 2009
Part II at The Showroom: June 2009
PREVIEW: Saturday 14 February, 4 – 7.30pm
Wed 18 February, 7 – 8.30pm: Communists Like Us at The Nehru Centre
Thurs 26 February, 7 – 8.30pm: LondonunderLondon
Sun 15 March, 3 – 6pm: Facs of Life
Wed 1 April, 7 – 8.30pm: Collaborative and Collective Filmmaking: a Discussion
A Long Time Between Suns is the first solo presentation of The Otolith Group’s work in London.
The exhibition is produced by Gasworks and The Showroom and will take place in two parts. The
Otolith Group, comprised of artists Anjalika Sagar and Kodwo Eshun, approach questions of
archive and futurity through a moving image practice, which often adopts an essay-like form.
Part I at Gasworks: 15 February – 5 April 2009
At Gasworks the group will present their first two films Otolith (2003) and Otolith II (2007) within a bespoke environment by the designer Will Holder.
• Part II at The Showroom: June 2009
The second part of A Long Time Between Suns takes place at The Showroom's new location in
London and will present Otolith III (2009), the final film in The Otolith Trilogy.
Friday, February 6, 2009
very bad news for the swedish scene!
Signal is forced to close down
Dear Friends, Colleagues and Audience,
It is now definite that Signal- Center for is forced to close down in after obtaining the final decisions from our main financiers.
After many years of petitioning the Swedish Arts Council of Region Skåne and the City of Malmö, the economical situation has not changed.
The main financiers have individually chosen not to respond to Signal’s appeal for securing the basic funding needed to continue the exhibitions and activities., the
We cannot continue to provide a qualitative and professional programme, an international network and a local infrastructure without adequate resources.
We are therefore forced to terminate a successful organisation that has in its ten years developed into a natural meeting place for both audience and
practitioners within the field of contemporary art, a “city trademark” and a significant on the international scene. For this we are truly sorry.
We want to thank all our collaborators throughout the years, all the artists and participants in our programme, in the Artist Archive, in our residency programmes
and international exchanges. We regret that we cannot offer you the resources of Signal in the future.
Finally and above all we want to thank our fantastic audience for the great support and interest you have shown in Signal. Thank you so very much!
You can find the support letters here.
2009 – Final year with Signal
In 2009 we are working on an extensive research project dedicated to and primarily focusing on the independent art initiatives that existed in the south of Sweden
during the period of 1968-2008. The result will be presented in the form of a book, an exhibition and an international seminar.
Exhibition: September 19 - December 6, 2009
Signal- Center for Contemporary Art
Södra Skolgatan 31, entrance: Barkmansgatan
SE 214 22 Malmö
+46 (0)40 979210
Opening hours: Thursday- , Saturday-
Signal is run by Carl Lindh, Emma Reichert, Fredrik Strid and Elena Tzotzi
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
biraz da edward hopper konuşalım.
kim demiş "güncelci"ler sanat tarihinden anlamaz diye.
azı da fazlası da zarar bu meretin.
edward hopper and contemporary art diye bir sergiyle karşılaşıp
hopper'ın dört resmi karşısında jarmusch sekansları görüp arkada da ed ruscha'nın gasoline ve double standardlarına göz kırpıp, köşeyi dönüp rachel whiteread'ın 1993 tarihli bence şaheseri house'un yapım günlüğüne takılınca mest oldum. hemen ilerisinde bazı hopper çiziktirmeleri görmediğim. david claerbout'un iç yüzey/dış yüzey süreç videoları, markus schinwald'ın absürd performanslarına ev sahipliği yapan profili ve philip dilorca'nın erkek fahişe portrelerinden sonrasını görünce, iyi ama safe and sound, biraz yıkılsaymış fena olmazmış, ben olsaydım ne yapardım'ı da arada derede sorguladım.
uzun süredir görmediğim hatta bir o kadar daha göremeyeceğim eski bir arkadaşımın hediye ettiği hopper kitabını hatırladım.
fotoğraf koymuyorum özellikle.
hopper severlere hayal imkanı.
selim birsel'e de bu sergiyi görmemi tavsiye ettiği için teşekkür. yoksa kunsthalle die burun kıvırırdım her zamanki gibi.
son not: demiyim dedim duramadım. bizim müzeler viyana'dan bazı corporate'ların sular seller paralar akıtarak son dakika müzayedelerde topladıkları herkes var koleksiyonlarını getirirler de böyle nadir yaratıcı müze aktivitelerini niye getirmezler, bilinmez.
sahaflarda dip dalarken vs denk gelen olursa haber etsin lütfen!
Devrimlerden günümüze uzanan neredeyse iki yüzyıl, ulus devlet egemenliklerinin kuruluşu ve egemenler arası savaşın acıları ve bedelleriyle belleklere kazınan bir “aşırılıklar çağı” oldu. Emeğin ortak tarihi, yaşamı, belleği üstünden sınırlar geçirildi. Topraklar devletlere, üzerinde yaşayanlar uluslara, ırklara, halklara bölündü. Emek sermaye tarafından ulus devletin sınırları içinde zorla çitlendi önce. Egemenler arası savaşta taraflaştırılarak uluslaştırıldı. Ulusal sınırlar içinde tekleştirilerek farklılaştırıldı, “başka”laştırıldı. Uluslar ve ırklar, savaşta ve savaşla kuruldu. Emeğin yaşamın üretimindeki elbirliğinin, kardeşliğinin üstüne savaşın, silahın, acıların gölgesi düştü. Kaderler ayrıldı. Egemenler arası savaşın düzenlenebilmesi için “barış”lar yapıldı sonra. Savaş, ulusal ekonomik ve politik çıkarlar üzerinden rekabete dönüştürüldü. Ekonomi, kültür, siyasal hayatta örgütlenen milliyetçi rekabet, toplumsal bir güce, belleğe, hayata büründü.
Aşırılıklar çağından çıkan dünya şimdi yine bir egemenlik savaşıyla yeni bir çağa başlıyor. Sermayenin çıkarının küreselleşmesinin önünde, ulus devletin toprak temelli sınırları, ulusal sınırlar içindeki politik ve ekonomik tekeller, ulus devlet egemenlik işleyişinin güvencesi milliyetçilikler aşılması gereken engellere dönüştü. Sermayenin çıkarının ulusal sınırlar içinde merkezileşme ve yoğunlaşmaya dayalı olduğu aşırılıklar çağında en büyük silahı olan ulus devletler ve milliyetçilikler artık galip gelinmesi gereken “düşman”lardır. Toprak temelli egemenlikleri aşan küresel bir piyasanın kuruluşu içinde özneleşmeyen ulusal egemenlikler savaşla disiplin altına alınmalıdır. Küresel sermayenin emek üzerindeki tahakkümü küresel olarak yeniden kurulmalıdır. Milliyetçilik, ulus devletler arası savaş ve rekabetin diliydi. Artık iş görmüyor. Egemenlik, emeği küresel olarak tahakkümü altına alabilmenin yeni bir söylemine ihtiyaç duyuyor. Ulusal sınırlar altında baskılanan diller, renkler, kültürler ulus devlet egemenliğine karşı bir silah olarak kullanılırken, bütün yerellikler küresel piyasanın işleyişinde özne olmaya çağrılıyor. Farklılıklar, metalaşarak piyasa içinde eşitlenmeye davet ediliyor. Küresel piyasaya eklemlenmeye direnen yerliliklere ise hayat hakkı tanınmıyor. Egemenlerin kendi dilinden söyleyelim:
“Hızlı ekonomik ilerlemenin acılı bir uyum süreci yaşanmadan imkansız oluşunun bir anlamı vardır. Eski felsefeler kenara atılmalı, eski kurumlar çözülmeli, kast, inanç ve ırk bağları yarılmalı. İlerlemeye ayak uyduramayan pek çok insan, rahat bir yaşam beklentilerinde hayal kırıklığına uğramak zorunda kalacak. Ekonomik ilerlemenin bütün bedellerini ödemeye istekli çok az topluluk var.” (Birleşmiş Milletler Raporu, 1951)
Küresel egemenlik işleyişinin yeni söylemi burada yatar. Sınırları, ulus devletler arasında değil, küresel piyasanın içinde ve dışında olmak arasında çizilen yeni bir ırkçılığın keşfidir bu. Tekleştirerek farklılaştıran milliyetçilikler ve ırkçılıklar karşısında, artık farklılaştırarak tekleştiren küresel bir ırkçılığa teslim olunması isteniyor. Küresel egemenler ile ulusal egemenler arasındaki bu savaş, milliyetçilikler üzerinden taraflaşmaları yeniden örgütlerken bu savaşta taraf olmamayı tercih edenler küresel sermayenin ırkçı egemenliğine karşı mücadele veriyor. Topraksızlar, güvencesizler, göçmenler, yoksullar, Zapatistalar, işsizler, yerliler…Emeğin ve sermayenin yeni bir mücadelesiyle belirlenecek yeni bir yüzyıl başlıyor.
Nietzsche 19. yüzyılın başlarında Avrupa’yı saran “ulusal nevroz” hastalığından bahsederken “buradan bir çıkış yolu bilen var mı?” sorusunu bir yakarıştan daha ziyade bir eleştiri olarak ortaya koyuyordu. Ardından bu hastalık tüm dünyaya yayıldı. Öyle ki bu hastalığa karşı üretilen her anti-virüs girişimi yeni virüsler yaratıyor, tarih sil baştan kuruluyordu.
Hepimize bir diğerinin “cani, vahşi, medenileşmemiş , asalak” olduğu telkin ediliyordu. Çocukluk masallarımızı kirletiyor, yeni masallara inanmamızı istiyorlardı. Oysa şair’in dediği gibi “Çocukluk taşınabilir bir şeydir / alınsa da elinden geçmişi.” İşte Conatus’u, bu itkiden hareketle, çocukluğumuzun gizil yerlerine ışık tutsun, geçmişimizi gün ışığına çıkarsın, kimliğimizin, kişiliğimizin, bedenimizin devinimlerini, kokusunu gün yüzüne çıkarsın diye bedenleştiriyoruz bugün. Geçmişimizi aklamak ya da karalamak yerine geleceğimize umutla bakmak, bizim olan çocukluğumuzu, emeğimizi geri istiyoruz. George Orwell’ın deyişiyle “bugünü kontrol edenler geçmişi de kontrol ediyor; geçmişi kontrol edenler geleceği de kontrol ediyor.” Conatus, bu nedenle ve buna karşı, Anka kuşu misali, yeniden küllerinden doğuyor: Bugünü kontrol edenlere karşı geçmişi aydınlatmak, geçmişi kontrol edenlere karşı gelecek olma kudretiyle ...
Mail grubumuza ulaşmak için conatusdergisi@yahoogroups
Demokrasi ve Ulus Devlet Rudolf Rocker
Hegemonyanın Kökleri: Sınıf Uzlaşımının Mekanizmaları ve Ulus-Halkın Ortaya Çıkışı Luis M. Pozo
Irkçılık, Milliyetçilik ve Biyopolitika: Foucault’nun Toplumu Savunmak Gerekir’i, 2003 Mark Kelly
Es gibt keinen Staat in Europa: Günümüz Avrupa’sında Irkçılık ve Siyaset Etienne Balibar
Egemenliğin Sapkın Sebati Anthony Burke
Şarkiyatçılık ve Dünya Tarihi Edmund Burke III
Sykes-Picot Anlaşması 15-16 Mayıs 1916
İlerleme ve Ortak Bir Gelecek için Geniş Ortadoğu ve Kuzey Afrika Bölgesi ile Ortaklık
9 Haziran 2004
Dördüncü Dünya Savaşı Yardımcı Komutan Marcos
Sınırlar, Vatandaşlık, Savaş, Sınıf Sandro Mezzadra ve Etienne Balibar ile Tartışma
Kaçış Hakkı Sandro Mezzadra
Junius Broşürü – Yedinci Bölüm Rosa Luxemburg
Programımızda Ulusal Sorun V.I. Lenin
Ulusal Kültürün Karşılıklı Temelleri ve Özgürlük Mücadelesi Frantz Fanon
Sunday, February 1, 2009
"Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova were murdered on January 19 in the center of Moscow.
Why do their murders concern each person who lives in Russia, each person who aspires to have the rights for which people like Markelov and Baburova fight? Why should we come together to share this pain and express our outrage?
Because our silence is tantamount to acquitting the people who terrorize us. It is tantamount to admitting that they are right. They terrorize us with these murders, which are the latest in a long series of violent acts against social and political activists. These terrorist acts have become the dangerously familiar backdrop to our daily lives.
After such outrageous murders, the time has come for us to decide: do we want this violence to continue in our country? Are we prepared to make our peace with the fact that criminal investigations into violent attacks against social and political activists never lead to convictions?
You lose your job. You lose your home. You lose your rights. The people who defend you are murdered. How far must this humiliation go before you stop putting up with it in silence?
People who say or think that such things are typical the world over are mistaken. Russia ranks third (after Iraq and Algeria) in numbers of murdered journalists. In every country that has gone through a similar phase in its history, people took to the streets in order to change their country.
It is enough for thousands of people to take to the streets in order to put an end to this “criminal immunity”—immunity for those people who terrorize free society. We need mass protests to reverse the direction our society is headed."
STANISLAV MARKELOV was no ordinary lawyer. He was one of a handful of lawyers who defended workers, railroad men, evicted dormitory residents, cheated apartment co-op members, anti-fascists, refugees, and victims of police abuse. He fought for the rights of Mikhail Beketov, editor-in-chief of the newspaper Khimki Pravda, who was viciously beaten this past autumn for criticizing the local administration. Markelov took on the cases of social activists, whose work is invaluable for our society. Markelov helped many of them pro bono.
Stanislav represented the victims in the trial of Colonel Yuri Budanov; the Nord-Ost hostage tragedy; neofascist attacks on anti-fascists and migrants; and the massive police pogrom against the residents of Blagoveshchensk. He worked with Anna Politkovskaya, traveled to Chechnya on many occasions, wrote critical articles, and participated in environmental protest camps.
He understood that society is something you have to build yourself, and so he organized the Rule of Law Institute, which gives legal assistance to journalists, lawyers, activists, homeowners, and workers.
ANASTASIA BABUROVA was a fifth-year student in the journalism faculty at Moscow State University. She worked for Izvestia, Novaya Gazeta, and several other publications. She was an activist in the anarchist and environmental movements. She participated in many protest actions and civic initiatives, in particular, the European Social Forum in Malmö (2008). Nastya covered non-mainstream youth movements, street actions and protests, and court trials.
Stanislav was thirty-four; Nastya, twenty-five. Both of them were just beginning their work: they could have accomplished a lot more had they not been killed. They took on toughest, most important problems of our time. They were people who understood quite clearly that freedom in our society could only be fought for and won—fought for and won by citizens themselves. If citizens don’t fight for this freedom, it will become less and less, until society is strangled by totalitarianism or fascism.
for more copy+paste: http://chtodelat.wordpress.com/