However, if subcultural theory holds, we have to choose between the neoconceptual paradigm of expression and patriarchial discourse. Marx uses the term ‘cultural desituationism’ to denote a mythopoetical totality.
However, if subcultural theory holds, we have to choose between the neoconceptual paradigm of expression and patriarchial discourse. Marx uses the term ‘cultural desituationism’ to denote a mythopoetical totality. The title of his 1992 book, The Culture of Capitalism, is taken from a book by Karl Marx and Friedrich Schüfer, who used the term in their book Der Kinden der Einkaufswelten (The cultural desolation of the West). To see the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Schüfer today, in Berlin, is to have the sensation of an empty space, a nonplace, a void, as the philosopher Michael Fried put it. Marx and Schüfer envisage the cultural desolation of the West as the transformation of the European moorings into the modern world.Karl Marx and Friedrich Schüfer do not deny that there is a universal heretofore unmentioned culture, a culture that is but a symptom of capitalist globalization, of the globalized world economy. On the contrary, they use the term cultural desituationism’ to suggest that all cultures are part of this globalized world, that all of them are but part of the same cultural desolation. Their work is the analysis of the critical conditions of a globalized world, as well as an analysis of the power of the image, of the way it is both image and object.The main element of their work is their identification of the concept of the cultural desolation with the concept of the European cultural space, which, in the nineteenth century, was defined as the territorial, ideological, and spatial boundary between different national and cultural entities. The two most widely recognized German cultural institutions are the Academy of Fine Arts in Munich and the Friedrich Kunstakademie der Künste in Frankfurt. The identification of the European cultural space with the American cultural space is thus a logical step in the analysis of cultural desituation, which is the condition Marx sketched in his essay. But the two cities do not coincide, and Berlin is not merely an apotheosis of Western civilization, but a prototype of the European cultural space.
However, if subcultural theory holds, we have to choose between the neoconceptual paradigm of expression and patriarchial discourse. Marx uses the term ‘cultural desituationism’ to denote a mythopoetical totality. The cultural object is the power, money, the power of a centralized authority, to confer status on an idea. The social object, in this example, is the personality. The social, in general, is the political act, but the social is an identification of ideas that does not involve any political action.The process of cultural desituation is intimately linked to the production of culture and to the production of a social that is an alienation from the totality of the world. Thus, it is the historical and historical vernacular that is interrogated. The goal of analysis is the abolition of the existing totality, in which power is based on a division of the world, an esthetic, cultural, and political division. The social object that is the object of critique is a mystification of the power of money, the power of culture.The critique of culture is inseparable from the critique of the power structure. This is what can be understood as the critique of identity and the critique of culture, the critique of the institution and the culture. This is also the critique of the esthetic, the esthetic of the commodity. The critique of the esthetic object is not only an analysis of the esthetic as an esthetic, but also a critique of the esthetic object, which is the art object. Thus, the critique of the esthetic object is also the critique of the esthetic object, which is the art object. For the critique of esthetic desituation is an analysis of the esthetic object, which is the esthetic object, which is the art object. The critique of esthetic desituation is also a critique of the esthetic object, which is the esthetic object, which is the esthetic object. The critique of esthetic desituation is also the critique of the esthetic object, which is the esthetic object, which is the esthetic object.The esthetic object is the fetishized power of money.
However, if subcultural theory holds, we have to choose between the neoconceptual paradigm of expression and patriarchial discourse. Marx uses the term ‘cultural desituationism’ to denote a mythopoetical totality. This was the subject of a recent exhibition at the Museum für Gegenwartskunst in Berlin, titled Queer Theory: Art as Culture. The exhibition was entitled Freisteheits/Freisteheits, and the name of the exhibition was curated by Hans-Ulrich Obrist, the former chief curator of the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf. The show was divided into four parts: exhibition, performance, installation, and installation—a combination of various types of installation. The exhibition was divided into three spaces: exhibition space, gallery, and exhibition hall. At the entrance, visitors encountered the wall text in the exhibition space, which describes the show as a visual history of the image of the person of the art. In addition, two projections were shown in the gallery: one projected onto the gallery walls and the other onto the wall of the exhibition space itself. The projection shows a number of works from the collection of the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf in Düsseldorf, where the exhibition was organized, as well as photographs and newspaper articles that document the exhibition. The individual images are portrayed in a way that is both casual and theatrical, such as by introducing art and its public through the creative act of the exhibition organizer and by introducing the viewer to the existence of the exhibition, as the curator of the exhibition explains in the exhibition catalogue. These images of the various works, taken from the collection of the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, are displayed in the gallery. The presentation also includes a work by artist Peter Feldmann, who made a projection of the Berlin Stock Exchange. At the entrance, one was confronted with a list of artists and a text that introduces the show and one of the works: When I saw it, I thought it was brilliant.
However, if subcultural theory holds, we have to choose between the neoconceptual paradigm of expression and patriarchial discourse. Marx uses the term ‘cultural desituationism’ to denote a mythopoetical totality. We may consider this a choice that both perpetuates and challenges the dominant model of art as an autonomous, self-contained, and self-reflexive expression of a singularity of culture. As with other Western art that has also been translated into the language of the other, the practice of Marxist art is often translated into the language of the West. But in contrast to this situation, the Marxist project is far less about the self-reflexivity of a certain art and, rather, about the possibility of a particular art—a relatively autonomous art that is, in the end, an artifact, and can be viewed as a sign of the powerlessness of the Western mind.This exhibition explores this possibility in the space of the museum, by exhibiting an extraordinary collection of photographs and objects. The photographs and objects are scattered throughout the museums collection, among them photographs of the installation of the Laocoön, in which Hildegarde served as a model, and two photographs of the Warsaw Uprising (the result of the seizure of a Soviet archive). The exhibition also contains a few drawings and objects, among them a small copy of the Manifesto of 1848, which was inscribed in the window of the Palazzina nationale in Rome. The significance of the image of the Uprising can be seen in the contrast to the image of the Laocoön, which is much more suitable to a private viewing. The window of the Laocoön is covered with a table. On the table are the instruments of torture, but also a Bible and a prayer book, which are now in the hands of a collector. The picture of the window is repeated on the table, so that it becomes a mirror image, a picture of the museum, and of the world. A similar image appears in a drawing, a still from a video, and in a work of fine wood and bronze.
As for the feminist deconstruction of capitalism, it may be noted that the critique that was at the heart of the transgressive ethos of the 80s became the economic critique of the 90s, and the critical movement itself, including the feminist critique, has no longer been able to offer any authoritative or coherent critique of the market. Hence, this exhibition offers a first opportunity to reconsider the relationship of historical culture to the contemporary and to recall what role, if any, criticality played in the development of the feminist critique.
©2024 Lucidbeaming