HAFI 007: Filmkritik: Index: 1975–1984
Between January 1957 and autumn 1984, 334 issues of the monthly journal Filmkritik were published. In its final decade (1974-1984) Filmkritik no longer accompanied current cinema releases; many issues were monographic studies of neglected or forgotten filmmakers, idiosyncratic forays into the history and present of cinema and television.
In this period, Harun Farocki – along with Hartmut Bitomsky, Peter Nau, Gerhard Theuring, Wolf Eckart Bühler and others – was a driving force of the journal, both as editor and author.
From a statement made in 1982: “Then there is the fact that many of the authors/editors make films themselves. Just like one is a communist only during one’s university years, it applies that one only writes about film as long as one is not yet able to make films. (How can one not realize that someone only writes because he is unable to do something else.) This is a premise we try to contradict.”
HaFI 007 reprints the yearly indexes from 1975 to 1983, supplemented by the the index for 1984 which was still missing. It was compiled by Franz Josef Knape. It also includes the program “42 films, selected and presented by Filmkritik,” screened at Kino Arsenal (West-Berlin) in October 1982. The indexes are in German, the other texts in German and English.
Available for 8 Euro here at Motto Books.
The PDF is available here.
* HaFI 007 is published within the framework of “Archive außer sich,” a project of Arsenal – Institute for Film and Video Art in cooperation with Haus der Kulturen der Welt as part of “The New Alphabet,” a HKW project supported by the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media due to a ruling of the German Bundestag.
April 24th, 2018 — Projects / Publication
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.”
November 7th, 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?”
September 7th, 2020
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.”
August 21st, 2020