Fernbeziehungen und Distanzkulturen

 

Illustration auf der Zoom-Website, https://zoom.us/docs/en-us/covid19.html

Zu den verwirrendsten Attributen, die sich in der Krise in den Vordergrund des Sprachgebrauchs und des diskursiven Framings geschoben haben, gehören „distanziert“ und „fern“ („from a distance“ oder „remote“). Besonders durch die normative Rede von der „sozialen Distanzierung“, von vielen viel zu lange in den vergangenen Tagen mit Unverständnis und Widerwillen quittiert, wurde die Vorstellung, dass Intimität auf körperliche Nähe angewiesen sei, in ihre tiefste Krise gestürzt. Statt dessen rücken die Möglichkeiten und Notwendigkeiten der nichtkörperlichen Nähe und mit ihr von geschäftlichen und pädagogischen Fernbeziehungen ins Zentrum des Interesses. Das griechische Präfix τῆλε (tele) und seine unnachahmliche bild- und medientechnologische Karriere in optischen Geräten wie dem Teleskop und dem Teleobjektiv oder in Apparaten/Dispositiven wie der „Tele-Vision“ gewinnt eine neue ethische Dimension und scheint gleichzeitig ontologisch an Boden zu gewinnen.

Diese neue Bedeutung der Fernbeziehung ist natürlich keineswegs so neu als wie sie momentan dargestellt wird. Wenn Skype und Zoom zu den Tools des Lernens und Lehrens, von Planungstreffen und ungeplanter Geselligkeit im „remote“-Modus erklärt werden, dann wiederholt sich hier auch eine Hinwendung zum individualisierten und ortsungebundenen Studium, wie es das Fernsehen und die westlichen Bildungssysteme mit ihren didaktisch-pädagogischen Unterabteilungen wie dem Tele-Learning beziehungsweise Schulfernsehen oder bildungsinstitutionelle Produkte wie die Fernuniversitäten in den „Medienverbünden“ seit den späten 1960er Jahren bis in die 1980er Jahre hinein geprobt haben – mit der britischen Open University und ihrer Verflechtung mit der BBC als dem vielleicht glorreichsten Beispiel.

Auf einer fundamentaleren Ebene ist aber genau genommen jedes Bild ein Distanzierungstool. In „Nah und Fern zum Bilde“, einem kleinen Aufsatz von 1986,  dessen Titel 1997 auch für eine Anthologie mit einigen seiner verstreuten Aufsätze verwendet wurde, hat der im letzten Jahr verstorbene Kunsthistoriker Martin Warnke diesen etwas mysteriösen Satz eingebaut: „Der Nahblick kann unter dem Verdacht stehen, etwas prüfen, unter die Lupe nehmen zu wollen. Ein Bild von nahem zu sehen, bedeutet zumeist ihm etwas abgewinnen zu wollen, was es nie geben wollte.“ Steckt in dieser Formulierung, die durch eine Rubenszeichnung eines Pordenone-Freskos inspiriert war, auch eine Verhaltensempfehlung und Denkoption für diese Tage?  TH   

19.03.2020 — Rosa Mercedes / 02
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