Whether
a true poet does not, as is continually demanded of him or her,
take on the role he or she is entitled or assigned to, but on
the contrary forfeits it out of loyalty to his or her work and
thus becomes the very opening-up-of-space itself, is a question
Emmanuel Lévinas considers in his literary-philosophical
analyses on proper names (1988). Elsewhere in these same writings:
"Each work is all the more perfect a piece of work, the
less important a role the author plays; as if he were carrying
out an anonymous command." Artistic activity gives the
artist the awareness of not being the creator of his work.
This sort of complex view of eliminating the subjective aspect,
of separating work and author, tends to appear antiquated
nowadays, although without necessarily implying any disparaging
connotations. Anonymity occurs, as Borls Groys has emphasized,
enough and to spare, for example in the omnipresent noise
of department-store music. For the production of other "noises"
a more complex field for differences has emerged, less heroic
perhaps, but still romantic in that it coctinually reminds
one of focussed isolation. Products and works detach themselves
from the person, but the person fails to escape being labeled.
Prestige and impact differ so clearly within a branch, but
above all from one branch to the next; one need only think
of playwrights and screenwriters or consider the work engineers
and auchitects for this rituality to become apparent. Living
and working in anonymity is the rule; making a name for oneself,
the exception. Those who dont succeed in this, remain for
all appearances nameless, at least as far as playing the game
goes, the game that relies in a certain sense on market values
and the capacity for rembering. Though each person is required
to have a name, it isn't until a person becomes known beyond
the limited circle of private and professional relations that
one speaks of having made a name for oneself, though this
be said without the distinguishing aspect being perceived
as all embarrassment to the unknown persons, those persons
destined from the beginning to be forgotten. A low profile
or absence can only have an effect where there is already
the demand for presence. Brand names, as a cliché or
standard of quality, are the accepted basis for orientation;
they provide those who know no better with som thing to hold
onto, whether its cars, whisky or art. They offer security
that sooner or later leads to a dead end.
Long before this became clear, Marcel Duchamp once stated
the following in the course of his reflections on the artist
who is guided by chance and stumbles across his material,
who prefers to hide his work or never to compiete it: "The
greatest artist of tomorrow will go underground." Except
for episodic appearances, such as Situationists, this seems
in the meantime to have been clearly refuted, but tomorrow
is still tomorrow, and there is always a new underground,
even if it be in no way intentional. Identification and personification
have remained central themes, precisely because the perceivable
processes insist upon them so vehemently, and because it is
impossible to communicate anything without the intercession
of the media; existence itself depends on the media. Andy
Warhols effect of a few minutes of fame being sufficient have
long since been a boon to every assassin. The masterminds
keep in the background.
There is another field for those who, despite all, still
crave anonymity. In Canettis writings we find the following
line: The best mensch ought to have no name. And H. C. Artmann
in his proclamation of the poetic act says of the same that
he will perhaps only by chance be passed on to the public
as an illogical gesture. This, however, only occurs in one
in a hundred cases. He cant afford to even be suspected of
becoming well-known out of consideration for his physical
and moral integrity, he is, after all, an act of the heart
and of pagan unpretentiousness. Thomas Bernhard, whose fictitious
character is an author who keeps changing his manuscript until
all that is left in the end is the title Der Untergeher (The
Foundering Man), never stopped reiterating that he didn't
want to leave any traces beind.
This doesn't refer merely to inner conflicts, but also to
conditions in general, where much is perceived as battle,
with heroes and a great number of nameless soldiers and partisans,
or at the least as rivalry for a name, for prominece. Prominence
doesn't, however, only go to what emerges from anonymity,
what is drawn out of anonymity. All that is nameless, unnamed,
all that goes unnoticed is considered de facto virtually worthless,
yet it is still a part of the whole, not to be ignored, it
is constantly being perceived in some way or another, just
not Isolated enough for it to play its own role in communication.
In this sense excommunication is the rule, despite all the
technical possibilities fon communicating. Being excluded
is much more frequent than being included. Even on the Internet
the short-lived everything's-connected-to-everything-else
pay-no-dues freedom is soon to end. Ort a world-wide scale
this becomes even more evident than on the level of predictable
and fully organized societies. In the many overlapping and
melding societés anonymes the stage upon which the
societies representatives in business, politics, culture and
the arts interact as players can itself only give the illusion
of consisting of independent individuals. The extent to which
each relies on systems remains hidden, otherwise everything
would be incomprehensible. All that occurs requires a context
in order to be perceived. lf this is not the case, the result
is journalistic oversimplification, spiraling on into infinity.
We need only to refer to everyday life to find an abundance
of examples of how difficult it is to dispense with the antagonism
of "violence to understanding" (Habermas) in order
to reach compromises which could lead to progress.
Anonymity and ex-communication are, as we see, the norm from
which a few do, under certain circumstances, derive a sense
of freedom, though this be achieved only at the cost of the
pressure subjected upon them. He who chooses to hide himself,
who works from somewhere in the background, does so, as it
tends to be assumed, out of fear of being persecuted, exposed
or humiliated. Patterns for this, come from the criminal world
or irregular conflicts, behind which often stand artificial
identities (Lenin, Stalin, Tito); civilian parallels tend
to be dictated by lower-exposure aesthetic considerations,
perhaps the only interest being the desire to be someone else
(Madonna). To go through life without a name, or under a false
one, can perhaps give the illusion of living a double life
and thus having at one's disposal a greater number of possibilities.
A stage-name has the simple function of sounding better and
of freeing one from his or her origins. To work in complete
anonymity can turn a person into the hidden observer of his
or her own actions, much as in the case of a terrorist or
of that ubiquitous phenomenon tourism.
On the other hand, archaic writings, fairytales, folksongs,
the classic artifacts were all, for the most part, done anonymously.
It wasnt important to give the names of their authors. The
gods knew everything anyway. Who has replaced them? The super-ego
and in a more general sense the media. lf the media fail to
notice you, you do not exist in this reality. lf you do not
attract notice, you are just not there, but with no chance
of your absence being noticed. Remaining silent, as a form
of communication, has no effect; it is more reminiscent of
atonement than of the constant difficulty of communicating,
something that is not very easy to communicate. These ties
between media and conscience are the late consequences of
visions of omnipotence, in which it is assumed that someone
is observing everything and will give an assessment in the
end. In line with this shift is the voluntarily confession
of secrets, something that happens every day in the media,
it's the desire to get something off one's chest. The reconstruction
of the family, the aristocracy, as prominence, as virtual
circle of millions of acquaintances, this too follows this
shift of changes, a reconstructed participation in intimacy.
The only secrecy we still defend are state, business, and
banking secrets.
"Architecture without architects," the major exhibition
by Bernard Rudofsky in the Museum of Modern Art in New York
(1964) has, from a completely different approach, had a part
in shifting attention back to the dimensions of anonymous
quality. But because that which is anonymous and put together
by many hands cannot be attributed to any one person - neither
to give credit nor to place blame - and because theory also
has to rely on examples, fields of a production of prominence
remain a refuge for what is personal. As long as it is possible
for communication processes and the production of signs and
symbols to, through their detachment from their creator, achieve,
at least for a little while, some degree of impact, and as
long as work continues to be done which is serious, concentrated,
ironic, which provokes objectivity and distance, then the
opening-up-of-space mentioned in connection with writing at
the beginning of this essay may still take place.
Names only encompass what people associate with them; whatever
else happens is irrelevant. Should something unexpected pop
up - unusual situations, where creator or interests do not
correspond with usual patterns, as is in the case of oooooooo
who, everywhere from Paris, Vienna, Zurich, Greece, Rio de
Janeiro, Turkey, Italy, Berlin, New York, Los Angeles, Hong
Kong, China or Thailand, has left his mysterious messages,
meticulously and unconventionally planned and delivered, with
different groups of people, people who a priori hardly think
of art, taxi drivers for example - these surprises often set
loose a chain of reactions, since attention, irritation, thought
and speech are supplied with curiously odd material. Normally,
nobody knows where it came from. Context remains provokingly
unclear. Still, this doesnt stop people from wondering. Th
incorporation of counterfeiting, especially the fabrication
of fake stamps, combines practicality with subversion as well
as tangible and optically perceptible aspects. For showing
how expensive it would be to address many people in a correct
but still his own way is a part of his work; this is one of
the reasons why he is constantly being subjected to investigations
and persecution. His addresses, spread out all over the world,
form a perplexing net of far-reaching connections. Those affected
by the random selection need not show their reactions in public,
but are instead left to themselves. What happens from there,
happens. Minimal stimuli and faint sounds put things in motion
that might otherwise have required a much greater effort.
When expectations are disturbed, reactions shift from how
they normally might have been. Since everything is intended
to remain free and unguided, origin and impact fade into anonymity.
What could be possible is given one fleeting, questioning,
moment of existence, of tangible presence, and all that was
necessary was the leaving behind of a trace.
|
Welcome Eurosex / from Venezia /
date June 1995 / kind: transformed copied Italian stamp
with envelope posted with the stamp / size 3 cm x 4
cm / situation: Venice Biennale
|
|