2023-12-22 19:33:00
ARTS 22.12.23 19:33 Nikos Panagiotopoulos*
The withdrawal of the specific work constitutes an exercise of a form of tyranny, in the sense that a secular, as we used to say, type of power was exercised within the artistic order of things which has its own special logic.
“Today’s ugliness applies retroactively”
K. Kraus
The withdrawal of Georgia Lale’s work from the exhibition of the Consulate General of Greece in New York, by order of the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, leads us to ask the question about the social conditions for the production of this coup. The criticism of individuals cannot replace the criticism of structures and mechanisms, a necessary condition for access to the consciousness of the structural compulsions within which individuals act.
These terms find their origin in the established heteronomy within the space of production, diffusion and evaluation of cultural goods. The withdrawal of the specific work constitutes an exercise of a form of tyranny, in the sense that a secular, as we used to say, type of power was exercised within the artistic order of things which has its own special logic. This tyranny finds its special conditions of possibility in the supremacy of the market over the field of art and culture in general. A dominance that is also mediated by the political field as the political field is directly under the influence of the approval of market logic and common acceptance.
The chances of such tyrannical acts can be reduced or even eliminated only through the defense of the autonomy of the cultural field. Unfortunately, cultural producers attempt to deal with problems on a personal level through personal survival strategies and without collective reflection and organizational coordination. That is why it is urgent to start a collective discussion on the critique of the economic and social conditions of the autonomous production, evaluation and diffusion of symbolic goods.
There are special social conditions that allow them, they don’t fall from the sky.
This discussion should have at least four axes of concern. First, a reflection on how to secure state assistance without incorporating state ways of thinking. If we believe that research activities in the field of culture, at least some of their forms, need the state to exist permanently and stably and that, grosso modo, the value of works is negatively correlated with the extent of their market, public support is absolutely necessary. The second axis is about how we will learn to use the autonomy that the state offers us to use it against the state, to prevent the subordination of state grant to a logic similar to that of private grant and not to allow the holders of state grant power to form a clientele or a court of intellectuals, scientists and artists.
We have many examples in our country which confirm Zhdanov’s law, i.e. the fact that the weaker a cultural producer is, little recognized according to the special laws of his area, the more he needs external powers, the more prone he is to ‘ these powers to impose himself in his special area. The history of the last forty years has shown that we are not prepared for this freedom in relation to the state.
The third axis of the discussion has to do with the conditions that will encourage young producers to produce dispositions both towards autonomy and to produce a stable relationship of knowledge, consciousness and intervention on the wider changes that affect the relative autonomy of the cultural space.
Finally, the forms of social organization of the cultural field must be examined, looking for ways to create sectoral and cross-sectoral discussion groups in which young and established cultural producers will think collectively and freely, beyond all coercion, competition and social hierarchies, the establishment of a real ethics action aimed at producing specific measures and proposals to (re)produce a strong autonomy in each field separately, instead of leaving it to the area of pure politics.
The withdrawal of Georgia Lale’s work reminds us that there is a “politics of intellectual freedom”. Today, more than ever, we need to talk in terms of a collective guild and the like. Of course, we have to prove, as Pierre Bourdieu said, that it will be the “guild of the Catholic”. A guild that aims to transcend its guild interests. Utopia, one might say, and they would be right. Except that this is a socially based realistic utopia.
*Professor of Sociology, Department of Communication and Media, School of Economics & Political Sciences – National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
#Culture #Censorship #EFSYN