[-empyre-] from the [alter]south

Ana Valdés agora158 at gmail.com
Thu May 30 09:12:04 EST 2013

Johannes, and Simon and Zack, thank you for joining us and Cecilia and
Alonso-Craciun and all others: we collaborate all the time, in teams, in
schoolclasses, as neighboors, as parents, as couples, engaged in different
works or non curricular activities.
Mankind is collaborative, without collaboration we should be doomed as
specie, our ancestors drawed in caves how they hunted how they gathered how
they worshipped what they worshipped then
Non collaboration is antinatural as neoliberalism is antinatural. The
artists as lonely diva/stars are an invention of Modernity where it is less
dangerous to nurture and educate artists than allow them to be anarchical
outsiders or collaborative anonymous.

For me Bansky is a true artist, in the same way Anonymous is it, why?
Because they choose to be a part of a thousand heads
collective/multitude/crowd and not to be a part of the "society of
spectacle" as Debord formulated.


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Johannes Birringer <
Johannes.Birringer at brunel.ac.uk> wrote:

> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> Simon
> for a moment I thought you were serious, here, asking us to collaborate,
> after
> you mentioned that things (the discussion) were elusive ("I've found
> little to hold on to so far in the discussion.
> Generalities  and inter-institutional affirmations, methodologies and
> literal  narrations, very little humour or play... maybe a little irony.")
> - which i agree with, i found last month too elusive and self-affirmative
> and became a bit depressed –
> at least I thought you were critical of the elusiveness,  and perhaps even
> when not couched in theory and philosophy, but
> tending towards the usefully concrete - say what Alonso+Craciun hinted at
> without fully showing the ways of doing with us (i am reading now
> the website http://formasdehacercolectivo.wordpress.com/) – , you now
> suggest, Simon, that the critical object may not be there
> even though it ought to be by "sheer necessity."
> ...  am trying to read you,  your paradoxical style is playful and
> sometimes maddening, I went last night to collaborate with you
> in the [alter]south and probably  -for an hour -  read your letter to the
> visitor of your home - http://squarewhiteworld.com/dear-visitor/
> -   but you couldn't hear me over the roar of the river.
> and Ana, I worry you overestimate, i have no intuitive interest theorizing
> (or linking theory and practice)  collaboration, collaborative
> alliances, networks, "artfully catalysed evaporations" as Simon correctly
> analyzes them under current economic and corpocratic
> conditions. Collaboration is infuriating, and many gestures are futile,
> thus more infuriating, whatever the nice techniques.
> I agree with you, it is necessary, and we do.  and we know it is expedient.
> and we protest loudly that we do, here and there, and someone will
> possibly do it yesterday at the Venetian thing,
> or in Tacuarembó.
> but we are not in fact at a place where rivers meet.
> with regards
> Johannes Birringer
> [Simon schreibt]
> It is necessary to collaborate. It is expedient to collaborate. You
> can't escape the future.
> The object attains criticality when we say, I can't go on. Let us go on.
> Or: the left can't go on, can't go on in this pique-assiette magpie
> piecemeal ideological supermarket fashion, branding itself
> anti-capitalist, but not staying still long enough to metamorphose: the
> Maoist gang - Badiou, Zizek, the rest - say they represent a
> constructive alternative - collaborate on the same - to the last 25
> years of destructive, fragmented leftist project, after the 'loss' of
> RES, but without the constructivism that is always on the ground.
> Surpassed by events - in the Badiou sense - there is an occupation of
> the event, an attempt to stop. To frame a new kind of listening. ...
> Corporatisation - of education - health - social services - and
> corporate capture of innovation and creativity - pass by without a
> single event (in the Deleuze sense), without the necessity of rupture.
> We are very busy sewing back up the curtain, suturing back up the
> corpus, saving nine.
> So let us go on. But how? Professionally? Playing the game of expediency
> but finding the necessity to plant the bomb underneath it - in the ground?
> The critical object is there by sheer necessity. Not necessarily
> singular, it demands a minoritarian consensus, a little pause, an hiatus
> amongst us: I have felt /this/? Have you? ... the voices tell me to do
> this. Do they you too? Must we? We /must/!
> I am thinking about the Aufhebung onto the political plane where some of
> us are not so strong in the upper body but think anyway we need to lift
> ourselves up to this level which exists purely to cancel our own places
> within it. By cancelling, deriding, not paying for, removing the
> contexts and circumstances around us from which we derive our power, our
> politics, our necessity. Into which we plug. But this derivation, seen
> as a secondary surface affect, is the event itself: a project of
> propinquity.
> So art must talk in a certain way to pretend it is in order to be. And
> educators must pay for the pay they receive in a lip service to the
> institutional worlds. And now corpocracy grabs artists and teachers from
> their ground, de-institutionalising them, mocking the institution, if
> not razing it from the political landscape, skyline.
> Who is there to answer to? what is now the critical exigency? the
> emergency?
> Does it demand a restoration of the institution or another form of
> building within the institution, a form of parasite that the institution
> only played host to? (With the emphasis on play.) The parasite is
> already there in our collaboration, I would suggest. But it is become
> equally vulnerable as the institution itself.
> I would ask that "an evaporation of the critical object" is understood
> literally: there are indeed residues, and sometimes when I work with you
> beads of sweat, but they are not from the work of collaboration, we are
> stone to ignore the precipitation of air in atomies of criticality, on
> our bodies, our things, our colleagues. General all over and a product
> of an artfully catalysed evaporation, a hotplate, blood, a man suspended
> above it, a woman, a dripping. Calling attention to what is being
> incorporated from this evaporation. It is on us. To find the necessity
> of the gesture that will make it more than representation, more than
> representative.
> Expand further.
> Best,
> Simon Taylor
> www.squarewhiteworld.com
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre



cell Sweden +4670-3213370
cell Uruguay +598-99470758

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with
your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always
long to return.
— Leonardo da Vinci
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130529/056c1af6/attachment.htm>

More information about the empyre mailing list