Januar 2019: Kino 81, eine Sendung der Zeitschrift FILMKRITIK

KINO 81: Sendung vom 14. Mai 1981 (Themenübersicht)

Am 9. Januar 2019 wäre Harun Farocki 75 Jahre alt geworden; ebenfalls am 9. Januar 2019 hätte Heiner Müller seinen 90. Geburtstag gefeiert.

Aus diesem Anlass der Hinweis auf ein „gesendetes“ Heft der Zeitschrift FILMKRITIK, in dem Farocki ein Gespräch mit Müller führt. KINO 81, Ausstrahlung 14. Mai 1981 mit Beiträgen von Wolf-Bühler (Irving Lerner), Harun Farocki (Gespräch mit Heiner Müller), Hartmut Bitomsky (James Agee), Manfred Blank (Eric Rohmer), Helmut Färber (Mizoguchi) und Hanns Zischler (Roland Barthes).

„Ein weiterer Vorschlag zur Geldbeschaffung: die FK macht einen Fernsehfilm „Kino 81″ mit vielleicht 6 Beiträgen über Kinoereignisse des kommenden Jahres. MB [Manfred Blank] könnte das machen und Dütsch vorschlagen.“ (Protokoll VV 9./10. August 1980).

Bei der schließlich produzierten Sendung wird Helmut Merker als Redakteur genannt.

Kino 81, Sendung vom 14. Mai 1981, Realisation: Manfred Blank, Redaktion Helmut Merker, eine Harun Farocki Filmproduktion für die FILMKRITIK, 43 min. (*)

12.01.2019, Archiv / Schaufenster

Sara Ahmed on the perfomativity 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.”

07.11.2020, Tom

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
mehrweniger Kurznews