The Art of Conversation - Szewczyk

8/6/2019 The Art of Conversation - Szewczyk

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-art-of-conversation-szewczyk 1/10

Monika Szewczyk

Art ofConversation,

Part I

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊMuch has been said of late about ÒtheconversationalÓ or Òthe discursiveÓ in and aroundthe field of contemporary art.1 And yet we seemreluctant to talk about an art of conversation inthe same breath. Maybe it is the all-too-powderywhiff of seventeenth-century aristocratic ladiesand gentlemen, fanning themselves amidst idlechatter, whose connections to our ownaspirations we would rather sweep under theshaggy carpet?2 Or perhaps it is because we aredesperately hoping to talk ourselves out of stalenotions of art as a cultural practice that tosuggest an art of conversation might at firstseem utterly oxymoronic?

Binaries

My attempt to resuscitate this term in all itsdiscomforts stems from its potential to unhingea particular binary concept, which might besummarized in the title of a recent exhibitioncurated by Nicolaus Schafhausen and FlorianWaldvogel as part of the Brussels Biennial Ð

Show me, donÕt tell me.3 Why not show and tell?The same question might be posed to theproponents of the discursive as a way out of amere looking at art. Why do we so rarely hear ofdoing or thinking two things at once? Adialectical intertwining of positions mightdemand that we ask of art (as makers, viewers,critics, students, teachers) to suspend, boggle,or otherwise challenge available discourses andthat we in turn develop a discourse to elaborateevasions, deferrals, or misunderstandings of itsavailable notions. Or, we could remain actively

neutral with respect to this binary Ð howeverdialectically complex it may be, somethingseems to be missing from the equation.

still from Jesus Christus Erlšser (2008) 84 min. Directed by Peter Geyer

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊWith this in mind, I have been thinkingabout certain staged or filmed conversations,with an eye to how conversation is forged andwhat it forges. At stake are productive notions ofhow thought can move through conversation and

0 1 / 1 0

04.07.10 / 18:13:27 UTC



still from Hunger (2008), 96 min. Directed by Steve McQueen

how conversation can move thought thatprobably have very little to do with clichŽs ofconversation operating in the art world. This maybe understood as an aesthetic point of viewinsofar as aesthetics is the attention to ways ofappearing, perceiving, sensing. Conversation isoften understood as an equal, rational,democratic exchange that builds bridges,communities, understandings, and is thus a wayfor people to recognize each other. The thornyissue of whether or not one should talk todictators (with or without pre-conditions) thatcontinually flared up in the run-up to the recentAmerican presidential elections points to aparticular concern in the political culture withregard to how, when, and with whom one shouldengage in dialogue. To converse with dictators isto forestall their annihilation, to see Ð in thesense of acknowledging Ð them somehow.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊYet this a priori recognition confuses thematter. What if conversation is understood not asthe space of seeing, but of coming to terms with

certain forms of blindness? In other words, whatI think is not being articulated, but what drivesthe reticence for conversation, is theacknowledgement of non-knowledge rather thanrecognition. To have a conversation with Chavezor Ahmadinejad is to recognize that one does notknow them and wants to. In this way,conversation is always political and aestheticbecause it shows who we want to see, who or

what we admit into a world order. To put itsomewhat differently: if, as an art, conversationis the creation of worlds, we could say that tochoose to have a conversation with someone isto admit them into the field where worlds areconstructed. And this ultimately runs the risk ofredefining not only the Òother,Ó but us as well. Artand conversation share this space of invention,yet only conversation comes with theprecondition of plurality that might totally undothe notion of the creative agent.

Plurals

One can develop a discourse about theconversation, but at least two must have aconversation about discourse (which in turnmight become plural). In The InfiniteConversation, Maurice Blanchot creates a pluraldiscourse on conversation as plurality,attempting to disrupt his own writing, oftenmaking it sound like a conversation (with anunnamed interlocutor who may be Georges

Bataille) Ð all this to extend thought infinitely.Common sense and manuals on the art ofconversation may tell us that it is rude tointerrupt; Blanchot thinks differently:

The definition of conversation (that is, themost simple description of the most simpleconversation) might be the following: whentwo people speak together, they speak not

0 2 / 1 0

04.07.10 / 18:13:28 UTC



still from Jesus Christus Erlšser (2008) 84 min. Directed by Peter Geyer

together, but each in turn: one sayssomething, then stops, the other somethingelse (or the same thing), then stops. Thecoherent discourse they carry on iscomposed of sequences that areinterrupted when the conversation movesfrom partner to partner, even ifadjustments are made so that theycorrespond to one another. The fact thatspeech needs to pass from one interlocutorto another in order to be confirmed,contradicted, or developed shows thenecessity of interval. The power of speakinginterrupts itself, and this interruption playsa role that appears to be minor Ð preciselythe role of a subordinated alteration. Thisrole, nonetheless, is so enigmatic that itcan be interpreted as bearing the veryenigma of language: pause betweensentences, pause from one interlocutor toanother, and pause of attention, thehearing that doubles the force of locution.4

IÕd almost like to stop here Ð to pause indefinitelyand allow myself and everyone reading this tothink about BlanchotÕs sense of theconversation, especially the force it accords tohearing.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊTo resume, with this in mind, is to attempt aconversation with Blanchot (or more specifically,with this particular text). So then, how can we

consider a conversation through itsinterruptions?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊA recent film that resonates with thesequestions is Steve McQueenÕs first feature film,Hunger (2008), which concerns the 1981 hungerstrike led by Bobby Sands inside BelfastÕs MazePrison. The film is virtually without speech. Itproceeds through a war of gestures: the coldlyadministered abuse of prisoners (in scenes thatevoke the inhuman conditions of Abu Ghraib andGuantanamo Bay) and the prisonersÕ retaliationwith acts that perversely aestheticize theirabject conditions, under which they are refusedpolitical status, and people are reduced tobodies for silent administration. The sublimeswirl of shit painted on the walls of one grimycell in all the deliberate blankness of a JasperJohns (shown half-washed-off in the poster forthe film) is one emblem of the prisonersÕ mutetactics. The other, of course, is the hunger strikeitself, wherein Bobby SandsÕ emaciated bodyslowly approximates the figure of Christ on the

cross.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊRoughly in the middle of the film, betweenthe two moving images, speechlessness isinterrupted with a conversation between Sandsand a priest. Their exchange is captured (almost)entirely in one long take, shot from the side sothat the two men face each other (and not thecamera, as is customary in the shot-reverse-shotstyle of filming conversations). The effect is all

0 3 / 1 0

04.07.10 / 18:13:29 UTC



too real: priest and prisoner banter, becomingregular guys that joke, smoke, show theiraffinities and their humanity, then fall into anintense debate on the merits of the hungerstrike. The priest implores Sands not to mistakeselfish delusions of martyrdom for politicalefficacy and Sands rejects the priestÕssuggestion that talking to the Protestants ispossible or could solve the political impasse. Theconversation stops and, soon thereafter, so doesSandsÕ life. He refuses the infinity ofconversation.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊFor all the naturalism of this scene, it is astrange thing to see a priest smoking: GodÕsworker on earth speeding his way to the graveeven as he defends the sanctity of life. Yet inmingling, the exhalations of Sands and those ofthe priest materialize and form something third,which lets their moral and ethical confusionshover.5 After Sands dies, and just before the filmends, we hear the contemptuous monologue ofMargaret Thatcher on BBC Radio Ð another killer

of conversation.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊConversation, the converse of monologue.When Blanchot wrote his polyphonous book in1969, with the memory of the Second World Warstill vivid, he juxtaposed conversation to thedictatorial monologue of Hitler, most exemplarily,but added that Òevery head of state participatesin the same violence of this dictare, therepetition of an imperious monologue, when heenjoys the power of being the only one to speakand, rejoicing in possession of his high solitaryword, imposes it without restraint as a superior

and supreme speech upon others.Ó Conversation,Blanchot continues, even in its most coherentform must Òalways fragment itself by changingprotagonistsÓ with an Òinterruption for the sakeof understanding, understanding in order tospeak.Ó What is beautiful about BlanchotÕs notionof interruption is that he considers silence to beone of its strongest forms. He cites Kafka, whowondered, Òat what moment and how manytimes, when eight people are seated within thehorizon of a conversation, it is appropriate tospeak if one does not wish to be considered

silent.ÓÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊWho doesnÕt have the urge to remain silentin a conversation Ð to let it unfold without beingimplicated and without taking sides, remainingblissfully neutral and knowing? But thisomniscience or even omnipotence is not quitewhat is at stake in this notion of conversation.For Blanchot, both speaking (in turn) and silenceÐ as the two means of interrupting Ð can eitherserve understanding (via a dialectic) or they canproduce something altogether more enigmatic. Itall depends on how we conceive of theinterlocutors of a conversation: if I addresssomeone as my opposite, either as object of mysubjective discourse or as a subject who isinfinitely different but equal to me, I enter into adialectic which seeks synthesis and unity(understanding). Yet Blanchot also explores

conversation with, and interruption by,something other Ð one that cannot complete orunderstand its interlocutor, but interrupts inanother way. Following LŽvinas, Blanchotdesignates this someone as autrui, understood,not as the opposite, but as the neutral Ð Òanalterity that holds in the name of the neutral.Ó6

BlanchotÕs notion of the neutral is close toBarthesÕ in that it is not a nothing, but somethingbeyond the binaries that structure dialectics Ð away to move in thought and sensation differently.Conceiving of dialogue beyond dialectics (whichholds out unity and synthesis as an end), we canapproach the infinity that proliferates via itsdeployment of the neutral. This is to say that akind of geometry of thought is at stake thatmight allow for thought itself to move differentlyaltogether.

God, avatar of autrui

Of all the avatars of autrui as the infinite and theneutral that appear in BlanchotÕs text, I am

perhaps most uncomfortable with God. Yetperhaps it is God as interlocutor that bestboggles thinking on the conversation Ð it is thestuff of revolution if you think of the ProtestantReformation and the aspirations to talk moredirectly with God. Blanchot considers LevinasÕnotion that ÒAll true discourse . . . is discoursewith God, not a conversation held betweenequals.Ó A sphinx-of-a-scribe, Blanchotunderstands Levinas Òin the strongest sense, asone always must. And in remembering, perhaps,what is said in Exodus of God speaking: as one

man to anotherÓ (maybe that is why the sight ofBobby Sands and a priest Ð GodÕs ambassador Ðtalking as equals comes with a little extrastrangeness). This god/man duplicity comesback later, when Blanchot speaks of Apollo,himself speaking through the poet Bacchylidesto Admetus, the founder of dialogue (a pluralspeech indeed): ÒYou are a mere mortal; therefore

your mind must harbor two thoughts at once.Ó(Tellme about it...) And how difficult it is to speaksuch a mind, especially if the dialectic is not itsfigure. To be of two positions at once Ð this is

what is afforded to the viewer of McQueenÕsparticular angle (in profile) on the conversation ofBobby Sands and the priest. There is somethingto be said for film as a particularly complexmedium that lets us observe the polyphony(which includes glances and silences) thatmakes up the plural speech of conversation.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊRather than taking this plurality of thoughtas something to be reproached while unity iselevated to divine heights, Blanchot concludessomething that one might take to heart whenconfronted with all unitary voices:

What, fundamentally, is the god asking ofAdmetus? Perhaps nothing less than thathe shake off the yoke of the god and finallyleave the circle in which he remainsenclosed by a fascination with unity. And

e - f l u x

j o u r n a

l # 3

Ñ f e

b r u a r y 2

0 0 9 M o n

i k a

S z e w c z y k

A r t o f C o n v e r s a t i o n ,

P a r t I

0 4 / 1 0

04.07.10 / 18:13:30 UTC



Joseph Beuys, How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare (26 November 1965), performance documentation at Galerie Alfred Schmela,DŸsseldorf.



this is no small thing, certainly, for it meansceasing to think only with a view to unity.And this means therefore: not fearing toaffirm interruption and rupture in order tocome to the point of proposing andexpressing Ð an infinite task Ð a truly pluralspeech.

Another moving image to consider: Peter GeyerÕsdocumentary film Jesus Christus Erlšser (2008),where the kranky Klaus Kinski incants amonologue of/as Jesus. In our schizophrenicallyGodless and post-secular world, thisconversation with God might be a place to linger.Kinsky plays the savior to a disaffectedbohemian proletariat assembled at theDeutschlandhalle in Berlin on November 20,1971. His message of radical equality, socialredemption, and brotherly love competes withhis superstar persona (swathed in a vintageTechnicolor flower chemise) and, in light of thisglaring contradiction, Kinski is repeatedly

interrupted by members of the audience whowant to turn his monologue into a conversation.Each time someone takes up the mic, Kinskifights back or storms off the stage, only to returnand begin again. By the end of the film, evenafter the credits have rolled (which extends theordeal into infinity in filmic terms) Kinski isshown down in the stands, amongst the twodozen or so remaining devotees, trying toremember his lines so that he can finally deliverhis gospel in full. Here, then, is the failure ofconversation as the failure of interruption Ð the

audience is hushed; Kinski continues.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊI saw Jesus Christus Erlšser (again), shortlyafter visiting the Joseph Beuys retrospective DieRevolution sind wir (We are the Revolution) at theHamburger Bahnhof in Berlin Ð a burgeoningshow staged under the broader city-wide themeof ÒKult des KŸnstlersÓ adopted by the StaatlicheMuseen in Berlin. Posters in the U-bahn stationsinclude DŸrerÕs famous Self-portrait at 28 of1500, which makes the artist look like a princelyChrist; and I was expecting that Beuys would fitneatly into this long history of the Jesus complex

in art.7

My eyes and ears were strained for signsof a Messiah, and these signs proliferated Ð onlyin the guise of a divine conversationalist.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊWith his gaunt face and intense jaw, Beuysbears a striking physical resemblance to Kinsky.His sense of himself as a shaman and thegravitas he projects could lead to furthercomparison. Yet Beuys embraced theconversational mode in his public persona aswell as his artistic practice in a way that Kinskyfailed to do. The exhibition features amplefootage of the artist involved in publicdiscussions on German and American televisionor on taped videos, also within the student milieuof the DŸsseldorf Kunstakademie. And to besure, he is often seen as the typical maestro ofthe German art academy Ð sole authority andsource of mystical wisdom, at times mocking or

condescending to his interlocutors. But, heretains a sense of humor Ð I especially think thatHow to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare (1965)needs to be considered as much for its archcomedy as for its mysticism and priestly ritual.Not one or the other, but both Ð BeuysÕ mentalityclearly harbors at least two thoughts at once.Here I might note that, all in all, I do not takeBeuysÕ particular mystique as completelyrepulsive. A messiah needs disciples in order forthe mysticism of the work to be as much aproduct of its reading as the character of itsintent. If one option for breaking thecircumscribed view wherein figures such asBeuys embody (near) divinity is simply not tocongregate around them (and after their death toskip the show), another might be to bring thework of the neutral into play in confronting them.

Another Neutral

The film footage of the 1965 performance of Howto explain shows the artist inside the Galerie

Alfred Schmela, DŸsseldorf, wherein he cradlessaid dead animal while pointing out anddiscussing his drawings. The entire exercisestages a kind of impossible or abortedconversation that could almost be understood asa negative manifesto. In other words, it proceedsthrough a series of refusals: the first to berejected is the (human/animal) binary. The artistdoubles up as a god Ð his head covered in honeyand gold leaf for maximum Apollonian oomph.Then, the human is virtually removed from theequation, if we consider that the camera has

captured the performance from the street(through the window), stressing that theaudience was emphatically excluded from thegallery space as the space for communionbetween the man (playing a god) and the dead orsacrificed animal. Finally Ð and this refusal isparticularly ambiguous Ð in obscuring theaudienceÕs ability to hear any lesson imparted tothe hare, does the mystical teacher curb hisauthority or does he silence the authority ofdiscourse? The work of silence, a key cipher ofthe neutral, is to perpetually put signification

and representation into question. The lesson ofBeuysÕ pictures is withheld. Announced asexplanation, the performance is in fact aquestion engine. It echoes BlanchotÕs notion ofthe neutral within the space of conversation asÒinitiating significance, but signifying nothing, ornothing determined.ÓÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThis Ònothing determinedÓ makes way forconversation. And it is not to determine, but toextend indeterminacy (infinitely) thatconversations occur. What emerges here is anotion of the neutral stripped of its beige,eventless character. How to Explain Pictures to aDead Hare involves both show-and-tell. It isplural and extravagantly symbolic. As such, itopens up to a sense of the neutral as ex cess andremainder alongside the identification of theneutral with the void. Voids Ð especially the

e - f l u x

j o u r n a

l # 3

Ñ f e

b r u a r y 2

0 0 9 M o n

i k a

S z e w c z y k


P a r t I

0 6 / 1 0

04.07.10 / 18:13:32 UTC



Joseph Beuys, Das Schweigen von Marcel Duchamp wird †berbewertet (The Silence Of Marcel Duchamp Is Overrated) (1964), oil, paper, ink, felt, chocolate,photographs.



avoidance of judgment Ð have an important partto play in neutrality. The neutral is a radical otherin that it is neither opposite nor like anythingbecause it cannot be judged.8 Only when there isa tendency to kneel before a void (veneration is aform of judgment) does it break with the sense ofthe neutral.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHere, BeuysÕ Das Schweigen von MarcelDuchamp wird Ÿberbewertet (The Silence ofMarcel Duchamp is Overrated), painted in theyear before How to explain, refuses an overlyrespectful interpretation of DuchampÕsinscrutable seclusion. And although the attemptto undervalue his silence, or at least question itsovervaluation, plays into the game of judgment(and thereby ruins its neutrality), the paintinghighlights another powerful engine ofconversation: listening. By troubling DuchampÕssilence, BeuysÕ shows how loudly he heard it. Forall the criticism leveled at Beuys regarding hisinability to absorb the lessons of MarcelDuchamp, one artistÕs refusal to take the other at

his silence may be read as a conversationalgesture. Indeed, we could say that theregistering, even the amplification, of a silence isa fine beginning for a conversation. For all theirdifferences, I do wonder if both artists were notexploring registers of Òthe neutral,Ó albeit in verydifferent ways.

Bestiary

How then to proliferate the neutral? This is thequestion at the heart of the art of conversation.This is at once very close and very far from the

common sense of conversation. There is: ÒletÕsnot fight; weÕll meet on neutral ground and talk itover.Ó But there is also: Òhow can we listen to theinaudible, the unheard of, that which does not somuch transcend as suspends not only thebinaries but also the equivalences whichconstitute subjectivity?Ó A radical misalignmentof interlocutors is needed for the work ofneutrality to occur. This is how BeuysÕ How toexplain may prove most interesting. Inintroducing this strange sense of conversation,my aim is to apply pressure on the givens of

conversation as a harmonious unifying operation.BBC Radio tells me every twenty minutes to Òjointhe global conversationÓ as if something of thesort were naturally taking place. A lot of thingsare called conversation; and to work in the nameof this model of exchange is to mark oneÕstolerance for diversity, but often only as a maskfor unifying operations.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊA few last words from Blanchot, for whomthe idea of conversation resides in a downrightweird conception of the interlocutor aspossessing a speech Òbeyond hearing and towhich I must nonetheless respond.Ó This notionis conjured in a fictive dialogue, which includesthe following retort: ÒSuch then, would be mytask: to respond to this speech that surpassesmy hearing, to respond to it without having reallyunderstood it, and to respond to it in repeating it,

in making it speak.Ó How to exercise such ahearing? Here is the other great question ofconversation Ð not one of articulating (which ismore proper to discourse), but one of hearing(which is proper to a notion of conversation asthat which interrupts discourse as we know it). Icannot think through this proposition exceptmaybe by considering certain exchangesbetween a woman and a stone, between a manand an animal. For the former, WislawaSzymborskaÕs 1962 poem, ÒConversation with aStone,Ó conjures up the geological specimenÕsstone-cold voice of reproach to the human poet:ÒYou lack the sense of taking part / No othersense can make up for your missing sense oftaking part. / Even sight heightened to becomeall-seeing / will do you no good without a senseof taking part.Ó For the latter, consider MarcelBroodthaersÕ Interview with a Cat, a rather ÒbadexampleÓ perhaps, in that Broodthaers also hasno Òsense of taking partÓ beyond a well-rehearsed Òsense of the absurd.Ó But it is a

somewhat fitting example nonetheless, asBroodthaersÕ gesture was recorded (in 1972) atthe MusŽe dÕart Moderne, DŽpartement des

Aigles in DŸsseldorf, and thus in BeuysÕbackyard.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe tangle of Broodthaers and Beuys,whose own conversations with animals did notstop at the hare, are most often read throughBroodthaersÕ open letter dated September 25,1972, published in the Rheinische Post onOctober 3 of that year, where he effectivelyaccuses Beuys of being too Wagnerian.9 Yet, in

sharp contrast to his interview with the cat,BroodthaersÕ Department of Eagles encroacheson the sinister uses of the bird by administrativeand totalitarian forces. His interview is thusimbedded within an extensive project ofextravagant animal symbolism. Like Beuys withthe hare, Broodthaers chooses to talk pictureswith the cat. In a stroke of arch-irony, we hearthe comparison of conceptual art with an unseencanvas Ð constituted as pure concept. A climaxof sorts comes as Broodthaers, ventriloquizingMagritte, alternately repeats ÒCÕest une pipeÓ

and ÒCeci nÕest pas une pipeÓ as the felinechimes in with its loud inarticulate noises. Therecording feels manipulated, in that the catÕstiming, his absolutely polite waiting for its turn,turns the disruptive element of the animalÕs voiceinto the mechanical certainty of a laugh-track. Inthe end, Broodthaers poses many questions, butdoes not articulate any questions that he hearsof himself so that he might invent Òa responsewithout understanding.Ó

*ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊNow dear, patient reader, you might ask:ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÒWhere does this leave us? What have welearned about the art of conversation, which isalready dead, or is by most accounts dying? Arewe meant to put ourselves in the shoes of BeuysÕhare? Is this some elaborate funeral?ÓÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊI might respond, provisionally, or as a

e - f l u x

j o u r n a

l # 3

Ñ f e

b r u a r y 2

0 0 9 M o n

i k a

S z e w c z y k


P a r t I

0 8 / 1 0

04.07.10 / 18:13:34 UTC



preface to the next chapter, that:ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÒThe thought of conversation needs tobecome stranger still if we want conversation toforge something altogether new. In de-naturalizing it Ð and veering towards the neutralÐ we might get out of the circle weÕre in, take Godand animal, and forge some kind of Sphinx tolisten to, posing questions that interrupt what wehave thus far called conversation.ÓÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ

Monika Szewczyk is a writer and editor based in Berlinand in Rotterdam, where she is the head ofpublications at Witte de With, Center for

Contemporary Art, and a tutor at the Piet ZwartInstitute. She also acts as contributing editor of A Prior magazine in Ghent.

e - f l u x

j o u r n a

l # 3

Ñ f e

b r u a r y 2

0 0 9 M o n

i k a

S z e w c z y k


P a r t I

0 9 / 1 0

04.07.10 / 18:13:34 UTC



1The interest of this very journaland its organizers at e-flux inthese notions is well evidencedby two texts on the subject: onein Issue #0 by Irit Rogoff (whoseCuratorial/Knowledge Seminarat Goldsmiths University, co-organized with Jean PaulMartinon, which I haveparticipated in, often questionsnotions of conversation and howconversational modes play acompensatory role in the artworld); and one by Liam Gillick in

Issue #2, which was firstformulated for the HermesLecture he delivered in DenBosch on November 9, 2008. Butthe investment in conversationaland discursive practice is alsoevidenced by e-flux projectssuch as unitednationsplaza inBerlin and Night School at NewYorkÕs New Museum, whichconsist predominantly ofactivities such as talks, paneldiscussions, and similar arenasof knowledge production andexchange. Here, I shouldmention that one of my closestencounters with e-flux was TheNew York Conversations, a three-day event co-organized in thesummer of 2008 with A Prior journal (of which I am acontributing editor),whichincluded Anton Vidokle as one ofthe featured artists alongsideRirkrit Tiravanija and NicoDockx. While the list could go onindefinitely, IÕll mention just onemore text, Emily PethickÕsÒResisting Institutionalisation,Ófound athttp://www.ica.org.uk/Resisting%20institutionalisation,%20by%20Emily%20Pethick%20+17441.twl, because herunderstanding of conversationas above all Òa way of preventinga fixed representationÓ is

important for my ownunderstanding, and perhaps alsoconnected to GillickÕs sense ofconversation as a place to Òhidewithin a collectiveÓ and thusbecome difficult to recognize orrepresent in a Deleuzian sense.

2For an elaboration on theelevated status of conversationas an art in the period, and theattendant attempts by Frencharistocrats to distinguishthemselves from a risingbourgeoisie, see Mary Vidal,WatteauÕs PaintedConversations: Art, Literature,and Talk in Seventeenth- and

Eighteenth-Century France (NewHaven and London: YaleUniversity Press, 1992), 75-98.One of VidalÕs most prescientthemes is that of conversationas a form of creating anddisseminating knowledge andinformation in a manner otherthan the conventional andfundamentally hierarchicalschool model where those wholearn are pupils and those whoteach masters. To uphold aveneer of perfection from birth,nobles could not be taught andtherefore rejected formalnotions of learning. Vidal notesthat, ÒA conversation with oneÕsequals was one of the few

acceptable ways for thearistocrat to increase knowledgeand to perfect (not acquire)superiority . . . The salons hadinitiated a distinctly noblelearning process based on theexchange of agreeable andrelevant bits of information

among equals, in contrast to theauthoritarian, pedantic,masterÐstudent relationship ofthe bourgeois academic systemÓ(95). This scenario presents aninteresting foil to currentexperiments in education andexhibition-making whichprivilege the conversationalmode Ð I am not concernedabout this as a snobbish pursuit.Rather, I see the nobilitydescribed by Vidal as underduress, and conversation as ameans of self-constitution and

self-preservation, which had toremain clandestine. Her mainpoint about WatteauÕs paintingsis not that they showconversations but that theycannot represent what is said.

3Show me, donÕt tell me wasorganized by NicolausSchafhausen and FlorianWaldvogel for the inauguralBrussels Biennial, as a satelliteexhibition organized by the Wittede With (where, incidentally, Iwork as the head of that mostdiscursive of departments:publications). I mention theexhibition with a lot of sympathyfor the curators and artists, butalso a sense that the titlerehearses a cocky stance and abinary that was only interestingin that it irritated and was inturn foiled by the jointcontribution of Charles Esche(for the Van Abbe Museum,Eindhoven) and Maria Hlavajova(for the BAK, Utrecht) installednext to it at the former PostSorting Center in Brussels. Theproject entitled Once is Nothingdiscursively restaged an earlierexhibition claiming to critiquethe unreflexive production ofever-new shows.

4See Maurice Blanchot, TheInfinite Conversation, ed. andtrans. Susan Hanson(Minneapolis and London:University of Minnesota Press,1993), 75. All subsequentquotations are from the sectionÒPlural Speech: (the speech ofwriting),Ó 3-82.

5This strange smoke is also thestrangely all-but-sharp punctumof the image of Sands smoking,used on posters for the film,taken from the shot that breaksthe long take that captures hisconversation with the priest. It

hovers almost like a blankspeech bubble, enforcing therefusal of speech.

6BlanchotÕs continued meditationon Ôthe neutralÕ occurs indialogue with Roland Barthes,for whom this term is acontinually elaborated andmultiplied point of departure fordeveloping a movement ofthought that suspends binarystructures, even the mostsophisticated of these Ð thedialectic. While Barthes thoughtabout the neutral throughout hiscareer, it was not until1977Ð1978 that he developed it

into a seminar Ð the second ofthree he gave while he held theChair of Semiology at the Coll•gede France. See Roland Barthes,The Neutral, trans. RosalindKrauss and Dennis Hollier (NewYork: Columbia University Press,2005).

7I must admit that, in NorthAmerica, where I studied arthistory, the reading of Beuys hasbeen overshadowed by BenjaminH.D. BuchlohÕs damning 1980essay ÒBeuys: The Twilight of theIdol,Ó Artforum 5, no.18, 35-43.Here, BeuysÕ assumption of theidentity of a shaman and healeris seen as an obfuscation ofGerman postÐWorld War II guilt.For a complication of BeuysÕcomplex play with totalitarian

power, see Jan VerwoertÕs essayin Issue #1 of this journal.

8Both Blanchot, and GillesDeleuze (in dialogue with ClaireParnet) stress the work ofconversation as the avoidance of judgment. See especially p. 81 ofBlanchotÕs Infinite Conversationwhere he notes that Òwe know,first of all, that there is almostno sort of equality in oursocieties. (It suffices, inwhatever regime, to have heardthe ÔdialogueÕ between a manpresumed innocent and themagistrate who questions him toknow what this equality ofspeech means when it is basedupon an inequality of culture,condition, power, and fortune.But each of us, and at everymoment, either is or findshimself in the presence of a judge. All speech is a word ofcommand, of terror, ofseduction, of resentment,flattery, or aggression; allspeech is violence Ð and topretend to ignore this in claimingto dialogue is to add liberalhypocrisy to the dialecticaloptimism according to whichwar is no more than anotherform of dialogue.Ó DeleuzeÕsattempt to critique the continual

presence of judgment in existingconversations, is made clearestthrough the folksy lyrics of BobDylan: ÒAnd while youÕre busyprosecutinÕ / weÕll be busywhistlinÕ / cleaninÕ up thecourtroom / sweepinÕ sweepinÕ /listeninÕ listeninÕ . . .Ó Ð a set ofattitudes that could be namedneutral, especially the space ofacute listening. See GillesDeleuze and Claire Parnet, ÒAConversation. What is it? What isit for?Ó in Dialogues II (New York:Columbia University Press,2002), 1-35.

9The most notable addition would

have to be I Like America and America Likes Me (1974) whereinthe artist shared the space ofGalerie RŽnŽ Block in New Yorkwith a young coyote for theduration of three days. This time,as the film of the performanceattests, the animal-other wasvery lively and unpredictable.And for all the black-and-whiteseriousness of the footage, andthe heavy symbolism that hasbeen rehearsed around the work(the coyote purportedly standsin for Native Americans), Icannot help but think of thechasm between the artist andthe animal as that infiniteexpanse which stretches under

the paws of Wyle E. Coyote,hanging at the edge of a cliff,before he plunges to become apuff of Nevada sand. Why notfind some humor in BeuysÕ work,misread it, laugh out loud andbare our teeth like beasts?

e - f l u x

j o u r n a

l # 3

Ñ f e

b r u a r y 2

0 0 9 M o n

i k a

S z e w c z y k


P a r t I

1 0 / 1 0

The Art of Conversation - Szewczyk

Documents

Transcript of The Art of Conversation - Szewczyk