[Blake_Stimson,_Gregory_Sholette]_Collectivism_aft(z-lib

dragan.tabakovic
from dragan.tabakovic More from this publisher
15.08.2023 Views

FIGURE 1.2. Le “Realisme-Socialiste” contre la revolution, 1950. Collection Stedelijk MuseumSchiedam, The Netherlands. Artist’s publication. No known copyright holder.

24 Jelena Stojanovićthe CoBrA IAE members drew heavily on his revision of Marxism and morespeciWcally on his concept of everydayness. Lefebvre’s Wrst version of the Critiqueof Everyday Life appeared in 1947 and offered a critical analysis of thedangers of techno-bureaucracy and modernization. He identiWed passivityand overwhelming boredom as a consequence of specialization and the increasingamount of leisure time that in turn made the critical analysis of realityproblematic and made creating the necessary tools of resistance extremelydifWcult. 35 In response, the CoBrA artists offered an oxymoronic product:the artist as a “professional amateur.” Through a combination of collectiveownership and active production this hybrid would, they believed, disruptthen obliterate normative, canonical modernist art making. In addition, themore they made their art temporal and ephemeral, the more commodiWcationwas resisted. Such collective, hybrid actions were always eclectic, oftenmixing together drawing, painting, poetry, sculpture, and decorative or appliedarts such as ceramics and tapestry as well as even free cinematic experimentations.These collaborative encounters between artists and nonprofessionalsalso blurred the lines of specialized distinctions, literally making others into“professional amateurs.” In addition, they also took total control of the receptionof their work by not allowing any curatorial or art-critical interference.CoBrA IAE carefully orchestrated a number of unconventionalexhibitions including the famous 1949 project at the Stedelijk Museum inAmsterdam 36 that powerfully mocked even the most unorthodox of surrealistinstallations. And contrary to surrealist happenings, they did not try to addressor remotely create any form of “modern marvelous” but, on the contrary,sought to establish a populist and festive occasion that took place within theeveryday “now.” The same irreverent, informal mode was also characteristic oftheir conferences. During the 1949 gathering in Bregneroed they collectivelyrepainted the interior of their meeting space, thus revealing the intrinsic logicof the “everyday” within common architecture while demonstrating one possibletactic of the grotesque. Many of these tactics reXected the teachings andwritings of Gaston Bachelard, 37 a French thinker of discontinuities and epistemologicalbreaks. Bachelard was in fact a philosopher of science and oneof the rare “thought professionals” the group invited to take an active partin the pages of their journal Cobra. Rejecting completely the established modernistmyth of an individualist creation ex nihilo, Bachelard argued insteadfor the importance of exchange and reuse and insisted that there are two typesof imagination: one visual, the other materialistic. For him, the importanceand power of the materialistic imagination, as opposed to the mechanical,repetitive tendency of the visual, was its ability to “reorder the world.” 38 Thiswas achieved by breaking down the existing order to build anew. Furthermore,his concept of materialistic imagination implied a careful examination of

FIGURE 1.2. Le “Realisme-Socialiste” contre la revolution, 1950. Collection Stedelijk Museum

Schiedam, The Netherlands. Artist’s publication. No known copyright holder.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!