| f | | | 3 on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:11:01 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Nettime-ro] Pavilion UniCredit: A Prostitute’s Tale
Q: Re: your friend + his story: What is the purpose of exhibiting 'art' in a curated context +? 
A:  Prostitution.


Q:  What is the modus operandi of Modern Democracy +?

A:  Prostitution + Desecration of Life.
Q: What is the purpose of Non-Stop Reklame + perjovschi [TM] Etichete on Nettime & elsewhere +? 
A:  Ubiquitous Prostitution.


Q:  Why are 'artists' proud of prostituting their assets +?

A:  Prostitution Makes You FREE ....  \+\ vvvvvv.free








Western Democracy  = the Prostitution of Life
Pavilion UniCredit = an Agent of Western Democracy, ie. 01 miserable amalgam of Korporate Pimps 


Prostitution promulgates Prostitution
\for\
Prostitution promulgates Prostitution


\+\
Korporate Pimps such as Pavilion Unicredit
who prostitute themselves to Unicredit. Pilsner Urquell + other pulafashion image marketing pimps with the agreement of in turn prostituting gullible 'artists', for example your friend, 
are the democratic equivalent of human trafficking skkumm




What is the moral of this story?
Modern Democracy. Pavilion Unicredit \+\ etc Korporate Pimps == \SSk \um 








The artist was thrilled to receive this invitation.

You know the look:  01 naive + gullible 2x being primed with cheap  
kitschy gifts for the  |   DESEKRATION    |




He read the concept for the show and discovered that it was filled  
with important ideas and stirring expressions that he liked a lot.

You know the look: 'he is so cool, smooth, clever and exciting,  
everything your cute, gullible mind could think of, and ... when
he enters on his imperial white horse you just can't help urself but  
dissolve into a warm, glowing pool of glacial melting.  mhhhhm.




The emancipatory aspect of modernity as an unfinished project…



Curators/Pimps -- turning the infinity of Life + Love into PURE  
DEMOKRATIK F!LTH



\

ZUKc!T\+c

\











On Feb 19, 2010, at 11:48 AM, joanne richardson wrote:


M-a rugat un prieten sa trimit aceasta scrisoare pe lista...

******

Pavilion UniCredit: An Artist’s Tale
http://chtodelat.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/pavilion-unicredit-an-artists-tale/


I would like the following text to serve as a continuation of the  
discussion on the economy of the contemporary art world and the  
place of art and creative labor in the world of capital.

Let’s begin with a simple tale.


Once upon a time there was an artist who was so naïve that he  
thought that artists, as workers, should receive compensation for  
participation in shows and screenings of their works. Despite the  
disappointing experiences he’d had when he’d tried to press these  
issues in many projects, he thought it made sense to try his best  
and see what came of it, especially when his art works were invited  
to spaces marked by the obvious presence of capital (or where one  
could presume its presence). When he made his modest requests, he  
usually received the answer that there was no money. Neither for  
artist fees, nor for travel, nor for production. Curators usually  
just asked him and his colleagues to send copies of their films or  
print files of their works – they would do the rest. Most artists  
thus had little chance to see the many beautiful, important shows  
that were made with their work and thus to grow professionally.

The artist was a member of a collective. This collective did not  
have a gallery, and most of the videos they produced were self- 
financed (or underfinanced) with the vague hope that one day they  
might be able to raise money for a new production. To make matters  
worse, they worked under public license.

One day the artist received a polite letter from a nice curator whom  
he had never met. The curator was pleased to invite the artist to  
screen a video work at a show. She explained how the video was  
crucial to the whole concept of the show. She even asked the artist  
to produce a new graphic piece that would work in conjunction with  
the video.

The artist was thrilled to receive this invitation. He read the  
concept for the show and discovered that it was filled with  
important ideas and stirring expressions that he liked a lot. The  
emancipatory aspect of modernity as an unfinished project… The  
question of the contemporary emancipatory potential of revolutionary  
ideas, of socialism and communism… The role of art in the  
transformation of society. And so on.

He thought to himself that it was terrific there were curators and  
venues that worried about the issues dear to his heart. He read the  
name of the place where he had been invited to exhibit: Pavilion  
UniCredit in Bucharest. This particular space was renowned for  
supporting the most radical (even revolutionary) practices and some  
of the most leftist and socially concerned international artists.

He recalled that this cutting-edge space with its radical agenda was  
run by a guy he had once met; this man had also invited him to a big  
biennale he was organizing. He also recalled that this fellow had  
complained his space was very poorly financed because his country  
was the poorest in Europe. They had begun to argue about just this  
fact. The artist felt that since this fellow’s space was named in  
honor of a big bank, it might make sense to push this bank for more  
solid support. Otherwise, when local institutions were not treated  
as equal partners, and their hard work was poorly compensated, you  
ended up with something that smacked of the neocolonial exploitation  
of resources and people, of local miseries and inequalities.There  
was nothing wrong with the bank’s sponsorship itself, he thought,  
but there was something perverse about featuring the bank’s name  
without securing enough funding to run a decent program and treat  
artists and contributors

right.


The artist recalled all this when he got the invitation. He Googled  
the name of the bank’s Romanian branch and within minutes he learned  
that UniCredit, one of the most powerful banks in Europe, was also  
well known for its social responsibility and support of culture:

"The banks who united their forces to create UniCredit Group have a  
long tradition in promoting culture and local artistic  
manifestations, in the countries where they are present. This  
involvement is proved by UniCredit Group’s vast art collection and  
by the tens of initiatives within the UniCredit & Art Project.
Being very close to the communities where we are present, we try to  
maintain a strong relationship with them, by encouraging all the  
initiatives that contribute to their cultural enrichment. Thus, we  
encourage cultural diversity, by supporting music, literature, film  
and plastic art projects."

http://www.unicredit-tiriac.ro/sustainability/partnerships-sponsorships/art-culture


"As part of a banking group with a tradition in supporting the arts,  
UniCredit Tiriac Bank has a strong interest in cultural artistic  
projects. We already have a tradition in supporting social and  
environment protection projects. We believe in the power of example,  
and this is why we involve our employees in the various projects  
that we support.
Beyond its main objective of making profit, we think that a private  
company has a responsibility to give something back to the  
community. Without this, we cannot speak of sustainability."

http://www.unicredit-tiriac.ro/sustainability/policies-strategy


"[The UniCredit Integrity Charter] encourage[s] the growth of shared  
feelings and experiences among all our colleagues."

http://www.unicredit-tiriac.ro/about-us/mission-values/integrity-charter


Our artist was not a purist. As long as UniCredit had such good  
policies, that meant it should respect artists and cultural  
initiatives, particularly when its name was on the marquee of the  
art space it sponsored. How could it show its respect for artists?  
By supporting their work with serious funding and providing decent  
working conditions for guest curators and everyone involved in their  
projects.

He imagined what it would be like if he ran a project space in  
Petersburg called Sberbank Chto Delat or Gazprom Chto Delat and then  
sat around complaining that there wasn’t adequate funding for its  
programs. Wouldn’t other artists expect to be paid for their work if  
they exhibited at a space with such a solid-sounding name?

After mulling over all these things, he agreed to participate in the  
show at Pavilion UniCredit.

In his letter, he modestly asked the curator whether a fee would be  
paid for his work and for screening his collective’s video.

The curator sent him a rather detailed reply. There was no money for  
artist fees: all the money had gone into building a new wall and  
dimming the windows and so on and so forth. There was no money left  
for anything else, but still it is a great space, etc. In short, it  
was the same old story.

This was no great surprise to the artist. But as someone who had  
been developing a class consciousness and who saw artists and other  
creative and intellectual workers as a new kind of exploited  
proletariat, he couldn’t help thinking that it was irresponsible to  
go on making his peace with this business as usual.

So he again modestly asked the curator whether it wouldn’t make  
sense for all the participants involved in this project (the  
organizers included) to raise in a general way the issue of  
financial support from rich corporate sponsors. Maybe it would be a  
good idea to challenge them to extend their nice-sounding concept of  
social responsibility to artistic workers – that is, to themselves  
and their colleagues? He merely wanted to spark a discussion in the  
good old spirit of institutional critique. He didn’t want to cause a  
scandal – just to get folks to start thinking.

And because the piece the curator wanted him to exhibit was a video  
about Brecht and the dialectic, the artist thought it would be great  
to bring this message into their present working situation and try  
to prove that things didn’t have to remain the way they were. He  
also thought that the graphic statement he had been asked to produce  
for the show should likewise reflect these questions.

The guest curator liked his idea a lot. What could be wrong with it?  
Radical spaces like Pavilion UniCredit usually savored these kinds  
of tough issues. It would be possible to organize a discussion of  
the precarious conditions of artistic labor. They could then publish  
a radical newspaper with support from UniCredit in which dozens of  
brilliant precarious contributors would ponder this business of not  
getting paid for their work. Of course they would do so for free  
(or, at very least, for the nice food stamps called per diems in the  
art world). There was no money to finance this important debate,  
which in reality would cost almost nothing, perhaps a millionth of  
the budget for a run-of-the-mill corporate dinner.

The artist’s dialogue with the curator was going well until the  
folks at Pavilion UniCredit got wind of what he was proposing. They  
informed him (indirectly, via the curator) that their board couldn’t  
permit anyone to exhibit an attack on their institution (even in the  
form of an artwork) within the institution itself. And that was  
that: the artist’s piece, allegedly so crucial to the concept of the  
show, was disinvited with amazing alacrity and without any further  
discussion.

Why? The artist could only guess at the real reasons because the  
managers of Pavilion UniCredit refused further contact with him and  
thus foreclosed the possibility of a real discussion. Was it because  
the artist was a greedy egomaniac with a passion for scandal? Or was  
it because artists could not be allowed to raise questions of any  
sort about production? Or was it because the artist had mildly  
challenged the grey economy of sponsorship?

*****

What is the moral of this story?


We might say that this story is too local and too bound up with  
personal peculiarities and emotions to have any general  
significance. This is true to some extent. The artist, however,  
believes that such cases should be made public. If today’s  
undeclared status quo is that artists are expected to keep their  
mouths shut and let institutions decide how things should be done  
and what things should be discussed, then this is wrong. Radicalism  
in art, culture, and thought should not be the exclusive property of  
institutions backed with power and money.

In short, institutions should not be free to abuse artists with  
their arrogance and incompetence. They should face the consequences  
of their behavior, even when they are located in Europe’s poorest  
country and backed by the richest corporate sponsors.

– Dmitry Vilensky, Saint Petersburg, 17.02.2010


P.S. The exhibition Comrades of Time opens at Pavilion UniCredit in  
Bucharest on February 18. Angry Sandwichpeople, or In Praise of  
Dialectics, a work by the Chto Delat collective, was disinvited from  
the show by the board of Pavilion UniCredit because, in discussion  
with the curator, Dmitry Vilensky (Chto Delat collective) suggested  
raising the issue of the project’s funding and artist fees. The work  
can be viewed online at: http://vimeo.com/6879250




_______________________________________________
Nettime-ro mailing list
Nettime-ro@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-ro
-->
arhiva: http://amsterdam.nettime.org/

_______________________________________________
Nettime-ro mailing list
Nettime-ro@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-ro
-->
arhiva: http://amsterdam.nettime.org/