m of care – apr 27
what is war follow up.. (from m of care – mar 30 – what is war)
https://museum.care/follow-up-on-the-previous-assembly-what-is-war/
Tom Holert – presentation of the “Against ‘Special Operation’ Images” project published on the HaFI website in early March 2022
To better understand the project, you might be interested to read Harun’s text, where he explains the concept of ‘operational images’ (in the attachment). Please note that some important details, unfortunately, got lost in translation: e.g. ‘operative pictures’ should be read as ‘operational images’.
Part 2Farocki/Graeber Assembly “Labor – Violence – Slavery” (45-50 min)
The discussion will be constructed around Harun Farocki’s film “The Silver and the Cross” (2010, 18 min) (link below) and David Graeber’s article “Turning Modes of Production Inside Out. Or, Why Capitalism is a Transformation of Slavery” (2006) (PDF in the attachment)Max Jorge Hinderer @MJHindererCruz – (Akademie der Künste der Welt, Cologne) – presentation of Farocki’s film “The Silver and the Cross”.- Zinaida Vasilyeva (Munich) – presentation of Graeber’s article “The Modes of Production”.
notes/quotes:
tom (presenter): question of labor and violence.. something in the very term.. operation.. (then went into history of the forocki foundation).. ‘our initial idea was that we need more knowldge than art.. interested in teh process of studying.. ‘
study ness and intellect ness.. and art – being human ness
tom: on documentary image production ‘the school of image and evidence.. online video profoundly changing way war is perceived..’.. on info and disinfo and gaslighting.. ‘taking doc images hostage’.. doc image making as tool.. ‘images must be made w which today’s strange world can be discovered and the present becomes history’.. farocki
naming the colour ness.. history ness
tom: farocki appauled by .. wrote in lower cased fashion: ‘who benefits from an info film is decided by level of org of opponents of class struggle.. the theory of the operative film and the theory of the operation are intertwined’
tom: lavers: ‘i spake the tree i do not speak about it.. means my language is operational.. transitively linked to its object.. the tree celebrated because the instrument of my language.. revolutionary language proper cannot be mythical’
tom: farocki: on the dehumanizing of the op image by operations.. today ‘operation’ has been occupied in the most insidious manner.. ie: econ/efficient manner; special ops; et al
tom: ends on repeat of quote.. ‘images must be made w which today’s strange world can be discovered and the present becomes history‘.. farocki
simona: looking for foto i was taught about in school.. a man running.. someone about to win race.. when foto enlarged (expanded).. it appeared it wasn’t a race.. but was a man being shot at.. this man was not winning but dying.. foto was used to teach me .. what appears to be very concrete.. not fotoshopped.. but the meaning of what happens when enlarge the frame of it.. used to say.. don’t believe in the concrete ness of the doc images
simona: on imagination.. imagining stuff before doing it.. the man thinks about images ie: where shall fallen tree fall.. have to plan.. a lot of imagination in it.. there is a lot of collective imagination in a revolution.. what is meant in fragments of anarch anthro.. ‘malagasy have egal society and belligerent imagination.. i think only way to get rid of manip of imagination.. is to be aware that humans are people who imagine.. and be aware of how our collective imagination works.. the distinction between real and imaginary is slippery when we talk of human beings
fragments of an anarchist anthropology
tom: in 50s.. (f) trying to develop self as thinking .. he speaks on myth of the left.. and how left is producing own myths of rev/class/romanticism.. for him it was an attempt to distance himself from mythologies which he blamed to be an obstacle to the development of the left at the time.. he wasn’t fond of a post war bourgeoisie.. (however).. later.. he would have agreed much more w your argument.. what he found interesting about this position was the possibility to get rid of certain myths.. it was a project of purification.. getting rid of the ethic-ization of politics at the time
max jorge hinderer cruz (presenter): on the film.. the silver and the cross.. film made in 2008 by farocki.. shown in madrid/berlin/bolivia.. exercise in anal of visible/invisible of anal of images.. relates to legendary silver city.. at same time of new era of history (colonial capitalism) formalization of production of images by church.. painting defined as the most important ideo weapon of counter reformation of roman catholic church.. that would lead us to christian indoctrination and beauty in canon by church authorities.. beginning of logic of accumulation based on resources
testart storage law ness
max: film to show proof of regime set in.. of that logic of a global process.. ‘at beginning simple theft.. today.. science.. global trade.. capital.. instead of simple theft‘.. our idea of presenting these images.. to question this intrinsic relationship .. of this worship of beauty and this logic of accumulation.. we were hoping that an anal of minds like that (of farocki) of beauty and accumulation.. and birth of art in a modern sense
max: when go thru film understand there was a whole history/science.. of this exploitation.. at end of film.. f reminds us that new tech helps us to find out of person background and help w interp of images
max: on how one traces of the reality depicted in the painting.. these new approaches have to do w relation of things we do/don’t see.. things we don’t see have to do w labor.. detailed rep of body of workers.. but we do see tiny details of bourgeoisie/artisans/servants.. but not about the ie: mining workers.. this could mean something.. f: ‘one day we might find out something about the people we’re not seeing in detail thru the people who are shown in detail’
max: one aspect became clear.. the colonial paintings may be of astonishing beauty and at same time.. proof of cruelty of regime they were embedded in and produced by..t
max: we tried to strip/decolonize the collections.. one thing we could learn from this is to understand that getting rid of the images wouldn’t be a successful process of decolonization.. but a process of trying to anal what happened .. and that violence was the only thing that structured global econ and it still does.. to understand their beauty and their content.. learn from paintings.. they are our allies in wanting to make a change.. this beauty produced by accumulation.. what we call capitalism.. we need to understand them to go thru this process
zinaida vasilyeva (host): i like the provocation of the invisible via f.. goes w private/public spaces in his (david’s) text.. modes of production in 2006 .. long misunderstood by focus on material production.. spaces that remain invisible.. ie: domestic.. so this work is sometimes care.. sometimes invisible.. while all the time invisible..
structural violence et al.. steiner care to oppression law et al
zinaida: on reality being bigger than what we see in the pictures.. on the technique of making something invisible.. et al
nothing hidden.. batra hide in public law.. et al
z: on things that last in time.. we know only possible because of visible violence.. paradoxically this duration legitimizes the violence.. which was the origin of it.. it creates its logic.. therefore hard to question
luis feduchi: like how max ended w images as allies.. these texts are actually allies of graeber and wengrow.. of what they describe that is forgotten
max: (is it inelegant to ask if i might say something).. on beauty being a gift.. political struggles are struggles for dominance of narrative.. and they are a judgement of beauty.. we need to keep that in mind when we think of beauty..
z: we are taught what to believe is beautiful.. ie: in museums
simona: i’m amazed of how the tree speaks.. your idea of what is visible/invisible in production/history.. give sense to what max/antje said.. very interesting..
avi: a thought while reading this paper.. wondering how relates to 2 films.. people spending a lot of time trying to make sense of contradictory ness of what people do.. it’s nice when there’s attention to things that are otherwise.. sometimes i feel like that argument tends to be that a lot of attention gets put on trying to make sense of ie: wife/employee of husbands/employers ideas.. while forgetting to also talk about what’s happening
nika: makes a lot of sense.. puts back to what we’re doing in these convos.. that’s from lecture when david talked about his mom dying.. that’s what you quoted.. also want to say.. when i proposed this theme about slavery/labor/war.. i was thinking about.. what’ constitutes a slave.. this human being that is deprived on social ties
z: to summarize this idea of mode of production.. via david.. violence is most used.. ie: war.. profession becomes to kill other people.. tech as trying to normalize this..
max lawson: violence is predictable.. you know what’s going to happen
graeber unpredictability/surprise law et al
max lawson: on film.. and on some people choosing to go into these mines.. some people enjoyed putting selves in this bizarre world
max jorge: i can clarify.. those who did wouldn’t want to journey back to own communities.. interesting about free and forced/wage labor.. relate to each other and create competition.. which is still based on forced deportation of people.. t
tweet from gary slutkin today [https://twitter.com/GSlutkin/status/1518948730191462406]:
The contagion of impact of the disease of violence in the absence of effective in-place mechanisms to prevent outbreaks.
#Ukraine https://t.co/S8l8S7rP7B
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/GSlutkin/status/1518948730191462406
z: on choice between chances to die in diff ways
avi: i wonder how leisure time fits into what graeber is talking about
graeber unpredictability/surprise law
tom holert (antje?): on politics based on threats and fear mongering..
z: interesting that those pics are the machinery..
_________
________
_________
________
_________
_________
be you. 