Comments on * Matters of appearance *, with some remarks about Privatism *

Who reads these words, experiences the beginning of an internal discussion of principles concerning the ethics and aesthetics of current leftwing semi artists and public thinkers. Inspired by mattersofappearance.com, created by Pascal Unbehaun and Nina DeBris, who invited me (Ulrike Ritter) to write something about this website. My first comment: It cannot be found in the web along its abbreviation „moa“ but only as unabridged version „mattersofappearance“ - uhgs! Well, even Nelson Goodman, the american analytical philosopher of „Languages of Art“, a formal philosophy of symbol systems, never abbreviated Structure of Appearance, his phenomenology, but wrote about 250 pages in about ten years. He, then, got a professorship for this. They won't ? Or will they? The problem is this:

I thought at first, the project to give a short sketch of a website concerning just current theories about contemporary arts will take some years at least and thus, will be covered by the Zenon-paradox and never come to an end. But now I finished in one afternoon. I found three turtle eggs: 1. Strong working class and ecological thinking working within the signal languages of politics. 2. Serious theoretical thinking pointing out some progressive aspects of contemporary arts, especially a critical concept of analytical process instead of artefactuality and the rejection of individual conceptualization (stated in the article by Haarmann, linked under „artist research projects“ on th MoA front page, as „privatistisch“:

„Die individualisierte Herstellung von künstlerischen Objekten lief Gefahr, privatistisch zu werden, zumindest wenn man beanspruchte, Themen mit gesellschaftlicher Relevanz zu untersuchen“ http://www.aha-projekte.de/HaarmannArtisticResearch.pdf, page 3 ). [The individual creation of artefact was endangered to get into privatism, at least, if the artists calimed to handle subjects of social relevance.]

3. the third egg: Friendly and light artificiality, some front page fun with links to Haarmanns report of artist research and theoretical deeplinks into the history of art - like Johann Sebastian Bach composing a concert on the refrain „Die Sonne scheint“ [Sun is shining]. This is of course not a critic. But it may catch the aesthetic sense of the beautiful „Colourbook“, an edition made by Unbehaun and DeBris., that is embedded in some statements about media pixels which are accused to diffuse rational judgements of importancy. But to intermingle weather broadcast and politics, social discussion and some ficticious fun with motor boats, sex or horses is not necessarily to put all these down into a soup can of unimportance. If it really creates the „Colourbook“ as its result, as a compensate for the feeling of a loss of meaning and value, it is quite great, because the Colourbook is – as picture of a phenomenological structure of appearance as we know it from Mach, Carnap and Goodman, the early empiricists and their formalistic followers - de-ideologized, breathes some freedom of thought – even if sheer bubbleness.

More paradoxes are, as the MoAs themselves explain, the quasi empirical research projects on artist texts. Unbehaun and DeBris count, collect and show with a significant multitude of incidences in invatation cards and press releases of political parties. Some currentl yrunning projects are the SPD-Project, the expression „Arbeit“ in a public release; and Off-Artists' releases and profilings, how they use and collect unconsciuosly expressions in the semantical field of the arts – this research project of MoA is a kind of open string sociological empirism). The SPD-Project is nicely visualized on a Java Website: http://twitter.com/MOA_SPD

In effect, the visualization impresses me, not only because it is strengthened by another project suggesting that everybody unemployed should get one Euro if he or she becomes a member of the SPD and starts to work politically http://www.mattersofappearance.com/projects.html. The cummulation of the expression in the SPD manifestation proves quite convincingly, that to give „Arbeit“ - „work“ - jobs“? - to all is really something the selfunderstanding of the party is still grounded in. Thus, why discussing the point till it dies? The unemployed could simply become a member and continue the research such. For something like mattersofappearance, a website identified by a name such complicated that the unemployed will perhaps never be capable or at least not be interested (let's stay polite) to write the string, thus, the visualization is famous political art work, because convincing along its simplicity. The time of Agitprop theatre shines through, like in another project working within the beautifully silly signals of discourse we find in politics. The project's theme this time is nutrition, between eco – and oeconomics:

http://www.itxnetz-berlin.de/magistrale-kulturnacht/potsdamer2.php

The slogan „higher yields“ is just an argument a bavarian farmer's wife gave me when I suggested to feed her horse with biological carrots and bananas, if not, biologically raised oat and cereals. Of course, too expensive, I know, I know, but the argument was more from the farmer's perspective: biodegradation had a lack of efficiency in comparison to traditional cultivation or genetically modified. Well, but the products are of course, as we all can taste, far better and thus worth the money the farmer gets. Not to talk about the uncovered and raising request of organic meat and vegetables – wonderful perspectives for farmers who can enrich their soils sufficiently and have enough surfaces for this kind of friendly cattle breeding.

The performance in Berlin does not show if it was more than a signal for reassuring oneself about such arguments. My private experience – and now we go on into the discussion of principles – tells me, that arguments are not taken serious in Bavaria. Instead, the farmer's wife pleaded me not to give her husband the slightest hint of my conviction about organic nutrition. Discussion, even if possible in a kind of backstage situation – like *between women* or *between friends* - is impossible if taken seriously like even the principles of arts are taken on mattersofappearance and linked websites. Politics are like concrete in Bavaria, modifications on the right just concerning the velocity of projects, these at most created by male emotionality - the desire to drive fast in beautiful, new cars, to be pleased with peace of mind by the village's priest, to get the highest income for the just ongoing, never modified work, and to be kept free from the perhaps deviant interests of others, like women, kids, foreigners or „deviants“ of any kinds. Political decisions are thus enforced in giving money to some vanguards, and then showing them as example for this way of modification - the argument is always the asset, nearly never the more of rationality or taste, and commodity is much too high to start asset raising with new ideas for its own sake.

These – asset raising with new ideas - even seems to be undesired, what is shown in the Bavarian (?) arts, where thousands of wifes try to find happiness in conformity beyond economical forces. Well, then, in addition, even higher educated artists with art-university grades and degrees will not really expose themselves in a theoretical discourse like the one given in mattersofappearance. Though Nina DeBris is a Bavarian, she is not an artist in the first line but an intellectual and art mediator like Pascal Unbehaun, living in Hamburg. Of course there are theoretically based working artists in the german south, especially in Munich perhaps. But a short glance on www.artou.de shows, how art discussion diverges form art practize. What I myself like to promote and consider in the monthly Kunstbrief, is quite far away or sometimes even quite critical of the artworks you will find in the gallery. „Visuals“ are far too less critizised, it seems, far too unknon in their history of symbols and icons, to get into the game of self-criticism and theory-building in written cultural cirticism usually does. Otherwise, if artists have theoretical thoughts, these may often be impossible to communicate to journalists or just visitors. Unbehaun nicely describes on http://www.d498.de/oca/0807projectwork.shtml the problems for artists who deny the creation of artifacts to rescue their sensible, situative art projects from exhibition to exhibition. He cites convincingly Robert barry „To remove the work is to destroy the work“. Well, if there is something to move in a literal sense, it may be judged as conservative, but think about the taxmen who like to force art into simple craftsmenship, accepting just and only handdrawings or art works that were really nearly likewise done, as art. Well, thus scholarships are the only way of existence, but how if you left the age for a subsidy award?

Well, never care about money. Just have it or do not need it. Thus, the SPD analysis and politprop art, the citic of privatism all lack the very sense of reality of art production – they contradict to a proclamation of mattersofappearance, given on the front page: THE ARTWORK HAS TO BE SELFREFLEXIVE.

Nobdy is socially more distanced to the classical worker of the industries of car or ship production than an artist in the sense of matterofappearance. This crevice is of course not a new one, the horrible results of social realism and anti-avantgardism of the german democratic republic and the soviet union had shown its results before they went forever offline. This is,

* why I am against the deny of privatism *.

These words are given in blue to show that I have an argument with mattersofappearance here. Of course at first because I love to feel like Camus in his discussion with Satre about soviet camps for political prisoners. Worldwide importance of ethical principles in arts and literature again. Just because websites are read – perhaps, if translated, by a whole lot of people of everybodies daily life, even by my neighbours who sometimes innocently grew up without being touched by any intellectuality or higher theoretical thoughts about culture. This is not necessarily a matter of money or education – usually even intelligent and erudiated veterinarians in Bavaria like to identify culture with sports and to completely not understand contemporary art. And this is not only the south – think of the merely 9000 visitors – less than ever – of the Beuys exhibition in BERLIN ! Museums should hide the horrible impressionists and landscape painters for at least a century, to prevent the going on of taste corruption with feeding light-art products like them into the obviously anyway undereducated minds of usual art visitors. Even Koons had to leave the funny and popular artifical scandalization of sex and porn to find his way back into oversized anemones. Everything completely corrupted with Monet and Manet (to read loudly :)).

Thus. To force oneself into theoretically founded left wing art strategies will work for curators and curator groups, but will continue to miss its proclaimed goal, the – (is it, really????) - modification of the surpression of – at first – the working class (???? 'ts this, yeh ?) - via middle-class and capitalistic economics (yegg...). French theory has shown how these interfuse with symbolic systems, which can, like aggressively growing cells (just do not want to use a necessarily alluding metaphor), create its own worlds not any longer dependent on a monetarian foundation. In addition, the concept of money can be changed into the concept of time if you want to analyse the censorships of daily life. How „having work“ in an SPD sense can reduce personality to a press release of the work giving institution is known to every intellectual principally adapted to such a job because of its higher education. *Intellectuals* - discourse loving people – are necessarily free lancers, even in mathematics. I remember this to „go without saying“ in the times of my school and university education and see this claim kept in the life of Pascal Unbehaun or in the life of artists he writes about in his article – just not to think about me, hm.... - if they start to diverge from a group's conviction, they work it out or leave it, and of course, they can, are allowed to and usually do diverge. And of course, the more different things you do, the more independent you become from the different bases. Thus, the artist's or intellectual's concept of eudaimonia („Happiness“ or „Glückseligkeit“) in life is completely different from the one the mattersofappearance left wing discourse insunuates the „man on the street“ - one important, moral aspect is, that the artist's or intellectual's, of course the philosopher's eudaimonia is always dependent of his or her way he or she manages his/her ethical convinctions in theory and practize. I see the working class less emphatically interested in this. Thus, as artist, why having money for families, cars and the own semidetached house? It offers sometimes not even security – everybody knows how unfortunate it can be to pay lend money back alone, after a marriage broke down or something like that happened.

Thus, individuality and „privatism“, to develope or at least to keep it, to think and design its life without institutional preconceptions is still one of the main drives of artists for their work and life concept. Its obvious that institutions care since centuries as bad for artists that they do not really endanger this approach. Otherwise, limits are sometimes such curious – like the handdrawing verdict of the Bavarian fiscal authorities – that art works reflective of this limits will not get into even german wide discourse but will keep missunderstood by anybody not herself involved. But to get reflectiveness and commonness along popular theroies, as usual, is shown in its limits in the „against privatism“ article of Haarmann, who cites for example Judith Butler as concept giving for feminist discourse, what is not wrong but simply reflects a very reduced and simplified approach of the subject. Butler is not the best but just the most popular. This in some way because she left feminisms as a female request to concentrate on political and social groups, not at first grounded in the female body but as such more groups of behaviour and difference creation in the sense of Pierre Bourdieu. Thus, to analyse these as „transformers“ is not really surprising, goes without depth psychoanalysis, of course. But *the others* - Ciscioux and Irigaray -, who themselves – especially Irigaray - developed their psychoanalytical theory into a kind of aesthetics, were not given up in a discussion or critical argument with their perhaps sometimes retrograde views of motherhood or female insanity, but simply exchanged to the new, hysterical and nearly complete denysation of bodiness by Butler, who just proclaimed any body for interchangable, what perfectly forces feminist criticism to sign an abandonment of physical realism and of matters of appearance (!), until the baby cries – what seems to be just the same as the perhaps wrongly redrawn theoretical claims of motherhood-dependency or prediscoursive insanity of women critics may find in the writings of Irigaray. The main problem seems to be – just think of the Beuys exhibition - that Irigaray is far more difficult to read or to understand than the slogan like written, theory dancing Butler (Just look at this name....crazily fitting!). It's in a way the same as the difference in the quality of texts of Derrida and Paul deMan, the first the original and better version, the second the popular reproduction. Well, although I really prefer typing in english to the broken fingers of french discourse, a quite resistant aversion against american theory prompting has emerged in me.

Thus, privatism. Privatism is a refuge for the intellectualism we have worked long enough for to settle in contendly now. Just let persons like Pascal Unbehaun, Oliver Breitenstein, Nina DeBris or even me be observed via the web or in their daily life. Intellectual production always searches for the public, and we are talking because this has widened in a not even known way, after more than ten years not really calculable, new, wonderful, and international, a structure, the „rhizome“ of the web. Not only competence and knowledge but discussion and acquaintance via words, projects and pictures have developed a completely new dimension, - this article only a small signal of it. Let's say, - and tell the still unconvinced – that we „do not know“ each other. That is, although we work sometimes together or friendly observe each other via the web, we have never met personally. As far as I am concerned, I would not mind but would not prefer it, too. It simply does not matter for anything we do together – well okay, somebody might mind, that sex should not be reduced to pictures and imagintaive thoughts, but we are talking about a intellectually intermingled group currently.

Now remember a teenager's life in the seventies or early eighties: You depend on the special groups of your region, of neighbourhood – usually the reason for marriage – and have to go to awfully unproductive meetings to get along with anything you want to do. You have to introduce yourself personally and will be watched, time and convention will reduce the possibility to explain and to talk to its utmost limits, - a principle that necessarily favores things and schemas you already know, just conventions and the fast and dull joke, at its positive utmost a strong and strange remark, usually unallowed for women. Of course, in a professional context with a clearly defined interest, this will not create any problem. But anything beyond, anything concerning individual convictions, is soon disadvantaged by such limits.

Thus, „talking“ as writing in the web and via the web, is at first the end of line limitations and of a highly restricted personal manners. Furthermore, it is by nearly anybody – independent of educational levels, income or social context – used for profiling in a more or less restricted or anarchic, professional or unprofessional way. The profiling is otherwise known to be not really selfdetermined, but dependent of links given by search machines, partner sites, search strategies and a lot of aspects more. Thus, the incompleteness of the information given is evident to most of all users. The changeability of profiling enforces this – it creates a good sense of the fact, that information you get about persons is always more a kind of impression, not necessarily knowledge.

We do not know until now, if this can create new perspectives of „structuredness by discourse“, the theoretical result of the last centuries discussions that may be signed by everybody interested in theory at all. But obviously it puts profiling, privatism, in the center of collective experience and structuredness. Thus, the idea to continue theory as something just general, intellectuals talking about it from the just langue-systemically broken view of a free floating god's eye in the tradition of Marx, seems to me to be obsolete. But mattersofappearance is, with all this funny performances performed by web based stars, and all its intermingling, interchanging net working of writers and media creators, of course not to blame for polit office working but a platform for stars working on the how - to - show - what - aspects of new selfcreated personalities. That's how I see this development of the public. And continue to riddle who of the different performers, participators and artists of the various project photographs I know via the web from Pascal Unbehaun represent the editor of mattersofappearance.....(DO NOT SEND ME AN ECARD !)

Doc. U. R.