Mai 2020: Schornstein Nr. 4 (1966)
Links unten, auf der Treppe sitzend: Harun Farocki. Der Mann, der am Polizisten vorbei in seine modernistische Wohnung nähe Wittenbergplatz geht, ist Michel Piccoli. Im Schlussbild des Films, einem klassischen Freeze Frame, sieht man Farocki nochmal mit verrutschter Sonnenbrille (link), während Piccoli das Haus verlässt. Näher sind sich die beiden vermutlich nie wieder gekommen.
LA VOLEUSE war der erste Film, in dem Romy Schneider und Piccoli zusammen vor der Kamera standen. Sie spielen das deutsche Ehepaar Werner und Julia Kreuz. Gedreht wurde im März und April 1966 in Berlin, Essen und Oberhausen.
LA VOLEUSE (Schornstein Nr. 4), Regie: Jean Chapot
mit Romy Schneider und Michel Piccoli
Dialoge: Marguerite Duras
Den Hinweis verdanken wir Tilman Baumgärtels Buch „Vom Guerilla-Kino zum Essayfilm: Harun Farocki. Monographie eines deutschen Autorenfilmers“, Berlin 1998, erschienen bei b_books. Dort ist LA VOLEUSE in einer Liste von „Filmen mit Farocki als Darsteller“ aufgeführt.
29.05.2020, Archiv / Schaufenster
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.“