Radical Film Network Meeting, 2.-5. Mai 2019, silent green, Berlin: OPEN CALL What is Radical Film?

HaFI ist Kooperationspartner des kommenden dreitägigen Radical Film Network Meeting in Berlin. Wir möchten gern auf den Open Call “What is Radical Film?” hinweisen. Bewerbungen können bis zum 28. Februar 2019 eingereicht werden.

CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS

What is Radical Film?
BERLIN 2.–5. Mai 2019

Im Geiste des Radical Film Network (RFN), das 2014 in Großbritannien gegründet wurde, soll mit dem ersten RADICAL FILM NETWORK MEETING in Berlin, ein temporärer Raum geschaffen werden, um einen offenen Austausch und Gespräche zwischen Akteuren des Radical Film Network, Berliner Filmemachern und Kulturschaffenden zu ermöglichen. Der Kongress versammelt Aktivisten, Wissenschaftler, Filmemacher und Künstler, um gemeinsam die Frage „Was ist radikaler Film“ zu beantworten.

In den letzten Jahren hat sich ein spartenübergreifender Diskurs rund um die Gegenbilder und Bewegungsbilder entwickelt, der sich über alle Bereiche des kulturellen Lebens erstreckt: Theater, Ausstellungen, Kino, TV und Online. Überall geht es darum Erzähl- und Repräsentationsweisen zu finden, die die konventionellen Codes und Konventionen unterlaufen, Ihnen ein anderes Verfahren der Weltdarstellung und -interpretation entgegenzusetzen, sie zu verfremden und zu dekonstruieren. Die Formate und Formen des Radikalen Films unter Berücksichtigung dieser Gesichtspunkte zu diskutieren und möglicherweise neu zu verorten soll Thema der Veranstaltung sein. Gleichzeitig wird es aber auch darum gehen, das oppositionelles und radikales Filmschaffen vielfältig, bunt und sehr lebendig ist.

Willkommen sind Beiträge von Einzelpersonen und Gemeinschaften innerhalb und außerhalb der Wissenschaft, von Künstlern, Aktivisten, Filmemachern, Forschern und Wissenschaftlern und anderen, die nach einer Antwort auf die Frage suchen: „Was ist radikaler Film?“

Die Beiträge können Folgendes umfassen, sind aber nicht darauf beschränkt:


Interessierte Teilnehmer sind eingeladen, Vorschläge für eines der folgenden Formate einzureichen:


Alle Vorschläge bitte in Englisch oder Deutsch auf maximal 1 Seite (für Workshops max. 2 Seiten) per Email schicken an: opencall@radicalfilm.net

DEADLINE FÜR DEN OPEN CALL: 28. FEBRUAR 2019

Vortragende, Präsentierende, sowie Workshopleiter erhalten eine Aufwandsentschädigung. Denjenigen, die aus anderen Orten als Berlin kommen, erhalten außerdem einen Zuschuß zu den Reise- und Übernachtungskosten. Die Veranstaltung findet in Englisch statt! Das Programm wird in den kommenden Monaten bekannt gegeben. Bitte wenden Sie sich mit allen anderen Anfragen an die oben angegebene Adresse.

Link zum Open Call.
Mehr Information hier: www.radicalfilm.net

30.01.2019 — Projekte / Veranstaltung
Schnittstelle

Lauren Berlant, the brilliant theorist of „cruel optimism“ and related issues, died of a rare form of cancer on June 28. The following, devastatingly optimistic quote is from a 2016 essay on the commons as „infrastructures for troubling times,“ part of a book that they worked on with the typically double-edged title On the Inconvenience of Other People: „What remains for our pedagogy of unlearning is to build affective infrastructures that admit the work of desire as the work of an aspirational ambivalence. What remains is the potential we have to common infrastructures that absorb the blows of our aggressive need for the world to accommodate us and our resistance to adaptation and that, at the same time, hold out the prospect of a world worth attaching to that’s something other than an old hope’s bitter echo. A failed episode is not evidence that the project was in error. By definition, the common forms of life are always going through a phase, as infrastructures will.“

 

Some basics from the Strike MoMA site: „Campaigns, actions, and letters chip away at the regime’s facade from the outside. Inside, every time workers organize, defy the boss, care for a coworker, disrespect secrecy, or enact other forms of subversion, cracks are created in the core. Cracking and chipping, chipping and cracking. As the walls that artificially separate the museum from the world collapse, we reorient away from the institution and come together to make plans. Let us strike in all the ways possible to exit from the terms of the museum so we can set our own.“

 

via Hyperallergic on the environmental impact of blockchain referring to recent NFT (non-fungible token) art sales: „This is not the first time the art world has come under scrutiny for being on the wrong side of the climate conversation. Artists and activists have protested everything from the carbon footprint of physical art fairs to the fossil fuel money funding major museums. But some say the energy consumption of cryptocurrencies is particularly egregious, and research shows it’s relatively easily quantifiable. A study by Cambridge University, for instance, estimates that bitcoin uses more electricity per year than the entire nation of Argentina. (Ethereum mining consumes a quarter to half of what Bitcoin mining does, but one transaction uses more power than an average US household in a day, according to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.)“

 

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.”

15.06.2021

auf Hyperallergic über die Umweltbelastung durch Kryptowährungen aus Anlass jüngster Auktionen von NFT (non-fungible token)-Kunst: „This is not the first time the art world has come under scrutiny for being on the wrong side of the climate conversation. Artists and activists have protested everything from the carbon footprint of physical art fairs to the fossil fuel money funding major museums. But some say the energy consumption of cryptocurrencies is particularly egregious, and research shows it’s relatively easily quantifiable. A study by Cambridge University, for instance, estimates that bitcoin uses more electricity per year than the entire nation of Argentina. (Ethereum mining consumes a quarter to half of what Bitcoin mining does, but one transaction uses more power than an average US household in a day, according to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.)“

 

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.”

07.11.2020

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
mehrweniger Kurznews