www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

[Nettime-ro] Boris Kagarlitsky - Scrisoare deschisa catre Bienala de art
vladimir bulat on Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:00:06 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-ro] Boris Kagarlitsky - Scrisoare deschisa catre Bienala de arta de laMoscova



Scrisoare de mai jos este semnata de unul dintre intelectualii de frunte ai
Rusiei actuale. Tema bienalei actuale de la Moscova este chiar titlul uneia
dintre cartile semnate de Boris Kagarlitsky - "Dialectica sperantei"(1980).
In ce masura spiritul acestei manifestari se regaseste in sintagma
teoretizata de autor in acel volum se poate deslusi dinn aceasta
scrisoare...Ea a fost tradusa in engleza pentru a avea o mai mare
raspindire in mediile intelectuale occidentale, care au, de cele mai multe
ori, atitudini contradictorii (si uneori imorale!) fata de sistemul
artistic si cultural din fostul imperiu de rasarit, indiferent de tara in
care acesta a functionat.

vladimir bulat
15.02.2005 
   

Boris Kagarlitsky
Open Letter on the Moscow Biennale

The First Moscow Biennale of Contemporary Art has chosen "The Dialectics of
Hope" as its theme, which, incidentally, is the title of a book I wrote in
1980. Naturally, I have no exclusive claim to the word "hope", nor to the
word "dialectics", for that matter, nor to their combination. However, the
organizers of the Biennale have never hidden the fact that the name of the
project has been connected to my book from the very beginning; what's more,
they have made several public announcements to this effect. Thus, I feel
that I have the right and even the duty to make a few remarks on the
processes that are taking place around the Biennale.

My book, which was banned from publication in the Soviet Union of the
1980s, was dedicated to examining the perspectives for the development of a
world-wide left-wing movement. For this reason, I expected that the
biennale would develop in this very direction. Yet now, I read in the press
that Evgeniy Zyablov, the commissar of the biennale, and Joseph Backstein,
its curator-coordinator, answer the direct question as to the political
direction of the biennale with a clear no: this artistic project will not
favor "the Left" in any way. Of course, the organizers of the biennale have
the right to decide upon its political direction, but then why use the name
of a book which is so obviously and unambiguously linked with left-wing
ideology?

All of this gives rise to an unexpected and somewhat paradoxical situation:
the context of my work is used to legitimate a project that enjoys the
support of the Russian elites, who have hardly ever been very sympathetic
to the theory and praxis of the left. Of course, "leftist" and
"progressive" rhetoric has become fashionable again; for an example, it
accompanies any legal project focused on depriving the working class of yet
another privilege. The same thing seems to be happening in culture, where
it seems quite natural and timely for official culture to appeal to
left-wing discourse. However, for progressive, independent art, this
"improper" use of words and images is inadmissible, even fatal. 

For contemporary Russia, and for the entire world, it is extremely
important to realize projects that supply form to new radical-democratic
models of cultural development, since little else leaves much hope of
implementing authentic left-wing principles in cultural work. In the sphere
of politics, the rise of social forums supplies a model of this type,
becoming a basis for the formation of a network or movement that broadly
opposes the world-wide order of imperialist capitalism. In culture, an
analogous network of independent artistic communities seems to be emerging.
I would have thought that a biennale with the name "The Dialectics of Hope"
would have continued in this vein, developing new models for the dialogue
and representation of these communities, who are interested in changing and
politicizing the space of culture on a grass-roots level. Groups and
artists of this sort already exist today, both in Russia and in the West.
The ongoing discussion on the Moscow Biennale, which unfolded on the pages
of the "Moscow Art Magazine" in 2003, gave me the impression that serious
work in this direction was already taking place and would continue along
these lines.

[On August 24th, 2004, an open letter was published at
http://www.gif.ru/themes/culture/no-miracle/open-letter/. This letter
demanded an official clarification of the reasons for the removal of Viktor
Misiano from the curatorial group.] I find myself sharing the concerns of
the authors and signatories of [this] open letter, the majority of whom,
incidentally, belong to Russian initiatives and communities of the type
described above. Their main concern is that the biennale, in its current
form, does not even foresee the most minimal space for their participation.
Needless to say, the exclusion of Viktor Misiano, the editor-in-chief of
the "Moscow Art Magazine", from the curatorial group is the result of the
internal conflicts and bureaucratic intrigues that afflict any larger
organization. But in the situation at hand, these "changes in the
management" seem deeply significant and symbolic. In the final analysis, it
doesn't matter who is right or wrong in this unfolding "administrative"
conflict; what matters is that it has objective political consequences, as
well as a general social and cultural significance.

One could say that in Russian culture, as in society at large, the struggle
for the means of production has begun. The key question is whether they
will belong to the bureaucrats or the artists and intellectuals themselves.
Will the workers of immaterial labor prove capable of putting the means of
cultural production to use for the common good instead of providing yet
another service for the new elite?

This is precisely why I support the initiative of the Russian artistic
community and its demand for the democratization of the productive
processes of culture. Those who are in charge of the world do not only
prevent anyone from changing the system, but even refuse to make any
concession at all until they feel that their own power is at risk. The
opposition, even if it rarely succeeds in taking control of power, only
becomes effective when the ruling class begins to understand that it runs a
very real danger of losing its power base. This is why I would tend to see
this local act of resistance in the broader context of the authentic and
uncompromising struggle for emancipation.

In the future, I would ask that those in power avoid confusing our hope
with the official reality of the ruling class' politics of corruption.



 



---------------------------------
Doar 3,999 lei/absorbant?
http://www.always.ro/duoaction.html




_______________________________________________
Nettime-ro mailing list
Nettime-ro {AT} nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-ro
-->
arhiva: http://amsterdam.nettime.org/