Zum Programm

Impressionen der Tagung folgen in Kürze.

Abstract

Since there are no established research methods which would allow to investigate and accurately describe how aesthetic practices operate, we are forced to create our own. The forging of those tools requires in itself a form of aesthetic thinking that relies on failure as an epistemic tool just as any craftsmanship. This holds true especially for Artistic Research as its exponents are forced to unlearn and revisit traditional dichotomies such as theory and practice.
Our group is looking for ways to show and articulate this process: We offer a glimpse into our journey of learning to unlearn, of learning to find a balance between mimesis and entanglement on the one side and distance and objectivity on the other. 
To highlight the fact that Artistic Research is a constant act of balance as well as alertness to one’s own bias, we choose a set of verbs to represent key notions of our experience in Artistic Research. We found that only verbs are capable of expressing the levitating frame of mind required in our practice.

In our collective lecture performance, we will use these verbs in the form of hexagons to create a honeycomb structure on the floor. The arrangement and rearrangement functions as a tool to juxtapose our individual research with one another. This will allow to uncover alliances, reveal mutual problems and create new and unforeseen links between our respective work.
At the end of the lecture performance, participants are invited to engage with and contribute to the discussion by proposing new constellations of the hexagons and adding their own experiences. 
The maps that we will create in this process shall be at the same time a reminder of the malleability of our research practice as well as provide a certain degree of guidance for those who find themselves overwhelmed at times and lost in the mostly uncharted territory of Artistic Research.

Abstract

In the repertoire of cinematic techniques, a counter image is a reverse shot. Reverse shots belong to the most common techniques in narrative film. They allow to establish a point of view and facilitate the visual rendering of a dialogue. Their main feature is their power to subjectify the camera’s gaze and to deepen a viewer’s ties with a films character by taking her or his perspective.

The popularity of the reverse shot has lent it tremendous authority. Even in its absence, it governs over the way we perceive a film’s editing: Without it, films tend to feel amateurish and it requires a great deal of dedication to stage a scene accordingly.

In the grammar of film, the reverse shot has erected a reign that is peculiarly at odds with its other meaning: An image to counter another. The reverse shot does everything but countering an image. It allows to join the most disparate images. It confirms rather than counters by providing spatial, temporal and narrative orientation. It veils rather than reveals the juxtaposition of two images.

It only seems natural that critical film makers from the German student movement in the late 1960s such as Hartmut Bitomsky, Holger Meins or Harun Farocki – all of them enrolled in the notorious first classes of the Deutsche Film- und Fernsehakademie Berlin (dffb) – rejected the reverse shot vehemently. Especially Farocki with his dedication to Brechtian Theory, would oppose against the identification effect of the reverse shot. The remarks about the reverse shot that were made above are paraphrasing his words on the topic.[1]

Farockis opposition to the reverse shot marks the beginning of a lifelong search for alternative ways of mediation, the quest for counter images that actually counter the visual status quo and foster reflection of modern visual media.

In my presentation, I will elaborate on the essayistic practices that Farocki has developed in his long career as a critic of the film and television industry. I will isolate one or two practices in order to show the epistemic potential of Farocki’s counter images.

Date & Place

The lecture will be held on 07.05.2019 by Aurel Sieber at Auditório 1 - Torre B in Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa

[1] cf. Harun Farocki, Schuss-Gegenschuss. In: Filmkritik, Nr. 299/300, S. 507-517.

Die 9te SAR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR ARTISTIC RESEARCH ARTISTIC in Plymouth im April 2018 lud ein zur These/Frage, ob künstlerische Forschung sich selber aufessen werde (ARTISTIC RESEARCH WILL EAT ITSELF. Unser Panel fragte darin, wie sich künstlerische Forschung als Prozess des Werdens regeneriert. Unter dem Aspekt von kritischer Verdauung, Verfremdung und Akrobatik präsentierten wir vier Weisen der Regeneration von künstlerischer Forschung. (Henryetta Duerschlag, Silvia Henke, Aurel Sieber, Nicolaj van der Meulen).  Alle Beiträge wurden in einer Publikation veröffentlicht.

Aus dem Proposal:
“In what sense can art be described as a unique way (rather than a method) of thinking in itself, of critique, or of practices of (un)learning and (non)comprehension? With its three related topoi of ‘praxis,’ ‘aesthetics,’ and ‘thought,’ the project emphasizes that first, thinking is a practice in itself, and practice is thinking, secondly, art is based in ‘percepts’ (Deleuze), grounded in what the Greek language considered as the ‘arche- passivity’ of aisthēsis, and thirdly, art provides certain modes of aisthetico-practical reflexivity by showing, and showing itself.”

Die Beiträge der TeilnehmerInnen dieses Forschungsprojektes finden Sie hier:

Nicolaj van der Meulen/Jörg Wiesel

Silvia Henke

Henryetta Duerschlag

Aurel Sieber

Der polnische Künstler Artur Żmijewski hat uns gebeten, eine A3-Fotografie eines von uns gewählten Körperteils in den Workshop mitzubringen. Anschliessend bat er uns, die Fotos auf dem Boden so zu arrangieren, wie wir es für passend hielten. Unter den Teilnehmenden entspann sich ein visueller Dialog, der in seiner Entwicklung immer wieder Parallelen zur Kunstgeschichte erkennen lässt.