Pëtr Kropotkin’s anarchist-anti-capitalist-commonist-animalist notion of “mutual aid” has already been gaining traction for quite a while. Under current conditions, however, it is geared to become THE international heterodox-anarchist Left’s response to the authoritarian Right’s corporate exploitation of the Covid-19 crisis. As a contribution on the It’s Going Down site makes quite clear: “In many ways, the coronavirus has accelerated all of the trajectories of modern capitalism that have hurdled us towards our current position: rapidly gentrifying cities, automation and the gig economy displacing workers into precarious forms of employment, the rising cost of living, and lack of access to affordable healthcare, education, and daycare for children.” What’s more, Kropotkin makes for an inspiring trans-species thinker, which is probably one of the reasons for his present appeal. A quick glance into the introduction of his 1902 “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution” (below a picture of Gustav Landauer’s German translation from 1904) may suffice for an understanding of the attraction: “[…] wherever I saw animal life in abundance, as, for instance, on the lakes where scores of species and millions of individuals came together to rear their progeny; in the colonies of rodents; in the migrations of birds which took place at that time on a truly American scale along the Usuri; and especially in a migration of fallow-deer which I witnessed on the Amur, and during which scores of thousands of these intelligent animals came together from an immense territory, flying before the coming deep snow, in order to cross the Amur where it is narrowest — in all these scenes of animal life which passed before my eyes, I saw Mutual Aid and Mutual Support carried on to an extent which made me suspect in it a feature of the greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species, and its further evolution.” TH
15.03.2020 — Rosa Mercedes / 02
Am Freitag, den 6. April 2021, um 20 Uhr veranstaltet die Akademie Schloss Solitude eine Zoom-Veranstaltung mit der ehemaligen HaFI-Residency Stipendiatin Shirin Barghnavard über ihren Film „Invisible“ (2017). Moderiert von Doreen Mende. Zur Registrierung hier.
In der Zeitschrift MONOPOL gibt es aktuell ein Interview mit Shirin Barghnavard über ihren Film „Invisible“, den sie 2017 während ihrer HaFI-Residency konzipiert und gedreht hat.
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.”