|
|
| (24 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9757/mircalla.gif
| |
|
| |
|
| This chapter will focus on investigating the recent changes in the ways power structures operate. Analysing the shift from early power formations, based on the use of discipline as the force modelling the bodies, to ones relying on a process of gradual internalization of command. The struggle against the Fordist model has been resolved within the social cycle of production through the progressive incorporation of living labour and personal sphere within production. The old dichotomies between “mental and manual labour”, intellectuality and workforce, between labour and creativity have been transcended within the labour process and reimposed as political command. In this way productive activity is no longer confined in the four walls of a factory, operates as a “diffuse factory” and generates almost no resistance.
| |
|
| |
|
| The incorporation of living labour and the personal sphere within production requires
| | ... |
| the progressive investment of subjectivity and therefore the field of production is right where social relationships are produced: society at large. This ongoing colonization of all the realms of existence has its consequences, first and foremost: new relationships between production and consumption. Leisure time and work time are becoming indistinguishable and precariousness, hyper exploitation, mobility and yet hierarchy are the final outputs of this mode of production. Tertiarization is not limited to highly skilled workers any longer, this becomes particularly evident in the creative sector, specially in the arts field, where the increasing demand to deliver individually branded, yet readily recognizable products, has established the solitary performer as the professional norm. '''[this is interesting-how far will you go with this in reflecting on your own practice?-ted]'''
| |
| The imperative for all to “become subjects” is a symptom of a broader transformation of the social sphere that forces us to question the classic definition of labour and think of alternative strategies to develop work.
| |
|
| |
|
| '''[how does the bit above this relate to the bit below this? i know there are obvious links and shared concerns, and its from research to practice, but be more explicit-ted]'''
| | Z: Let´s say I shoot this arrow. |
|
| |
|
| From Appropriation to Invocation (Working title).
| | H: Hmm. |
|
| |
|
| Building on previous research I will continue exploring the relationship between the archive and memory. If no act of documentation is unintentional, the archive is never a mere collection of accidents producing traces that need to be preserved. Disregarding the innocence of archiving means not only pointing out the nosological gaze behind any preservation of traces but also requires the development of strategies to activate the archive. In order to do so one has to be aware of collective dimension of the archive while considering the role individual objects, events and stories play in it.
| | Z: Well let´s rather think I am this arrow… |
|
| |
|
| '''[i want to understand concretely how we go from appropriation to invocation-how does this work? invocation makes me think of gases or smoke for some reason-ted]'''
| | H: Alright. |
|
| |
|
| In an intuitive way I was already developing collaborative structures through my work, not only as practical choice but also as a way to point out the social dimension of the production of knowledge. As opposed to the supposedly stable archive, my practise is not concerned with the factual accuracy of documents. It does not matter if documents are a blueprint of something already existing in the world, on the contrary they are rather the result of a “creative” activity understood as a process capable of rendering something else present. The inherited theoretical primacy of facts must be challenged. A way of doing this is by letting objects and stories to set their own parameters, discarding their examination through the binary opposition fiction and non fiction. If we want to do justice to the rich and complex stories already circulating, those that are able to capture our imagination, facts should be treated as a processes '''[this is a really good phrase, maybe emphasise it!-ted]'''. This is especially relevant if we intend to investigate the capacity of some objects to crystallize concrete social arrangements and how they mediate social relationships.
| | Z: So if we were to think my path we would agree it is a linear trajectory. |
|
| |
|
| I propose to see the archive as a shared place that enables one to maintain the past as well as to exercise the capacity to aspire. As in earlier work, my emphasis will be on how to make visible the set of relationships and social conditions that underly the production of “things”. Proceeding from the consideration that this distinction between fiction and elaborating a repertoire that increasingly requires presence, just in the same way people participate in the production and reproduction of knowledge. Knowledge only exists in the social realm and consequently any work aspiring to reflect on this collective dimension of knowledge has always to start with exercising a certain agency. '''[what does this mean in terms of how one acts with the archive-ted]''' | | H: Well, I suppose if we were to think of you as an arrow, we might as well consider your trajectory. |
|
| |
|
| | (Z sets to drawing in a piece of paper) |
|
| |
|
| | Z: As any other line does, this trajectory will made up of a sequence of points and positions. |
| | A sequence of positions that in the commonsense way I, the arrow, occupy one after the other. |
|
| |
|
| '''[i think this bit below here doesnt give any particularly new information and could be dissolved into the first paragraph-ted]'''
| | Z: The problem is that between one point on a line and the next, there is an infinity of points. |
|
| |
|
| As we have seen the production mode of today is directly related to the ability to create and navigate social relations, where the “raw material” is at the same time subjectivity and collectivity. But under the growing imperative for all to “become subjects” and the progressive incorporation of living labour within production, any subject faces the risk of becoming a simple relayer in the process of information. In the past decades, this and other effects of Immaterial Labour affecting subjectivity have become increasingly evident:
| | Z: Of course is in the nature of infinity that you can never get to the end of it. |
| | So if I occupy any point along my path I will never reach the next, |
| | unless I occupy each of the infinity of points in between. |
|
| |
|
| -the incorporation of living labour and personal sphere within production. | | H: I-dont-un-der-stand-what-you-are-try-ing-to-say. |
| -the colonization of all the realms of existence and the transformation of every domain of social life into a economic space. | |
| -leisure time and work time becoming indistinguishable. | |
| -precariousness, hyper exploitation, mobility and yet hierarchy. are the final outputs of this mode of production. | |
| -the privatization and the growing fragmentation of the social sphere. | |
|
| |
|
| For the final stage of the course I would like to develop a core of work that tries, both in a theoretical and practical way, to reappropriate these symptoms using them as source material. Opening new possibilities aside from the exhaustion created by the continual capitalization of the recent past and the near future.
| | Z: No? You see! (Z points at the drawing) |
| | My path implodes and the trajectory becomes an infinity of points. I am stuck. |
| | |
| | H: You are stuck in thought! |
| | |
| | Z: Aaaargghhh! No. I get swallowed up in the transitional infinity. |
| | |
| | H: Or if you moved it is because it was never any point. A path is not composed of points. It´s a dynamic unity. It doesn´t stop till it stops! |
| | Then, and only then, your trajectory can be plotted. Retrospectively. Once you Mr. Arrow´d hit the target. Then, working backward from the movement´s end. |
| | |
| | H: Before that you just throw yourself into the future. |
...
Z: Let´s say I shoot this arrow.
H: Hmm.
Z: Well let´s rather think I am this arrow…
H: Alright.
Z: So if we were to think my path we would agree it is a linear trajectory.
H: Well, I suppose if we were to think of you as an arrow, we might as well consider your trajectory.
(Z sets to drawing in a piece of paper)
Z: As any other line does, this trajectory will made up of a sequence of points and positions.
A sequence of positions that in the commonsense way I, the arrow, occupy one after the other.
Z: The problem is that between one point on a line and the next, there is an infinity of points.
Z: Of course is in the nature of infinity that you can never get to the end of it.
So if I occupy any point along my path I will never reach the next,
unless I occupy each of the infinity of points in between.
H: I-dont-un-der-stand-what-you-are-try-ing-to-say.
Z: No? You see! (Z points at the drawing)
My path implodes and the trajectory becomes an infinity of points. I am stuck.
H: You are stuck in thought!
Z: Aaaargghhh! No. I get swallowed up in the transitional infinity.
H: Or if you moved it is because it was never any point. A path is not composed of points. It´s a dynamic unity. It doesn´t stop till it stops!
Then, and only then, your trajectory can be plotted. Retrospectively. Once you Mr. Arrow´d hit the target. Then, working backward from the movement´s end.
H: Before that you just throw yourself into the future.
