Hinweis Drucken


12:00-20:00Kraupa-Tuskany Zeidler (Großer Saal)Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 29 10178 Berlin
With Julieta Aranda, Ian Cheng, Diann Bauer, Daniel Keller, Katja Novitskova, Hito Steyerl, Andreas Töpfer; curated by Armen Avanessian and Kraupa-Tuskany Zeidler.

4.12.13 is the name of an exhibition. 141213 is a jumbled sequence of numbers. 14,12,13 is a chronological disorder. 14/12/13 indicates a fundamental multidimensionality of time: every present will be past and was futural. Today doesn't add up, even if contemporary art tries to make sense of it. Fourteentwelvethirteen will be up for only one day and doesn't make sweeping statements or give a panoramic view. How does one oppose an exhausted aesthetic paradigm of art, in which artworks beg for ever new critical judgments, so that (art) history makes its weary progress? For quite some time, all attempts to overcome the modernist logic of progress has been misunderstood as postmodernism. Instead of the museum's notion of historical linearity, other forms of assembly emerge. 14.12.13

Whether we call them contemporary or not, works of art have the task of regaining the future, allowing us a different look back at our present. Instead of an aesthetic art, with its focus on the phenomenological experience and perception (aisthesis) of time, there is plenty of reason for art to focus on the production (poiesis) of time. Only then will we have an understanding (noiesis) of time, and only then, when we look back from the future, will we be able to say that not just le passé est imprevisible, as Quentin Meillassoux does, but that also our present is unpredictable. Today is unpredictable. Now is contingent. And, there is no reason for the present to be as it is. Everything can change at any moment in time, on any contingent date. 14.12.13

How to establish new possibilities, instead of just exploring existing ones? How to try overcome the hyper-correlationism of aesthetics and its beloved aesthetic experiences? Leaving behind the familiar structures of aesthetic judgment is not a move toward uncriticality. Why bother with all this Kritik, critique, criticality which is stuck in a perpetual state of narcissistic self-reflection and utterly incapable of getting out of the reflective loops it entangles itself in? No one needs to hear any more critical reflections on all the subversive political or moral agendas of art works that in any case never really talk philosophy or about art. Begin here instead: that whatever is contingent remains tied to a space of possibilities, which is not immutable. It remains variable and is exceeded only by creative abductions, not via the more established forms of inference, scientific deduction and aesthetic induction. Art and philosophy should join their experimental forces: no speculation without experimenting with language, as Isabelle Stengers reminded us. 14.12.13

Recursion not reflection: seizing parts of reality, manipulating them and making something new. Artworks that recursively appropriate the language of corporate business — instead of just laundering its money with the usual bit of bad conscience — need no complicated conceptual introduction. Not a reflexive meta-exhibition, not the usual curatorial know-it-all-ness about the meaning of the particular and the assembled, this exhibition proposes other formats: a recursive incorporation and integration of parts into a new whole. 14.12.13

Beyond the constraints of transcendental defeatism (following the chrono-logic 12–>13–>14) there always was an unpredictable present. Instead of reflecting on the present as a transition from a given past to a predictable future, art and philosophy can speculate on a new time, a new reality. Obviously. Again. But no time this time for catastrophism. The speculative is instead the time of anastrophism. 14.12.13

Armen Avanessian