Anlässlich des Filmfestivals „Reconstructing Realities“ zeigt die Broadway Cinematheque in Hongkong den Film „How to live in FRG“ (1990) von Harun Farocki. Die Vorführung findet am Samstag, 11. Juli, 14.30 Uhr (Ortszeit) im Goethe-Institut Hongkong statt.

Reconstructing Realities – A Film Programme to Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Berlinale Forum

Im Anschluss findet ein Gespräch mit Doreen Mende vom Harun Farocki Institut statt. Der Vortrag wird über Zoom öffentlich sein. Ein Link folgt in kurzer Zeit.

https://www.goethe.de/ins/cn/de/sta/hon/ver.cfm?fuseaction=events.detail&event_id=21884136&

Avery F. Gordon, in an interview conducted by Katherine Hite and Daniela Jara in Memory Studies:  „Non-participation is one modality of what I call being in-difference. Being in-difference is a political consciousness and a sensuous knowledge, a standpoint and a mindset for living on better terms than we’re offered, for living as if you had the necessity and the freedom to do so, for living in the acknowledgement that, despite the overwhelming power of all the systems of domination which are trying to kill us, they never quite become us. They are, as Cedric J Robinson used to say, only one condition of our existence or being. Running away, living apart, squatting, communing, feral trading, bartering, self-managed currencies, human, debt, labour, knowledge strikes, boycott, divestment, non-policing, throwing your shoe at an occupying president: the ways of non-participation in the given order of things are many, varied and hard to summarize. And they are taken up for a variety of reasons, including the failure or irrelevance of states and the US–European post–World War II social movement model.“

Denise Ferreira da Silva via Canadian Art: „Visuality or rather visualizability—being available via social media and accessible through electronic gadgets—seems to have become the main (if not the sole) criterion for reality, which becomes crucial for the ethical-political demands for the protection of black lives, for state accountability and for justice. If that is so, the only way is through these conditions of representation. I mean, the creative move first takes the visualizable as it is, that is, as a twice removed re/composition (at the same time a live streaming, news reporting and documenting) of the scene of violence which only tells us that it happens. It exposes the excess that is the state’s use of total violence, of law enforcement as technique of racial subjugation, while simultaneously removing the black person (the father, the sister, the friend) out of the scene of violence and its visualization. It does so by restoring the dimensions of their existence that the camera cannot capture. That is, the creative move must protect (as an ethical gesture) the black person (keeping her obscurity) in the excess that is the very visualization of the scene of total violence.“