Filmkritik Nr. 335–336, Nov.-Dez. 1984

Im Oktober 1984 führte Arno Luik ein mehrtägiges Gespräch mit dem amerikanischen Dokumentarfilmer Emile de Antonio. Es geht um die Anfänge des New American Cinema und Jonas Mekas, um die New Yorker Kunstszene mit John Cage, Robert Rauschenberg und anderen, um de Antonios Filme wie IN THE YEAR OF THE PIG, PAINTERS PAINTING und UNDERGROUND, um abenteuerliche Geschäfte mit Nylonseilen und Gesichtsmasken der US Army.

Das Gespräch wäre zentraler Bestandteil der Filmkritik-Ausgabe 335/336 gewesen, die von Jürgen Ebert konzipiert worden war. Die Texte waren bereits im Satz, dann fehlte das Geld für den Druck. Die Filmkritik stellte ihr Erscheinen ein.

Jetzt wird die damals nicht veröffentlichte Ausgabe während des Festivals „Edit Film Culture!“ veröffentlicht und darüber hinaus im Buchhandel und beim Verlag Brinkmann & Bose erhältlich.

Mehr Informationen über unseren Beitrag im Rahmen von Edit Film Culture! hier.


* Die Publikation Filmkritik Nr. 335–336, Nov.-Dez. 1984 ist im Rahmen von Edit Film Culture! entstanden, einem Projekt der silent green Film Feld Forschung gGmbH in Zusammenarbeit mit Jonas Mekas/Anthology Film Archives, Arsenal – Institut für Film und Videokunst e. V., SAVVY Contemporary e.V., Harun Farocki Institut, Spector Books und Lithuanian Culture Institute. Gefördert durch den Hauptstadtkulturfonds.

30.06.2018 — Projekte / Publikation

Nicholas Mirzoeff on “Artificial vision, white space and racial surveillance capitalism”: “Based as it is on ‘epidermalization’ (the assertion of absolute difference based on relative differences in skin color), AI’s racial surveillance deploys an all-too-familiar racialized way of seeing operating at plan-etary scale. It is the plantation future we are now living in. All such operations take place in and via the new imagined white space of technology known as the cloud. In reality, a very material arrangement of servers and cables, the cloud is both an engine of high-return low-employment capitalism and one of the prime drivers of carbon emissions.”


Sara Ahmed on the performativity of disgust (from The Cultural Politics of Emotion, 2004): “To name something as disgusting is to transfer the stickiness of the word ‘disgust’ to an object, which henceforth becomes generated as the very thing that is spoken. The relationship between the stickiness of the sign and the stickiness of the object is crucial to the performativity of disgust as well as the apparent resistance of disgust reactions to ‘newness’ in terms of the generation of different kinds of objects. The object that is generated as a disgusting (bad) object through the speech act comes to stick. It becomes sticky and acquires a fetish quality, which then engenders its own effects.”


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?“


T.J. Demos on why cultural practitioners should never surrender, via  „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.“

mehrweniger Kurznews