AMERICA – Films from Elsewhere (hg. Shanay Jhaveri): HaFI Beitrag
Der “Gefängnisbilder”-Komplex, dem sich Harun Farocki ab Mitte der 1990er Jahre intensiv gewidmet hat, ist in Bezug auf seine gegenwärtige Relevanz einer der laufenden Forschungsschwerpunkte des Instituts. Seit 2018 hat HaFI Workshops zu dem Thema in Berlin und New York durchgeführt. Ein Resultat der Auswertung von Harun Farockis Archivmaterialien zum Einsatz von Bild-Technologien im “prison-industrial complex” kann in AMERICA. Films from Elsewhere (2019), herausgegeben von Shanay Jhaveri, nachgelesen werden. Das Dossier „Harun Farocki’s Prison Images“, zusammengestellt von Tom Holert, Doreen Mende und Volker Pantenburg, besteht aus einer Auswahl von Dokumenten und Bildern aus dem HaFI-Archiv.
Die kommende Residency mit Cathy Lee Crane – jetzt auf 2021 verschoben – bietet die Möglichkeit, Aspekte dieser Forschung im Austausch mit Crane und weiteren eingeladenen Gästen weiterzuführen. Dazu werden wir in den nächsten Monaten regelmäßige Updates geben.
26.05.2020, Projekte / Publikation
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.”
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.“