Regimes of Representation - Art and Politics beyond The House of People
Symposium - Thursday 11 January, 2007
Regimes of Representation - Art and Politics beyond The House of People
Conference hall of MNAC, B-dul Balcescu 2, Bucharest Romania
10.15 Registration / doors open
11.15 Welcome Ruxandra Balaci
11.30 Introduction Vinca Kruk
11.45 Keynote: Chantal Mouffe Agonistic politics and artistic practices
12.45 Nicolas Bourriaud
14.00 Jonathan Dronsfield Art and democracy at the founding of foundation
14.45 Marcus Steinweg The obscurantism of facts
15.30 4Space (Augustin Ioan and Ciprian Mihali)Singular object: the house of the republic resisting interpretations
16.30 Round table with all speakers moderated by Daniel van der Velden
Agonistic politics and artistic practices
- Chantal Mouffe
In my presentation I will discuss the different ways to envisage the public space and scrutinize the implications of
this discussion for artistic practices. My argument will be that public art is not art located in a place that is public -
as opposed to private space. Public art is art that institutes a public space, in the sense of a common action by people. I will for instance address the question of what kind of public progressive art institutions should try to institute: a public space that aims at establishing consensus or a public space of agonistic confrontation?
Taking my bearings from my previous work, I will first show that the task of democratic politics is not to aggregate
interests or to attempt at reaching a rational consensus, but to transform antagonism into agonism. Then I will draw
the consequences of this approach to understand the relation between art and politics and to grasp the nature of critical
artistic practices. What is at stake, I will argue, is the questioning of the dominant hegemony by bringing to the fore all
the aspects that the dominant consensus is trying to repress. I will insist on the multiplicity of ways in which this consensus
can be undermined and show that artistic practices can contribute in a variety
of ways to the fostering of new forms of subjectivities.
Art and democracy at the founding of foundation
- Jonathan Lahey Dronsfield
The building in which MNAC is housed was constructed to found - according to dictator Nicolae Ceausescu who ordered its construction - a 'new man'.
As such it occurs as foundation, not just the foundation of a national identity, but the foundation of foundation itself. It is this essential feature that mnac has to negotiate. But how exactly can art 'take over' such a building 'as a symbol of openness and democracy', as is claimed for MNAC by Nicolas Bourriaud in his capacity as a founding member of its advisory board?
What is presupposed by such a claim? Might it not repeat something troubling about the building's original founding? This paper will draw from what is
troubling about Bourriaud's presuppositions about art, and contrary to his notion of relational aesthetics, the sense in which art's resistance
to politics is necessary for the institution of democracy.
The obscurantism of facts
- Marcus Steinweg
Neither philosophy nor art are matters of proof or opinion. Philosophy and art posit things, they assert. Assertion is
distinguished from proof and opinion since it has to make do without certainty. A philosophy of assertion is a philosophy in
uncertainty. It surpasses and transgresses the modalities of conventional thinking such as reflection, argument, grounding,
and criticism. It is a matter of the subject touching a truth in uncertainty and giving this instance of contact a form, a language.
Truth refers to the limits of the world of facts. Philosophy exists only in that it touches these limits. It is an assertion that
denies the validity of the imperatives of the factual. Touching upon truth, philosophy has to resist the certainty of opinion and the
obscurantism of facts in equal measure. It is a touching of the untouchable and it makes this touching into a life-form.
My aim is to defend the political relevance of art and philosophy against conventional political art and political philosophy.
I intend to show that political art and political philosophy establish their own de-politicization. They are not concerned with a
politics of freedom, of the impossible and what is most necessary. The politics I am referring to differ from what is usually called politics.
This type of politics does not assert or defend interests. It would be about a resistance against the order of socio-political and ideo-cultural reality.
It would articulate itself by absolutely refusing the universe of facts and the opinions circulating in this universe. It would be a politics of truth
insofar as it considers proof as what comes into conflict with established certainties. It causes the voice of official truth to stutter and be brought to silence.
I want to show that art only has meaning as art. Philosophy only has meaning as philosophy. It does not serve to reduce art and
philosophy to the socio-political field in which they articulate themselves. It does not make sense to define the mission of art and philosophy as political.
'That is the left-wing illusion of the past few decades,' Heiner Müller argues 'of European intellectuals and particularly the literati,
that there could be and should be a community of interests between art and politics. Ultimately, art cannot be controlled. Or it can always
evade control. And for this reason it has been… almost automatically subversive.'
Singular object: the house of the republic resisting interpretations
- 4Space (Augustin Ioan & Ciprian Mihali)
The significance of the Ultimate Edifice and, setting out from it, the Boulevard of Victorious Socialism - or rather the anti-urban phenomenon that
is officially called 'the new civic center' - has been interpreted lately: their conception and construction and their use from the communist period
before 1989 up to the present. Any attempt to set them in order should start from two premises. Firstly, the respective edifice resists any unique,
'holistic' interpretation that could exhaust meanings in matters of production and destination. Secondly, there are important distinctions between
the modalities of explaining the building from the threefold vantage of its spaces. These spaces are first of all the exterior space, i.e. the city.
Next there's the exterior space of the building, i.e. its close vicinity, in the crooked language of post-Soviet politics or the huge halo of influence
that the monstrous structure exuded. Finally, there's the outer space. Since verifiable data are lacking, oral studies only account for having established
the nearly 'occult' nature of the biggest urban operation in the history of Romania. These oral sources include unfinished and unpublished studies such as
the one by Gérard Althabe from the ehess in Paris and legends recounted by eye-witnesses or just by former 'initiated persons' such as Professor Cornel
Dumitrescu, the one-time rector of iaim Bucharest. As said, this colossal project owes its imaginary, mythical dimension to the wave of petites histoires it generated.
The most valuable interpretations, even if partial, are to be found not exactly in the discourse on architecture and urbanism but rather in that of the
socio-human sciences, political science, history of mentalities, anthropology of the peri-urban (slum), and, not lastly, in psychoanalysis.
The various sensible projects submitted in connection with the Republic House after 1989 vacillate between two extremes: the least extreme
proposes to 'recuperate' the House in a strictly professional jargon of architectural 'expertise'.
This has been used not only by architects but also by diverse interpreters of the house and by guides who show mesmerized foreigners around.
At the bottom line of the bottom-line commentary on the Republic House (as poet Nichita Stanescu would have put it), we are dealing with quantity,
size, forms of design, special structures and so on. At the upper line of the bottom line we can approach 'the postmodernism' of the House and of
the Boulevard of Victorious Socialism, its 'Bigness' (Rem Koolhaas) and other concepts that could prove useful. In discussions about the House, the 'higher'
aspect (in the strict sense of ab/use, of excessive investment with meaning) is taken as an epiphany. The House is like a heavenly Jerusalemite temple elevated in
Bucharest in view of a second coming to take place on the spot.
One interpretation renders the numerous social, economic, political folds of the edifice occult - often deliberately because guiltily so.
Others go into an interpretative frenzy before it. Between these extremes flutters a practically endless concatenation of 'grays'. For instance,
the nationalist rhetoric is boosted by the apparently neutral data regarding construction technologies and materials that are, apparently, all
exclusively Romanian and, of course, superlative. (At times, the Peles Castle comes into the picture as a corollary. Here, even the wood was imported). There are also the much more decent, professionally speaking, but no less phantasmagoric ideas concerning a pre-established plan of Bucharest setting out from utopian, ideal schemes of the Sforzinda type (Dana Harhoiu). The structuring origin of this would be a sacred geometry made up of a monastic 'Triangle of the Bermudas', with parish churches laid concentrically in relation to the St. George Old Church that is considered the navel of the city.