With the excuse of the very intriguing seminar that I experienced in the assemblies organized by documenta14, I want to share the thoughts that were provoked by the line of thinking of the speakers -writers.
There was a presentation of the new book written by Mauritsio Lazzarato and Eric Alliez, and it was a good chance to ponder on the subject of their new book 'Guerres et Capital' .
So my thinking went as such:
(imagine I am talking to them)
'...We don't speak the same language so please make an effort to understand .The Parliament of Bodies (which is a term induced by documenta 14 in Athens), is not a gathering of philosophers from what I understand, (or maybe it is in a sense, I am not sure), so I happen to be here as someone interested and acquainted with that type of conversation but not using the language of philosophy exactly.
Four questions formed in me, the first I also posed to the speakers-writers, at the assembly,
and also after I elaborated on my initial question by myself,
I got some positive feedback on my train of thinking, at a brief private conversation with Eric Alliez .
The three questions after that, are primarily expressed to you to reflect upon..
1. What did the antipode do (and at what point of its possible doing) to make the capital need or think it needed to drive things to a war?
( by antipode, I mean any subject that receives the capital's actions).
The answer was that the antipode of the capital didn't do anything, the war was already there ,the war exists.
But, (I continue thinking after their answer), if the war is, then between who is it taking place? One who needs to colonize for the needs of the capital, that has to expand or needs to enslave and so forth, and the other.
Now what is not so clear, at least to my realization, is the process the 'other','or 'the antipode', ot 'define it as you like', is going through.
The other coexists with the capital in an always present kind of subwar, lets say, until it enters a phase of "openness with no frame." as I call it, which is what the capital is waiting for.
Once noticed, it takes advantage and moves in to colonize or expand or /and destroy the other in any possible way.
Now why the other falls into that trap?
maybe it is inevitable by its nature, or for any other reason.
Perhaps an awareness of this process will help the antipode find ways to prevent this outcome.
In my discussion with Eric Alliez after the seminar ended, he agreed that my idea about the 'openess with no frame' goes in the same logic of the 'need for organisation of the others', which was mentioned by them in the assembly.
2.
Now, just listen to the words I will be using in the following sentences.
-For a war to be there are needed two sides
-Each side plays its part
- They both engage in the game of war
So the words to be noticed are war, parts, plays, game.
We use the following saying in Greece (and elsewhere I think).
'the theatre of war '.
To our territory now: What is theater?
A quick answer from wikipedia:
when we mean the space involved, it is: 'A place for viewing '.
So , I think, the definition involves spectators.
Who are the spectators in a war?
And my second question forms as such:
What kind of twist in the human nature drives people to need to see humans killing other humans?
3.
At the second day of the seminar, the two writers presented to the audience a very clear vision by example
So I am saying to them(imagine):
Thank you very much for the so clear paradigm of external -internal colonization through the use of violence by France toward Algeria (external), and the state toward the French proletarians (internal) , in the past.
Why thank you?
Because today au contraire, I feel very ,very not clear when it comes to similar issues.. It helped feel more intense my contradiction about what is going on now.
And I will explain what I mean:
The colonizer in a country is the invador and that involves some exert of power .
Now here, a wave of refugees has invaded my country and their power is in their need. They have the human right, they are relying on my sense of humanity, but I can't help still feeling invaded.
So in that sense I take the role of the Algerians and the refugees are the French only they don't possess weapons of violence, but their need as humans.
The moment they show up at our door, (and I literally mean that they are passing, groups after groups,from my front door in the village where I originally come from , Perama, Lesvos island),
the majority are strong enough to survive the journey, they have money and cellphones, and are looking into the future. (except of couse of some poor weaker creatures that were drown),
I wonder how I can say all that after I have seen tremendous document films on the African crossing to Europe through the meditarrenian, but still I do.
Then , the Greek goverment with the help from Europe, organized them in camps and that gave me temporary relief !(I have to admit,how much more horribe can I get?),
now they are a potential power awaiting....yet established ,in our country,
It actually reminds me a bit of the dourios ippos, the horse with the hidden soldiers that invaded ancient Troy.
As for the inside colonization: I feel again invaded like the French proletarians by the state.
Lets say they were suppressed back then by weapons ,and violence .
Now we are suppressed by fear (if you don't pay your taxes and insane sometimes charges , your property will be seized),and that is not the worse.
Τhe leftist government are going for our moral jugular,'and I voted for them
'oh how bad you are if you don't take care of your debts',
only the money we are paying is our living force while the debt is a vague notion being hailing over our heads, on which we have no control, its an endless pit.
When the left change happened, they went for our moral tissue ,we felt we had to pay to look good but in the same time if you payed, your neighbors would gossip where you found the money to do so, so ethic corruption between people starts this way, another bottomless pit ,I would say.
All this is so embarrassing but true.
4.
Eric Alliez said the first day that the contemporary art may have to seize to exist,
or better, he seemed quite certain that this is what the future holds for art.
So what I would say to him is:
It is a perfect opportunity for you to elaborate on that phrase, since if I am not mistaken I see quite a few artists here. Before you do I will ask a bit annoyed, is this a trend? I was hearing a discussion panel being held at the Berlin biennial this year which had the same topic,
how individual contemporary art is coming to an end and the upcoming issue is the role of the artist in the community.
So I am asking more in order to help the problematic,
what artist and what community are we talking about. .
