Posted on

20220511

There are were a few statues depicting Lenin in public spaces in Finland. I don’t care much for them, they look boring but I get a melancholic vibe in their presence. They feel like puzzles or glitches which echo desires from a past, in a language I don’t understand. They feel displaced and lonely.

After Russia invaded Ukraine, there has been an urgent push to remove all references to Lenin and our ties to Soviet Union from public spaces. Turku is having had their minuscule Lenin bust, situated at the corner of a silent street removed and Kotka is planning did the same. Helsinki has a park called Lenin’s park which might will be renamed. There might be others too.

Right-wing conservative politicians in Turku argue that their statue is was due to removal because it “depicts an undemocratic and tragic phase in history, which does not manifest the developing cities strategy or the humane values of contemporary Turku city” (A loose translation of a statement by Turku major Minna Arve). Their critique does not extend to statues depicting different Russian tsars or Swedish kings. They want Lenin removed because it reminds them of communism.

In a recent debate regarding the renaming of a miniscule Leninpuisto (Lenin Park) in Helsinki 25 city council politicians reiterated that the renaming is a necessity because of Lenin’s “monstrous deeds” and claim that their efforts to rename the park is a feminist project, aiming to designate more public sites after historically significant women. This lie over the motivation is a disgrace to Otto Meri, the National Coalition Party member behind the recent renaming initiative. I’m not motivated to campaign against their effort because there are real political concerns which demand attention.

Their argumentation manifest the spite which past right-wing generations felt over the achievements of organized labour movement.  I see present day right-wing conservatives rallying against communism engaging in hauntological work. Their traumatic project aims to claim and taint “lost futures” as defined by Mark Fisher (introduced in a short 2021 article by Nicholas Diaz). More pressingly, the project is an attempt to evade discussing present day political relations and ties with Russia. Debating the removal of a statue is a convenient way to evade guilt over the fact that we –as the west we were– enabled Putin’s regime to emerge.

This evasion is useful for the present day Finnish politicians, who have leaned on Putin’s Russia and benefited economically from its exploitative and corrupted regime. For example Turku Energy was invested in the Fennovoima/Rosatom nuclear initiative and remained onboard in the project despite the Russian invasion of Crimea. Similarly National Coalition Party politicians have been acceptive to Russian oligarch investments (and a lot Finnish companies still operate in Russia), past Social Democratic Party leaders have worked for Nord Stream II lobbies and Centre Party leaders have taken positions in Russian banks and institutions.

The manner which the statues of a past communist figurehead is discussed, portrays them as been erected by an invading force. They were not. We did it because wanted to. It felt like a good idea at the time. Similarly, we have not been coerced into working with Putin – We took him as an opportunity and this backfired. Our wilful ignorance regarding the concerns Russian human right organisations, opposition activists and citizen voiced through the years is a reason why Russia started its attack against Ukraine.

Removing a Lenin statue is much easier than removing the stench of failed business deals. The attention they are receiving is a symptom of diminishing political agency. People feel powerless, that they cannot change the current system. They are taking revenge on an image of past communist leader, because this is easier then figuring out why establishing liberal economical ties with the Russia state failed in developing a democratic society.  Lenin has a few theories as to why… #☭

Edit: I resigned from the army reserve because the manner in which politicians use the war as a device for revising the legacy of socially progressive movements demands a response. They are building a Finland which does not exist for me. I’m working to leave this barren plain with my space comrades and no longer maintain a fantasy that defending these borders with guns aims for democracy.

Populist claim that present day Russia and its attack against Ukraine is derived from socialism, communism and is practically a project of the Soviet Union. People who make these claims very dangerously ignore that the 1917 Russian revolution was organized against an expansive imperialist state. The revolution was fuelled by a desire to end the many wars which the Russian Empire was engaged in at the time and an attempt to designate class (not ethnicity) as a foundation for nations.

Not unlike today’s Russia, the Russian Empire grounded its expansive campaigns on an ideal of a national destiny (partially defined by the church) and ethnically characterized patriotism, set to dominate the cultural diversity of the continent. If we want to learn anything from the revolution and it’s failure, it is that any appeals for a historic destiny of a nation and ethnically defined nation state projects, should be constrained by open democratic processes, public debates and legislative robustness which defaults to protect the weaker.

Democracy is threatened because ruthless politicians use emerging crises for short term political gain, and are eager to maintain a constant state of exception. Finland, for example, joined NATO without any public debates or a vote. Officials in charge at the time, even declared that entering a public debate in the matter, would open our ranks to Russian influence: We are told to comply and differing opinions were demonized. A historic destiny narrative of Finns as “neighbours to the bear” is being used to issue conservative restraints on cultural development. The state is buying automated biblically named weapons systems from Israel to protect its borders, while pressing cuts to social support and culture. Without a democratic culture and commons to share, we don’t have anything to fight for. They are protecting borders and don’t care about the quality of the content inside.

Working against wars is presented as a weakness and the strength I have is needed for peace-work. Under these conditions everyone should resign from the army. It is only a requirement portal for NATO, which conscripts are set to serve for free. It took a lot to arrive at this conclusion because my time in the army was a very rewarding experience, which helped me to understand Finns better. I don’t regret it but we deserve better.

Posted on

20220408

The difference between performance art and live-art is class. Live-art is favoured by artists from or aspiring to middle-classes and performance art is for the poor. Performance art is customer service, job hunting, busking and haggling. Live-art is choreography, dialogue and contracts.

I’m still scorned by COVID period setbacks, the impact of restrictions and control measures. Trying to read but I can’t do much work. The peak of the pandemic toggled my sense of agency and Russia’s attack to Ukraine is continuing the same. I feel irrelevant and detached.

Still awaiting a pcb shipment for the Arradio revision.

Clap in many synths Ive listened to is not a clap it is a tap as from the dance. I think many of my favourite claps would be better defined as taps. They have a woody element and a double tap is often used for emitting a sense of space. Doing double taps is easier then double claps.

Posted on

20211018

I witnessed Aira Samuli offer fashion tips for aspiring businesspeople. It was in the 90ties, we ate uunileipä (slices of wheat toast with minced meat, paprika and cheese) on weekends and binged on TV. Samulin prompted a businessperson to reveal their undergarment on a talk show. They lifted the leg of their pants revealing white tennis-socks which they wore with a black suit. Samulin shamed them.

This is how we grew into fashion. It was logical: Pay much, look good.

The Soviet Union had collapsed, people were hurting and the nation aimed to the west. Finns had factories and products but I guess they weren’t selling. Someone like Samulin convinced factory owners that Finns didn’t know how to market their stuff and that this was a reason for the emerging sustainability gap. There were even songs about this… Artists presented Finns as apes who fell from a tree.

Dressing properly, like some had seen businesspeople in international airports do, was a valid effort. It was a structural change of the era: A leap from production, to looking like a product. This period bootstrapped the careers of hightier media-bullies such as Jari Sarasvuo and Nalle Wahlroos.

This is how marketing gained its power and by the early 2000 marketing was everything. For consumers this change looked like Heikki Kinnunen turned into Neo from the Matrix. This figure reached its peak as the political figure of Alexander Stubb. Perhaps Kinnunen-Neo saved us from the recession. The media was saturated by colourfully printed annual reports and 3d corporate logos (and specifically adverts detailing how much rebranding had cost).

For a while the media was saturated with marketing and everything became a stylistic choice. Valio and other Nordic dairy companies ripped off Keith Haring to convince us that drinking milk was actually a style. At which stage of the production line does milk become a style? Efforts like this dislodged material relations. People seized to eat to feel good, they begun to eat to manifest their values. I think the milk-fashion-swindle is touched in Rumina (2017) Anni Puolakka.

Marketeer made farmers and cooks fashionistas and they’re still on it with superfoods.

Communication agencies came to be. Unhinged politicians escaped their responsibilities by joining lobbies and agencies which aimed to interface, to produce relations and events. Everything became a launch. Products weren’t sold, they were to produce relations.

But relations to what? To whom? We’ve reached a peak where communication agencies are revealed as the media. There aren’t any journalists left and the communication agency leaflets get published without edits. For a while marketeers mistook this as a sign that their professionalism but actually it was a symptom: There is only an echo chamber left. Only an echo chamber left.

Factory owners in Finland have spent the last 30 years attaching new meanings to old products. We’re left with Moomin, Marimekko (reincarnated as Makia), Fiskars and Kone. Each investing millions to agencies to constantly renew their relationships with their client. Billions of wasted money. Their products stink of uunileipä.

This is why we need support for art. The sustainability gap is a result of bad investments.

Posted on

20210916

We wrote an investigative article Our efforts to show solidarity for Palestine are tested at Kiasma, with Pietari Kylmälä for No Niin. The text was edited by Elham Rahmati & Vidha Saumya, who did a great job. With help from the kind people of the Boycott Zabludowicz campaign we were able to gain an update to the affairs of Chaim “Poju” Zabludowicz, a business person who funds an influential pro-Israeli lobbying organisation (BICOM), and who has a long record of investments in companies which work for the security and military forces of the State of Israel.

As a senior member of the Kiasma Support Foundation, Zabludowicz is deeply involved with the museum. In our view, their track record as an investor makes their affiliation with the public institution problematic. Kiasma should ensure that museum beneficiaries are not involved in businesses which benefit from military conflicts such as the current apartheid policies implemented by the State of Israel. We asked museum director Leevi Haapala for a response to the troubling details our investigation touched. Their response is available online.

Haapala’s response depicts a disconnection between politics and rhetorics. It’s disheartening to read how they deploy the museum’s newly announced safer space policy as a rhetorical device to slither away from responding to the concerns we’ve brought forth. They even spent a paragraph celebrating an artist whose artwork Zabludowicz’s involvement has secured into their collection.

In Haapala’s portrayal, as the director of the museum they’re also leading the operations of the support foundation. Paradoxically, while asserting that they are in control, Haapala also insists that since the museum is funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture, the organisation cannot take a public stand in humanitarian concerns. This means that in their leadership the programming of the museums is meant to represent political struggles but not to engage with political reality.

The response depicts Kiasma open and willing to receive funds from anyone. It seems there are no standards, no qualifications – as long as you bring in money and love art, the museum’s happy to serve you. This stance is common for private museums. But Kiasma is not a private museum. It is funded by the state; we need it to do better.

The museum expects its visitors to follow their safer space policy but does not expect the same from their financial beneficiaries.

Kiasma is not a “safe space” if it continues to harbour businesspeople who are investing in companies which Amnesty International is investigating for human right violations. I will not participate in events in the museum until they set forth guidelines which ensure that their beneficiaries are not involved in business actions which violate international law and human rights.

Posted on

20210905

“The White Exhibition” at Emma museum caused a scandal during the summer but I haven’t read anything about it since. Artists Sofie Hesselholdt and Vibeke Mejlvang aimed to explore whiteness trough a vast museum exhibition. Their text We can’t believe we still have to protest this shit (2021) is provocative and offers thorough insight to their artistic aims. I like what they are after and the look of the ragged flags in the exhibition.

The exhibition is another step in our ongoing quest to question and reject old hierarchical patterns so as to create spaces of inclusiveness. In a world of dichotomies, of Us and Them, we find it urgent to unify, to define a common We, a global solidarity. To start all over again.

Soon after the exhibition opened an article Emma-museossa puhkesi kiista tanssijoiden palkoista ja työajoista [A disagreement in Emma-museum over dancers wages and work terms] (2021) Pekka Torvinen revealed, that four performers who had been commissioned for a durational performance had been in contact with the Trade Union for Theatre and Media Finland (Teme) because the contract the museum had offered was unfair.

The exhibition artists had developed a performance, which was centred on choreographies related to maintenance. The performances were structured with tight schedules, similar as factory work and required daily presence by the performers. Hesselholdt & Mejlvang described the performance as the “heart of the exhibition”. To cut cost the museum sought to have the performance executed by students, who were attached to the show as trainees. As the working conditions and the function of the performance was revealed, the students organised and sought to make their contract just. I think they were really brave to do so (send them a compliment over email). They wanted a reasonable fee and I think they also wanted to be acknowledged as artists.

The article by Torvinen portrays the actions of Emma director Pilvi Kalhaman in a very negative light. According to this source Kalhama insists that their plan to use trainees was motivated by a desire to offer young artists a foothold in the field of art. They also argued that as the choreographies were not planned by the performers, an artist fee for the performers would have been unreasonable. Feels weird… Particularly in an emerging post-covid reality. The artists need the performers, who need the audience. The entire art affair insists that all parties participate equally. It makes absolutely no sense to pay a performer less then choreographer (or the audience).

As I understand it, most of the performers walked out from the production but I’m unsure what happened to the performance. I would like to know how Hesselholdt & Mejlvang felt about these debates and if the series of events had an impact in their praxis. Did this scandal motivate them to explore the conditions of class, capital and wage-labour further? Did the event effect their understanding of whiteness, does it have even more shades now? Interestingly the fee the artists were offered is close to the hourly wage of museum attendants. How did they feel about the entire debate?

The exhibition artists are using a picture from the performance as the front page of their website and comments on the exhibition performance documentation are turned off.