Januar 2018: notizen aus numero deux

Die hier abgebildete Din A4-Seite mit Notizen zu Godards Film NUMÉRO DEUX ist Teil eines Konvoluts von Papieren zu ETWAS WIRD SICHTBAR. Allerdings finden sich punktuell auch Aufzeichnungen zum Projekt, aus dem später der Film BETROGEN wurde.

Von der Rückseite des Blatts scheint das Logo der Hamburger Produktionsgesellschaft „Polyphon“ durch, vielleicht ein Hinweis auf die „Synchronisation einer Filmreihe über sieben Künstler für das ZDF, Produktion Polyphon, Hamburg (1979)“, die Farocki 1981 in seiner Filmographie im Band „Nüchtern in die 80er Jahre. Berichte zur Lage des Filmnachwuchses von Absolventen der Deutschen Film- und Fernsehakademie Berlin“ auflistet.

„die bildanordnung kommt vom viedeoschnitt her, da gibt es zwei monitore, man vergleicht immer zwei laufende vorgänge und sucht die stelle, an der der eine vorgang in den anderen übergehen könnte.“ – Das ist schon nah dran an den Überlegungen zur „sanften Montage“ (später: „weichen Montage“), wie Farocki sie 1998 im Kapitel zu NUMÉRO DEUX in „Von Godard sprechen“ gemeinsam mit Kaja Silverman beschreibt und in seinen eigenen Installationen seit SCHNITTSTELLE in der Praxis entwickelt.

„Von Godard sprechen“ ist gerade als Band 2 der „Schriften“ in einer Neuausgabe erschienen.

22.01.2018, Archiv / Schaufenster
Schnittstelle

David Graeber (1961-2020) on What Would It Take (from his The Democracy Project. A History, a Crisis, a Movement, 2013, p. 193): „We have little idea what sort of organizations, or for that matter, technologies, would emerge if free people were unfettered to use their imagination to actually solve collective problems rather than to make them worse. But the primary question is: how do we even get there? What would it take to allow our political and economic systems to become a mode of collective problem solving rather than, as they are now, a mode of collective war?“

07.09.2020, Tom

T.J. Demos on why cultural practitioners should never surrender, via tranzit.sk:  „For artists, writers, and curators, as art historians and teachers, the meaning-production of an artwork is never finished, never fully appropriated and coopted, in my view, and we should never surrender it; the battle over significance is ongoing. We see that battle rise up in relation to racist and colonial monuments these days in the US, the UK, and South Africa. While the destruction of such monuments results from and is enabling of radical politics, it’s still not enough until the larger institutions that support and maintain their existence as well as the continuation of the politics they represent are also torn down. This is urgent as well in the cultural sphere, including the arts institutions, universities, art markets, discursive sphere of magazines and journals, all in thrall to neoliberalism, where we must recognize that it’s ultimately inadequate to simply inject critical or radical content into these frameworks, which we know excel at incorporating those anti-extractivist expressions into further forms of cultural capital and wealth accumulation. What’s required is more of the building of nonprofit and community-based institutions, organizing radical political horizons and solidarity between social formations.“

21.08.2020, Tom

Bernard Stiegler, quoted from The Neganthropocene (trans. Daniel Ross): „Does anyone really believe that it is possible to ‘solve’ the problems of climate change, habitat destruction and cultural destruction without addressing the consumerist basis of the present macro-economic system, or vice versa, or without addressing the way in which this system depletes the psychic energy required to find the collective will, belief, hope and reason to address this planetary challenge? Can this consumerism really survive the coming wave of automation that threatens to decimate its customer base and undermine the ‘consumer confidence’ that is fundamental to its perpetual growth requirements, themselves antithetical, once again, to the problems of biospherical preservation?“

14.08.2020, Tom
mehrweniger Kurznews