(For English please scroll down)
HOW INNOCENT IS THAT?
30 aprilie - 05 iulie 2009
Curator: Eugen Radescu
Participanti: AES+F (Rusia), Carlos Aires (Spania), Juan delGado (Spania/UK), Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (Germania).
"In razboi nu exista victime inocente. Nici macar simplu complice nu te poti considera in cazul participarii la razboi pentru ca a depins de mine, ca pentru mine si prin mine, acest razboi sa nu existe iar eu am hotarit ca el exista... Cel care participa la razboi s-ar fi putut sustrage prin sinucidere sau dezertare. Nici razboiul si nici torturile nu sunt inumane... Inumanul este hotarit numai de om prin frica, fuga sau apel la magie..." (Jean-Paul Sartre)
"Cine mai poate fi astazi atent la masacrarea inocentei? Inocentii de ieri trimit astazi bombe – aceste daruri supreme ale neputintei, josniciei si incapabilului. Exista un Orient al inocentei precum exista un Occident al inocentilor. Traind in Romania – starea si paideuma inocentei in forma sa dezechilibrata, nefericita si tampa imi imaginam ca “strainul” cu a sa “strainatate” insemna ceva – altceva (cu al sau alter). Nimic mai fals. Suntem cu totii falsi, dezintegrati, abatuti, neinocenti. Neatenti. Civilizatia nu inseamna masina cu aburi, ci inseamna civilitatea – acea putinta de a avea relatii civice, civile, de a avea norme de drept. Cumva, aceste atribute sunt pierdute. Am uitat sa fim civici, am pierdut civilizatia – am devenit inocente aspiratoare de ignoranta, durere, patima, ura, show. Este mult mai usor acum sa omori o mie de oameni decat sa spui “buna ziua”.
Proiectul propus este structurat pe trei segmente, trei parti, menite sa descrie cat mai ilustrativ termenul de inocenta in diversele sale slabiciuni si corelatii.
1. Adversarul.
Prima parte a proiectului "How innocent is that?" propune o abordare a termenului de inocenta din prisma unui termen extrem de actual si controversat: socialismul. Inocenta in socialism si/sau socialismul ca ideologie inocenta. In secolul al XIX-lea Marx anunta incantat sfirsitul statului prin sfarsitul luptei de clasa, dominatia omului de catre om sfarsindu-se odata cu aparitia societatii imaginate de ei: una perfect egala, fara lupte de clasa, care era societatea socialista. Nici de putere politica nu mai este nevoie pentru ca in societatea socialista nimeni nu conduce pe nimeni, este doar o miscare necesar-istorica: clasa muncitoare va inlocui vechea societate burgheza cu o asociatie care exclude clasele si antagonismul dintre ele. Secolul XIX a fost secolul utopiei socialiste insa indiferent de meritele atribuite, era o ideologie impracticabila. Secolul XX a fost scena realismului socialist – perioada in care, datorita cruntelor experiente de razboi si a slabirii sociale, socialismul a avut parte de o puternica re-izbucnire (dintr-un curent de gindire “underground” devine o ideologie de stat). Nu ma intereseaza aici o istoriografie a socialismului dar gasesc ca ar fi interesant de stiut faptul ca aceasta doctrina si-a tras seva din contexte filosofice, politice si religioase dintre cele mai interesante.
2. Albul Pur.
Reflexia, de data aceasta, porneste prin abordarea unui concept-metafora din zona simtului-comun: inocenta asimilata copilariei, inocenta copiilor imbracati in alb, unde albul devine dintr-o non-culoare, o "culoare" a puritatii.
3. Grotescul Inocentei.
Ultima parte dezbate denaturarea termenului de inocenta si a implicatiilor sale, vulgaritatea acestui concept in relatia sa cu morala, Dumnezeu si sexualitatea. Suntem tentati sa ridiculizam viata zilnica prin accesul la actiuni grotesti, mai degraba decit la cele ce tin de un comportament standard – socialmente si moralmente acceptat de toata lumea. Regulile sunt absurde, conventiile la fel. Ele sunt fara continut. Nu te poti increde in ele.
Inocenta testeaza validitatea standardelor si conventiilor sociale.
Cum ma pot raporta la cei din jurul meu cind sunt nevoit sa convietuiesc cu cei pe care nu-i cunosc?
In Occident nu exista arta erotica; nu invatam sa facem dragoste, nu invatam sa oferim placere, nu invatam sa producem placere celorlalti, nu invatam sa maximizam placerea prin placerea celorlalti. In schimb, avem in Occident o stiinta sexuala – scientia sexualis – despre sexualitatea oamenilor, si nu despre placerea lor. Adevar al sexului, nu intensitate a placerii.
In ce scop (ne) perpetuam? In scopul placerii personale (hedonismul pre-crestin) sau in dorinta de a perpetua specia (post-crestinism)?
Deseori a reusit sa ma uimeasca violenta cu care preotimea, si in special cea ortodoxa si catolica, priveste subiectul sexualitatii. Casatoria, spre exemplu, este pentru ei, nu o forma ceva mai “relaxata” a sexualitatii dure, vegetative, animalice, ci reprezinta o unire a barbatului cu femeia, mijlocita prin si de puterea divina." (Eugen Radescu, din volumul "How Innocent Is That?")
Publicatie: "How Innocent Is That?", 14,5 x 19,5 cm, romana/engleza, 112 pagini, editata de Revolver Books Berlin. Disponibila in format tiparit la www.revolver-books.de sau la Pavilion UniCredit.
Poate fi downloadata gratuit in format pdf la : http://www.pavilionunicredit.ro/en/publications.html
Editie limitata: 50 de exemplare contin o carte postala editie limitata numerotata si semnata de Carlos Aires. Infomatii la pavilion@pavilionmagazine.org
------
HOW INNOCENT IS THAT?
April 30 - July 05, 2009
Curator: Eugen Radescu
Participants: AES+F (Rusia), Carlos Aires (Spain), Juan delGado (Spain/UK), Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (Germany).
„In war there are no innocent victims. One might be tempted perhaps to consider me as a simple accomplice. But this notion of complicity has only a juridical sense, and it does not hold here. For it depended on me that for me and by me this war should not exist, and I have decided that it does exist... The one who takes part into war could always get out of it by suicide or by desertion. Neither the war, nor the tortures are inhumane... Only the man could decide the inhumane through fear, desertion or resort to magic...” (Jean-Paul Sartre)
In our times, who can pay much attention to the massacre of the innocence? The innocents of yesterday are sending the bombs of today, these supreme gifts of helplessness, infamy and failure. There is an East of the innocence, like there is a West of the innocents. As I am living in Romania – the state and paideuma of innocence in its unbalanced, unhappy and dumb form – I imagined the “stranger”, with his “strangeness”, was something – something else (together with his alter). Far from the truth. We are all false, disintegrated, miserable, and lacking innocence. Lacking interest. Civilization doesn’t mean the steam engine, but it means civility, the ability to have civic relationships, to follow judicial norms. Somehow, all these attributes are lost. We have forgotten our civility; we lost our civilization. We have become innocent vacuum cleaners and we are sucking in ignorance, pain, ardour, hatred, show. Nowadays it is easier to kill one thousand people than say “Have a good day”.
The project advanced here is structured in three segments, three sections, and they aim to describe as illustrative as possible the word “innocence”, with all its weaknesses and associations.
1. The Opponent
The first part of the project “How innocent is that?” suggests a way to approach the term “innocence” from an extremely topical and highly controversial angle: the socialism. Innocence in socialism and/or socialism as innocent ideology.
In the 19th century Marx willingly announced the end of the state through the end of the class struggle, as the exploitation of man by man ends together with the emergence of the society they imagined: a perfect egalitarian society, without any class struggle, namely the socialist society. The political power was not needed, either, because in the socialist society nobody rules anybody; it is just a historically necessary development: the working class will replace the old bourgeois society with an association that eliminates classes and class antagonisms.
The 19th century was the century of the socialist utopia, but it was an inapplicable ideology, regardless of the merits ascribed to it. The 20th century was the arena of the socialist realism, the period when socialism knew a strong revival, because of the atrocious war experiences and the weakening of the society (it turned from an underground doctrine into a state ideology). I am not interested here in the historiography of the socialism, but I believe it interesting to point out that the above-mentioned doctrine drew its vigour from the most interesting philosophical, political and religious contexts.
2. The pure white
This time the reflexion begins by approaching a concept-metaphor from the area of the common sense: the innocence associated with the childhood, the innocence of the white-vested children, where white turns from a non-colour to a “colour” of the purity.
3. The grotesque of innocence
The last section, “The grotesque of innocence”, debates over the misconception of the term “innocence” and its implications, and the crudeness of this concept in its relation with the morals, God and sexuality. We are tempted to ridicule the every day life by accessing rather grotesque actions than standard behaviour actions that are socially and morally accepted by everyone. The regulations are absurd, and so are the conventions. They are lacking substance. You cannot trust them.
The innocence verifies the validity of the social norms and conventions.
How can I relate to the people close to me, when I am compelled to live together with those I don’t know?
The West has no erotic art. We don’t learn how to make love, we don’t learn how to offer pleasure, we don’t learn how to pleasure the others, we don’t learn how to maximize our pleasure through others’ pleasure. Instead, the West has a sexual science – scientia sexualis –, dealing with people’s sexuality, not with people’s pleasure; the truthfulness of sex, not the intensity of pleasure.
Why do we reproduce (ourselves)? Is it for our personal pleasure (the pre-Christian hedonism) or from the wish to perpetuate the species (post-Christianity)?
I have been frequently amazed by the priests’ violent attitude (especially the Orthodox priests) while approaching the sexuality topic. Marriage, for example, is for them not a more “relaxed” form of the crude, vegetative, carnal sexuality, but the union of man and woman, mediated through and by the divine power. (Eugen Radescu, from the book "How Innocent Is That?").
Publication: "How Innocent is That?", 14.5 x 19.5 cm, English/Romanian, 112 pages, published by Revolver Books Berlin.
Available at www.revolver-books.de and pavilion@pavilionmagazine.org
PDF free download at http://www.pavilionunicredit.ro/en/publications.html
Special limited edition of 50 containing a signed and numbered limited edition postcard by Carlos Aires. More info and pre-orders for the limited edition at ioana.nitu@pavilionmagazine.org
Eugen Radescu is politologist (specialized in moral relativism and political ethics), cultural manager, curator and theoretician. He writes for various magazines and newspapers. He curated Bucharest Biennale 1 with the theme "Identity Factories". He is co-editor of Pavilion magazine and co-director of Bucharest Biennale (with Razvan Ion) and the chairman of the organizational board of Pavilion and Bucharest Biennale. He lectured at Art Academy - Timisoara, La Casa Encedida - Madrid, Calouste Gulbenkian - Lisbon, Apex Art - New York, etc. He recently return from a residency at Apex - New York and published the book "How Innocent is That?" at Revolver Publishing - Berlin. He is presently working on a new book on moral relativism. Lives and works in Bucharest.
Image: Juan delGado, videostill from "don't look under the bed", DVD, 2001, 8 min 11 sec. Courtesy the arist.