not

problem property a problem hodnoty

(political theory)

1. Michael Hardt – Politics of the Common (2009)
michael hardt gives very good summary of current debates
about the commons. he explains the immaterial property
and the common got into centre of contemporary production
shifting away from industrial capitalist mobile/immobile
commodity properties. he says that today the capital
and economic development paradoxically relies on the common,
and that the central task for contemporary society is
to develop an alternative management of the common.
by the common he means the ecological (earth, ecosystems,
and all forms of life interacting with them) and social/cultural
(shared products of human labor–ideas, images, affects,
social relationships) domains. that is not much news,
but what is interesting – these two domains are often treated
separately, and here hardt mentions two major instances
of contradictions which link them:
contradiction between private property and the common;
and the fact that the value of common is immeasurable with
the traditional capitalist system of measures (and is rather
based on value of life, which we have not yet invented).
/ o ‘the common’ hovori ako o ekologickych (lesy, plaze,
vzduch, jazera) a nematerialnych socialnych/kulturnych
statkoch (videa, texty, fotky, idey, pocity, socialne vztahy,
zabava, nove formy zivota), ku ktorym maju (mat) vsetci
volny pristup. hovori o dvoch hlavnych rozporoch
s ohladom na klasicky system – konkretne nemoznost
urcit ich (ekonomicku) hodnotu, a problem vlastnickeho
vztahu k nim.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21899

2. Slavoj Zizek – Ecology: A New Opium of the Masses
tu zizek vychadza z idei commons ako ju chapu hardt a negri,
a jemne ju rozsiruje: commons ako kultura, externa
priroda (ekologia), a interna priroda (biogenetika).
tvrdi, ze je do commons zasadne zapojit aj mensiny,
populaciu vylucenu z politickych procesov.
http://www.lacan.com/zizecology1.htm
(je tam aj video prednaska)

(economy)

3. Lawrence Lessig – Remix: Making Art and Commerce
Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (2008)
to je jeho nova kniha, hovori tam o tom, ako mozu
ist dokopy ekonomika ‘komercie’ (klasicky online biznis)
a ‘zdielania’ (v ktorej nefigujuru peniaze–napr. priatelstvo
alebo P2P filesharing). odtial by bolo dobre vytiahnut
nejaku cast, ale najst nejaky sumarizujuci text, pripadne
jeho kritiku.
http://burundi.sk/monoskop/log/?p=224

4. Mikael Pawlo – What’s the meaning of “non-commercial”? (2004)
pawlo je sef svedskych iCommons a kritizuje tu fakt, ze drviva
vacsina materialov pod CC pouziva klauzulku ‘non-commercial’.
pyta sa co to znamena — a dava vela prikladov, kde sa to
co je commercial a co non-commercial neda urcit – napriklad:
verejna televizia, verejne skoly, reklamy na neziskovky,
rss-feedy embednute vo weboch na ktorych je reklama –
to su priklady, v ktorych nie je mozne urcit ci mozeme
pouzit CC videa ktore su sirene pod noncommercial licenciou.
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0501/msg00006.html

x. Bauwens – crowdfunding

(software)

5. Richard Stallmann
Stallmann v Lessigovej knihe hovori, ze free software
nie je altruizmus, ze tie veci programatori nerobia
lebo maju dobre srdce, ale spravidla maju pragmaticke
dovody. musi k tomu byt nejaky dobry clanok.

(philosophy)

6. Bernard Stiegler – transindividuation
to je francuzsky filozof, ktory sedel 7 rokov v base
za kradez v banke, a napisal tam niekolko zvazkov, ktore
prepisuju filozofiu z pohladu techniky/technologii.
bol nejaky cas sefom IRCAM, potom aj Centre Pompidou.
v poslednom case ho celkom hypuju. uz dlhsie kritizuje
web 2.0 sluzby a hovori o procese “transindividuacie”,
kedy svoj esteticky vkus menia uzivatelia medzi sebou
tym, ze zdielaju online material. nadvazuje na zabudnuteho
filozofa Simondona, ktory s tym terminom prisiel snad
este v 50-tych rokoch.
k tomu mam zatial len toto kratke video:

(commons in practise)

7. Creative Commons v cz/sk praxi
mozno interview s clovekom z cz/sk projektu, ktory dava veci
pod CC (je ich viac).

8. kauza a predaj Pirate Bay
zatial nemam tip na clanok

9.
jeden zaujimavy projekt v anglicku:
http://uniteddiversity.com/commons-creation/

(art/activism)

10. Ines Doujak – Victory Gardens
instalacia (2007) viedenskej umelkyne kritizujucej politiku USA a EU,
ktora prehliada privatizovanie verejnych statkov (vody, potravin, pody)
korporaciami prostrednictvom patentov [biopiratstvo],
najma v krajinach “mega diverzity” (mexiku, indii, brazili, indonezii).
/ Hardt: I object to calling this piracy, by the way, because pirates
at least have the dignity to steal property. These corporations steal
the common and transform it into private property.
http://www.lakeside-kunstraum.at/archiv.detail.asp?active_semprog_ID=525386989&active_topic_ID=854442775
http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2008/05/raised-above-the-ground-with.php

11. Yes Men – Bhopal

[7:50:02 PM] babutka: mam novy terminus technikus “problém ruky do ohňa”.)
[7:50:12 PM] babutka: v suvislosti s mtp of kors
[7:50:23 PM] babutka: alebo ruky v ohni
[7:50:58 PM] dusanson: problem?
[7:51:08 PM] babutka: hej akoze problematika
[7:51:21 PM] babutka: akoze za ake veci v programe by sme dali alebo nedali ruku do ohna
[7:51:56 PM] babutka: no sak to len tak,to su tie diskutabilne zapojene oneho alebo nestihacky odsledovat
[7:53:49 PM] dusanson: vies co teraz jak uplne totalne vypukol ten youtube a tak, tak take ze ‘kvalita’, to uz je skor nadavka )
[7:53:59 PM] babutka: :)
[7:54:32 PM] babutka: ma pojem kvalita jeste co rict?
[7:54:40 PM] dusanson: ani ne
[7:54:52 PM] babutka: tak ale co potom
[7:54:57 PM] dusanson: coby
[7:55:04 PM] dusanson: ide sa dalej
[7:55:16 PM] babutka: ako to myslis teraz?
[7:55:19 PM] dusanson: neviem
[7:55:28 PM] babutka: uz som sa zlakla
[7:55:33 PM] dusanson: jak to
[7:55:43 PM] babutka: preco pises cesky?
[7:55:52 PM] babutka: dneska mi moja kolegyna zacala pisat slovensky
[7:55:56 PM] dusanson: mozebyt
[7:56:04 PM] babutka: tak dneska je nejaky jazykovy obrat
[7:56:21 PM] dusanson: ked hovorim cesky na michala, tak mi vravi ze som postihnuty

A central task for reimagining society today is to develop an alternative management of the common wealth we share.

two distinct but related domains of the common:
– ECO ecological (natural) common [but this category is insufficient] – earth and all of its ecosystems, including the atmosphere, the oceans and rivers, and the forests, as well as all the forms of life that interact with them.
– ART social and economic (artificial) common [but this category is insufficient] – products of human labor and creativity that we share, such as ideas, knowledges, images, codes, affects, social relationships, and the like.

ECO & ART:
common in both domains confounds the traditional measures of economic value and imposes instead the value of life as the only valid scale of evaluation.

contradictions (ale ukazuju sa ako complementaries):
ECO – pro conservation, since earth is limited, logic of scarcity; ART – pro creation, open/limitless nature of production of common; ALE: both perspectives refer fundamentally to production/reproduction of forms of life, which are happening simultaneously (since eg. work-time vs non-work time collapsed)
ART – interests of humanity as central (ie. extend our politics to all humanity, overcome hierarchies/exclusions of class and property, gender and sexuality, race and ethnicity..); ECO – interests much broader than human/animal worlds; ALE: navzajom sa mozu ucit eko-aktivisti a humanrights-aktivisti

The claim for centrality of the common relies on the hypothesis that we are in the midst of an epochal shift from a capitalist economy centered on industrial production to one centered on what can be called immaterial or biopolitical production. Toni Negri and I have argued this hypothesis over the course of three books — Empire, Multitude, and Commonwealth.
– {industrial capitalism THEN} Industrial production has been central, rather, in the sense that the qualities of industry — its forms of mechanization, its working day, its wage relations, its regimes of time discipline and precision, and so forth — have progressively been imposed over other sectors of production and social life as a whole, creating not only an industrial economy but also an industrial society.
– {industrial capitalism IS OVER} industry no longer marks the hierarchical position in the various divisions of labor and, more significantly, that the qualities of industry are no longer being imposed over other sectors and society as a whole.
– {immaterial/biopolitical production NOW} (central position of industry is taken over by) production of immaterial goods or goods with a significant immaterial component, such as ideas, knowledges, languages, images, code, and affects (health care workers and educators, fast food workers, call center workers, and flight attendants). The cognitive and affective tools of immaterial production, the precarious, non-guaranteed nature of its wage relations, the temporality of immaterial production (which tends to destroy the structures of the working day and blur the traditional divisions between work-time and nonwork-time), as well as its other qualities are becoming generalized.
+ property: immobile (eg. land) => mobile (eg. commodities) => immaterial (discussions about patents/copyrights; question of exclusivity and reproductibility)

2 contradictions, 2 shared logics form significant basis for understanding guises of common & struggle to preserve/further them; foundation for linking forms of political activism aimed at the autonomy and democratic management of the common:

I. contradiction between private property and the common.
ART: bwn need for common in interest of productivity and need for private in interest of capitalist accumulation
ECO: bwn private nature of accumulation and social nature of resulting damages

II. the common defies traditional capitalist measures of value (or obey radically different scale based on value of life, which we have not yet invented)
ART: value of biopolitical/immaterial goods is immeasurable using traditional system of measure of econ.value; economists cast them as “externalities”, accountants as “intangible assets” (of esoteric value), (global bankrupt largely derives from this)
ECO: value of the common is immeasurable (eg. how much $ is damage costs of having half of Bangladesh under water? or permanent draught in Ethiopia? or destruction of trad. Inuit forms of life?)

watch out (when struggle for the common operate according to opposing logics in ECO and ART):
III. preserve ECO vs limitless prod ART
IV. humanity as frame of reference @ART vs broader @ECO

next: UN Climate Conference, Copenhagen, Dec 2009

next: the common @identity and identity politics; the common @social institutions (family, nation, ..)

[82-83]

Santiago Sierra, MX

– paid drug-addicted Brazil prostitutes to have their backs tattooed by a straight horizontal line for a drug of their choice.
– hired 200 immigrants of African, Asian and eastern European origin, all of whom had dark hair, for an ‘action’ in which their hair was bleached.
– hired a group of unemployed men to push concrete blocks from one end of a gallery to the other.
– In an exhibition at P.S.1, New York, Person Remunerated for a Period of 360 Consecutive Hours Sierra hired a person to live behind a brick wall 24 hours a day for 15 days (September 17 – October 1, 2000) without having any further instructions or duties. P.S.1 staff slid food under a narrow opening at the base of the wall. The individual behind the wall was generally invisible to the audience but was allowed to relate to the other side through the small opening in the wall.

– In South Korea, he paid sixty-eight people twice that nation’s minimum wage to block the main entrance to the inauguration of Pusan’s International Contemporary Art Festival.
– On the occasion of the 2003 Venice Biennale he built a wall blocking off the entrance to the Spanish Pavilion. Visitors needed a Spanish passport to gain entry to the building, through the back door. But even then the visitor was confronted with an empty gallery.
– on the occasion of an exhibition by Sierra to mark the opening of a £500,000 extension to the Lisson Gallery, London, he barred the entrance to the gallery with a sheet of corrugated steel. Sierra comments on the considerable frustration of the invited London glitterati who turned up for the opening: ‘It was as though they were saying: “Just get me inside and give me a drink. That’s what I’ve come for”
– During the economic crisis in Argentina (1999–2002) the banks closed and protected their facades with corrugated steel. People demonstrated using a form of protest known as cacerolazo which consisted of banging pots and pans against the corrugated metal. In 2002 Sierra taped these sounds and sent CDs of the recording out to galleries in London, New York, Vienna, Frankfurt and Geneva (Jeffries 2002). The CD sleeve instructed the owner to put speakers in the window and turn the stereo up full volume during certain specified local times.

http://www.installationart.net/Chapter3Interaction/interaction04.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Sierra

Thomas Hirschhorn, CH, 11 ben X
Bataille Monument, 2002, Documenta, Kassel
– He chose as his location the Friedrich-Wöhler Siedlung, a mixed Turkish-German social housing complex in a low socio-economic suburb of Kassel.
– ‘one thing has always been clear for me: I am an artist and not a social worker.’
– he assembled a team of people living in the Friedrich-Wöhler Siedlung who were willing to work on the monument for the eight euros an hour he paid them.
– to oversee the construction Hirschhorn moved into an apartment in the Siedlung
– He even convinced the people working for him to return his belongings when some of them broke into his apartment and stole his laptop, video, hi-fi and camera equipment.
– Like many artists of the 1990s and 2000s Hirschhorn acts as an entrepreneur, which is to say a boss, albeit a more or less enlightened boss

http://www.installationart.net/Chapter3Interaction/interaction03.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hirschhorn

4 scenarios w/ art+culture after crisis:
– consolation – mast na rany, podobne ako hollywood pocas great depression, feel-good filmy a hudba, people find solace in the social nature of arts events; to je ok, ale nezabudajte na minority, new art a innovation
– anger – a la punk v 70s
– business-as-usual, aj ludia v art/kult chcu spat bohate roky
– get real –
— talk to people, art have to find a new source of funds from millions of small donations (like obama)
— prepare for cuts – do more with less
— get much smarter at marketing
— free events/experiences, livestreaming
— don’t let mainstream media cut the arts programming
— use networks, involve people

now: art from periphery to heart of remaking society; because art isnt about leisure but about life

before: high culture (classical art forms) vs popular culture (cooking, watching tv, dancing, playing football)
now 3 interdependent spheres: publicly-funded culture (“what gets funded becomes culture”), commercial culture (gatekept by big companies similarly like pub-funded by state admins), home-made culture

“In this new model the arts are integrated into a wider cultural ecology so they become reconnected to everyday life”.
kulture sa konecne uzna zasadny podiel vo vzdelavani, ekonomike ci zahr.vztahoch.
Leadbeater: people want to enjoy, talk or do = passively sit and watch, socialise, and be creative.
20 yrs ago ‘do’ part was limited to few people. ‘talk’ part bola tiez dost obmedzena – divaci boli pasivni.
marginal [pub] + entertaing [comm] + amateur [home] = potent democratic expression.
Shoshana Zuboff: “there is a new kind of public out there, being made up of ‘new individuals who seek true voice, direct participation, unmediated influence and identity-based community because they are comfortable using their own experience as the basis for making judgements”.

via panel na Forum for Creative Economy v Prahe, marec 09, plus teraz kvoli iview s bishop

D
Chantal Mouffe:
How do you define democracy if not as consensus?
I use the concept of agonistic pluralism to present a new way to think
about democracy which is different from the traditional liberal conception
of democracy as a negotiation among interests and is also different to the
model which is currently being developed by people like Jurgen Habermas
and John Rawls. While they have many differences, Rawls and Habermas have
in common the idea that the aim of the democratic society is the creation
of a consensus, and that consensus is possible if people are only able to
leave aside their particular interests and think as rational beings.
However, while we desire an end to conflict, if we want people to be free
we must always allow for the possibility that conflict may appear and to
provide an arena where differences can be confronted. The democratic
process should supply that arena.
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article563.html

G
> thanks _ yes yes I now know who she is and I guess in a glorious past
> must have read the book she wrote with laclau, and for a while was
> very much interested in the ideas of gramsci about hegemony etc on
> which they also base their writing/thinking (but that is all so far
> for me – it seems really a revival to go pre-postmodernist-thinking,
> guess it is safer to dig those up again hihi)

D
>> hmm, but that idea doesn’t sound that old fashioned and irrelevant:
>> to understand radical democracy not as a dialogue and
>> negotiation (or even consensus) as an end in itself,
>> but as the provider of the environment that always allows
>> the possibility of disagreement..

• G
  > she did not understand her readings, because she is not researching
  > enough:
  >
  > 1. marx-engels are talking about the freedom of the worker, it is all
  > about how the difference in time as seen in post industrial capitalism
  > compared to early industrial capitalism and an utopian communism at
  > that time (forget the 20th century for a moment) – so “everyone is an
  > artist” is not a statement about art at that time but trying to
  > protect the freedom of the worker: work time (for the factory or for a
  > boss), reproductional time (to eat decently, to keep hygiene and wash
  > yourself, to have healthcare, to be able to for instance look after
  > your vegetables growing etc…)recreational/free time (relaxing and
  > resting, reflected in the regulation of working hours at stand still
  > since 60’s to 35-40 hours and also as the right for retirement later,
  > but mainly realizing the idea of freedom: it is up to the individual
  > and no boss can ask someone to give it up)… so art is seen as the
  > basic creativity everyone his in him/herself and a corner stone for
  > happiness in society, an element to realize yourself or a group and
  > situated within the free will, the fundamental idea of autonomy of
  > subjectivity (of individual or collective unit)… guess today the
  > situation is quite different though reading marx-engels on that point
  > I must admit changed the way I was looking at creating and that is
  > also the reason why in karass suite amateurs and professionals are
  > mixed and there is no discussion about it needed, it is a given fact
  > (guess she does not understand this if you only look at highly payed
  > curatored exhibitions)
• D
  one thing that is clear is that she’s biased – celebrating
  the walls of the white cube beginning in london and ending in nyc.
  • G
    the more problematic thing is that she not only a payed chique art
    chick, but that she never discloses an aesthetical point of view, on
    the contrary she shrouds it in vagueness, remember in our historic
    heroic car discussion the issue was for me how to change evaluation of
    art itself through a redefinition based on a different practice, which
    means not the speculative rhetoric she is throwing around but some
    very concrete issues and somehow up to the mark presence of current
    ‘creative’ (yes in marx-engels sense if you want) practices

  but there is a common ground.

  • G
    no because here is exactly when she is jumping out: she looks at art
    as a very disciplinary and reductionalist thing (isolating even visual
    arts) in the end, and her ‘subjectivity’ is still the 20th century
    postmodern commodity object

  she mentioned marx+engels’ critique of alienation, which when
  abandoned/overcame, gives way to a fully realised subjectivity
  accessible to all.

  i did not read marx’s takes on art, but this is what krylov
  has to say about it:
  “Labour freed from exploitation becomes, under socialism, the
  source of all spiritual (and aesthetic) creativity. Marx and
  Engels point out that only given true economic, political,
  and spiritual freedom can man’s creative powers develop to
  the full and that only proletarian revolution offers unbounded
  opportunities of endless progress in the development of literature.”
  http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/art/preface.htm

  so then art is seen as the basic creativity everyone has access
  to if freed from exploitation. (maybe you mean with ‘autonomy
  of subjectivity’ the similar thing)

  • G
    think so (but it will always be a point of discussion what t really
    is, luckily)

  still, it’s too rough to link art and creativity in such
  a narrow way.

  • G
    ou mean from her side? yes… (she needs it)
    and from our side: we don’t give a shit! (we don’t need that bullshit)

> 2. cultural industry, and the way it was introduced within the dutch
> governmental program way back in 2002-04 has nothing to do with it,
> because it only talks about the support to the organizations that sit
> between private companies, cultural organizations and (she is
> conveniently not mentioning this) educational institutions… the
> history of mediamatic may be emblematic for this, and also waag
> society evolution can be seen as part of this (and the major reason
> why I left de waag and holland altogether), though it cannot be seen
> separate from the status of the artist in netherlands, which is one
> that is very much supported and at the same time a sort of futuristic
> realization of the artist as entrepeneur (the dutch state is paying
> for that idea), and so it is very neoliberal and scary if you think eu
> will spread this in other countries over the coming years… the case
> of city marketing was very vaguely mentioned but tuning into the same
> setting, but it is so diverse in outcome in the different cities…
> compare ars electronica linz and amsterdam and then the annual eu-
> cultural capitals shifting and you see the complexity and repeated
> current failures of matching art with that…

• D
  i guess it’s not that unrelated. just look at richard florida
  >> G
  >> ys and do you believe/trust a guy looking like this?
  >> http://media.thedaily.com.au/img/photos/2007/11/21/florida-large_t350.jpg
  and his infamous book “rise of creative class” – he markets
  >> G
  >> 2002

  the idea of progressive urban development being directly dependent
  on the presence of what he calls the creative class (gays,
  immigrants, people of color, cultural workers), when not necessarily
  artists, but “skilled people are key to urban success”.
  he literally sells this to city governments around the world
  and they do buy it. so in my view the cultural industries
  and (however liberating and homeopatic) imperative for creativity
  (eg. “everybody’s artist”) are intrinsically linked.
  so still, my question here is: isn’t this also a too narrow
  reasoning?
  >> G
  >> but in the 3 points that she made she did not go deep enough, I don’t
  >> accuse her of anything else but superficiallity (and acting like a
  >> postmodern rhetoric to hit the spotlights) she is not doing the home
  >> work right that is all – ukol domaci?

  so these people came with a different receipt than marx+engels.
  >> G
  >> 200 years ago, the times ar a changing dear so it is not a different
  >> receipt it is a different marxism even
  they say there is a liberating potential in being creative
  and more and more people (not all the people, because that
  would mean giving up the neoliberal ideals) should access
  their creativity. although they don’t mention working conditions
  and what marx+engels called alienation and exploitation at all.
  they assume self-employment and entrepreneurship, in other words,
  they integrate creativity into good old market conditions.
  >> G
  >> yes and that is my point that in netherlands self-employment by
  >> artists is valued by government within neoliberal progress not
  >> individual or collective subjectivity and autonomy

  then i guess, if we say that the socially engaged and
  participative art is actually affirmative to the cultural industry
  and its assumptions and implications, then it makes pretty
  much sense not only to critique the neoliberal hegemony by working
  >> G
  >> hegemony/ read gramsci! (think you are using the wrong word here)
  and creating in bottom-up participative environments, but also
  to address, critique and experiment with the participation
  (and its open, consensual and dialogical nature) itself.
  >> G
  >> hey _ she exactly goes like what you say london-kassel-ny but a
  >> different kind of people are doing different things, and i am not
  >> putting myself in the picture here but just saying that okno in its
  >> new skin is inviting different people doing different things than
  >> (also tranzit, which sets the environment haha) she can ever think of

> 3. there is no political take over, there is no impact of avant garde
> and experimental artists on the political program, compared to the –
> she should look into the quantitative importance this plays in economy
> and politics, and then you see that in most of eu-country official
> cultural communiques art is simply left out if it is not done
> according to quantitative measures… it is not that difficult to see
> that the current swing to right in eu has to do with the regulation of
> family and their free time, not with anything marx-engels were hinting
> at: commodity and profit and turn over for the (super)state economy:
> the current crisis can be seen as the family and their possessions,
> not the saveguarding of their autonomy since it are the banks that are
> related to it, ai ai ai while she keeps trying to hit a nail and
> perseveres hitting next to it (for what reason I keep asking myself)

• D
  but there is an impact of neoliberal culture consultants on the
  political program as mentioned above, what concerns the experimental
  artists too (if they care for the social in their work)
  >> G
  >> what artist in reality ever did?

  mouffe says actually pretty interesting thing about ‘swing
  to right’ here:
  >> G
  >> guattari in ‘3 ecologies’ calls it a “heterogeneous” culture, it is
  >> the same but let’s talk about this because it has further repercussions
  >>
  >> and this is not wha tI think, just wanted to point out where in her
  >> presentation she missed 3x the boat and performs the role of the
  >> interested intellectual when she is writing down critique that
  >> audience is giving and not responding to it, you saw her doing it!
  >> so, …

  “In the West today, if there are no democratic channels through which a
  confrontation of values and interests can take place, it is going to lead
  either to apathy so people won’t be involved in politics any more, or even
  worse, there are going to be mobilisations of those struggles which are
  not compatible with democracy such as apartheid, religious fundamentalism
  and fascism. Take France and the growth of the extreme right under Le Pen:
  it is precisely at the moment when the socialists have moved toward the
  centre and acquiesced to the arguments of the democratic right that the
  extreme right began to grow, because they were the only ones who were
  offering an alternative through which antagonism could be focused. Le Pen
  has been able to give a voice to the people who could not find a place
  within the democratic space to express their different positions.”

>> D
>> + i’m still puzzled by what argument can be used against smashing
>> down “everybody is artist” motto too easily only by its political
>> implications (appropriation by cultural industries)
>
> G
> it makes no sense, actually creativity is not about playing amateur
> theatre and going fishing, or playing cards in clubs, and marx-engels
> are not saying this, soldat-facteur and others show something
> different but our dear claire is maybe a little too pop star and
> biased and has no time to take this into account… she likes to read
> books that are too difficult for her or either she sticks to the lost
> myth of the french philosopher (read postmodernist philosopher as
> tourist)

[3, 5-6]

[92]
velmi dobre keywordy – kriticke voci standardnej kunsthistorii
@ Visual Culture Reader (ed. Mirzoeff)

[115]
video in 80s YU+RU

test
test
test