Linking theory, politics and art

Art institutions and art projects of today, produced in the capitalist First World, function on the basis of unbearable abstraction. This means that an enormous quantity of creativity is being released, however, it remains cut off from that which is most important, namely, resistance. In other words, artistic strategies and tactics that generate different forms of resistance have been evacuated. Artistic forms entail a lot of innovation and creation – but where are the forms of resistance? How to facilitate resistance which is more than resistance as difference? How to engender resistance that opens up the possibilities of change?

It is my argument that the experience of this void in the First World is different from the one in the Second or the Third World, for almost nothing that has been produced in the Second or the Third World is reflected consistently in the First World of capitalism, let alone included in the genealogy of the latter. History is being written for the First World of capitalism, things are being capitalised for the First World, and whatever resists this process is left out of this (hi)story. What is more important though is, are we going to articulate a new space, a space of our own, or are we going to repeat their stories and totter helplessly between these two “grand” narratives?

Every history is a struggle. Have we formed another space? Do we have a document that we could show, talk about it, and point out those points of resistance that form a certain momentum which enables us to transcend only frivolous narrativisation? Who or what then is the driving force that rearticulates the social and the political space in a given context, and adopts art as its mode of expression and fight, which, at the end of the day, is the gist of radical art and radical cultural practice. Or, as was written by Marina Vishmidt: “So... what kind of transversal analysis can we make of cultural practices that eschew representation, not just as a stylistic trope but also as ontology. Of practices that eschew culture. The ontology of the image, but also how the image is produced, distributed, economies of the self and the world. The image may not represent a subject, a people, but it surely represents value in capitalism.”

Giorgio Agamben observes that every living being assumes a certain form, which means that if you don’t have a form of life you do not have a life either. The issue at stake is the question of what kind of form is still capable of rendering things visible and politically revolutionary. Perhaps, it’s the images, the method of work or the process, perhaps it’s speech, the so-called performative politics. This is why we talk about processuality, about production of knowledge, or about theory which is not written but rather speaks in a public space.

It is perfectly clear that we are dealing today with more than just a gesture of exchange and production; we are dealing with a delineation of political lines within a certain space, with a codification of this space and with the establishment of relations. Once that line is crossed, once things become contaminated – which I think, in addition to the aforementioned abstraction and evacuation, is the other crucial paradigm of the world in which we live and its relation to the global apparatus of capitalism – things become extremely complicated. If, for instance, a project functions as a real traumatic point, which questions the realm of art as such and not just its relation to other areas, difficulties are bound to emerge. The third key moment is the economic moment, the art market, which today, more than ever before, exerts influence on what acquires visibility and what is included in other interpretations. Some projects question art as an institution and search for answers to the questions of where this institution is codified, how it is perceived, how it is structured and who holds sway over it. As the fourth key aspect, I would point out the relations of ownership, for exhibitions and projects belong to someone, they have specific owners, economic as well as symbolic. Fathers do exist, and I am talking not only about patriarchy but also about the so-called institution of masculinity; the latter is disseminated by various individuals and institutions or groups that present themselves as the owners of contemporary art, cultural and political terminology. When projects that question the relations of ownership and the institution of masculinity appear, such projects are basically instantaneously excluded. When we touch upon such relations and the institutions of power that govern a specific space, all relations of lightness come to an end. People and their projects are excluded.

Donna Haraway said: it is perfectly clear who the players are, who has a voice and who is relevant to every area. There are only a few chosen ones, everyone else is excluded from this story. In all relations, the patriarchal institution of masculinity and power is still central. This is when things become complicated for what is at stake is not only the construction of a system but also the fact that, by constructing your own system, you point out the weak spots of the other system, the one that is supposedly ideal. Accordingly, things deteriorate: the other party feels threatened, they no longer want to collaborate.

References:

Sabine Bitter/ Helmut Weber, catalogue of the exhibition, Camera Austria, Graz, Austria 2005.

Marina Grzinic in discussion with Emil Hrvatin, Miran Mohar, Aldo Milohnic and altri, organised by Maska, Journal for performing arts, Ljubljana to be published in the journal Performance Research, London in 2005.

Marina Vishmidt “What is a political artist?” published in the catalogue Double Check, edited by Marina Grzinic and Walter Seidl, Gallery of Contemporary Art, Celje, Slovenia and Camera Austria, Graz, 2005.

Marina Grzinic, Ljubljana/Vienna
Professor at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna
Artists and Writer http://grzinic-smid.si/