David Maroto

The Future Is a Reservoir of Absolute Indeterminacy

June 24, 2017 — 10:41

‘Pricing Time: Remarks on the Ontology of Finance’ is a public seminar by Beirut-based philosopher Ray Brassier, moderated by Dutch Art Institute (DAI) core tutor Bassam El Baroni that took place at the DAI, 23 June 2017

The seminar’s abstract reads:

Suhail Malik’s 2014 paper, ‘The Ontology of Finance’, challenges orthodox Marxian accounts of the connection between capitalism, finance and politics. Drawing on Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler’s Capital as Power: A Study of Order and Creorder (2009), Malik argues that capital accumulation is not propelled by self-valorizing value but by the differential logic of pricing. In his words, ‘administered prices make explicit that price is the medium of capital accumulation qua power-ordering’. In finance capital, price becomes an abstract variable independent of its origin in concrete assets: it is no longer a measure of value, only of itself. Thus, Malik argues, financialization is not a species of capitalization; rather, capitalization is a species of financialization. Since the logic of pricing involves a binding of time, it is through pricing as time-binding that capital exerts social power. But capital’s time-binding power cannot be challenged by resorting to extant models of political action: collective human agency does not offer a credible counter-power against the power-ordering exerted by pricing. Since derivatives markets are the medium of pricing, the suggestion seems to be that financial speculation is the proper medium in which to countermand capitalism’s power. This seminar examines the key moves in Malik’s argument and critically appraises its political ramifications.

Seven o’clock, I’m sitting with my laptop ready to type out my observations of the seminar. I’ve been asked by the Dutch Art Institute (DAI) to record my impressions of the event in real time on this blog. In other words, the text that follows is a sort of stream of consciousness: I listen, see and write, without much mediation between the stimulus (the names, ideas and arguments discussed in front of me) and the response (the thoughts, memories, references and images evoked). As I’ve never done this before I have no idea which direction this will take, but hope it results in an enjoyable experience, both for me and for you, dear reader.

We’re in a theatre in Arnhem that is a sort of multi-purpose black box. Ray is sitting at a table right in front of me. As is common for these kinds of presentations, the screen of his laptop is projected onto a larger screen behind him. But it is just a simple Word file without images. The set up is very simple, like the structure of the evening. After Ray’s lecture, Bassam will moderate the conversation between him and the audience.

Gabriëlle Schleijpen, Head of Program at DAI, takes the floor to introduce the speaker and announce the contents of the upcoming DAI week – the last this academic year. Excitement courses through the audience, which is mainly comprised of students. She mentions me and my association with the DAI through my PhD project. What a Russian-doll effect, I’m writing her words speaking about me writing her words. She also speaks about Bassam, who is nearing the completion of his own PhD. Unlike in the UK, where both Bassam and I study, the artist PhD is a very new thing in the Netherlands, so it’s really up to each academy to define what such a trajectory means in their respective academic contexts.

‘Central to Ray’s writing is nihilism’, Bassam says when he takes over the floor from Gabriëlle. ‘Nihilism is not the negation of truth, but rather the truth of negation.’ Ray listens in the background to how Bassam speaks about him, how his work has influenced Bassam’s PhD research. ‘A derivative (this definition will come in handy today) is a contract between two parties which defines conditions’, Bassam says. ‘Suhail Malik's essay says that derivative markets suppose a medium of pricing.’

I’ve met Suhail a couple of times: once during another seminar here at the DAI. The second was at a lecture he gave at the Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw. At the latter, and the subsequent conversation we had over a drink following, I realized we read the same philosopher, George Dickie. ‘Not a very sexy choice’, certainly not as much as the omnipresent (in the art world, that is) French post-structuralists. I also realized, judging by the reaction of those who listened to Suhail’s arguments, that Dickie’s definition of the art world, the mere proposition that such an ‘informal institution’ exists, and how it functions, causes much unrest in certain people: those most interested in keeping the art world’s status quo.

But I’m moving away from the point of this blog.

Bassam finishes, it’s Ray’s turn. ‘I’ll try to reconstruct Malik’s paper, arguments for thirty minutes, an extraordinarily important paper. Then I’ll offer some critical observations’, Ray says, taking off his glasses in order to read from the laptop’s screen. Ray quotes Suhail’s essay: ‘Derivative markets present a systemic risk to national and world economies. The relative size of these markets is a fundamental risk to geopolitical as well as economic security.’

According to Suhail’s argument, financial speculation perverts the very definition of social institutions – all the way to nation-states. Capitalization is a species of financialization, not the other way round. Speculative capitalism does not obey any rational determination, not of any social order. Ray is breaking down and translating Suhail’s text for us, and I’m selecting and translating Ray’s talk for the reader of this blog. At this point I fear that my specific academic and professional background will betray the fact that much of the lexicon employed by Ray is quite alien to me.

‘This paper is a real tour-de-force. My own stand is of someone who thinks that Marxist accounts should not be rejected so quickly. I’m skeptical of Nitzan and Bichler’s proposal. If you jettison Marx’s theory so quickly you end up with a provocative but also problematic political proposal. Capital accummulation is at once and necessarily a political fact’, he says, quoting Suhail quoting Nitzan and Bichler. ‘As Malik puts it, price tells us how much a capitalist would be prepared to pay now to receive a flow of money later. The logic of pricing is independent of the logic of any local economy. The ability to price is the ability to control a whole social system. Businesses are not just unproductive but, moreover, necessarily counterproductive – as are capitalist societies overall and in general. Price fixing sets the market.’

I turn to look back and see that most of the students, pens in hand, are directing their eyes to their own notebooks, not computers, just regular notebooks, that is. They are noting down what they are listening to. I am also listening and writing, the difference is that they have the freedom to scribble loose notes that will remain private, so their not making sense afterwards is of no consequence. I’m enjoying this blogging (as said, it’s my first time). However, I cannot help but secretly envy the students for their writing freedom. Mine is subjected to public scrutiny.

‘Derivatives are an interpersonal and subjectively constituted reckoning on circumstances external to the wager itself, predicated upon the non-knowledge of the future.’ Ray continues unravelling Suhail’s essay. ‘This is complicated: what’s going on in derivative pricing is not that you have two different prices, it does not involve the exchange between two different prices, because the two prices are not actually determined quantities. If you simply have a difference between two differences. Malik claims that the differenciation that constitutes the difference between two terms, A and B, involves both terms. It involves a reference to A and B, it’s a temporalization because you’re deferring the determination of the value of the difference.’ He’s explaining Derrida now. We’re still at the explanatory phase, he hasn’t begun his critique of Suhail yet.

He talks of gambling and coin tossing. A given series of throws divides time and space into discrete units. It’s a metaphor for the volatily of the market and its endogenous condition to the movement of pricing. ‘Derivate pricing and volatility are constructions of time, it’s the difference between the present future and the future present.’ With a contract you’re creating a future that conditions your own fabrication. Stock market, speculation, unpredictability, it reminds me of a movie, π (1998), the only film by Darren Aronofsky that I actually like, his first one, the one he made without economical means but with good ideas.

‘Actualization is not the actualization of a previously existing probability’, Ray says. He gets more and more excited by his own train of thought. His body position has changed, his shirt unbuttoned by one button and his face flushed. His glass of water remains untouched. ‘It’s time to conclude.’ He recapitulates the four stages of Suhail’s argument: Nitzan and Bichler on capital power; logic of derivatives pricing as variant of Derridean différance; Elena Esposito on time-binding; and Elie Ayache on thetic contingency. ‘The practice of pricing transforms social institutions relation to their future. This is supposed to be emancipating by abjuring any system of prediction and control.’

Ray hasn’t looked at his screen for a while, he looks down, searching for the right words. This is the moment of conclusions. ‘We must find ways to cope with indeterminacy. The claim is that any attempt to control indeterminacy will result in authoritarianism. The future is a reservoir of absolute indeterminacy. Okay, I think I’ve been speaking long enough.’

‘Yeah’, the lady next to me says.

‘So I will stop.’ The audience applauds. Bassam walks on stage and breaks the ice with the first question, hoping that others will follow. He reads a question from the notes he has been taking during the talk.

‘Contingency is uncalculable. Chance is calculable’, Ray replies. ‘Contingency is ontological: everything that is could have been otherwise. It’s not contingent because something else could have been. That is completely undeterminable, not constrained by anything that is. This is the reason why markets are unpredictable, because they are inscribed in radical contingency.’

Bassam attempts to link everything that has been said with artistic practice. Not a bad idea, considering that this lecture takes place in the framework of an MFA programme. Ray rejects inscribing artistic creativity as contingent, he thinks it would then be theological, an imitation derived from god’s act of creation. Some in the audience giggle. On the other hand, at risk of contradicting what he has just stated, he adds that, although this account is anti-humanist, it presupposes a material practice, a peculiar social practice that has the power to make and unmake social institutions, precisely because it’s done by human beings. Trading is a game played by humans. This reference to games makes sense to me, as the game is a set of rules that manifests itself through the actions of the subjects who play it. I always thought that, while playing, subjects aren’t free anymore, but subjected to the rules of the game.

Ray speaks emphasising the h in ‘while’. ‘However complicated a practice is, it’s still going to be complicated by other social practices.’ My neighbour to the right nods with an audible grunt.

A member of the audience asks about risk and prediction. ‘What is real is undetermination as such, efectuated by the pricing process. That’s why pricing makes the real, makes and unmakes the world, our social institutions’, Ray answers.

Bassam asks a question that triggers Ray to speak about games again, pricing as a game of exceptional status. Anything can be priced. The notion that the cosmos is a game (this idea is so evocative!), the throw of the dice (Nietzsche, Derrida). It seems to him a mistake to ontologize games in this way. ‘Human beings are supreme gamers, if you want. Who can participate in a game? That’s not a trivial question.’

One more student comments on games, it seems to be a preferred notion among the audience. Ray says that each throw of the dice is independent of other throws, hence the discrete segmentation of time. Every move is absolute in itself, there’s no memory of other previous moves. And it’s true, games have no history, they are not accumulative. On the stock market, whether you did good or badly in the past, it won’t affect your behaviour in a contingent way.

We’re over two hours now, way more than the ninety minutes estimated. Ray keeps talking of roulette and factoring in every possible variable, which is exactly what Suhail rejects. There’s nothing that you can know that would help you to wager better the next time.

Bassam puts an end to the discussion, promising that remaining questions by the audience can be put to Ray over the next three days, because he’s staying at DAI, invited as an external examiner for the students’ graduation presentations.

Everyone applauds, it’s the end.

Read more…

Agata Cieslak

Carl Andre as a Site

May 22, 2017 — 23:13

This blog entry covers Curating Positions: ‘Second Order Observation’, a Skype meeting with DAI students Sonia Kazovsky, larose, Helen Zeru and Floris Visser, and Van Abbemuseum representatives Steven ten Thije, Charles Esche and Annie Fletcher, along with Emily Pethick from The Showroom

The Van Abbemuseum

Conversation transcript:

(Please note, this transcript was made on the spot and is an edited version of my reading of the key points)

20:02 Emily Pethick is on Skype.

20:02 Floris invites everyone to drink wine.

20:03 Question of organizing the meeting; Ilan (a DAI student attending the meeting) suggests starting; Sonia prefers waiting a bit more for more people to come.

20:04 Waiting...

20:05 Charles – Emily’s son – appears at the meeting (virtually, on Skype). Annie Fletcher decides they start.

20:06 The meeting begins with a general ‘thank you’. 

20:07 Short introduction by DAI students.

20:08 larose sums up the process of making the project: It all started in February 2017 at the Van Abbemuseum. We all organized the settings, groups in relation to the caucus and the idea of this year’s theme ‘becoming more’. Some words stuck with us in terms of becoming more, like feminist, equal... we decided to think about the statement made by the Van Abbe in relation to work of Carl Andre, which has been exhibited next to the Guerrilla Girls’ work. We were thinking how Andre’s work can be understood in the context of domestic violence – his personal history, etc.

20:10 Sonia asks about what becoming more means for the Van Abbe as an example of a museum. She discusses Andre’s work in relation to museum policy and the autonomy of the work. She also brings up the use of his work in relation to the museum’s collection and how it can be a side context (international position). She asks Annie and Charles how they would try to present these issues to the audience.

20:13 Charles responds to Sonia: Being in the museum should be a constant learning process, where people are coming there to use it. It’s good to remember that this work has been shown in a very specific context (it’s worth mentioning that it is no longer on show) – the first exhibition in Europe building on Nato countries’ citizenry, and Andre belonged in it. We thought it was very interesting to recreate that. We focused on that, not on his personal history. Also Lee Lozano’s works changed the position of his works. There was always the excuse put forward that Andre was not guilty. If the verdict would be different, maybe the placement of that work within the show would be more problematic. We have to remember also that we are interested in the position of visitors – we think about how the visitors respond to the exhibition, so here we are on the same page as you. There is also a question of ownership – we are not the owners of the collection (the goverment is), so we have a limited response, although there is a lot that can be held in our hands. It’s good to keep all the crimes in the past.

20:18 Sonia: We also researched how you can bring a new context to the work. You are about to update your policy. With the new policy the museum can claim more political agency (not necessarily a negative thing).

 20:20 Annie: We had this interesting conversation on ideas of reacting to works, like performance and activism, etc. Constituency. Our conversation went to Ana Mendieta’s protest at the Tate. And it is exactly the idea of use that the visibility of the work within the collection can bring another set of meanings to. Removing it from the collection also destroys those possibilities – not only in relation to the work, but also to the language by which the work has been mediated.

 20:23 Sonia quotes: ‘When destructive analytical techniques are undertaken, a complete record of the material analysed, the outcome of the analysis and the resulting research, including publications, should become a part of the permanent record of the object.’ If we talk about the changing times, and how research can actually apply to work, it can be useful. It’s not about the judgment of the museum if Andre had been found guilty.

 20:24 larose: The point was to stop showing it in the first place, because circulating it redistributes the values of the conversation around the work back to the public.

20:25 Sonia: What would it change to bring the work back onto the market? How to sabotage the value? In a place where we consider ethics as a value, how can we discredit the value of work?

20:26 Isabelle (DAI student): The autonomy of the work exists in the collection but also outside of it.

20:27 Steven: My interest in addressing this work went also to ethical questions. We represented the public museum and public body, and with the decision that Andre is not guilty, it is hard to not exhibit this work just because of an ethical dilemma. Also if not shown in the Van Abbe it would go to another collection. What I struggle with, is that if you look at the room it has been displayed in, Lozano is the only female artist with work in it. If you highlight only the problems in this particular work (of Andre), the other problems might disappear.

 20:30 Charles: There was also the incredible idea that there were gaps within the collection. There were a lot of complaints as to how we could refill those gaps. This question was absurd. Of course there will be gaps. The gaps are just a given. If you want to fill the gaps you have to ‘buy the world’. 

20:31 Annie: They (the gaps) have been also very violent...

20:31 Charles: Absolutely, but that’s why we decided to not fill the gaps, as it’s not possible, just deal with the history. But also if you look at the collection: if at any time there was a possibility to choose between men or women, men were chosen. So I decided to buy some women’s artwork, as it didn’t look like a gap, but complete gender imbalance and a determination of prominence.

 20:33 Floris: In a sense we are responding to this art historical linearity to make it a bit more inclusive. If you want to include Andre in a collection and the display then you should also include the different aspects of the story. In that way you can make it de-modernized.

20:35 Annie: I think it’s interesting. One can create contexts and use them. It doesn’t mean that we won’t show Picasso in a white cube...

20:35 Charles: Not in a white cube... please...

20:35 [Some part missing by Annie]

20:36 Sonia: There are (within the collection) a lot of other artists too, that also should be in jail...

20:37 larose: How do you as a feminist museum create a safe space for your users?

20:37 Anie: You’re right (...)

20:37 Sonia: So how can we proceed? 

20:37 Charles: There are many ways. We could buy a work of Ana Mendieta and show it instead of Andre, but we could also show it (an Andre work) in context, like an archival context, etc.

20:38 Isabelle: Does filling up gaps create gaps on the other side?

20:38 Charles: We could attach the context in a website, etc. The thing is, we cannot choose our successes. The work has to be shown in certain ways. So showing that work in that way, it would always be in a context of the archive. When we were thinking of showing Hitler’s collection – that wouldn’t be possible in an art museum, but in a historical museum (Hitler was a ‘bad boy’, etc). With Andre we can't do that. What we could do, is to start to address Mendieta as an artist as well. 

20:41 Sonia: We could also ask the question, what is the power of the museum and what are the limits of this kind of Institution?

20:41 Annie: Within our networks of the museum you can try to push limits.

20:42 Floris: We were talking about consensus as well.

20:42 Charles: Just to clarify: the consensus is not between us, but between us and our predecessors.

20:42 Floris: There are always the ideas that exist in certain timeframes, but they can be changed.

20:43 Charles: To be fair we have done a lot of that. We copied Sol LeWitt’s work and gave it away for free. I can’t agree with the judgment that this museum is set up in terms of a "Western" (Charles air quotes) way of thinking of the museum as an institution.

20:44 Floris: What we are trying to break is the "Western" historical narrative, and recreate that.

20:44 Charles: We don’t have the responsibilities of the future.

20:45 [Some text missing by Ilan]

20:45 Annie: Reactions might be stronger for something that varies.

20:45 Steven: If we bring the work into the collection, we burn its capital because it can’t be re-sold; while if it’s still on the market, it’s gaining value. I’m not sure, if I find the market value of Andre’s work the most interesting thing here. More so, the meaning of his work in relation to his personal story, but also to the easiness of its reproduction – the only way you know that this is original is because you have a certificate. I don’t think the use of the copy in the exhibition would be visible to the viewer (just a set of metal plates). Re-enactment of work ... is not about copying the artwork, it’s about copying the idea. If you think about Andre’s work, you should add the awareness of the situation to the work – to have the possibility to either show the original, or the copy. It’s up to any future user to decide. But, the decision has to be made and indicated (on wall label). In a sense, all the subjectivity of this work is not about the subjectivity of the work, as it’s very reproducible. The man making these kinds of objects, and at the same time using his name to sign them – it’s very much in a macho style.

20:51 Sonia quoting: ‘Museums should ensure that the information they present in displays and exhibitions is well-founded, accurate and gives appropriate consideration to represented groups or beliefs.’

In that case there is an ability to attach something to the work, attach it to the document of its orginality.

20:51 Steven: This is doable.

20:51 Sonia: We did talk to lawyers and we found ‘Art and Finance’ institutions; they say that it’s possible. We need access the archives of Van Abbemuseum.

20:52 Annie: What do you aim at, to have access to the archive or to destroy the work?

20:52 Sonia: Not to destroy, but to attach something to the file of the work.

20:53 larose: Or the option would be to maybe show Mendieta instead of Andre...

20:53 Sonia: This is also up to you as an institution.

20:53 Charles: We are open to you. We, of course have to respond to the ethical problems, but also remember not to damage the work, it has to be possible to exhibit it in the future. So we could attach the document to the archive files or curate a new context of the exhibition; or also maybe buy some Mendieta (if we could afford it – yes, we could) works. I would be against the idea of marking the work of Andre. I would be completely against that, especially because I’m not an owner of that work.

20:55 larose: We never suggested destroying it. I was just wondering; it could sit well within the context of the caucus.

20:55 Annie: I think that’s great. It was problematic for us, when I thought that it’s connected with the destruction or a removal of a work, but I’m open to the idea you are suggesting.

20:56 Sonia: We of course, have different voices within the group; there are many ideas. I’m interested particularly in attaching the document to the archive, so this research co-exists and co-circulates with the work and the certificate.

 20:57 Charles: Absolutely, we also have to remember the autonomy of the work and what it means for the work to be autonomous. That’s something we already researched within previous projects and we are completely on the same page here. The question is, what kind of techniques can we use? It would be maybe nice to exhibit the work based on its archives.

20:59 Sonia: Also the fact that we are in Eindhoven, facing domestic violence.

20:59 [Some comments from Annie on domestic violence missing]

20:59 Charles, to larose in relation to safe space: How would it work in this context?

21.00 larose: I can’t answer that now. It depends. It would have to also bring the visibility of women, also women of colour to the exhibition. There are many aspects of that context, we would have to think deeper on that topic. 

21:00 Sonia asks Emily to add something.

21:01 Emily: It’s hard to follow, sometimes I couldn’t hear. I think the proposal to show the work in a different context is good, as it brings a new social context too. This becomes a part of a history of the work. If the group proposes to go ahead with this research, there are a lot of questions that can be asked. Like Charles said, to not show this work and make Andre guilty would be so much easier. I think to do further research before the next step wold be very important here.

21:02 Annie to Sonia: You also spoke with Zach [Blas], and Sven [Lütticken]...

21:02 Sonia: Zach was already very tired after the presentations; we asked advice from Marina [Vishmidt], Rachel [O’Reilly] and Sven (the theory teachers at DAI), with whom we had an e-mail exchange – he contributed to the idea, gave us some suggestions and also gave us a list of other murderers, pedophiles, etc., which are being exhibited in the Van Abbe.

20:05 Annie: Maybe it would be good to have a show of those people?

20:06 Charles: We can put the list of names on the wall...

21:06 Sonia: Again it’s not about the individual, but about which role the museum takes in this relation.

21:07 Charles: It would be nice to organize something related to home-violence.

21:07 Sonia: That’s right, we could bring up some proposals, etc. We are committed to this conversation.

21:08 Charles: Yes, please send some. We are open for propositions from you. The museum doesn’t want to take the political action.

21:08 larose: But then you initiated this caucus?

21:08 Sonia: Yes, the museum is taking a political stand.

21:09 [Some part missing by Charles]

21:10 Sonia: To a certain degree it’s very important for the institution to take a political stand.

21:10 Annie: I wouldn’t trust it also if only we would decide. I could decide that Anselm Kiefer was a fascist. Also we are a public institution, we have to understand its nature and the responsibilities.

21:12 Sonia: I completely understand, but to a certain point there is a limit, to which the public institution should take a stand.

21:12 Annie: Of course, that’s why we decided now to go on (with your suggestions) as we treat them seriously.

21:13 Charles: We can’t see the blind spots ourselves, that’s why we need help from the outside too.

21:13 Annie: Thank you, let’s figure out how to go on.

21:14 Charles: Yes, that would be nice if you could come with some proposals.

21:14 Sonia: Yes, of course.

21:14 Charles: Thank you for blogging.

21:14 Annie: Charles, did you actually just say that?

Read more…

Agata Cieslak

Summing up from a Distance

May 21, 2017 — 18:30

In this short summary of yesterday’s talks and presentations I try to outline the key thoughts and themes

Day two of the symposium was split up into three panels on the notion of the future. Each presenter focused on different visions of speculative theories, futurisms, futurologies and accelerationist manifestoes in relation to capitalism, nature and labour. 


Talk by McKenzie Wark:

post-humanism, nature, ecology, time, accelerationism

The only way to think about the future is to be post-human. McKenzie Wark discussed the relationship between human and nature introduced through the accelerationist manifesto. He brought up the concept of geological time and speculated on humans’ function within this idea of time: what would it mean for biological processes – would capitalism stop destroying natural sources of planet Earth? He argued there is no such a thing as ecology, which only means a ‘self-correcting system’, and that we should think beyond it as nature isn’t homeostatic.

Talk by Maurizio Lazzarato:

future visions, progress, technical machine, social machine, production, productivity

In his talk, Maurizio Lazzarato focused on the relation between the future and progress. He started with modernism as the template for progress in our society. He spoke about  how First World War destroyed and put a halt to the visionary ideas and progress of Twentieth Century. He also described the two wars as the failure of civilization.  To the idea of time as progress, he opposed the feminist apporach to thinking the present, rather than trying to speculate on the future. In specific, he refers to a text by Carla Lonzi, Let’s Speak on Hegel, in which Lonzi addreses the failure of Hegelian dialectic and of Marxism to analyse certain social dynamics that make capitalistic accumulation possible. He reminded us of the term general intellect used by Karl Marx, which appeals to production and productivity and its dependence not on the time of work, but on the development of technology and social cooperation.


Panel moderated by Sven Lütticken with interventions prepared by Diedrich Diederichsen and Marina Vishmidt. Speculation was introduced here as a tool different from and accompanying critique.

Talk by Diedrich Diederichsen:

dream, utopia, responsibility, passive-active, shamanism

Diedrich Diederichsen introduced the dream as a passive medium to construct ideas. The dream is not only an abstract concept, where thoughts can develop, but also a tool for shaping future realities. He mentioned terms like hope and utopia in relation to the dream, but also marked the fact that to dream is simultaneously to be responsible. He contemplated the notions of passive reception in relation to active production and tried to prove that both have the same values in relation to shaping the future. He referred feminine dreaming and the idea of the dreamer being a performer of a certain kind of magic that could be compared to shamanistic practices. He discussed the meaning of dreams in relation to media, to history (and how they looked before the invention of the cinema) and indicated that the dreams will be forever present, that this kind of passivism is the future.

Talk by Marina Vishmidt:

art and value, labour, speculation, fear, history, resilience, fantasy

Marina Vishmidt’s talk was based on questions of time, history and ownership of the future. She reminded us that the concept of the future cannot be separated from labour and value, which refer, of course, to capitalism. Vishmidt brought up the concepts of dominance and resilience and discussed the question of the power of speculation. She asked some questions about reality and the idea of its being reproduced or speculative. An important note in her talk was also a fragment about fear: the fear of the future is at the same time a fear of history, she said. The talk was accompanied by examples of artworks as speculative fantasies for reinventing the future.


This panel redirected the focus away from Western visions of the future to East Germany  and the work of Gottfirend Kolditz and Joachim Hellwig. 

Talk by Doreen Mende (accompanied by the film Staub der Sterne by Gottfried Kolditz):

Doreen Mende began her talk by screening a short fragment of Eastern-German sci-fi film Staub der Sterne. The film follows the adventures of Capitan Suko after crashing his spaceship on planet TEM 4 in responding to a distress call. The captain, who with his crew is invited to a party by the planet’s leader, senses the invitation is dishonest (it turns out it’s a guise to kill them and wipe their memories and ultimately enslave them) and refuses to attend. Mende drew attention to the fact that Staub der Sterne, a cinematic movie from the 1970s, was not only a pop culture vision of the future, but also a political tool for constructing reality. She pointed out that fantasies of the future in popular culture differ based on their respective political and social situations. She also mapped the production of future-fiction in Soviet countries, and explained the means of this production in propaganda.

Talk by Kodwo Eshun (accompanied by documentary Schwarze Stern by Joachim Hellwig):

Schwarze Stern, a documentary by Joachim Hellwig looks into Ghana’s five years of independence under President Kwame Nkruma. During Nkruma’s presidency, the country modelled its socio-economical systems on socialist patterns. The country tried to cooperate with the Eastern Bloc, resulting in, among other things, the production of a new propaganda language. Schwarze Stern documents the processes of introducing new visions of postcolonial future to the society. During his talk, Kodwo Eshun tried to explain the meaning of futurism and speculation in postcolonial countries, where capitalism was implied as a and associated with danger and enslavement. 

Read more…

Agata Cieslak

Who Knew the Airport Could Be so Sexy?

May 21, 2017 — 17:11

Surveillance is an empty term today. What does it mean to live in an algorithmic constructed reality? Notes on Zach Blas's presentation.

1. The story of getting a visa

Biometric enrollment appointment 'unless you are bio-exempt'.

Face and body becoming Data.

Biometric Residency Programme

 2. A cage of information

Meaning of capture: submission to mathematical formalism.

What are aesthetics of biometric data analyses?

How do you make diagrams of data analyses (heavy) and mimic faces from them?

Zach Blas 'Face-cage'

'Face-cage' got its name not only because of its look, but also because it has been designed primarily to make arresting easier.

When you make those perfect biometric calculations (which are supposed to fit the face) they are not precise and quite painful. Masking in relation to politics does not mean only to cover. Masks are symbols of collective identity. What in the facial politics of now a face has to been exposed?

3. Body as a thread

What kind of decision can be made by security, while someone's body is being scanned? Why have airport technologies, video broadcasting, etc., been designed to look like multimedia art installations?

Frankfurt Airport love story

Airport security as a side for romance. 

Is security check really sexy? 

Pink for female, blue for male

But what happens in the situation when you not pink or blue? Are we still 'OK'?

The capturing of a body on the scan has been automatically gendered. Transgender person is detained as a thread, qualified as a danger.

Understanding of vision – vision that does not scan, but rather see the embodiment. What is the informatic of domination?

4. Informatic opacity

'We clamor for the right to opacity everyone.'

Opacity is not identity politics. It stands against the idea of universal models.

Transparency = biometric captures.

Informatical opacity is an onto-tactics practice of anty-normativity, both liberating and precarious at the same time. Can those technologies be violent? How do certain forces come and force us to make our bodies transparent?

5. The outside

Opacity can be used as another term for the outside.

The outside = the outside of capture. What is outside of networks?

The paranote: networks today become a key model for organizing the social. Paranote (the term comes from neuroscience) defines a space the networks leave uncovered.


Abstracting the body can also be liberating.

Read more…

Mónica Chaminé Lacerda

On Vegetal Passions

May 21, 2017 — 15:52

Flux of thoughts on talk by Michael Marder: Becoming more vegetal – energy-wise

thinking about the mode of being of plants. what plants are, or what we are. beings among other beings. just like here. now. inside a structured environment. are we growing while listening? I ask myself these questions as a way to understand the dynamics implicit in inhabiting a museum knowing that we are educated to become little capsules that receive, contain and generate. just like here. now. I attempt to convey a message, trying to share thoughts and ideas that rise in the moment. truth is I can't avoid but feel moved and consequently less able to use words in logical order so as for others to be able to grasp their meaning. this is a screen. hard floor. dark walls. and we are talking about skin, about touch, about energy.

becoming less, Michael Marder notes, instead of becoming more. what is then growing and becoming? how to learn from plants? what is the relation of matter and energy? inseparable he remarks. inseparable I repeat. considering this, then why not to become less as a way to stop the destruction that is presently happening all around us. hidden obscure essences, Michael Marder adds, making a reference to phenomenology, are not what this discipline tries to access. it rather looks at appearances as everything is already there. visible. communicating.

particles – feel it?

any curvature that we might fall

                        into is washed away by

a space-time-continuum

that moves


how far can concepts of time and space take us? opening oneself up to other modes of life. constant flux. new forms. oh, shapes! shapes that take form in a continuum. we, as shapes, in a permanent flux of energy. dreams about a non-violent energy. dreams of an energy that doesn't devastate what it touches but rather nourishes it. to listen to other modes of existence. why to cling on to inflexible systems of thought that are preventing life itself? as us, truths are in permanent change.

Read more…

Pitchaya Ngamcharoen

Are We Ready for More?

May 21, 2017 — 15:45

Live coverage of Michael Marder: Becoming more vegetal – energy-wise

#Phenominology #Philosophyofvegetableslife #Questionofenergymodeofbeingplants #Becomingmore=definitionofgrowth #Foodtoy #Arewereadyformore? #Theneedforreduction #Becomingmorebybecomingless #Increasingextension #Bookenergydream #Petroleumgascompany #Learnfromplanthowtoliveanethicallife #Quantityofenergy #Treehasbeenchoppeddown #Aristotlevegetalmatteritself #Thedream #Whatislive? #Ifvegetallifeisaplatformoflifethenitopensupanotherformofliving #Therightforplants #Raiseeyesbrown #Theoneastheother #Itisagardenwithinagardenwithinagarden #Dynamite #Exposingenergythatcanbereleased #Intergradeindeath #Meaningandassentofenergy #FossilfuelCompany #Cleanenergy #Nonviolentenergy #Futurevspresent #Nothingnew #Doplantsdream #Yesplantdreams #Listeningtothesilencevoiceoftheplant

Read more…

Maya Watanabe

… – OHPERA – MUET – … [… – MUTE – OHPERA – …]

May 21, 2017 — 14:07

How can we refer to Alejandra Riera’s … –OHPERA – MUET – … [… –MUTE – OHPERA…] ? Maya Watanabe responds live to Alejandra Riera's film screening

Is it a movie / a silent movie / a spoken silent film / an opera / a theatre play / a fairytale? Just as with the 'H' in her ohpera, she asks us to pay attention to what has remained, for so long, unheard.

A black box like any other, with a large screen.  A cinema:

a cosmovision / a musical / an interlude


Buenos Aires. Paris. Sao Paulo.

Plaza dos de Mayo, Le Halles, Plaza Colón, Parque Ibirapuera, Place Vendôme, Reserva Costanera, Venarey-Lès-Laumes.

Debord, Agamben, Benjamin, Wolman.

33 songs.

Cristóbal Colón (or a monument to him) has been dismantled / a man called Julián told us. He's proud. The material was very good and the sculptor was an important Italian artist. Julian's ancestors too were italians. 

Jump from Argentinan's past to the present / and back. To go through spiritual life, to the cinema / and back again. From the pueblos indígenas to the European descendants.

La Casa Rosada (The State House) appears in the foreground, Colon's monument in the background. The dictatorship era manifests itself in the cracks: in the building's fissures, or in the monument's fissures.


Read more…

Federica Bueti

‘Each Word Is a Respiration’

May 21, 2017 — 12:42

… – OHPERA – MUET – … [… – MUTE – OHPERA – …] by Alejandra Riera is a film and a document of an experience dealing with ‘places’ and languages

… – OHPERA – MUET – … [… – MUTE – OHPERA – …] is a film and a document of an experience signed on ‘the date of 9 July 2016’ dealing with ‘places’ and languages: those that are to be abandoned, those to be retaken, those to be dreamt about, those that are most secretive. The discussion revolves around spaces and places of History, constructions and demolitions, such as the removal of the statue of Colombus in Buenos Aires in 2014 among others. It also engages stories and storytellers, female narrators for whom there is often no space, so that space has to be produced.

‘In this film there may be a double fissure: that of a cinema which lives not only by images (in fact, as the film takes place, little by little we do not make the distinction between the “imageless” on-screen texts and the “moving images” anymore) and that of a humanity in search of a different route to the one that has already been laid out for us.’ – Lisson Madelpech.

Still from Alejandra Riera’s film
Read more…

Federica Bueti

Towards Entangled Modes of Becoming

May 21, 2017 — 11:18

Within the framework of Becoming More, this edition of the Roaming Assembly proposes we engage with the concept of entanglement

Day 3 of Becoming More is convened by Emily Pethick and Leire Vergana and DAI Roaming Assembly # 14, and introducted by director of DAI Gabriëlle Schleijpen. The day includes presentations by Alejandra Riera, Zach Blas, Michael Marder, and Silvia Maglioni and Graeme Thomson.

Introduction by DAI director Gabriëlle Schleijpen
Read more…

Katja Dendulk

Response to McKenzie Wark’s Lecture

May 20, 2017 — 18:26

DAI student Katja Dendulk responds to McKenzie Wark’s talk Paradoxical Modernismo[-9088

  1. Jameson: ‘The future will be qualitatively different from the past.’ McKenzie says that this idea of a qualitative difference is distinctively modern.
  2. […] the paradox is that second nature actually comes first. (Virno something, modernity) 60s: era of possibilities; 70s: confusion —> problem of ecology.
  3. ‘Eternal Capitalism’ —> maybe there is a future, but it is someone else’s. ~~ ThirdNature (turbulent information); technics of time. 
  4. ‘In third nature all of the futures are already happening all the time.’ BIG DATA. BIG DATA CENTRES.
  5. Walmarts don’t sell things, they handle information. 
  6. Science knows how old the universe is. /\/\/\/\/\/\/  11:15 | ‘There is no ecology’ – Someone, maybe Nietzsche.
  7. ThirdNature shows us that nature is not homeostatic.
  8. SystemScience(simulate the world through computation); ‘It is a rather paradoxical modernity in which we’re living.’
  9. “Qualitative novelty will be the least of our worries.”  
  10. ———/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:.,-‘“‘-,.,-‘“‘-,.,-‘“‘-,.,-‘“‘-,.,-‘“‘-,.,-‘“‘-,.,-‘“‘-,.
  11. 11:18 | 2nd Paradox, showing up in financial instruments. Temporality with multiple possible time threads (!) [Wow, imagine that!]
  12. The 2nd Paradox, McKenzie states, is that geological time shows up in financial time. ‘Survivalism is now a market niche.’
  13. To read: The Peripheral by William Gibson. Warmly recommended by McKenzie. -:-
  14. ——— 3rd Paradox, ‘It is time to build a knowledge apparatus that […] builds capacity for liberal forms of […] nurtures them as an enabling myth.’
  15. METADATA. 
  16. SI: Constant (NewBabylon); ‘One of the greatest accelerationist works of our time.’ McKenzie is currently working on […].
  17. 11:25 | [There’s certainly a lot of men running the accelerationist game.] 
  18. P O S S I B L E   W O R L D S; ‘[…] Slowing the rotation of the Earth.' || 'No affective measures we’re taken to [………] doom.’
  19. […] Constructivism. Rodchenko. 
  20. T e r r a F o r m; SpaceColonization (Huxley) – Eugenetics. Human :|: Dogs. Dogs(smell), Bee(duty), Barnacle(), —> PossibleWorlds(Human(?));
  21. I n H u m a n i s m. 
  22. Fig. 39. Trevor Paglen, Last Pictures, 2010; ‘Further elaboration of 3rd (inhuman) nature’ == future.
  23. Last paradox: only by becoming inhuman, the human will endure.
Read more…