Posted on

What is تطبيع and how can we act against it?

I wrote a text for the Mustekala “Hard and Soft Power” -issue which has nine submissions by 11 artworkers. What is تطبيع and how can we act against it? introduces تطبيع as a process through which structural injustices inflicted on Palestinians by the State of Israel are made to appear ordinary and acceptable. We also translated the BDS guidelines on it to Finnish with BDS Finland and Sumud association volunteers.

A merit of the writing is how it aligns with Omar Barghoutis presentations of BDS which they offered in Helsinki last year. The alignment is present in optimism on people’s agency for determining political futures. I’m proud about producing a graceful text in which the facts are present but not the focus. If the text is impactful, it is because of how the terrain is laid out.

Instead of referring to research, I build mostly on events where people have expressed their thought by speaking and grassroots medias. This situatedness is an asset. There are old school references, such as Subcontractors of Guilt by Esra Özyürek, The Grammar of Resistance an interview of Abdaljawad Omar (I discovered their writing on Rusted Radishes) and a recent dissociation by Bram De Smet on Slow Erasure. But these writers are presented as leaning to what people are expressing at events, and through their art.

The aim is to reduce the authoritative force of text. I think this is close to what Aruna D’Souza is after in their definition of art writing: structures revealed by their touch, not by their bones. Only beauty has transformative power.

For the past two… Or actually five years, we have tried to explain to different groups, organizations, and individuals, in cabinets and on the streets, what is taking place in Palestine and what to expect locally, when we take Palestine on as a lens. We’ve drawn from the best research available. Yet, it is clear that people are not moved by the precision of arguments: impact comes from organizing, which is inherently beautiful because it is messy and passionate.

We’ve participated in extraordinary beauty in the streets for over two years. Once we ran out of generator fuel and a demonstration concert was almost cancelled. But people gathered in crisis, shared shame and responsibility, and resolved the matter. It was theatrical but invisible for the public and translating that event into an image or a performance would take a lifetime, because it unfolded as collective hormonal intelligence. The affordances of the city where revealed in stress as the hivemind computed alternative energy sources, the decibel level needed for an acoustic performance, and routes to the closest petrol station. The moment desires to be deposited as a scar in our brains. It was and remains real.

There have been numerous moments, where we’ve figured out stuff against the odds. These add up to a skill, and for example in reference to the news, people are unfazed by propaganda because we’ve learned to proof information from each others faces, in minute changes in skin tones and the timbres of our voices.

Reflecting on Europe and Finland, the text recognizes how silences around colonialism, racism, fascism and economic exploitation have enabled present inequalities and political complacency. In other words: international rule based order has been broken by our silence on settler colonialism, apartheid, occupation and finally the genocide. I take this further to express that the silence has removed the mandate of present institution leaders and conclude, that to remain in power, failed leaders will downplay injustices and further restrict dissent. This will have catastrophic effects if we are not prepared, and now is the time to act because it’s safer in the front.

What is missing from the text is a realization that an exception confirms the rule: notable leaders of the political west are framing current U.S. actions as deviations from a rules-based order. This narrative allows them to take distance while minimizing scrutiny of their own complicity or passivity in ongoing crises in Palestine and across the wider region. This distancing risks becoming a mechanism for whitewashing deeper issues present within international order. Once electoral cycles pass in the political west, there is a strong possibility of a rapid return to a old normal which reproduces the same systemic shortcomings. In this sense, Trump-era politics are not a disruption: its energy normalizes and roots authoritarian tendencies on a global scale.

Understanding the mechanisms of تطبيع gives us tools to defend free expression, and resist an authoritarian rift. The text expresses that working against تطبيع is a process of decolonizing knowledge production and places hope in structural alliances, which for example Apartheid Free Zones manifest. Alliances depend on upkeep, and on practicing solidarity. In an attempt to localize the concept I present it as model for scrutinizing connections to Russian civil society.

Posted on

20221008

We wrote an appeal Chaim “Poju” Zabludowicz’s membership of Kiasma Support Foundation must be revoked (2022) to the Museum of Contemporary Art Kiasma with artist Terike Haapoja. I’m thankful for having the opportunity to work with them. The appeal is direct in its confrontation with the institution. For me it represents a step in a series of inevitable actions, which the 2021 article for No-Niin and it’s later 2022 translation for Tiedonantaja call for. I’m particularly proud that we issued a very clear demand and named people who are responsible for the current state of affairs. Our writing is in accordance to how Aruna D’Souza advices art-writers to engage with institutions, for example not to be afraid to “name names”. The text also includes a short pedagogical snippet informing audiences of “artwashing” and “soft power” (in Finnish), which are cute and could work in a textbook.

Kiasma’s Director Leevi Haapala describes Zabludowicz’s role on the board of the support foundation as unproblematic, for instance, appealing to the organization’s safer-space policy. When someone who represents art organizations being boycotted and who funds the covering up of human-rights violations holds a seat at the heart of a state institution, we have to ask: for whom is the organization keeping the space safe?

The safer-space policy cannot mean that the museum is excused from concern for human-rights violations or for apartheid, nor can it in any way support them. […] We challenge Kiasma – the organization arranging [Ars22 Gathering] discussions – to extend its safer-space policy to its own institutional structures, too. The first step in this would be to revoke Chaim “Poju” Zabludowicz’s membership of the Board. Otherwise Kiasma will endanger its credibility as a platform for discussions of social responsibility, and will be complicit in the artwashing of a political activity that endangers human lives.

Posted on

20200204

Telecommunications Reclaimed (2019) Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay & Félix Tréguer. A book on community networks. I read the history part and some shorter interviews/reflections. Unfortunately it reads as a tactical project publication, made more for the sake of having a publication for a project, then an effort to advocate a cause.

Aruna D’Souzas talk (2020) for the Creative Time Summit X is great! She problematises empathy as a strategy for political resistance and argues that institutions created the need for racism: “Slavery was not the product but the origin of racism “. Hence changing attitudes cannot undo structures. She also identifies how empathy is utilized to validate the global-wests efforts in assuming control over others (which is something we’ve explored trough Trans-Horse). She then takes a critical view on artworks which seek to “give voice to marginalized communities” and argues that in many cases these kinds of artworks expose individuals in the same ways as dehumanizing institutions (such as border control) do.

Posted on

20181129

Visited Aruna D’Souza’s talk Writing in the Reparative Mode (video link) at the 8th floor. The event was organized by the The New School. She offered a road-map on how she developed from an academician into an art-writer and art critic. D’Souza became disillusioned by the academia after witnessing numerous race related scandals which the organizations failed to respond to. After leaving university, she felt that Facebook helped her to develop as a writer. Posting on her wall felt like brainstorming and gave her the opportunity to pose questions instead of re-affirming what is already known (I really dislike her emphasis on Facebook and Instagram as “real venues for art writing”, because the technology is based on exclusion).

She invited the audience to think about “reparative criticism” which is an attempt to compensate for the injustices which effect the decedents of the enslaved. In the beginning she started to “write as a student”, which means she wants to understand an artwork on the artworks own terms (I’m weirdly reminded by the self-reflectionism of minimal art). Her writing is “drawing attention” to works which teach her how to be “an ethical and political citizen of this fraud moment in history” (D’Souza acknowledges this as signal-boosting). She is also constantly learning to talk about her own failures. “Our culture is weakened by peoples inability to apologize”. She refers to her writing concerning a Jimmie Durham exhibition, in which she downplayed the critique stirred up by Durham’s claims of Native Ancestry (More on the topic by Sheila Regan). After she re-freshened her opinion on Durham (after learning about the topic trough the debate), her act was seen of as opportunism (changing sides) instead of rethinking and apologizing.

In D’Souzas view art writing is primarily made for the white gaze. Art writing excludes the subjectivity of the artist (and the critic). When writing for the black-gaze, she is more sensitive when talking about race and politics. There are benefits too: Some key concepts such as “the existence of structural violence, “the consent of white fragility” and “the weaponized use of white tears” do not need explaining. She invites writers to “punch up” in their critiques and not to be afraid “name names” of people who are responsible for oppressive acts. She wants to name people so that we will not talk “around the problems of institutional racism” (I find this troubling. Naming people feels like vain punishment and I find it hard to imagine how it will help in changing structures). This process has made her friends, peers and audiences feel uneasy.

She wants to center on the voice of the protesters, instead on the “voice of analysis”. This approach has helped her to understand “the protest as a site” which gives some artists (who are excluded by institutions) the only opportunity to engage with the art world. Her starting point is that freedom of speech is not a universal value but a relationship. In her own words she is “not writing good art history” but “writing good something-else”. She points out that all art criticism is “advocacy” and the majority of contemporary art criticism is “advocacy of the supremacy of white male artists”. D’Souza is currently working on a book which is called “Against Empathy”. A critique of the individual affect, at the center of political transformation (in a manner which de-centers collective action). Her argument that “There is no aesthetic understanding, unless there is structural understanding” feels heroic but coming from a new-materialistic, Marxist point of view it feels old.

Our proposal (with Ilari) to have the publication on land- and environmental art conservation co-published by the Finnish Cultural Institute in New York and the Fine Art Academy of Helsinki was excepted and the book will be out this spring! I’ve been busy editing my text for it. Currently re-reading Entropy Made Visible (1973) and Entropy And The New Monuments (1966) by Robert Smithson. Revisited Dia: Beacon to make photocopies of Moira Roth’s interview of the artist found in Eugenie Tsai’s book Robert Smithson (2004). Feeling like a ghetto scholar (I’m literally stealing knowledge to make ends meet).

I got into the interview phase for the Doctoral Studies Programme in Artistic Research in Performing Arts at the Theater Academy of the University of the Arts Helsinki. I felt that I couldn’t reply adequately to the questions: Why I want to conduct my research in the framework of the Theater Academy and what its my relationship to performance studies. I mumbled something about, public craft fairs being transparent process of the production of commodity value. I wanted to say that I see performance a material deposit of located behavior, squeezed into acts by the design and affordances which places offer.