by SVEN LÜTTICKEN
I’m writing this on March 26—the day when the “pre-trial” event for Jonas Staal and Jan Fermon’s lawsuit against Facebook was supposed to take place at HAU in Berlin. By now, of course, Collectivize Facebook is part of a gigantic archive of cancelled or postponed events,at least in its originally planned form: the site http://collectivize.org is up and running, and at 7 PM, a prerecorded introduction will be broadcast on the HAU’s livestream. Given the centrality of physical assemblies (from people’s tribunals to reading groups, from openings to performances, from lectures to training sessions) to contemporary aesthetic and activist practice, it is hard to disagree with Kader Attia’s rant on Facebook (of course!) about neoliberal powers that be no longer needing “the police” because “we will stay home as perfect puppets of their mistakes.”
The Collectivize Facebook pre-trial had itself been announced on Facebook (of course!), thus performing the dialectic of complicitness between social media platforms and critical cultural events. This kind of enactment of entanglement only emphasizes the project’s point about Facebook being too fundamental to our lives to be left in the hand of private investors. Meanwhile, as Covid-19 puts more and more people in conditions of physical isolation, this drives them (us) even more in the arms of corporate, proprietary software, from Facebook to Skype and ZOOM (even if media autonomists such as Geert Lovink exhort us to use Jitsi). How do the various platforms co-produce what we are, see, and do—while we produce behavioural surplus for them?
Collectivize Facebook only becomes a more urgent project now that its realization in meatspace is blocked, and Staal rightly pushes it forward through corona-compatible media. For a publication I’m currently editing (the BAK reader Deserting from the Culture Wars), Dan McQuillan has written a manifesto for a socialization and recomposition of AI through people’s councils. It would be a grave mistake to think of Staal and Fermon’s project or McQuillan’s proposition as Schnee von gestern, as quaint relics of pre-corona culture. If anything, their relevance has been exacerbated as a new wave of accumulation builds—with the algorithmic production of subjectivity and sociability, as well as the biopolitical gestation of life through patent-driven healthcare, being in the forefront of corona-era disaster capitalism.
In our compromised and entangled ways, we try to keep going, trying to transmutate heteronomy into shades of autonomy. Kader Attia spoke of “perfect puppets.” It may be heartening to remember that, from Freud to Kokoschka and from Mike Kelley to Chucky, puppets and dolls have long revealed their capacity for uncanny shenanigans.
March 26th, 2020 — Rosa Mercedes / 02
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