The Usual Suspects book, designed by Annie Wu, with documentation of each event, an essay by Monika Szewczyk and an introduction by Clare Butcher will be published soon. Watch this space for details and distribution points.

Session 101 – wednesday 2nd September – 11 am – 1 pm.
presentation of Yvonne Dröge Wendel, Independent visual artist, Emilie Gomart, Independent writer and curator, Dieter Roelstraete, independent writer an curator, and Clare Butcher, curator
at CRESC 5th Annual Conference 2009: Objects – What Matters? Technology, Value and Social Change, 1-4 September 2009,
CRESC Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change. University of Manchester.

The Object Research Lab:

We want to design and present in real time, in front of people ‘s eyes, an encounter of humans and objects. There are no papers given, or read about.

This is an inter-disciplinary presentation where object, artist, designer, sociologist and philosopher bring their respective skills, vulnerabilities and sensitivities to this event: each one is seduced, constrained, influenced in a different way, tied and attached to the objects and to the humans in different ways.The novelty of this panel of presentations is not that objects are invited to the conference – they have been present at other conferences- more or less directly. The difference is between talking ‘about’ them and setting up an arena where humans and objects are let loose with each other in front of an audience.We are not going to present outcomes. We do not aim to present a completed scientific concept or discovery. What we want to do is to open up the black boxes of different fields (materiality / art / philosophy etc.) to identify the inner workings of each: what are the governing issues, the main biases, the methodological preferences of each; how do their reflections evolve; what questions emerge, what techniques evolve in each setting.

speakers:
Object Number One – Grey Green Colour and the Blob Shaped
Object Number Two – Grey Green Colour and the Blob Shaped
Object Number Three – Grey Green Colour and the Blob Shaped
Object Number Four – Grey Green Colour and the Blob Shaped

These Objects come in various sizes, some are larger than humans, and heavier than humans, others small, both heavy and light. Some of these objects are ‘educated’ and carry information others are unskilled.

All objects have the same unassuming neoprene surface. This surface is a constraint that entices the viewer to investigate them, walk up to them, bring her body- and all its skills- into contact with the objects, weigh them, look and touch at them, even ‘care’ for them. The grey green colour and the blob shapes exercise a calculated force: it attracts, but it does not plan out for the viewer what she will think or do with the object. The colour and shape are ‘generous’ because they are ‘just enough’: not so strongly appealing that they over-determine our encounter with the object but also not weak so that they cease to intrigue and puzzle us. These objects have ‘just enough’ qualities to allow and to initiate and support our open investigation of them.

The fifth annual conference of CRESC will tackle Objects – What Matters? Technology, Value and Social Change. As contemporary social theorists continue to signal the need to reconfigure our deliberations on the social through attention to practice, to object-mediated relations, to non-human agency and to the affective dimensions of human sociality, this conference takes as its focus the objects and values which find themselves at centre stage. And we ask, in the context of nearly two decades of diverse disciplinary approaches to these issues, what matters about objects? How are they inflecting our understandings of technology, of expertise, and of social change? How has a focus on objects reconfigured our understandings of how values inflect the ways in which people make relations, create social worlds, and construct conceptual categories? How have objects become integral to human enthusiasms and energies, to transformational ambition, or to the transmission of values across time and space? How do objects move between ordinary and extraordinary states, shade in and out of significance, manifest instability and uncertainty? How do moral and material values attach to objects as they move in space and time? What dimensions do they inhabit and/or reveal?

other speakers include: Mario Biagioli (Harvard University), Patricia Clough (City University of New York), Graham Harman (American University Cairo), Chandra Mukerji (University of California, San Diego), Annemarie Mol (University of Amsterdam), Griselda Pollock (University of Leeds), Kathleen Stewart (University of Texas, Austin)

This kind of shift, in time, position, and expectation provides some intriguing new directions for both the artist but also the discussions around the Usual Suspects format, and a discursive turn in contemporary art in general.

1. i & my parents
2. i & their son
3. i & selfdiscovery
4. i & you & is
5. i & now & him
6. i & am & santa claus

The ‘i’ here is his classic, self-diminutive and yet holds some intrigue for the Usual Suspects in that, it challenges the dynamics of self and the ego in the moment of ‘we’ – where a group of strangers (technically) comes together for the purpose of discussing and unpacking a topic of common interest. ee cummings’s lectures were met with a mixed response because of the risks they posed to this mode of dialectics or knowledge delivery. One example considers the nature of these nonlectures:

‘Are these lectures unconventional? Egocentric? Saucy? The answer is yes, and the lecturer accepts this mild impeachment, and by his title proclaims they are not lectures at all. Their subject matter? ee cummings, in his role as poet and his poetic creed of feeling against knowing, intuition against scientific measurement, life against death, process against success…Some of his weaknesses appear – the split in his nature which makes him seem to walk a tightrope but from which springs some of his inimitable poetry. For a limited but enthusiastic audience.’

(from Kirkus Reviews, 21 (October 1, 1953)

The key phrases here: ‘process against success’ and ‘for a limited but enthusiastic audience’ stand out in my reading of the impression.

In the forthcoming and last of the Usual Suspect series, we will attempt to grapple with the collective risk of conversation making within artistic discourse. What does it mean to walk the tightrope from which springs the poetry of communal exchange?

“Living with and without Judith Butler
Let me first say that my opinion about Butler changed a lot since let say 1986-1993, the years in which I published an article about the concept of Empathy (Einfühlung) in the work of Julia Kristeva( 1986) and my dissertation in 1993. I criticized her for her very restricted, short by the curve interpretation of Kristeva, apparently caused by not knowing her work entirely. This criticism does not play a role anymore in what I wrote in my Appel book, as you can read underneath. This year I read for the first time Jonathan Culler  “Philosophy and Literature: The Fortunes of the Performative”.

His approach of Butler, departing from what is on stake in her engagement led me to think differently about her thoughts. So far I cannot tell if it will also change my mind considering her approach of Kristeva, but I do think that we need to take Culler’s approach seriously. Also after re-reading Amelia Jones about all the re-interpretations and re-enactments of Jackson Pollock (in: Performing the Subject) I think that the concept of performativity has got a sound basis in relation to the visual art and certainly performance art. We see both more and more intertwined since, I think. For the rest please read what I wrote in my De Appel book:

A few years ago, a notion derived from John L. Austin’s linguistic theory of speech acts was introduced in various discourses, although it had never before been applied in performance studies.19 I am referring to the notion of ‘performative’, which was chiefly brought up to date by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida and the gender theorist Judith Butler who was influenced by him. It has achieved a central place in the debate on sexual identities, where the question is posed as to how homogeneous and stable sexual identities are. Should we not deduce sexual identity from behaviour, instead of looking for it in essential physical differences? It then increasingly cropped up in studies in the field of theatre and, although to a lesser degree, in theories concerning instable media, including performance art. Austin distinguished performative utterances in language from consta¬tive utterances. While constative utterances denote an actual situation, performative utterances, Austin says, confirm a particular situation. He takes as his example the well-known sentence that is uttered in a wedding ceremony and that actually seals the marriage vow: ‘I now pronounce you man and wife.’ The concept of ‘performative’ is also often used in a rather less well-defined context and is then understood as something that has the characteristics of a performance. The noun ‘performativity’ is an even broader concept and is used as such by Derrida and Butler. It is an important concept for reflecting on performance art, because it calls to mind drawing up a contract, the making of a vow, which, as I wrote in the introduction to this chapter, is an important aspect of the perform¬ances focussed on in this book. Although there has been much discussion about the usefulness of this notion, at the same time there seems to be a development leading one to believe that the notion has taken root to such an extent that it has started to live a life of its own, divorced from its origins in linguistic phi¬losophy. It had become, for example, an important notion, albeit rather late, in the writings of Amelia Jones, currently one of the most important writers in the field of performance art. Whereas it scarcely played a role in her Body Art/ performing the subject (1998), in the book she co¬edited with Andrew Stephenson in 1999, Performing the body, perform¬ing the text, the invited authors concentrate in very varied essays on the performative dimension of the production of artistic meaning.20 Here the notion is likewise interpreted very broadly, just as we can also infer from the views of other writers in the field of performance and gender studies, such as Sue-Ellen Case (1990), Peggy Phelan (1993), Lynda Hart (1993) and Rebecca Schneider (1997). It functions as a supremely post¬modern notion, expressing current thinking about identity and the processual and fragmentary nature of the production of meaning and interpretation. The broad understanding of the notion is strongly related to theatrical practices and performance art, in which the separation between fiction and reality has become increasingly diffuse. One also sees the notion cropping up more and more often in monographic studies about performance artists. A good example of this is Jane Blocker’s Where is Ana Mendieta? (1999), a title that, by posing this particular question rather than ‘who is Ana Mendieta?’, betrays the influence of the notion of ‘performative’. Performative is a notion that not only lays the emphasis on the fluctuation of identities and the production of meaning, but also on place and time. For this reason in particular, it can be a useful supplement to the reflection on the here and now of performance art.

Here and now
The here and now is one of the aspects emphasised by Peggy Phelan: ‘Performance’s only life is in the present. Performance cannot be saved, recorded, documented, or otherwise participate in the circulation of representations of representation: once it does so, it becomes something other than performance.’21 Her view of performance found a counterpart in the notion of ‘liveness’ used by Philip Auslander, another important writer in the field of performance studies.22 Auslander’s main aim with this notion is to emphasise that what we witness at a certain place andtime is reality. A few comments need to be made on these views. Phelan’s in particular is too simple and too essentialist. Of course there is just one performance that we attend at a certain moment, but our percep¬tion is more complex. Memories and knowledge of particular stereo¬types play a part; to a certain extent we make our own performance.
A more correct approach, I feel, is that of Judith Butler, who argues that performative actions are not autonomous, but are a repetition of an aggregate of norms, even though we pretend that this is not the case.23 Norms make themselves felt no matter what and are a point of contact for the spectator, enabling him to ‘situate’ the action. Butler’s conclu¬sion is that performativity and referentiality, rather than being separate phenomena, should both be implicated in the action. This approach has far-reaching consequences. We can apply them, for example, to the issue of identity in the Transformer performances discussed in the second chapter. These performances raise such questions as: ‘how real are per¬formances in comparison with theatre shows?’; ‘what role – after all – is played by experience and memory?’; ‘how essential is the often-cited ephemerality of the performance?’.
In an essay about performance and performativity, Mieke Bal empha¬sises the significance of memory.24 Viewers of performance art are indeed highly unlikely to be informed about the plan of the performance, yet the performer himself must have a minimum structure of the perform¬ance in his head, which he remembers and focusses on during the presentation. Memory thus plays a mediating role between the plan that is situated in the past but is remembered in the present, the moment the performance takes place.25 (The idea of a minimum plan was earlier conveyed by Richard Schechner in the notion of ‘restored behaviour’.26) In the case of performances strongly influenced by initiation rites or in which the performer starts off from a certain vow, an even more direct relationship arises between Austin’s idea of the performative act and the performance. Austin’s exemplary sentence concerns the nuptial vow, whereby, as in the initiation rites, a new life begins. In the case of both initiation rites and the making of a vow, a new situation is created through the carrying out of semi-ritualistic, coded actions. In the performance it is often a question, as we have seen, of a specific vow involving an ordeal that the audience also shares. With the performance Dark Flash by the Hungarian artist Tibor Hajas, which took place in 1978 during the I AM event in Warsaw, it was announced beforehand that the doors of the performance space would remain closed for forty minutes. Everyone was insistently asked either to leave or to remain sitting or standing, andto not talk or smoke. It then became completely dark. After the reciting of a text, followed by a silence, a flash went off, illuminating the artist hanging from his wrists. This was repeated a few times. Afterwards the audience could reconstruct the idea that the intention must have been to go on for forty minutes. The planned duration, part of the vow, was not achieved, for the simple reason that he could not keep going so long. As explained here, different theoretical positions have been prompted by performance art and later by post-dramatic theatre. Performance art has also given food for thought to theoreticians and scholars in another sphere. The proximity of the performer is inherent in performance – not only his body but also his personality. There has been a lot of psy¬chopathological speculation about this in the past. However slippery this topic may be, evading it does not do justice to the nature of the canonical performances from the 1970s. Developments in theory during the last ten years certainly make it possible for more to be said about this.”

Marga van Mechelen (April, 2009)

At the 10 Nieuwespiegelstraat

One discussion group heats up

Another discuss the image of feminism on the terrace

The third gathering of the Usual Suspects took place at the de Appel Nieuwe Spiegelstraat premises where, until the 1st of April this year, de Appel had been housed since 1993. This art centre, since its inception in 1975, has been home to a number of particularly historic moments in the legacy of feminism in this part of Europe. One poignant example, I reminded the group before starting our discussion, was Marina Abramovic’s ‘Role Exchange’ of 1975 where she got a sex worker from the Red Light District to pose as her at an opening at de Appel and herself, took up one of the Red window spaces for a night. Together with the International Feminist Art exhibition which partly began at de Appel in the late 70s before travelling around the Netherlands until 1981, the conversations around the place of women artists in institutional practice started within this context resonated with our own discussion around the work of Judith Butler and feminism within current artistic and creative practice.

We were joined by a large group of Fine Art students from the University of Cumbria who were visiting Amsterdam for the week and were also fortunate to have a number of “Butler experts” from the University of Amsterdam and a pair currently working on a series on characters in feminism’s recent history with art. The conversations, over delectable snacks thanks to the Fantastic Baking Girl,  revolved around recent survey exhibitions of feminist art and the ways in which feminism, which is usually the more politicised, activist second-wave version, is re-presented by the media – impeding many younger generation critical minds from associating themselves with the movement overall. An interesting case study was the Red A.i.R art project being curated by Angela Serino where artists are being given window spaces in the Red Light District to use as a means of experimenting with different forms of  display within transitory spaces (http://www.redlightartamsterdam.nl/) The project comes with a move from the city to “clean up” the Red Light District by reducing the number of “windows” by 30% (see article by Merijn Oudenampsen). The general debate around the subject has therefore mostly been concerning gentrification and social engineering within urban situations in the Netherlands. However, when re-framed as part of the Usuals’ conversation on gender, display and the place of politics within contemporary feminist art – the case poses some questions which were not at all easily answered by the group.

Our crazy contributors from the University of Cumbria

Our conversation “guide”, Marga van Mechelen, was unfortunately not able to attend the non-lecture. Marga has long been connected with de Appel, and conducted research for a number of its books: De Appel. Performances, Installaties, Video, Projecten, 1975-1983. Amsterdam: Stichting De Appel (2006). She has worked and is working with a number of institutions such as the Amsterdam School of Cultural Analysis, the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam. Despite her absence (yet another layer in the series’ complex play between absence and presence) she has formulated a number of thoughts concerning the topic which will be available in the next post. Thank you to Marga for her generosity as well as all who contributed their time, physical as well as conceptual presence, and insights to the discussion.

Below is an interesting reading I was referred to by a friend recently by Dutch academic, Iris van der Tuin’s

Jumping Generations: on second and third-wave feminist epistemology

Australian Feminist Studies,24:59,17 — 31 (2009)

The third Usual Suspect in our series is something of an institution:
Judith Butler will, in absentia, present the possibilities and limitations of reiterating Feminist positions in a moment of the supposedly post-political. The temporal conditions of artistic and curatorial practice require a certain agility in the performance of feminist approaches to them. Where is the place of personal politics under the usual umbrellas?

You are invited to participate in a parting tribute to the current de Appel premises – 10 Nieuwe Spiegelstraat, Amsterdam – before they hand over the keys on Tuesday the 31st of March, 2009, at 18.00 hours. Over refreshments and snacks, our non-guest Judith Butler will aid us in reflecting on de Appel’s legacy, dominated by female performances of authority, initiative and creativity – using these moments to reposition feminisms in the realm of the institutional and the individual.

A project sponsored by Fonds BKVB
and kindly co-hosted by de Appel

Clem fans at Your-space - image Erik van Tuijn

Suddenly we find ourselves listening to or investing in events and presentations merely because a specific code of intellectual discourse is being utilised and a particular person is delivering this artspeak. This provided a natural segue into the issue of authority – what was it that drew participants to the discussion itself? What is it that we seek within the words of creative thinkers by which we intend to justify our thoughts and opinions? Where are the spaces for inserting alternate views and opening these closed codes to appropriation: our own creative control? Open source discourse was one response to this – supposedly providing indiscriminate frameworks for distribution and contestation. This model, while intentionally democratic, itself comes with its own set of codes, exclusions and limitations – online anonymity is not the same as ideological autonomy or indeed intellectual authority. After having jumped headfirst into the most potent challenges posed by the Greenberg legacy – tastemaking, art and/in writing and the politics of criticality – the discussion then took multiple forms and directions. Rather than claiming to provide a totalising summary, perhaps other participants would care to elaborate…

Your-space venue

And for some clemency on the state of creative practices in art writing and distribution now:

NEWS

de Keuken

Pages

Onomatopee