Public Screening #14: HARUN FAROCKI – TAKE TWO, dir. Ingo Kratisch/Lothar Schuster, (G 2019), July 1, 2019, Arsenal Cinema
Five years after Farocki’s sudden death in July 2014, we are turning our public screening into a premiere: HARUN FAROCKI – TAKE TWO (Harun Farocki – Zweimal) connects two different perspectives on the filmmaker. Directors Lothar Schuster (dffb class of 1968) and Ingo Kratisch (dffb class of 1969 and since 1977 cinematographer for many of Farocki’s films) alternate passages from a long conversation with Farocki from 1995 with casual observations recorded by Kratisch and Matthias Rajmann during the shoots for “The Creators of the Shopping Worlds” (Die Schöpfer der Einkaufswelten), “In Comparison” (Zum Vergleich), “Serious Games” (Ernste Spiele) and other films with both photo and video cameras. Two gestures of remembrance, two attempts at grieving. Beforehand, material unearthed in the archive of the Harun Farocki Institute will be shown: text rehearsals for Farocki’s film “Before your Eyes – Vietnam” (Etwas wird sichtbar).
With guests Ingo Kratisch and Lothar Schuster.
Harun Farocki – Take Two
Ingo Kratisch, Lothar Schuster G 2019
Digital file, OV/EnS, 36 min
Test Screens: Before your Eyes – Vietnam
Harun Farocki, FRG circa 1980
Digital file, OV/EnS, 15 min
Public Screening – The Harun Farocki Institut presents
June 28th, 2019, Event / Projects
Mon, July 1, 2019, 7.30 pm, Cinema 1
Location: Arsenal – Institut für Film und Videokunst e.V.
Potsdamer Strasse 2, 10785 Berlin
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, Tom
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, Tom
Bernard Stiegler, quoted from The Neganthropocene (trans. Daniel Ross): “Does anyone really believe that it is possible to ‘solve’ the problems of climate change, habitat destruction and cultural destruction without addressing the consumerist basis of the present macro-economic system, or vice versa, or without addressing the way in which this system depletes the psychic energy required to find the collective will, belief, hope and reason to address this planetary challenge? Can this consumerism really survive the coming wave of automation that threatens to decimate its customer base and undermine the ‘consumer confidence’ that is fundamental to its perpetual growth requirements, themselves antithetical, once again, to the problems of biospherical preservation?”
August 14th, 2020, Tom