HaFI 010: Werner Dütsch: WDR – Wie man sieht – Lola Montez

Gemeinsam mit anderen Redakteuren der Filmredaktion des Westdeutschen Rundfunk (WDR) Köln hat Werner Dütsch sich um die Vergangenheit und Gegenwart des Kinos gekümmert wie wenige andere. Die Redakteure agierten als Initiatoren und Co-Produzenten, als Veranstalter von Retrospektiven im Fernsehen und begleitenden „filmkundlichen Sendungen“ (Vorläufern dessen, was heute „Video-Essay“ genannt wird und in zahllosen Varianten im Internet zirkuliert), sie waren in vielerlei Hinsicht Vermittler und Ermöglicher. In den 25 Jahren zwischen „Industrie und Fotografie“ (1979) und „Nicht ohne Risiko“ (2004) hat Dütsch 15 Filme Farockis als Redakteur betreut.

Die Publikation „Werner Dütsch. WDRWie man sieht – Lola Montez“ enthält drei Texte: einen autobiographischen Text Dütschs über die Arbeit der Filmredaktion; einen prägnanten, bisher unveröffentlichten Essay über Farockis Film „Wie man sieht“ (1986) sowie eine umfangreiche Rezension, die Farocki nach dem Erscheinen des Buchs „Lola Montez. Eine Filmgeschichte“ von Dütsch und Martina Müller geschrieben hat. Das Heft enthält zudem eine Auswahlbibliographie Dütschs und eine umfangreiche Liste der von ihm redaktionell betreuten Filme und Filmreihen.

HaFI 010 ist hier bei Motto Books bestellbar.


HaFI 010 erscheint im Rahmen von Archive außer sich, einem Projekt des Arsenal – Instituts für Film und Videokunst in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Haus der Kulturen der Welt im Rahmen von The New Alphabet, einem HKW Projekt, das vom Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Kultur und Medien gefördert wird aufgrund der Entscheidung des Deutschen Bundestages.

04.08.2019 — Projekte / Publikation

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.”


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 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.“

mehrweniger Kurznews