The Nationless Pavilion: for the future of community after nation state
published in DoppioZero International in June 2016
The Nationless Pavilion Laboratory heald by Denis Maksimov, image of the Leviathan, Sale Docks Venice 2015. Photo © Mohamed Keita
Political crisis of today is dictated by outdated nation state model of mapping the world. While all the other systems already spilled over with economy, art, science going global, nation state still draws the lines on the geographical map.
Political power and it’s redistribution is the heart of the issue. Advancement of human civilization, apart of providing technological leaps, also demanded more transparency and visibility from power. It has always been ‘catch and run’ game - with new strategies of mystification of political power into institutional forms of different kinds. Authority redistribution mechanisms always tend to appear impersonal as their function is to communicate idea of being ‘detached’ from the matter of defining good and bad, right and wrong. Ethical, moral and aesthetic judgment seem to appear to naked eye as something defined and proved by centuries of common societal work, where standards of normal are the result of careful, almost Darwinist selection of what is better for all. The mythology of this process was first supported by the narratives of religious dogma and power, while today it’s mostly relies on fear and ignorance. Ulrich
Beck [1] rightly highlighted one of the core characteristics of a modern life as the detachment from understanding of the basics of how this ultra-complicated world of ours works. Experts are supposed to decide what is good and bad, while comprehension of the verification mechanisms of their expertise is not an easy task for commoner. Expert networks include government, academia, economic and cultural elite, which are all intertwined through multiplicity of intersections within the hierarchies of confirmation of their expertise validity.
Epistemological processes of knowledge production and legitimization is strategically anything but transparent. The fundamental principle of the whole mega-structure is collective responsibility as silent conspiracy, bordering with plain nepotism. If I am demystified and going down, you are going down with me too, because the whole structure of validity behind our claims is constructed on mutual presumptions. The web of artificiality of social and political order demands almost religious belief in it’s realness. And if the certain structure is central to the multiplicity of these hierarchies, it’s guarded as a sacred cow by more than silence. It is supposed to actively reinforced by the actors in production of new ways to confirm the validity of ideological structure. It’s notoriously easier to imagine the end of the world, than end of capitalism not because of capitalism’s irreplaceability, but due to dependency on it’s rules and mapping of the roles and functions in socio-political matter overall majorities of the elites, contracted in unwritten and unsigned, but mutually understood by majority of them. When John Locke was speaking about social contract between state and citizens, he should have envisioned probably that not all the citizens sign the very same contract. All animals are equal, but realness, designed by the collective responsibility as silent conspiracy for value production and legitimization, proves that indeed some animals are more equal than the others.
The process of development of the Nationless Pavilion in the context of the 56th Venice Biennale ‘All the World’s Futures’ was launched in order to critically reflect on this complex subject. The chosen point of departure, the grounds of contemporary art, is strategic: because having the conversation about this at any other ground is by default ideologised and exists in opposition to dominating meta-narrative. The task of the curators seemed at the best impossible and at the worst plainly naive - can we envision possibility of alternative narrative of social construction beyond the known format the nation state?
The process of construction of the Pavilion was following the idea of artistic collaboration, beyond definitions and necessity to identify particular roles and functions. The hierarchies were flattened. Artists-moderators-workshop leaders-curators were engaged with participants, both political refugees and not, in the joint flow of critical reflection about the possible alternatives to the current order. However our task was not to oppose the contemporary forms. First of all, the task was to identify your own place in the modern totality. Different strategies were applied by the artists invited in the collaborative workshop processes.
The Nationless Pavilion Laboratory, Nation 25 Under Construction, Sale Docks Venice 2015. Photo © Mohamed Keita
Emilio Fantin focused on the invisible process of construction of one’s identity. He attempted to trigger materialization of metaphysical experience on pre-cultural level: how can we arrive to possibility to imagine that the phrasing “(s)he is, I am, they are” can be read, for example, as “I are, they is, he are, we am”[2].
Ultra-Red related to the process of perception of space and time in the situation of crisis and stress. They focused on the social and psychological meaning behind the sounds of the spaces in Lecce and in Castri, where they worked with the growing community of those often forced into nomadism, refugees and migrants. The people whose experience of “exit” of the nation state in both physical and conceptual sense is apparent and recent were invited to share their experience of the new of the spaces sounds.
The ‘laboratory’ designed by me was devoted to the subject of possible political system that embodies in itself all necessary functions for providing functionality of social system, but deals away with the actual form of contemporary political ‘normality’ - the nation state. I saw my task as contextualization of the discussion and brainstorming beyond the ideological meta-frame of ‘ever-lasting Present’ and push the process of group thinking into a free float.
I departed from where the concept of nation state originated - metaphor of Leviathan that was introduced by Thomas Hobbes in his seminal book bearing the same title. A state was described by him as a corporeal body, that is composed of the citizens as its cells. The organs of this meta-body are the functional elements of the political system and this anthropomorphic thinking about politics chained the discourse of political theory for the centuries to come. I engaged in a group conversation and brainstorming with the participants, where we discussed present theoretically, but still unimaginable in practical sense (beyond naivety) point: can we detach the form of politics in society from its function?
“You ask us to do the impossible” - reacted one of the participants - “For example, I wake up in the morning and look out of the window and see a landscape, sun, etc. And you tell us: imagine this is all un-existent, it’s only a form, and think about only its function”. I responded: “Yes, that is exactly what I am asking you to imagine. Imagine warmth without the sun, air without the clouds, smell of the fresh-cut grass without the grass itself”.
The first day was the hardest in this process: several times we seemingly got completely stuck, and several times the process of conversation needed to be ‘rebooted’ in order to step somewhere further. I used the aesthetic form of Dutch and Italian Renaissance period anatomical theatre (minus actual corpses): drawing the body and associating the functions of political system with its specific organs, representing their interconnections and interdependency. What was very important to reflect upon is that those interdependencies in many cases had nothing to do with the actual functions of the organ: the connections between them were justified exclusively by the aesthetic forms of representation. I was sure that we have to break through this barrier or representational thinking in order to go further: and it happened. After launching associative dialogue with form/function dichotomy in the center, participants actively engaged in the process of Artaud like cruelty theatre: deconstruction of the body and de-association of the formal structures to reconstruct a new one from functional value[3]. By the third day, we arrived to the visualization of the formless, openly-structured and geometric, but free from formalization and hierarchisation composition of functions, that was somehow natural and extra-terrestrial at the same time.
The processes of interconnection and communication between various functional ‘modules’ of this structure were named ‘osmosis’ by one of the participants. Another participant envisaged a possibility of detachment of the modules from the common structure when necessary. There was no necessity to think in the form of ‘skeleton’ or ‘spine’, no need for a central structure or (potentially) abusive leadership in a form of be-or-not-to-be integration. The result was pure form of organized, functionally structured chaos, which is addressing the challenges and needs at the moment of necessity. This system doesn’t try to survive for the sake of survival alone: it does not exist and clings to biological presence, but rather lives, breathes, changes, embraces curiosity and flexibility.
Hypostatization of subjectivity, introduced by post-structural thought, is the cornerstone for envisioning the world after the end of nation state. The participants of the art and theory laboratory “State-after-State: Future Potentiality of Post-Nation” were guided through the process of departing from the anthropomorphic analogy of the nation state. My approach was following the spirit of early school of critical theory, brilliantly contextualized by Walter Benjamin as ‘politicization of aesthetics’. The goal was not to develop or present certain alternative ideology to current narrative and trap ourselves in continuous loop of dialectical repetition with masters and slaves just changing their roles without reflecting and deconstructing the actual functional order.
There is no ambition to push forward via aestheticisation a certain form of political activism in the Nationless Pavilion, no pretense of presenting alternative ‘truth’. Even the good intentions of this form are dangerous, as the consequences of such process are beyond the control of initial intentions, as history showed us numerously. Our goal was and is to reveal the invisible in ways that will trigger critical thinking, shake the grounds of eternal form of nation state, geographical and political borders. We don’t want to re-draw the map - we want to imagine the life without those lines.
Refugees are invisible in the structures of nation state, they constantly exist in the limbo in-between space, not here (because they are undesired, problematic and not belonging to a “host”) and already not there (as they left there place of origin). Nomadism of other kinds is conceptually similar and the generation of globe-trotters of today’s 20-somethings feel this awkwardness of the socio-political “reality” which they inhabit, although find it complicated to contextualize the problem. It is clear why it is hard to grasp: the conversation of the systematic change is not taking place in any authoritative institutions, that possess power of legitimization of that “reality” we inhabit. Here enters contemporary art with all it’s institutionally perceived “awkwardness”: having no certain medium, agenda, standards and norms. It is a pure space of possible, where new[4] as Boris Groys brilliantly writes is not something that interprets the events of change on the grounds of historical understanding of it’s meaning, but is a “comrade of time”. New aka contemporary is something that going alongside with the currents of time. Nation state is obviously out of touch with the time we live in, and I am afraid it is so for quite long already.
The Nationless Pavilion, Nation 25 Under Construction, Installation view, Sale Docks, Venice 2015 © Nation25
Presentation in the context and in conversation with the nation state is paramountly important for the case of “what is to come after?” conversation having any impact on the discourse at all. This is the strategic reasoning behind the decision of Nation25 to be present in the form of Nationless Pavilion at the Venice Biennale. Arguably the most important institutional art event of the global magnitude, it claims to locate in the space of conversation “old” and “new”, and still is the best setting for discovering “possible” in manner of trans-disciplinary inquiry. The connection with the world through web of institutional contributors in the form of ministries of culture, galleries, collectors and private donors, artists and independent collectives provides a snapshot of “the state of the arts” as the medium of human activity. The natural mission of the Nationless Pavilion is to respond to the urgent crisis of socio-political reality by staging platforms for collaborative work and brainstorming between people of various backgrounds and origins, both visible and invisible in the context of contemporary definitions. The urge of pushing ourselves out of the comfort zone is necessary: the collapse of ‘the Present’ will be more catastrophic longer we postpone the change. Transdisciplinary platform of conceptual art has the potential to unite forward-thinking beyond the constraints of immediate practical application. Theory and research are fundamentally different - where the first one is asking the questions and the other one is suggesting hypotheses for designing potential problematics. Current time demonstrate growing cleavage between the two - how can you answer the questions that are staying within the limited contextual frame? This is exactly the problem of our ‘smupid’ (‘smart + stupid’, Douglas Coupland) times, when we are able to make high-definition pictures of Pluto surface and at the same time live in the socio-political institutional framework which was designed to host slavery, world wars and oppression.
I am happy to be part of the ambitious attempt to offer an alternative platform for thinking beyond this vicious deadlock of wanting to seem inescapable repetition.
References:
[1] Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 1992.
[2] Referring to the Nation25’s work Pangea published in Spaces of Exception, Milieu Edizioni, Milano, 2016.
[3] Cfr. M. De Marinis, La danza alla rovescia di Artaud, il Secondo Teatro della Crudeltà (1945-1948), I Quaderni del Battello Ebbro, Porretta Terme, 1999 and C.Pecchioli, Antonin Artaud, Segni e Disegni, Culture Teatrali, Ed. Carattere, Bologna, 2014.
[4] Boris Groys, On the New. Translated by G. M. Goshgarian, Verso Books, London, Brooklyn, 2014.
Curatorial parcour through ‘Imprints’
In “The Human Condition,” political theorist Hanna Arendt speaks about “vita contemplativa” (contemplative, passive life) as the condition of Western society. It is a condition that opposes “vita active,”or dynamic living, where the subject produces reality, instead of passively consuming its established narratives. This dynamism can be seen as one of the grey lines connecting works in this exhibition. One recent video and an object or drawing was selected from 5 of our represented artists to shape an accidental exhibition built on a series of coincidences and the bonds that grew out of them. Other lines appear in what can be seen and what cannot. Presence is given to the invisible ashes, traumas and concerns that shape each piece in the show.
The exhibition in June 2016 at Harlan Levey Projects featured works of Marcin Dudek, Amelie Bouvier, Petr Davydtchenko, TR Ericsson and Emmanuel Van der Auwera. More information.
Bureau for Public Insecurities: a conversation between curators Denis Maksimov (DM) and Caroline Carrion (CC)
curatorial duo DNV [dan'etvɐzmoʐnə], Caroline Carrion and Denis Maksimov
DM: Conversations about insecurities in modern life seem infinite. What do you think?
CC: Borders are socio-political conventions, so it seems only fair that notions of territory and limits, both in their material as metaphorical meanings, would be blurred and somewhat fluid in moments when certain paradigms about civilization are being revised.
During the still young 21st century, we have been watching the emergence of an economic crisis (leading to social convulsion) all over the world, from the EU and the US to the BRIC countries, accompanied by the outbreak of terrorist groups, like ISIS or Boko Haram. We must keep in mind, when looking at such phenomena, that the idea of crisis is essential to the functioning of capitalism, especially in its current neoliberal form. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that local historical processes and idiosyncrasies can be disregarded. The effects in material well-being that result from this growth in insecurities are very different for the European middle-class compared to those experienced in Latin American, for instance.
DM: Poetry is, from a practical perspective, useless when it comes to the issue of dealing with risk to material comfort. However, its emotional and psychological effects are, from my perspective, invaluable. Is it possible to reveal the essence of this treasure we possess, which is becoming more and more rare in light of growing materialism, consumerism and omnipresent culture of entertainment?
CC: I’m not sure if it’s useless from a practical perspective. In the short term, this uselessness is unquestionable, but long term, poetry has the revolutionary potential of affecting opinions and world views, reaching the core of contemporary modes of understanding the self and the other, which necessarily will create material impact–thus the importance of poetic approach to the issue, as you mentioned.
I believe that critical forms of thinking, from aesthetic philosophy to social theory and psychoanalysis, attempt to reveal the essence of this treasure, as you called, but they can only do it within their own language, in the form of knowledge and information. The experience of real revelation can only come from art itself. In times like ours, when entertainment is more powerful in mind-shaping than any propaganda conceived by totalitarian governments, being in touch with art can be a transformative experience. For me, this is particularly true for the fruition of visual art forms, with their immediate impact and variety of interpretations.
Even with all the possible criticism that we can, and should, make, we must acknowledge the essential role that the art market plays in the diffusion of art, and the possibilities it creates for artists to make a living. On the other hand, experimental and independent art exhibitions are fundamental for works that stretch beyond the bounds of the market’s dictates. As for us, as curators and art critics, I believe that we can do our part to expose treasure by creating a forum for the artworks to be known and seen.
DM: Mitigation of risk is not the same as avoidance of risk. It is indeed about reaching the point of being at peace with living in a world of constant flux. Any sort of “promise” that all our systems provide us are as ephemeral and uncertain as an economic forecast. So why do we keep building the castles of predictability, all those foresight models and “2050s” plans? Isn’t it better to communicate to the public that living in constant unpredictability is the norm? I don’t want to sound Marxist, but from my perspective, it’s all just grounding for the usurpation of power and control of resource distribution systems.
CC: I couldn’t agree more. And this control you mentioned doesn’t happen exclusively within the realm of social hierarchies, but also in our understanding of subjectivity. The rigid and univocal comprehension of identity, sexuality, gender, political affiliations, etc., is directly related to the control of material prosperity. That’s why, in my opinion, the deleuzian concept of devir [‘what is to come’, ‘emergence’] remains so important–after all, the devir is always a devir-minority.
It is interesting, though, to notice how the appearance of social mobility and gain of freedom are essential for such societal systems. The austerity imposed by neoliberalism is only acceptable with hope of future personal prosperity. If it were clear to all that financial gain remains in the hands of the 1%, while the costs and crisis are paid by everyone, changes would come quicker than ever imagined.
DM: I feel contemporary art is among the very few mediums, where the conversation about the fundamental problems of the neoliberal capitalistic totality, foreseen by Theodor Adorno, is still possible. Do you agree?
CC: Yes. Despite being inserted in a multimillionaire market, one that isn’t always legit (as we are getting to know better now, with the leak of the Panama Papers), contemporary art is a platform for critical thinking. While some artists engage in openly politicized practices, others assume a critical posture by insisting on slow and artisanal modes of production and adopting anti-consumerism lifestyles; either way, they point to alternative lifestyles and create a point of disruption, no matter how minimum it is, within the established order.
Identity and univocality are one face of totality; oppositions and plain dialectics are another. Just by existing, contemporary artworks points to multiplicity and question totality.
DM: I really love neologisms – they allow language to stay alive and erode the power of institutional oppression. I find them so important in fighting attempts to close up any subjectivity in opposition to strictness of the objective view of “the winner”. History is always written by the victor, and reality is narrated by those who possess the means to alter the rules of storytelling. How would you describe “danetvozmozhno” [dan'etvɐzmoʐnə] neologism meaning from a universal perspective?
CC: I am a lover of neologisms myself, as I am of etymology. First of all, I believe it’s significant that “danetvozmozhno” derives from a colloquial expression. The original term in Russian means “yes, no, maybe”, but never at the same time. It is my understanding that it all depends on context and intonation. As a neologism, “danetvozmozhno” represents an utterly grey zone, where “yes”, “no” and “maybe” are indiscernible and simultaneous – a space of complete uncertainty that, contrary to the original expression, creates no hierarchies of power between the utterer and the receiver, as both of them are in the same undefined position. It means the coexistence of exclusionary categories (affirmation, negation, and possibility), which is basically a way to summarize the permanent flux condition that you already mentioned.
DM: Brazil is going through very intense period of political and economic turmoil. In the upcoming exhibition “Bureau for Public Insecurities”, art sort of steps in to address the issues in which socio-political and economic institutions seem to fail. Do you think art can and should replace the failed structures functionally? I see it as the main problem with so-called “socially engaged art” for me. I believe art can inspire, instigate, motivate but should never function, promote or propagate because at this moment it stops being art and turns into design, which serves particular goal and betrays aesthetics.
CC: For sure: either design or propaganda, which is even worse. As I mentioned before, one of the most powerful aspects of art, in my opinion, resides in the production of multiplicity, that is, in the fact that it has no final function and provides no final answers.
The desire of presenting the “Bureau for Public Insecurities” came from Brazil’s current situation and from the perception that it is not a local problem. By that I mean the world is entering an era of growing insecurity and precariousness. The artists invited to take part in the show approach matters of relevance for the current socio-political agenda, without the intention of solving them. When Giuditta Vendrame, for instance, presents an installation and a performance based on her research on how to get passports from several European countries, she isn’t providing a service or attempting to promote the acquisition of passports as a solution for a more secure way of living. Her action questions the idea of nationality in itself, the pertinence of the concept of nation in contemporary global societies and the power relations implied in the concept. There’s a certain ironic approach shared by many of the works in the show, which is also ironically titled–after all, we are creating a fictional “Bureau” that offers no ‘real’ service.
DM: Do you think “insecurity profiles” are different or rather similar in global cultural contexts? The exhibition will feature the selection of European and Brazilian artists, who will create or adapt works for the Bureau and create a sort of Frankenstein out of insecurities originating from very diverse environments and historical moments.
CC: It’s hard to say for sure, and I am actually very curious to see how the artists will interact and which departments will arise from this encounter. In the context of globalization and neoliberal capitalism, many uncertainties are common to different societies. Concerns with the means for assuring rent and food, fear of urban violence, doubts about one’s professional future are probably shared “insecurity profiles”. The risk of losing basic rights after the rise of a totalitarian regime, or the imminence of terrorist attacks are, in turn, “profiles” that vary according to the location–the first one is very present in Brazil at this moment, while the second isn’t really a concern for most Brazilians (which cannot be said of Europeans, for instance). No matter how different our lives are, every one of us can be fit in at least one “insecurity profile”, and that is the point of the Bureau, to address the only shared certainty we have: uncertainty.
Group exhibition Bureau for Public Insecurities was commissioned by Avenir Institute in September 5-18 2016 in the context of 32nd Bienal de São Paulo – Incerteza viva [Live Uncertainty]
This conversation was originally published by The Brussels Times Magazine in summer 2016
Aesthetics of Power
Screentshot of Amir Yatziv work “Superstition in the Pigeon”, 2013
Art and power go hand in hand along the whole period of the history of civilisation.
Aesthetics was employed by the institutions of authority, political and religious, for communication of ideology. Mystification of power provided obedience, loyalty and stability of political order for thousands of years. In Ancient Egypt pharaohs and Roman emperors associated themselves with gods, European royalty was ‘blessed’ by institutionalised in church mystical social order. Aesthetics provided essential grounding and served political authority until the art individualised its impact and turned into independent political actor itself. Malevich called for revolution in visual perception in the Manifesto of Suprematism, while Bertolt Brecht tried to politicise art in order to turn it into an active agent of social change. Suddenly aesthetics earned the position of freedom from the narrative of political contextualisation.
Curated by Denis Maksimov, the programme “Aesthetics of Power” features a selection of notable works from both of these subjective periods of aesthetico-political dialogue. The first part of the programme features notable artworks and masterpieces that represent the period when glorification of political power was an essential function of artistic production. The second part features the contemporary video artworks that challenge the position of political institutions and power hierarchies via calling the viewers to contemplate on the very essence of the socio-political system we are inhabiting.
Participating artists: Amir Yatziv, Sara Tirelli and Elena Mazzi, Caterina Pecchioli and Benjamin Verhoeven
Watch the trailer here
the artist as curator & the curator as artist: flattening hierarchies into horizontal plateaus of ‘potential’ through collaboration
The lecture at De Brakke Grond Arts Centre in Amsterdam was devoted to blurring institutional boundaries and roles in contemporary art world, exhibitions as total artworks or collaborative installations and pressure of “cultural industrialisation” and “entertainmentalisation” in the currents.
Do You Speak Synergy?
group exhibition at Harlan Levey Projects gallery curated by Denis Maksimov with support of Harlan Levey
Emmanuel Van Der Auwera. “Cabinet d’affects” (2010), exhibition view
In his essay “Cézanne’s Doubt,” l French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty describes Cézanne’s impressionistic and paradoxical approach to painting, and implicitly draws a parallel to his own concept of radical reflection. Looking at the relationship between science and art in the context of Cezanne’s struggle to apply “intelligence, ideas, sciences, perspective, and tradition” to his work, he concludes that theory and practice stand in opposition to each other. He sees art as an attempt to capture an individual’s perception, and science as anti-individualistic. From this perspective, natural science cannot grasp the profundity and subjective depth of the phenomena it endeavors to explain.
Ella Littwitz. “Uproot” (2015), exhibition view
Art and science may indeed oppose each other in certain senses, but they also share many things, for example a vigorous research drive that goes beyond practicality. In the currents of contemporary cultural discourse, this characteristic is becoming challenging to maintain, for science and art alike. “Key performance indicators” are applied literally to everything, including the traditionally metaphysical subjects of love and death. Art risks leaning towards the language of “social engagement” in regard to state funding, falling into categories of purely utilitarian design or vanity symbols for luxurious consumption. Science, on the other hand, is getting cornered exclusively into the “applied” category. This process is not a novelty: with constant re-learning and easy forgetting, valuable insights and original perspectives are often lost in favor of the “mode du jour” – sometimes by chance, sometimes in result of deliberate decisions by dominating institutions of a particular time.
Imposed planning and bureaucracy turn both artist and scientist into “eternal applicants” for grants rewarded to visionaries for design “solutions.” Research, findings, and output of each are quickly translated to market speak: Where is the business case? What is the product? Is there a customer for this? How are you going to promote it? The discourse of market economy is perhaps the most crippling enemy poetry has ever seen.
Benjamin Verhoeven. “Sculptural Movement, chapters I & II” (2015), still from video
Both art and science resist. Fundamental scientific research eludes pressure by forecasting long-term outcomes to illustrate a future where we’re all dead already anyway, and artistic energy continues to insist on the power of purposelessness in unveiling the truth content in art and commodities in general. A growing number of collaborations between artists and scientists, formed under the flag of “artistic research” firmly establish a vocabulary for this discourse. Following the logic of Merleau-Ponty, “Do You Speak Synergy?” aims to “return to phenomena.” It does this through a transdisciplinary conversation about the poetic essence of scientific and artistic investigation. The notion of “transdisciplinary” investigation is used more and more often in discussions about the future of research. However, the pathway towards meta-levels of inquiry is not so straightforward. Research has become the victim of an obsession with efficiency, predictability and target driven utilitarianism.
Haseeb Ahmed. “Fish Bone Chapel” (2013), exhibition view
The selected artists share the research language of transdisciplinary inquiry while remaining free from any disciplinary or corporate mandates. Modern physics calls this their “unified field,” ² which we refer to as “synergy,” where fundamental forces and elementary particles are approached as if they compose a single field – a field of truly universal language.
References:
¹ Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Le doubt de Cézanne” in Sens et non-sens, Gallimard, Paris, 1945. English translation by Hubert L. Dreyfus and Patricia Allen Dreyfus in Sense and Non-Sense, Illinois University Press, Chicago, IL, 1964.
² Peter Weibel, Beyond Art: A Third Culture. – A Comparative Study in Culture and Science in 20th Century Austria and Hungary. Passagen Verlag, Vienna, 1997.
pdf version of the book “Do You Speak Synergy?” co-written by Denis Maksimov and Harlan Levey
more images from the exhibition
How to understand contemporary art critically?
courtesy of ENCATC and BRAFA Art Fair
‘Our speaker, Denis Maksimov, aesthetico-political theorist, critic and strategist introduce to our guest to the notion of 'the art world’, and gave a dynamic talk with the aim to foster reflection on the importance of questioning narratives in art history and contemporary art, the actuality of connoisseurship and expertise, and the strategies of collecting art.’ - ENCATC Secretary General, GiannaLia Cogliandro Beyens.
more information about the event
Existential threats to fiction posed by future political changes
Lecture-performance of Adrijana Gvozdenovic and Denis Maksimov, the HAL, Antwerp, 2015
Fictional characters are facing an existential threat. It is posed by institutionalisation of internet and digital field in a desperate attempt of nation-states to stay relevant in the age, when flags, banners and anthems should become part of history and look at as rudiments just as slavery and medieval witch hunt. There is a strong backing from absolute majority of countries for establishing ‘territorial borders’ in the internet, a move that is challenging the very nature of internet as extraterritorial space, beyond Westphalian and nationalist frames.
3 principles of Internet and digital data storage guarantee preserving the internet as the space of opportunities and deconstruction of dictated by domination and power imposed reality. Failing in them will be what meteor hit was for dinosaurs.
1. Neutrality
simultaneous access & leveraging speed of the connection without preferences
We are coming to a moment when internet access of a certain speed would be a privilege, given to certain people. Faster networks for state promoted information leads majority to choose state subsidised information channels and be brainwashed. Take the case of TV in Russia (with Rain TV channel ///) and 1 channel - and you arrive to 86% of support for Putin and mass delusions about fascists everywhere but not at home. When only state-controlled or one group of elite aligned information distribution channels are available at higher speed to people, it is proven that users will prefer to use higher speed networks. If the network with higher speed offered in line with others, sooner or later absolute majority would switch for it, as researches show.
If the fictive or not aligned with the state network providers would be cut off the speedy connections and infrastructure will be fractured, we risk arrive to a moment where there will be no more possibility to challenge the narration of reality only by limited number of actors. We have oligarchy in everything: energy and food production are among examples. Network access oligarchy will lead to a high risk of mass manipulations and mass delusions, driven by desire to communicate ‘reality’ profitable for certain interest group.
2. Extra-territoriality
territorialisation of server data storage, digital Westphalisation and nationalism vs. opening domains and multiple storage options & dynamic copying and back ups of data by multiple actors
We tend to move in the digital ‘cloud’. Our lives depend on the digital data already in big extent and in the future this dependency is going to amplify. Where our data will be stored is for now the question that is answered by yourself, but this freedom is about to be taken away. Primarily Germany is worrying about storing personal data of it’s citizens beyond it’s territory. German government’s paranoia, which is justified by certain cultural factors around violating privacy concerns, can lead to what I’d call territorialisation of the Internet. It is not that Internet did not have territorial mapping before that - domains are still managed on .(country) mainly. This is one of the things that has to be liberated for the sake of making Internet more of a ‘thing in itself’, a space of opportunities, instead of what it is seemingly becoming now - just another network of supporting power infrastructures, like television. Ambiguity and chaos of Internet is a guarantee of innovation, disruption and is executes permanent function of ‘Damocles sword’ hanging above the heads of usurpation of political, economic and cultural power. It did not realise it’s potential even to the slightest extent yet, while the power structures already appropriated and categorised it as an existential threat to them and made a far-fetched decision of limiting it to a tight bureaucratic control.
Facebook, Instagram and (to some extent) Google, despite prejudices, for the moment guarantee us much more extraterritorial freedom than our very own national passports. If you upload a picture on Facebook, it is stored on several servers of the social network, which are (in most of the cases) physically located on different continents. If tomorrow there will be a revolution, let’s say, in Philippines and server field of Facebook will be destroyed by angry mob - your data is automatically backed up in several other locations. Constant transfer of the data between servers provide high level of protection, probability of overall collapse of all of the servers at the same time is very low. You are backed up.
On the pre-text of defending citizens’ privacy, political elites want to take away on of the few available tools for individual independence from territorially-based external institutional frameworks, called states.
3. Fictiality
grey area between fiction and reality, keeping ambiguity for the sake of fighting manipulations of narration by power structures, anonymity of the authorship which provides potential for liberation and structural changes
Postmodernism and poststructuralism are not the darlings of the political strategists and planners. Their vagueness is too unpredictable and provides a big room for possibilities to create alternative disruptive actors of social, political and cultural changes. When elites perform cooptation of members on the basis of inheritance, largely ignoring meritocratic component and importance of talent, change and development - we get the society of retrogrades, just like it seems to be happening today in more and more places around the world. Disruptive technologies and networks give us the hope for potential of evolutional, civilised change of the society towards universal enlightenment.
Playing the roles situated between fiction and reality will not be possible any longer. You are either fictive or real. Identity of content creator would have to be confirmed by finger print or eye scan of your computer. Can artist create alter-egos, fictive individuals or groups to make a point or just to speculate in this environment, where his identity is automatically tracked?
Literature and achievements of postmodernism, that is questioning hard narratives of our reality and history, are challenged and turned back on the wheels of reincarnation of Westphalian in the classic tradition of Otto von Bismarck. Realpolitik revival with cold resource assessments of cost/benefits in the area of humane is back as well. Atrocities of new wars can be justified again, just like in WWI or WWII and other horrors of human history. Love is reduced to biology, storytelling - to propaganda.
Establishing border between fiction and reality is a bullet in a head of relativity of narration. Useful tools of social and political progress, like irony, are placed therefore in the box of ridiculous. Humour, fiction, literature, poetry loses it’s political power and plays role of mindless spectacle for plebs.
More information about the installation
Is art a luxury or a necessity?
”The Dream” in Chicago, by Jaume Plensa
For those who shrug off potential side effects of this trend, it should be noted that creativity, when it is ‘directed’ out of practical concerns, hardly has any chance to flourish.
Is it possible for these two opposing dimensions to meet somewhere? A place where it is plausible to be economical and assess impact, and at the same time provide necessary resources for artistic innovation while omitting layers of bureaucracy, corruption, nepotism and systemically ill hierarchies?
Yes. Absolutely. Case studies exist. It’s a new trend
in the making, but is taking time to catch on. One
reason this may be slow to happen is that art may
be the only ‘product’ of human activity that can’t
be reduced to a utilitarian relationship in the sense
described by Jeremy Bentham or Daniel Bernoulli
before him. Art is the dimension that makes us
human and provides us with the essence of the difference
between ‘existing’ and ‘living’. You can certainly
‘exist’ with good provisions of water, electricity,
defence and other ‘common utilities’. But when
can you say you ‘live’ a full, exciting and rich life?
‘To live is the rarest thing in the world, most people
exist - that’s all’ - said Oscar Wilde in the end of 19
century. Even in times of crisis, why shouldn’t it be
the shared dream that every person may live. He
also said that ‘when artists get together for dinner
they talk about money. When bankers get together
for a meal they talk about art.’
This is one of art’s social benefits. It provides a
mirror in which to consider what it is to live. It also
speaks towards a multiplicity of narratives that
consider how art provides a democratic and accessible
platform for reflection, motivation, self-development,
inspiration, innovation and creativity;
assets that are integral to building a better future.
Jacques Derrida famously spoke about two types
of future: ‘planned future’ and ‘real future’. One
represents our daily calendar. It includes meetings
and events, keeping in mind performance and
deliverables. It’s managerial. A ‘planned future’ is
something we design. The ‘real future’ is full of art,
which opens unknown doors, provides leads to
unexpected opportunities and boosts conceptual
innovation. Here planning helps prepare for shifts
in perspective and the forging of new futures.
As government investigates best policy, a direct
middle-way involves stakeholder outreach across
all societal sectors.
In terms of ‘art as design,’ there are many ways in which artists are currently adding value to cross-sectoral projects in science, technology, agriculture and other areas, where an artistic methodology offers measurable return to an existing workflow or framework. At the very least, artists help other types of researchers look at their work from different perspectives. Artists who are willing and able, can build sufficient support for their careers by pursuing projects that offer salaries and fuel their research. Not every artist is a research based artist however, and for many ‘pure’ art projects, the government shoulders the burden of support. Protecting the poetry of this very idea is not a weight it needs to carry alone.
In one way or another, every citizen benefits from art even if when encountering it, it is often treated as if it were a gift given by default. While art’s influence is without exception, it is a potentially much smaller number of individuals that realize the real and potential impact that art has on their life and environment. This isn’t however the case with advertising.
Why
should art not be as present? Why should the
government go at that alone?
If you answer the first question, with – ‘that sounds
interesting’, and the second with, - ‘I get that,’
there are several great examples of businesses
showing an active interest in assuming responsibility
for supporting the arts while committed to the
benefits of this contribution. These range from museum
quality collections like those of Belgacom or
the Progressive Collection in the United States, to
CSR Foundations like the “Dare to Explore Foundation”
who chose to support an NGO that created
a residency and public arts program in Brussels
or an association like Digital Europe, which wanted
to create an atmosphere that was engaging for
their employees, members and guests.
The shared attitude amongst these different
examples, can be opportunistically described as what the ‘Je Suis Charlie’ meme hoped to communicate:
an allegiance to freedom of expression
and a support of the arts even when it isn’t
headline news; an attitude that goes beyond any
‘selfie’ while paying attention to the impact of
aesthetics.
To us, this seems like a win-win scenario. In the office, art provides a way to inspire your staff and guests, both by transforming the working environment and by integrating company culture into internal and external communication strategies. This can provide a boost in productivity, innovative thinking and pleasure, as well as visualizing the values, challenges and mission of an organization in unforgettable ways. Outside the office, these kind of investments make an enormous difference in the careers of artists and provide a value that exceeds the retail price of any particular object. They feed the artistic landscape and provide models to be reviewed as best policy practices are updated.
The first step to this of course is recognizing
that art is not ‘decoration’, but rather a unique
societal product of human creativity, which
holds immense potential. It’s time to take action
and merge planned and future points of view to
make the most of this integral asset. This position
poses art as a valid form of corporate social
responsibility and should be followed with a
willingness to explore sustainable short, middle
and long-term ways to intertwine the public life of
art in private affairs.
by Denis Maksimov and Harlan Levey
Harlan Levey and Denis Maksimov are working together as a curatorial team to help companies, political
institutions and expert organisations work out their strategy of activities via contemporary art,
including visualisation of values, collecting and management of the collection. Harlan Levey Projects
was selected as the only Belgian participate to the First Call curated category of Art Brussels 2014.
published in The Brussels Times Magazine, February-March 2015
Interview with Walter Vanhaerents
Walter Vanhaerents
The Vanhaerents Art Collection is a family collection of contemporary art containing works from the
1970s until today. It contains works from emerging young artists with those of more established artists
by whom they were inspired. Belgian Art Collector Walter Vanhaerents manages and curates this vast
collection of masterpieces.
Denis Maksimov: Do you have a strategy for collecting art?
Walter Vanhaerents: There was never really any strategy. I just follow my heart.
DM: Where did you spot the art you wanted to purchase?
WV: I went to galleries as there were very few
art fairs back when I started. There were just Art
Cologne and Art Basel. There was no market -
private collectors were kind of walking around.
DM: How did you start to collect?
WV: It was sort of a hobby. From an early age, I
had to be very engaged in the family business.
Later I started to look for something different
to do in order to find a good balance in my life.
Some people do sport for example. I found art
collecting to be my “thing”. I was also very interested in architecture and
that became a starting point. I started buying
a number of pieces, without an investment
perspective in mind. Creating a collection was
not the purpose in the beginning. I was simply
interested in artists who are making pieces that
are larger than life. Life is three-dimensional and I
wanted to surround myself with embodiments of
this idea. I have always loved the medium of film. At the
end of a film, I always forget what it was about
because I focused so much on how it was directed
and created. I was very interested in Warhol
movies - many forget that he actually did his
society portraits and prints in order to fund movie
productions. They never made money themselves
and the whole factory was a machine – generating
revenue in order to fund film production.
David Altmejd & Michelangelo Pistoletto works
DM: What is curation for you?
WV: Due to my technical background, I feel very
connected to installation works in open spaces.
Placing a show together - that is curation for me.
Who is a curator? Everyone can be a curator.
There are too many curators, there is no curation
standards. I am focused on visual sensations.
I never did a curation elsewhere apart from
my own space but I love to collaborate on the
arrangement of my own collection with other
curators.
I like the idea of having two pieces next to each
other in order to create a certain emotional
tension. It is all about how you use the space. I
think a lot of curators don’t understand the space
enough. They don’t “feel” space well enough.
Staying in the space, sitting in the corner there,
understanding it - it’s very important for putting
on the show. I also like to give the freedom of
organising my space to external curators. It
creates completely different perspectives on
my collection. I don’t want to be a collector who
is defined by a particular style. I like to show
different facets of my interests and topics that are
close to me.
DM: Where do you go to spot new talents?
WV: I often go to East London in the younger galleries and I go to Paris. I develop a certain program for a trip and personally meet the people. It’s not possible to do that at an art fair. Fairs are just a way of presenting – and there is a lot of pressure. I never go into competition to buy. Once, at a fair in New York, a guy assured me that he gives me first reserve on a piece but then sold the piece before I came back at the agreed time, as he was afraid that I wouldn’t come back. Since then I told to myself that I won’t be doing purchases on fairs anymore.
DM: How do you see contemporary art and the
market now?
WV: There is so much choice in the market. I
wouldn’t say there are any particular tendencies
in contemporary art now. There is a lot of
repetition which is definitely very common. It
feels somehow muddy. It’s popular among the
street artists for example. Sometimes works
are so nihilistic. It’s just boring and it’s not new,
these ideas were shown before. For me, it is
important to try and find new perspectives and
look for more depth. I decided initially that I will
never go back in time with my collection. I am
always looking for something new. Conceptual
art is 60 years old - it’s not new anymore, but
people still discuss it. It is not an interesting
discussion anymore.
DM: In the current climate of increasing cultural
budget cuts, do you think private collectors
can step in, in order to keep public institutions
‘contemporary’?
WV: I am open to work together with museums
concerning my collection. Stedelijk Museum in the
Netherlands has already offered me a cooperation
and I look forward to it. But here in Belgium it is
difficult. Belgian museums don’t have funds to buy
new art - their budgets are too small. At the same
time, they don’t have good ideas about privatepublic
collaborations yet. Sometimes I lend pieces
from my collection, that’s all for now.
DM: Do you think Jeff Koons and similar
‘celebrity artists’ still express something actual
through their art?
WV: That’s difficult to say - Koons is a lifetime
career artist. He has said what he had to say. But
you know - I thought Damien Hirst was a bubble,
but I was wrong. The last pieces Koons made
were clay, plasticine towers in Whitney. That
is something he has never shown before. But
James Ensor for example was drawing the same
things after he turned 30. Murakami as well. I got
several early sculptures of him for nothing and
that’s it, I had no intention of buying more. Now
he is still a hit, despite repetitiveness.
published in The Brussels Times Magazine, February/March 2015