HOW TO DO THINGS BY THEORY

In 2010 the focuses of our research were the cultural context of Paris (through the research laboratory “Re-Hallucinating the Contexts” and cinema program “illegal_cinema”) and immaterial labor in performance (through public editing sessions and publishing a joint issue of TkH journal and Le journal des Laboratoires). The focus of our current activities – of an inter-disciplinary research and archive, “illegal_cinema” program, and a series of public events in Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Belgrade, Novi Sad, and Zagreb – are the issues of performance and the public.

———————-

Mapping the field of research: conceptual framework, preliminary theses, initial questions

by Bojana Cvejic, Ana Vujanovic; January 2011

Introduction: “What is public space?”

(considered from the viewpoints of acting, action, act, performance, intervention, practice)

Is it different from the social field? How is the social dissociated from the public space? In what ways the social isn’t the public space?

Is public space the space of the common? The common brings back the question of “us”. The public in practice belongs to no one; how to make it belong to any-body and yet not structure it on the definition of what is common for everybody?

The public is traditionally defined by the opposition to the private. What does the collapse of borders between the public and the private mean in the light of Foucault/Butler’s motto “the personal is political”?

Do we imply that the public space is the political scene?

Is public space only that which we produce, but do not own? That which we have to share? That which we belong to, but it doesn’t belong to anyone individually?

How are public space, public interest and public good related? Is it only about the sum of individual interests, or something beyond it? In that case, what is it driven by? Ideology?

Who governs the public space today? Can we rethink the public space in the situation where private property rules? The public space is governed by:

• political parties – government, economic power

• mass-media – information, knowledge

• creative industry – entertainment, leisure

(Contemporary art has a limited place.)

Is the public space one and unique? Or, are there numerous public spaces that are present simultaneously? Or does the public space arise around a problem, mobilizing the actors concerned by it? The answer to the question is a strategic one:

If we admit that there are several co-existing ones, like it was during the identity politics in the 1980-90s, we risk losing the public space; there is always a hierarchical distribution of the many, which doesn’t dissolve the hegemony of the one. A more oblique position would be to claim one public space, and admit the struggles of many for predominance.

Is, or should public space be: a space of discussion? or a space of performance?

or: Is every discussion in public a performance of the discussion? Or is the performance of discussion characteristic only for totalitarian regimes? And not for democratic ones? If democracy fosters and entertains public debate, and if this debate is structured like a performance with a normative structure for success, should the performance indicate the degree of totalitarianism?

We distinguish three categories in which we examine publicness of performance

category#1 SOCIAL & POLITICAL PERFORMANCES IN PUBLIC SPACE

• social drama and social choreography as the interpretative framework for the “political unconscious” (Fredric Jameson) – “gesture”; social drama in the NATO bombardment of Serbia; social choreography in Taylorism in relation with Laban and Meyerhold’s biomechanics; social choreography of walking; social choreography of protesting; social choreography of “well-being” today
• state performance and state choreography that manifest the political “consciousness” of the state, its “ideological state apparatuses” (Louis Althusser) – “slets” in Communist countries in comparison with German Körperkultur and Sokoli (Falcons) in Slavic countries
• political actions and “artivism” that proactively instrumentalize art – “action”; “artivism” and political activism (Aldo Milohnic, Brian Holmes); student and civic protests in 1996/7 in Belgrade; gay pride in Eastern Europe in 2000; antiglobalist movement end of 1990s (Genoa, Seattle)
• “assembly” (Bruno Latour, “Making Things Public”)
• “community” (Isabel Lorey’s analysis)

category#2 PERFORMANCE OF THE SELF IN SOCIAL LIFE

articulating difference between doing and showing doing (Richard Schechner)

• performance of the self: social roles, behaviour, self-presentation (Erving Goffman)
• man as actor: in history in three decisive paradigms, the Ancients, Enlightenment, the legacy of the 19th century for 20th century (Richard Sennett) – charismatic leadership (presidents as actors, Berlusconi, Obama, Reagan)
• technologies of the self: care of the self, biopower, biopolitics and discipline (Michel Foucault), from Körperkultur to the New Age body systems (yoga, Alexander technique, Feldenkreis, BMC, fitness culture)
• performativity of identity: including difference between performativity and performance (Judith Butler), social networking (Internet)
• performance of the entrepreneurial self: in the neoliberal capitalist context, actualizing possibilities (Jon McKenzie), economic value of communication, expression… (Maurizio Lazzarato) – managerial handbooks and trainings (behaviour, body language)

category#3 ART ENGAGING ISSUES OF THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE

• audience as a narrowed sphere of public

• “artistic citizenship” (Randy Martin)
• contextual approach (in post-Socialism) vs. contextual art (Paul Ardenne)
• participation and/in art (Claire Bishop, Irit Rogoff)

• historical practices: direct democracy of Joseph Beuys, clandestine hijacking of Tomislav Gotovac (Belgrade / Zagreb)

• current practices: Thomas Hirschhorn; Wochenklausur; Public Movement (Israel); Arpad Schilling and Kretakor (Budapest / Paris); Théâtre Permanent (Les Laboratoires d’Aubervilliers); Christoph Schliengensief; Urban Campment; Aernout Mik; Tania Bruguera; Hannah Hurtzig’s Blackmarket of Knowledge…

• theater in private space (at home): the living room theater of Jean-Lorin Sterian and private house festival, Collective Actions in Moscow 80s (Andrej Monastirsky et al.)

The following CONCEPTS make up the framework of our research.

Concepts and theories of reference:

Public space / Public good / Public/private / Performance / Performativity / Hegemony/ Contemporaneity / Rhetorics / Public opinion, public debate, common sense / Opinion-making, programming, curating, PR / Social performance, social drama / Social choreography / Politics and ideology / Biopolitics, biopower, discipline / Political unconscious / Men of action / Act, action, intervention / Object, subject, situation / Outside / Heterotopia / Gesture / Scene / Performance of the self / Technology of the self / Performance and practice / Rehearsal and repetition / Actor-network theory

Concepts to be invented:

Public space of discussion / Performance of discussion / Social choreography / Acting, act, actor vs. performing, performance, performer / Bio-bourgeoisie (part of the creative class)

The ASSUMPTIONS and QUESTIONS we pose:

1) concerning the problems of performance and performativity today:

Do we affirm and struggle for a right to performance (Butler)? Or, do we critique the general paradigm of performance in the context of post-industrial capitalism (McKenzie)? If so, what do we affirm?

What is the role of performance in two antagonistic political systems of the 20th century, namely, capitalism and communism?

Capitalism entails performance – from competence to competition, from productivity to efficiency; performance of the individual’s competence, hiding its ideology; instrumental performance

Socialism presupposes performance of the ideology, the state or the people perform itself/themselves (self-referential, tautological)

2) concerning the difference in the status of public space in former socialism and capitalism:

Investment in situations – by interest/profit (pragmatism)

Investment in public good – by duty/concern (dogmatism)

Third way proposed by the philosophers of science, insisting on situations and networks, “complexity”, deferral, no resolution, process, participation, struggle (Latour, Stengers)

Fourth way, our ideas, approaches we are interested in: legacy of the socialist approach to public space in the context of neo-liberal capitalism/ private property

3) The focus is on the actual social context and time. But three historical periods (fictionalized or not) are important:

• Ancient Greece (Athenian democracy)

• 18th century & Enlightenment etc

• 2nd half of the 20th century & communism, socialism

4) Our departure is equality, and not constituted differences (or differences to be constituted) like in community art.

At the moment, we pose the following THESES FOR ELABORATION

Thesis#1 concerns public space

The public space in Western liberal democracies today isn’t defined by genuine discussion, but is marked by the performance of discussion. Performance here implies rhetorics, seduction, and manipulation, and it also implies and indicates rules, procedures, codes, and conventions that limit and normativize the scope of what could be said and by whom, and not only how.

Our critical thesis could be supported by an interpretation of the socialist/communist public space in the second half of the 20th century that shows it as the space where discussion was, had to be restricted, whilst in the democratic one it is performed.

We are uncertain about genuine discussion as a real possibility in any political system. We don’t have any recourse to an ideal model, nor do we support projections of Athenian democracy.

Thesis#2 concerns action in public space

We propose to shift perspective from performing to acting in public space in order to emphasize action, the verb to act and the act itself. Acting, act, action and actor are a set of terms that offer advantages to performance: 1. acting means activity, shaping actively, intervention, intrusion; 2. it implies fiction, “as-if” role, which endows it a speculative dimension. Performance is prescripted, its success is in its failure, in breaking or betraying the rules (competence, procedure, completeness, intentions). Acting, by contrast, doesn’t presuppose or prefigure rules. To act might also mean to enact a new situation!

——————————

Detailed working materials (notes, theses, tasks, bibliography, etc.) from the first phase of the research you can find HERE.