[Blake_Stimson,_Gregory_Sholette]_Collectivism_aft(z-lib
Beyond Representation and AfWliation 255This defensiveness, in many cases coupled with the larger refusalto address Russia’s past, led to a situation when many Russian artists andintellectuals turned to themselves as subjects of their study—certainly notsomething unheard of in the history of art or ideas. Their own personalgrievances and feelings were often expressed as symptoms of Soviet and post-Soviet life, and something that “the West” would not be able to understandfully. Of course, such works can be successful both aesthetically and commercially,but they may well be based on an “egological” foundation. In otherwords, such works can be protective of a self that feels threatened from encounteringsomething or someone foreign, and we should be careful not tonaturalize and hence neutralize this question and instead look to their socialand political genealogy.MOSCOW ACTIONISM AND THE CRISISOF REPRESENTATIONArguably, Moscow Actionism as represented by its conceptual formulator,Anatoly Osmolovsky, was the only art movement in post-Soviet Russia thatarticulated itself as derivative from “the left”—be it Marx, Lenin, and Russianand Soviet history, contemporary antiglobalization theorists, the FrankfurtSchool, or “1968” French intellectuals. It is interesting that this leftismcreated a certain agenda that made the connection between art and politicsseemingly natural with art being positioned as activism, as direct publicaction. The other two well-known representatives of Moscow Actionism—Alexander Brenner and Oleg Kulik—were different in this respect. Theirstrategy was also direct public action in line with the social and economicchaos of the 1990s but without Marxist or leftist underpinnings. AlexanderBrenner’s actions included drawing a green dollar sign on Malevich’s paintingWhite Cross on White in Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, and walkinginto the Kremlin to claim state power from Yeltsin. Oleg Kulik is mostknown for his performance A Mad Dog or the Last Taboo Guarded by a LonelyCerberus, with A. Brenner (Guelman Gallery, November 23, 1994, Moscow),subsequently repeated in other cities, in which a naked Kulik barkedand threw himself on passersby. Such gestures are usually explained as correspondingto the “chaos of the 1990s” and according to various theories oftransgression and abjection. For our purposes here we will focus on one politicalaction and movement: Nongovernmental Control Commission (Vnepravitil’stvennayaKontrol’naya Komissiya), 1996–2001, organized by Osmolovskytogether with several other Moscow artists, theorists, and activists includingA. Ter-Oganyan, O. Kireev, D. Pimenov, I. Chubarov, D. Gutov, andothers.
256 Irina AristarkhovaAt various points in his writings, Anatoly Osmolovsky has triedto address this crisis of representation without throwing out the idea of politicallyengaged art altogether. For him, “the absence of true knowledge of theworld, the collapse of homogenous social structures and subcultures, and theimpossibility of developing a logical behavior inevitably make us deny oneof the main political principles of social governance—the principle of representation.”He continues thus in his inXuential 1998 article:The whole democratic parliamentary and party system is based on the principle of representation.Their profession is to express our opinion! But isn’t it the main goal of a modernleftist to create the social conditions through which each would have his own opinionand thus would be free from the totalizing state machine? Maybe Lenin’s famous catchphrase“Every kitchen-maid will be able to rule a country” was the establishment of everyordinary member of society having his own personal opinion within Communism? Moreover,this very presence of personal opinion can be the warranty and the carte blanchefor any pretension to any kind of governance.Don’t be afraid of insane ideas—they are never clinically insane! Singularity andthe intensive “drive” of thinking is the sign of modern competence! Did anyone thinkwhy Zhirinovsky won the 1994 election (and in 1996 proved that his success was not anaccident)? Only due to that competency! 3Such reXexivity and vigilance to not speak for others is somethingthat was, and still remains, an ill-articulated issue in Russian contemporaryart, and it is often disguised as a response to Western superWcial politicalcorrectness. According to many hasty critics, such singularity disables politics—itputs the artist in a situation of silence and impotence, with no basisfor action or its justiWcation. “And what are we to do now,” such critics ask,“nothing?” Even though we might disagree with Osmolovsky’s transfer ofthe question of representation from politicians to artists, his insistence thatreXexivity is the most important question for politically engaged art had aunique vitality in an era of apathy.The main action the group is known for and that made their worksigniWcantly distinct is one that is directly connected to the Russian electionsand leftist thought—the Against All Parties Campaign, a project thatincluded street actions, publications, and exhibitions. The Against All PartiesCampaign work exploited the typical election process. In addition to theactual standing political candidates and party afWliations, the Russian ballothas one further line that reads “Against All Parties, Groups, and Candidates.”As such, if a voting person strongly feels that none of the candidatessatisfy his or her demands in elections, he or she can express this by choosingthe vote option “Against All.” Osmolosvky’s project made a politicalcampaign advocating for this particular option. Additionally, according tothe current Russian election law, if other candidates or parties receive lessvotes than the “Against All” candidate (as they term such a ballot option
- Page 224 and 225: Artists’ Collectives Mostly in Ne
- Page 226 and 227: FIGURE 7.7. Doug Ashford of Group M
- Page 228 and 229: FIGURE 7.9. General Idea, Baby Make
- Page 230 and 231: Artists’ Collectives Mostly in Ne
- Page 232 and 233: Artists’ Collectives Mostly in Ne
- Page 234 and 235: Artists’ Collectives Mostly in Ne
- Page 236 and 237: Artists’ Collectives Mostly in Ne
- Page 238 and 239: Artists’ Collectives Mostly in Ne
- Page 240 and 241: Artists’ Collectives Mostly in Ne
- Page 242 and 243: 8. The Production of Social Space a
- Page 244 and 245: The Production of Social Space as A
- Page 246 and 247: The Production of Social Space as A
- Page 248 and 249: The Production of Social Space as A
- Page 250 and 251: The Production of Social Space as A
- Page 252 and 253: The Production of Social Space as A
- Page 254 and 255: The Production of Social Space as A
- Page 256 and 257: FIGURE 8.3. Le Groupe Amos, Peuple
- Page 258 and 259: The Production of Social Space as A
- Page 260 and 261: The Production of Social Space as A
- Page 262 and 263: The Production of Social Space as A
- Page 264 and 265: The Production of Social Space as A
- Page 266 and 267: The Production of Social Space as A
- Page 268 and 269: The Production of Social Space as A
- Page 270 and 271: The Production of Social Space as A
- Page 272 and 273: 9. Beyond Representation andAfWliat
- Page 276 and 277: Beyond Representation and AfWliatio
- Page 278 and 279: Beyond Representation and AfWliatio
- Page 280 and 281: Beyond Representation and AfWliatio
- Page 282 and 283: Beyond Representation and AfWliatio
- Page 284 and 285: Beyond Representation and AfWliatio
- Page 286 and 287: Beyond Representation and AfWliatio
- Page 288 and 289: Beyond Representation and AfWliatio
- Page 290 and 291: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 292 and 293: 10. Do-It-Yourself Geopolitics:Cart
- Page 294 and 295: Do-It-Yourself Geopolitics 275produ
- Page 296 and 297: Do-It-Yourself Geopolitics 277J18 o
- Page 298 and 299: Do-It-Yourself Geopolitics 279and r
- Page 300 and 301: Do-It-Yourself Geopolitics 281parad
- Page 302 and 303: FIGURE 10.3. Detail of Bureau d’E
- Page 304 and 305: Do-It-Yourself Geopolitics 285The c
- Page 306 and 307: Do-It-Yourself Geopolitics 287etc.
- Page 308 and 309: FIGURE 10.7. Poster for Euro Mayday
- Page 310 and 311: Do-It-Yourself Geopolitics 291Weld
- Page 312 and 313: Do-It-Yourself Geopolitics 293de pe
- Page 314 and 315: ContributorsIrina Aristarkhova is a
- Page 316 and 317: Contributors 297Reiko Tomii is an i
- Page 318 and 319: IndexABC No Rio, 204, 219 n. 29abst
- Page 320 and 321: Index 301Blanco, José Joaquín, 17
- Page 322 and 323: Index 303Foster, Hal, 231, 249 n. 9
Beyond Representation and AfWliation 255
This defensiveness, in many cases coupled with the larger refusal
to address Russia’s past, led to a situation when many Russian artists and
intellectuals turned to themselves as subjects of their study—certainly not
something unheard of in the history of art or ideas. Their own personal
grievances and feelings were often expressed as symptoms of Soviet and post-
Soviet life, and something that “the West” would not be able to understand
fully. Of course, such works can be successful both aesthetically and commercially,
but they may well be based on an “egological” foundation. In other
words, such works can be protective of a self that feels threatened from encountering
something or someone foreign, and we should be careful not to
naturalize and hence neutralize this question and instead look to their social
and political genealogy.
MOSCOW ACTIONISM AND THE CRISIS
OF REPRESENTATION
Arguably, Moscow Actionism as represented by its conceptual formulator,
Anatoly Osmolovsky, was the only art movement in post-Soviet Russia that
articulated itself as derivative from “the left”—be it Marx, Lenin, and Russian
and Soviet history, contemporary antiglobalization theorists, the Frankfurt
School, or “1968” French intellectuals. It is interesting that this leftism
created a certain agenda that made the connection between art and politics
seemingly natural with art being positioned as activism, as direct public
action. The other two well-known representatives of Moscow Actionism—
Alexander Brenner and Oleg Kulik—were different in this respect. Their
strategy was also direct public action in line with the social and economic
chaos of the 1990s but without Marxist or leftist underpinnings. Alexander
Brenner’s actions included drawing a green dollar sign on Malevich’s painting
White Cross on White in Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, and walking
into the Kremlin to claim state power from Yeltsin. Oleg Kulik is most
known for his performance A Mad Dog or the Last Taboo Guarded by a Lonely
Cerberus, with A. Brenner (Guelman Gallery, November 23, 1994, Moscow),
subsequently repeated in other cities, in which a naked Kulik barked
and threw himself on passersby. Such gestures are usually explained as corresponding
to the “chaos of the 1990s” and according to various theories of
transgression and abjection. For our purposes here we will focus on one political
action and movement: Nongovernmental Control Commission (Vnepravitil’stvennaya
Kontrol’naya Komissiya), 1996–2001, organized by Osmolovsky
together with several other Moscow artists, theorists, and activists including
A. Ter-Oganyan, O. Kireev, D. Pimenov, I. Chubarov, D. Gutov, and
others.