*
**
Lists:
$$ Music $$
Gang Of Four – Solid Gold (1981)
Imperial Triumphant – Vile Luxury (2018)
Kate Tempest - Let Them Eat Chaos (2016)
Henry Cow - In Praise of Learning (1975)
The Mothers of Invention - We're Only in It for the Money (1968)
$$ Books $$
JR, William Gaddis (1975)
24/7 - Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep, Jonathan Crary (2013)
yarden - En berättelse, Kristian Lundberg (2009, in Swedish)
Everything, All the Time, Everywhere - How We Became Postmodern, Stuart Jeffries (2021)
Klass – är du fin nog?, Annelie Jordahl (2018 updated edition, Swedish)
$$ TV & film $$
Please Give, directed by Nicole Holofcener (2010)
Friends with Money, directed by Nicole Holofcener (2006)
The Second Mother (Que Horas Ela Volta?), directed by Anna Muylaert (2015)
Neighboring Sounds (O Som ao Redor), directed by Kleber Mendonça Filho (2012)
The Real Estate (Toppen av ingenting), directed by Måns Månsson & Axel Petersén (2018)
Succession, TV Series, 2018–
'--'
'--'
'--'
'--'
Happy New Year,
Colin Burstead,
directed by Ben
Wheatley (2018)
|
|
|
|
money
“The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” We are using Rosa Luxemburg’s words rather lightly, but she would probably agree that money is a nuisance, an awful made up value that separates the haves from the have-nots, and that we do not discuss it often enough.
Only the affluent can afford not to obsess about money. We feel a little blasé and embarrassed about it, but this topic keeps us occupied and demands discussion. Neoliberal propaganda would maintain that everyone has equal access to money in a market economy—that all depends on our own ambitions and efforts. This is of course not true as long as wealth can be inherited, as long as social networks triumph merits in employment situations and acceptance to prestigious educations, as long as some grow up in environments that breed entitlement while others are taught humbleness, etc.
Unfortunately, the art world does not differ much from the world at large. Money rules. Artistic quality is equated with success, and the power structures within the art world are based on social and economical hierarchies. For a while now, the word “entrepreneurial” has been anchored snuggly in the art language and practice, and few can still discern, or even care to, between artistic and monetary value. Not having the jargon, one is left out—financially and practically. The peril is that the careers and budgets be given to those who can be “charming when [they] want to be, [they] know how to handle people, how to amuse them and flatter them; [they] have a need to please them and to be a success with them,” as observed by Thomas Mann in The Joker, who continues with “Many a man with that sort of disposition has made his fortune by it; and in view of his indifference to anything else I would say that his qualifications for a fairly successful business career are relatively good.”
When we started CAC Bukovje we merely wanted to show art where there was nothing of the kind available—and (lack of)money was just an annoying obstacle. During the years we have never earned anything on our activities, so there was no money to take out of the institution, so no salaries or anything. On a couple of occasions we were given small donations, but those were directly reinvested into CAC’s activities. So the institution has been fueled exclusively by our passion for good art and our desire to show it to others, and with a couple of exceptions we have always been working with zero budgets. Meaning no money for us, but sadly no money for our exhibitors either. To compensate, we made sure to always plan our exhibitions so that they did not inflict any costs nor force a work load on our artists.
Some culture workers can be of the opinion that an artist is part of the problem if they agree to exhibiting for free, likewise that showing other artists’ works without offering proper fees is morally unacceptable. The logic of this reasoning is that by making exhibitions without budgets, one is not only abusing the culture workers, but also showing politicians that they can cut funding, since exhibitions are being made anyway. One is, in other words, the equivalent to a strike-breaker scab.
This is a real concern and a real problem and in an ideal world it would be true, of course. But the world is not ideal and not everybody has the same resources. The idea in extension means that if you are not already part of the system, you are to be kept outside. In other words, only the successful and wealthy can make and show art. A rather meager selection, we think. As an institution one could apply for funding, but that is not only a creative hinder that turns an exciting process into a dull bureaucratic one; money comes with own opinions and does not go gladly into hands of those with something else to say. We have always wanted the real freedom for CAC Bukovje, the kind that is for the one who thinks differently*.
Curtsey of our negative social capital and the abusive nature of the art business, we would rarely be given venues to show at if we demanded to be paid fairly. And we have no money to give when it comes to our CAC. Our choice has never been between doing things correctly or not, in terms of working conditions for culture workers. We can only choose between making, showing and exhibiting art for free (or in rare cases, for pennies) or else not having anything to do with art at all.
We are aware of our shortcomings, our moneyless-ness is not purely ideological—we would in fact love to have some. But having studied art a couple of years too early, we do not know the entrepreneurial lingo so we have to make do with watching from afar as money intended for making art goes to production houses that know firstly how to make money. (For ex. by helping art workers with “applications for public funding, giving professionally managed administration support,” to those that can afford to pay for it, who in turn submit successful applications.) On top of that we have been born into wrong families, were thought wrong societal codes, acquired wrong patterns of behavior and got to know the wrong people. We have been the badly dressed outsider in the world intended for the stylish, good looking people, whose minds are not soiled by the thoughts of paying rent.
Art has to have many faces. Also, exposing people to art is important. Had we been wealthy, we would do things differently. The socialists in us would strive for better working conditions for culture workers in praxis (ourselves included), not only ideologically. We would want to arrange for our exhibitors’ salaries, they would have an income with vacations, sick-leave and pension. Sadly, we are not (wealthy).
No matter. Fail better. The plan is to keep disturbing peace in Shady Hill with our beards, our garlic breath and a book**. And we hope to inspire people to follow suit, the better and the lesser dressed ones alike.
You are kind. You are smart. You are beautiful. You are important. We tell this to our daughter. We must all try and make sure art knows it too. |
|
