With hip and joint constantly thinking of life's end we try to keep moving to find something fitting, fitting for the statement and formulation of question: what is understanding and compre- hension as aim designation with the condition of Adorno's sentence that there cannot be any true or right life in wrong life? For him this has evolved logically and consistently from thoughts which signify modernism and modernity in for example Beaudelaire's sense with Henry Lefèbre's words: 'Nowadays in society practice imaginativ imagewalls break open between the spon- tanous and the abstract, between natur and technic, between natur and culture. Their relation is to be comprehended exclusively on the background of dialectical conflict'. As this has been metered out by dialectical contemplations from a political-economical ideology of turbo-capitalism we are thus within the globalized system of signs which have been de-limited to non-understanding and worthlessness and which are supposed to confuse us: freedom for consum as a dealing with frustration to one's own immaturity. The author does not steer himself any longer in order to avoid complexities and complicated markings in the river bed. So when he no longer walks the path correctly or wrongly or against it or for it and designates the so-called normality hence a norm that no longer is a norm what then is not normal, what is healthy and what is sick and what does it mean then for an art and philosophy pracis, which knows about Hegel's fact accor- ding to which true is only what is true in a double sense, which bears an opposite in itself and is able to be opposing, which has initiave and activity. What then does this mean for an artistic and philosophical pracis that also knows about the fact that autonomy in the sense of education for majority - self steering as creative ability-, no longer is available and also that commiting targets of ethics and aesthetics of subjects have to make room for objectifying of products.

Goods and person as merchandise objects.   In this context I would like to mention - a wonderful article by Jean Beaudrillard about the absolutism of goods where genially he comes to the point that Beaudelaire is Andy Warhol's  true predecessor. The same tragic which is connected to when human beings no longer differentiate between subject and object, as also Nora has spoken about wonderfully in her talk.   Then of course we have to question more, what actually do we want from art and its objects. Because if objects make objects we will have to say good-bye to the term subject and we would find ourselves enclosed in a new logic which then so-to-say certainly will ask what then is advertising, what then is object, what is a product and what after all is still art, especially free art, if - and I include this here - the term of free art is depending anyhows of a term of freedom which derives from the Renaissance, so the 15./16. century, the neo-platonic academy in Florence and has had nothing to do for a long time with our definition of a) free and b) autonomy. To that I actually wrote once an article. There it is about how we actually have to go on thinking about Duchamps and the idea of ready mades. When then the faked signature as mechanism of steering "this is myself" or with Goya "lo lo visto" (I have seen this) - the war, your craziness, your paradoxicality, your shit - in plain English -, and me as an artist still have the autonomy to simply represent this, then one has to ask oneself of course what  really and truly has happened in actually only 150 years that so-to-say almost everyone dispappears in the woods so that we truly a) can say: by now  very often the work is more clever than the author, hence the one who wants to steer himself, and second with Heiner MŸller's word: very often then is also the metaphor more clever than the work.

next back