A panel discussion held at Left Forum 2013, at Pace University, on June 9, 2013.
This panel was transcripted in Platypus Review #61 (Click on banner below to see):
Description:
Bourgeois society came into full recognition with Rousseau, who in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and On the Social Contract, opened its radical critique. Hegel wrote: "The principle of freedom dawned on the world in Rousseau." Marx quoted Rousseau favorably that "Whoever dares undertake to establish a peopleâs institutions must feel himself capable of changing, as it were, human nature... to take from man his own powers, and give him in exchange alien powers which he cannot employ without the help of other men." Rousseau posed the question of society, which Adorno wrote is a "concept of the Third Estate." Marx recognized the crisis of bourgeois society in the Industrial Revolution and workers' call for socialism. But proletarian socialism is no longer the rising force it was in Marx's time. So what remains of thinking the unrealized radicalism of bourgeois society without Marx? Kant stated that if the potential of bourgeois society was not fully achieved as the âmid-pointâ of freedom then Rousseau may have been right to prefer savagery against civilizationâs âglittering misery.â Nietzsche warned that we might continue to be "living at the expense of the future:" "Perhaps more comfortably, less dangerously, but at the same time in a meaner style, more basely." How have thinkers of the revolutionary epoch after Rousseau, Adam Smith, Kant, Hegel, Benjamin Constant, and Nietzsche himself, contributed to the possibility of emancipation in a world after Marxism?
Speakers:
Chris Cutrone
Spencer Leonard
Sunit Singh
A talk and guided discussion held at Left Forum 2013, at Pace University, on June 8th, 2013.
Description:
If it is true that the 'commodity-structure' (Lukacs) is the defining feature of modern capitalism down through the present, then it stands to reason that it has no less impacted the way art is produced, consumed, circulated, and exchanged. This shift in art's character happened both objectively (e.g., as in an article produced for exchange on the market), and subjectively (i.e., as a kind of experience and form of expression for the social and individual body). However, art's relationship to its status as a commodity is an ambivalent one: Art has become at once more free from past forms of domination, but its freedom is constrained when subject to the dynamics of capital. Art as a commodity is both its cure and poison, and has become a social problem for its practice. Since becoming aware of this problem, artists, philosophers, curators, and critics have taken various approaches in seeking to overcome it. How has art under a capitalist society changed from its pre-capitalist practices? What is the commodity-form, and what is art's relationship to its logic? Must art seek emancipation from the commodity-form, or is it at home in it? In what sense does art take part in the Left and emancipatory politics -- a practice also seeking to overcome the commodity-form -- if at all? By asking these questions, this panel seeks to reinvestigate art's relationship to the commodity form, and make intelligible how this problematic relationship still sticks with us today.
Discussion Questions:
1. How do you define the terms âart,â and âcommodity?â In what ways does art in capitalist society differ from art in precapitalist society? How would you posit the relationship between art and the âcommodity-structureâ of capitalism? Is art already a commodity from the start, or does it get âcommodifiedâ only when integrated in the market? Are there ways that art can resist its commodification, and if so, how?
2. Acknowledging that the issue of art and commodity is not a new question, what troubles this discourse today? How has artâs relationship to the commodity-form changed over time, and what does it look like now? Do we understand the problem better than our predecessors, or are we in a worse mode of understanding?
3. If emancipatory politics is the objective, does overcoming capitalism necessarily follow the abolition of artâs status as a commodity? Do contemporary attempts in âdematerializedâ or âprocess-basedâ art practices (e.g., social practice, pedagogical projects, or institutional critique) challenge the commodity status of the art object, and if so, how? Should art even seek emancipation from the commodity? In what sense does art take part in the Left and emancipatory politics -- a practice also seeking to overcome the commodity-form -- if at all? 4. How do you position yourself as cultural production within this dialogue? If this is a question about the work of artsâ mode of production in society, and opens up the question of class, then in what ways specifically does your workâor other contemporary art workârespond to class consciousness? What role does criticism or art play towards an emancipatory politics?
Speakers:
Ben Blumberg
Victoria Campbell
Chris Mansour
A BOOK CHAT WITH RICHARD GREEMAN
WHERE
NYC, New School
6 E 16th St
Room 909
WHEN
8 May 2013
7-9 pm
WHAT
The Platypus Affiliated Society will be hosting a book chat with Richard Greeman, translator of Victor Sergeâs Memoirs of a Revolutionary and Russia in Danger. This event will be hosted on 8 May 2013 at the New School, 6 E 16th St, NYC, from 7 to 9 pm in Room 909.
Victor Serge (1890â1947) was an international revolutionary and writer. Originally an anarchist, he joined the Bolsheviks five months after arriving in Petrograd in January 1919 and later worked for the Comintern as a journalist, editor and translator. He was critical of the Stalinist regime and remained a revolutionary Marxist until his death. Though scattered, his writings have been reassembled and translated and kept alive by a small group of radical devotees, most notably Peter Sedgwick and Richard Greeman.
Richard Greeman is a Marxist scholar long active in human rights, anti-war, anti-nuclear, environmental and labor struggles in the U.S., Latin America, France, and Russia. Greeman is best known for his studies and translations of the Franco-Russian novelist and revolutionary Victor Serge. Greeman also writes regularly about politics, international class struggles and revolutionary theory. Co-founder of the Praxis Research and Education Center in Moscow, Russia, Greeman is based in Montpellier, France, where he directs the International Victor Serge Foundation.
A book chat with Richard Greeman, translator of Victor Serge's "Memoirs of a Revolutionary" and "Russia in Danger," held on May 8th 2013 at the New School.
Victor Serge (1890â1947) was an international revolutionary and writer. Originally an anarchist, he joined the Bolsheviks five months after arriving in Petrograd in January 1919 and later worked for the Comintern as a journalist, editor and translator. He was critical of the Stalinist regime and remained a revolutionary Marxist until his death. Though scattered, his writings have been reassembled and translated and kept alive by a small group of radical devotees, most notably Peter Sedgwick and Richard Greeman.
Richard Greeman is a Marxist scholar long active in human rights, anti-war, anti-nuclear, environmental and labor struggles in the U.S., Latin America, France, and Russia. Greeman is best known for his studies and translations of the Franco-Russian novelist and revolutionary Victor Serge. Greeman also writes regularly about politics, international class struggles and revolutionary theory. Co-founder of the Praxis Research and Education Center in Moscow, Russia, Greeman is based in Montpellier, France, where he directs the International Victor Serge Foundation.