Opening @onomatopee

Who told you so?! #1 Truth vs. Government, a set on Flickr.

Untitled (2010-ongoing)

What are the wins and losses when forms of inner conflict are not allowed to represent themselves within the community that produced them? If such forms are suspended, indefinitely denied expressing and consequently to engage communication, the individuals who gave birth to this form are separated from a part of their collective being and consequently cannot take on their social responsibility, causing burdens. Here, the very structure of the society is suspended. As such, what we experience to be our collective identity is constantly closed and unclosed: we cannot access nor assess our collective memory’s archive and lack freedom to interpret who we are. When we talk about suspension, does this always mean elimination? Could it offer not a negative perception, but rather a moment of clarification or alternative to future progress? It is argued that suspension is not only common to the state of emergency but also to emergencies that could potentially arise. Thus suspension is a measure of global dominance and control, and requires alternative type of governance. 

So what are the remains, where are the traces, what are the narratives in this blur of information? How can we uncover our mood boards whilst we experience the social distinctions within ourselves and reconfigure the information cloud we’re part of?

This video installation is part of Who told you so?! first show Truth vs Government

April 14 - May 27

Open Thursday to Sunday 13:00 - 17:00

onomatopee, Eindhoven, NL

Who told you so?! #1 Truth vs. Government

Mode of Suspension is exhibited as part of Onomatopee 75: Research project Who told you so?! The first chapter of the year-long program focuses on the story of Truth vs. Government.

April 14 – May 27 

Open Thursday – Sunday 13:00-17:00 

onomatopee, Eindhoven, NL 

Who told you so?! is the 2012 Research project year-program featuring four group shows, delivering four chapters of social ambiguity. The truth vs. government, organisation, scene and family: about the secularisation of stories of social cohesion through individually processed hybrid flows of information. 

Living through ambiguity and searching for cohesion: this is where we pair up the increasingly hybrid character of the points of reference by which we narrate our personal identities, together with our need for stories that allow us to engage in social cohesion (government, organisation, scene and family) and proceed to confront these traditional social structures. 

The first chapter of Who told you so?! program focuses on the story of Truth vs. Government. The stories that construct our national identities become arguable as they are overrun by an extreme flow of global data exchanges via Internet, social media, travel and migration. Humanity has become global as the stories we deal with on a daily basis arise from everywhere across the globe. We generate our own narration through these in an eclectic manner, intuitively. Identities are configured from the bottom-up, throughout the lively narrations of the multitude. Meanwhile national and supranational governments attempt to offer identities in which we can find cohesion, just as the “European” storyline is trying to postulate something of a Jewish/Christian/humanist body. 

This first chapter takes on the visual and textual narrations that are able to question the official story and help us to produce our individual narrations. They provoke us to doubt the context in which the story of the government presents itself, and allow for speculation and new relationships through which we are able to playfully recount the configuration of the narrative. It stimulates us to go beyond our own pleasantly eclectic narratives as well as the constant stream of “official” stories. 

With: Aleksandra Domanovic (SI / DE), Foundland (NL), Gokce Suvari (TR), Group R.E.P. (revolutionary experimental space) (UA), Lieven De Boeck (BE), Mauro Vallejo (ES), Monika Löve (EE / UK), Slavs and Tatars (INT) 

Curator/editor: Freek Lomme 

Exhibition design: Dave Keune 

Graphic design: Novak Ontwerp 

Made possible thanks to: Municipality of Eindhoven and Mondriaan Fund

Traces-of-governance. Political autonomy of in-between*

*this text was written in preparation for Who told you so?! First exhibition installation on Truth vs Government, Research Project by onomatopee

THE LOGIC OF GOVERNMENT (governance apparatus) 

“The gods on Mountain Olympus were enjoying a festive party, to which, understandably, they had not invited Eris, the goddess of discord. Eris, just as understandably, took the matter personally. She had the blacksmith Hephaestus fashion a golden apple, on which was written -"To the fairest." Then she opened the door and rolled the golden apple into the festive hall. In no time at all, the gods were fighting over who should have the apple.” (Greek mythology) 

Some theorists argue that without “government” society would plunge into a war of all against all and the result of this would be a life that is “nasty, brutish, and short.” It is not really my goal to find out “what is government” or even “what it is not”. Instead I am interested in tracing government through its operations, techniques and tools and perhaps then ask: “But what does government do?” The function of government can then be understood as “means to provide domestic stability in the form of law* and order** and the protection of property***”. These however are as abstract concepts as government itself. Not to fall to the dichotomist opposition trap (where one has A or not A, one can always draw a sharp line that will divide two terms clearly and there is no third or in-between) I will try to trace these three concepts – law, state order and property – like points between magnetic poles that are never fixed, continuously shifting towards one or another. When/how they come into being and when/how do they decay? Or are they instead ever present, in-between other states? What happens in this in-between state? Perhaps the suspended state of law/order/property allows me to trace government? 

 IF... LAW IS SUSPENDED (LAW*) 

 “No one would voluntarily recognize a legal system that was not expected to treat him fairly.” (Bernard Herber) 

Actually, that law can be suspended is not a novelty in politics or history. Most well known suspension of law is the US PATRIOT Act issued by the US Senate in 2001 that allows the attorney general to “take into custody” any alien suspected of activities that endanger “the national security of the US” but within seven days the alien has to be either released or charged with the violation of immigration laws or some criminal offense. Bush’s order in that sense erases temporarily any legal status of the individual, producing legally unclassifiable being. Neither prisoner nor person accused, but simply “detainee” that is not indefinite but is entirely removed from judicial oversight – that’s state of exception. Is state of exception a special kind of law or more a suspension of the judicial order itself? Does “suspended” essentially mean elimination? Or does suspension rather occur as a void between constitutive and constituted power, between the state and the sovereign - a void that accommodates alternative type of power? 

OR... THE RULE OF LAW IS WITHOUT A STATE (ORDER**) 

We use the term “lawless” often referring to lack of consistent system of criminal and civil legal apparatus. However no functioning system of laws in the sense westerners understand does not necessarily mean “without law” but can instead also refer to “stateless order” where there is no authority that dictates what the (one-and-only) law should be. Were there such a category, Somalia would hold a place in Guinness World Records as the country with the longest absence of a functioning central government – suspended state order. Although multiple governments in exile were created in Somalia from 1991 to 2005, none was able to establish its rule over a significant portion of the country. When Somalis dismantled their government in 1991 and returned to their pre-colonial political status, the expectation was that chaos would result. But like most of pre-colonial Africa, Somalia is traditionally a stateless society with common body of customary law, the Xeer - an oral system, which has not been formally codified. What distinguishes xeer from most other systems of law is that it is based on the relationship between groups of men rather than individuals. Injustice done by or to any member of the group implicates all those who are party of its treaty. No direct individual responsibility is the fundamental difference from the English common law and virtually all other legal systems. In Xeer law and, consequently, crime are defined in terms of property rights. 

AND... WALL IS A SPACE OF NEGOTIATION (PROPERTY***) 

“Robinson believed that if he looked at it hard enough, he can cause the surface of the city to reveal to him the molecular basis of his own sorrowful events, and in this way he hoped to see into the future” (Patrick Keiller) 

Wall is not only a physical fortification - to enclose settlements and regions, or mark territorial boundaries; depending on topography; or a symbolic function – to represent the status and independence of the communities embraced. Wall - organization of geographical space - is not only government executive power but is rather diffused among multiplicity of actors. Wall is a battlefield, a line of communication, on which various agents of state power and independent actors confront each other. Elements of construction, planning and architecture then become tactical tools of inclusion and division, means of dispossession. Wall expands beyond its materiality into territories by establishing networks. Sometimes these distinctions between inside and outside cannot be marked clearly. Furthermore, the straighter, more geometrical and more abstract official border tends to be, the more fragmented the territory’s effective control is.