join the communitycritical-art.net/books/digital/tact4.pdf · the signature is a commodity that is...

has an image

JOIN THECOMMUNITY

4Observations on

Collective Cultural Action

A version of this article was orginally published in Art Journal.

After reviewing the current status of the U.S. culturaleconomy, one would have to conclude that marketdemands discourage collective activity to such adegree that such a strategy is unfeasible. To an ex-tent, this perception has merit. Financial supportcertainly favors individuals. In art institutions (mu-seums, galleries, art schools, alternative spaces,etc.), the Habermas thesis, that Modernity neverdied, finds its practical application. In spite of allthe critical fulminations about the death of origi-nality, the artist, and the rest of the entities namedon the tombstones in the Modernist cemetery, thesenotions persist, protected by an entrenched culturalbureaucracy geared to resist rapid change. If any-thing, a backlash has occurred that has intensifiedcertain Modernist notions. Of prime importancein this essay is the beloved notion of the individual

60 Observations on Collective Cultural Action

artist. The individual’s signature is still the primecollectible, and access to the body associated withthe signature is a commodity that is desired morethan ever—so much so that the obsession with theartist’s body has made its way into “progressive” andalternative art networks. Even “community art”has its stars, its signatures, and its bodies. This finalcategory may be the most important. Even a com-munity art star must do a project that includes min-gling with the “community” and with the project’ssponsor(s). Mingling bodies is as important in theprogressive scene as it is in the gallery scene. Thisdemand for bodily commingling is derived from themost traditional notions of the artist hero, as it sig-nifies an opportunity to mix with history and in-teract with genius.

The totalizing belief that social and aesthetic valueare encoded in the being of gifted individuals(rather than emerging from a process of becomingshared by group members) is cultivated early incultural education. If one wants to become an “art-ist,” there is a bounty of educational opportuni-ties—everything from matchbook correspondenceschools to elite art academies. Yet in spite of thisbroad spectrum of possibilities, there is no placewhere one can prepare for a collective practice. Atbest, there are the rare examples where teams (usu-ally partnerships of two) can apply as one for ad-mission into institutions of higher learning. Butonce in the school, from administration to curricu-lum, students are forced to accept the ideologicalimperative that artistic practice is an individualpractice. The numerous mechanisms to ensure thatthis occurs are too many to list here, so only a fewillustrative examples will be offered. Consider thespatial model of the art school. Classrooms are de-

Observations on Collective Cultural Action 61

signed to accommodate aggregates of specialists.Studios are designed to accommodate a single art-ist, or like the classrooms, aggregates of studentsworking individually. Rarely can a classroom befound that has a space designed for face-to-facegroup interaction. Nor are spaces provided whereartists of various media can come together to workon project ideas. Then there is the presentation offaculty (primary role models) as individual practi-tioners. The institution rewards individual effortat the faculty level in a way similar to how studentsare rewarded for individual efforts through grades.Woe be to the faculty member who goes to the ten-ure review board with only collective efforts to showfor he/rself. Obviously, these reward systems havetheir effect on the cultural socialization process.

On the public front, the situation is no better. Ifartists want grants for reasons other than being anonprofit presenter/producer, they better be work-ing as individuals. Generally speaking, collectivepractice has no place in the grant system. Collec-tives reside in that liminal zone—they are neitheran individual, nor an institution, and there are noother categories. Seemingly there is no place toturn. Collectives are not wanted in the publicsphere, in the education system, nor in the culturalmarket (in the limited sense of the term), so whywould CAE be so much in favor of collective cul-tural action?

Part of the answer once again has to do with mar-ket demands. Market imperatives are double-edgedswords. There are just as many demands that con-tradict and are incommensurate with the ones justmentioned. Three examples immediately spring tomind. First, the market wants individuals with lots


of skills for maximum exploitation—it’s a veritablereturn to the “renaissance man.” An artist must beable to produce in a given medium, write wellenough for publication, be verbally articulate, havea reasonable amount of knowledge of numerousdisciplines (including art history, aesthetics, criti-cal theory, sociology, psychology, world literature,media theory, and history, and given the latesttrends, now various sciences), be a capable publicspeaker, a career administrator, and possess theproper diplomatic skills to navigate through a vari-ety of cultural subpopulations. Certainly some rareindividuals do have all of these skills, but the indi-vidual members of CAE are not examples of thiscategory. Consequently, we can only meet this stan-dard by working collectively.

Second is the need for opportunity. Given the over-whelming number of artists trained in academies,colleges, and universities over the past thirty years,adding to what is already an excessive populationof cultural producers (given the few platforms fordistribution), the opportunity for a public voice hasrapidly decreased. By specializing in a particularmedium, one cuts the opportunities even further.The greater one’s breadth of production skills, themore opportunity there is. Opportunity is also ex-panded by breadth of knowledge. The more oneknows, the more issues one can address. In a timewhen content has resurfaced as an object of artisticvalue, a broad interdisciplinary knowledge base isa must. And finally, opportunity can be expandedthrough the ability to address a wide variety of cul-tural spaces. The more cultural spaces that a per-son is comfortable working in, the more opportu-nity s/he has. If designed with these strategies inmind, collectives can configure themselves to ad-


dress any issue or space, and they can use all typesof media. The result is a practice that defies spe-cialization (and hence pigeonholing). CAE, for ex-ample, can be doing a web project one week, a stageperformance at a festival the next, a guerrilla ac-tion the next, a museum installation after that, fol-lowed by a book or journal project. Due to collec-tive strength, CAE is prepared for any cultural op-portunity.

Finally, the velocity of cultural economy is a fac-tor. The market can consume a product faster thanever before. Just in terms of quantity, collectiveaction offers a tremendous advantage. By workingin a group, CAE members are able to resist theWarhol syndrome of factory production with un-derpaid laborers. Through collective action, prod-uct and process integrity can be maintained, whileat the same time keeping abreast of market demand.

These considerations may sound cynical, and to adegree they are, but they appear to CAE as a real-ity which must be negotiated if one is to survive asa cultural producer. On the other hand, there issomething significant about collective action thatis rewarding beyond what can be understoodthrough the utilitarian filters of economic survival.

Size Matters:Cellular Collective Construction

One problem that seems to plague collective organi-zation is the catastrophe of the group reaching criti-cal mass. When this point is reached, the groupviolently explodes, and little or nothing is left ofthe organization. The reasons for hitting this so-cial wall vary depending on the function and in-


tention of the group. CAE’s experience has beenthat larger artists’/activists’ groups tend to hit thiswall once membership rises into the hundreds. Atthat point, a number of conflicts and contradic-tions emerge that cause friction in the group. Forone thing, tasks become diversified. Not everyonecan participate fully in each task, so committeesare formed to focus on specific tasks. The groupthus moves from a direct process to a representa-tional process. This step toward bureaucracy con-jures feelings of separation and mistrust that canbe deadly to group action, and that are symptom-atic of the failure of overly rationalized democracy.To complicate matters further, different individu-als enter the group with differing levels of access toresources. Those with the greatest resources tendto have a larger say in group activities. Conse-quently, minorities form that feel underrepresentedand powerless to compete with majoritarian viewsand methods. (Too often, these minorities reflectthe same minoritarian structure found in culture asa whole). Under such conditions, group splinter-ing is bound to occur, if not group annihilation.Oddly enough, the worst-case scenario is not groupannihilation, but the formation of a Machiavellianpower base that tightens the bureaucratic rigor inorder to purge the group of malcontents, and tostifle difference.

Such problems can also occur at a smaller grouplevel (between fifteen and fifty members). Whilethese smaller groups have an easier time avoidingthe alienation that comes from a complex divisionof labor and impersonal representation, there stillcan be problems, such as the perception that noteveryone has an equal voice in group decisions, orthat an individual is becoming the signature voice


of the group. Another standard problem is that thelevel of intimacy necessary to sustain passionatelydriven group activity rarely emerges in a mid-sizegroup. The probability is high that someone, foremotional or idiosyncratic reasons, is not going tobe able to work with someone else on a long-termbasis. These divisions cannot be organized or ra-tionalized away. Much as the large democratic col-lective (such as WAC) is good for short-term, lim-ited-issue political and cultural action, the mid-sizegroup seems to function best for short-term, spe-cific-issue cultural or political projects.

For sustained cultural or political practice free ofbureaucracy or other types of separating factors,CAE recommends a cellular structure. Thus far theartists’ cell that typifies contemporary collectiveactivity has formed in a manner similar to bandsociety. Solidarity is based on similarity in terms ofskills and political/aesthetic perceptions. Most ofthe now classic cellular collectives of the 70s and80s, such as Ant Farm, General Idea, Group Mate-rial, Testing the Limits (before it splintered), andGran Fury used such a method with admirable re-sults. Certainly these collectives’ models for groupactivity are being emulated by a new generation.However, CAE has made one adjustment in itscollective structure. While size and similaritythrough political/aesthetic perspective has repli-cated itself in the group, members do not share asimilarity based on skill. Each member’s set of skillsis unique to the cell. Consequently, in terms of pro-duction, solidarity is not based on similarity, buton difference. The parts are interrelated and inter-dependent. Technical expertise is given no chanceto collide and conflict, and hence social friction isgreatly reduced. In addition, such structure allows


CAE to use whatever media it chooses, because thegroup has developed a broad skill base. Having abroad skill base and interdisciplinary knowledgealso allows the group to work in any kind of space.

Solidarity through difference also affects the struc-ture of power in the group. Formerly, collectivestructure tended to be based on the idea that allmembers were equals at all times. Groups had a tre-mendous fear of hierarchy, because it was consid-ered a categorical evil that led to domination. Thisnotion was coupled with a belief in extreme de-mocracy as the best method of avoiding hierarchy.While CAE does not follow the democratic model,the collective does recognize its merits; however,CAE follows Foucault’s principle that hierarchicalpower can be productive (it does not necessarilylead to domination), and hence uses a floating hi-erarchy to produce projects. After consensus isreached on how a project should be produced, themember with the greatest expertise in the area hasauthority over the final product. While all mem-bers have a voice in the production process, theproject leader makes the final decisions. This keepsendless discussion over who has the better idea ordesign to a minimum, and hence the group can pro-duce at a faster rate. Projects tend to vary dramati-cally, so the authority floats among the member-ship. At the same time, CAE would not recom-mend this process for any social constellation otherthan the cell (three to eight people). Members mustbe able to interact in a direct face-to-face manner,so everyone is sure that they have been heard as aperson (and not as an anonymous or marginalizedvoice). Second, the members must trust one an-other; that is, sustained collective action requiressocial intimacy and a belief that the other mem-


bers have each individual member’s interests atheart. A recognition and understanding of thenonrational components of collective action is cru-cial—without it, the practice cannot sustain itself.

The collective also has to consider what is pleasur-able for its members. Not all people work at thesame rate. The idea that everyone should do anequal amount of work is to measure a member’svalue by quantity instead of quality. As long as theprocess is pleasurable and satisfying for everyone,in CAE’s opinion, each member should work at therate at which they are comfortable. Rigid equalityin this case can be a perverse and destructive typeof Fordism that should be avoided. To reinforce thepleasure of the group, convivial relationships be-yond the production process are necessary. The pri-mary reason for this need is because the memberswill intensify bonds of trust and intimacy that willlater be positively reflected in the production pro-cess. To be sure, intimacy produces its own pecu-liar friction, but the group has a better chance ofsurviving the arguments and conflicts that arebound to arise, as long as in the final analysis eachmember trusts and can depend on fellow members.Collective action requires total commitment toother members, and this is a frightening thoughtfor many individuals. Certainly, collective practiceis not for everyone.

Coalitions, Not Communities

While cellular collective structure is very useful in solv-ing problems of production, long-term personal co-operation, and security (for those involved in un-derground activities), like all social constellations,it has its limits. It does not solve many of the prob-


lems associated with distribution, nor can it fulfillthe functions of localized cultural and politicalorganizations. Consequently, there has alwaysbeen a drive toward finding a social principle thatwould allow like-minded people or cells to orga-nize into larger groups. Currently, the dominantprinciple is “community.” CAE sees this devel-opment as very unfortunate. The idea of com-munity is without doubt the liberal equivalentof the conservative notion of “family values”—neither exists in contemporary culture, and bothare grounded in political fantasy. For example,the “gay community” is a term often used in themedia and in various organizations. This termrefers to all people who are gay within a giventerritory. Even in a localized context, gay menand women populate all social strata, from theunderclass to the elite, so it is very hard to be-lieve that this aggregate functions as a commu-nity within such a complex society. To compli-cate matters further, social variables such as race,ethnicity, gender, education, profession, andother points of difference are not likely to belesser points of identification than the charac-teristic of being gay. A single shared social char-acteristic can in no way constitute a communityin any sociological sense. Talking about a gaycommunity is as silly as talking about a “straightcommunity.” The word community is only mean-ingful in this case as a euphemism for “minor-ity.” The closest social constellation to a com-munity that does exist is friendship networks, butthose too fall short of being communities in anysociological sense.

CAE is unsure who really wants community inthe first place, as it contradicts the politics of


difference. Solidarity based on similarity throughshared ethnicity, and interconnected familialnetworks supported by a shared sense of placeand history, work against the possibility of powerthrough diversity by maintaining closed socialsystems. This is not to say that there are no longerrelatively closed social subsystems within soci-ety. Indeed there are, but they differ from com-munity in that they are products of rationalizedsocial construction and completely lack socialsolidarity. In order to bring people together fromdifferent subsystems who share a similar concern,hybrid groups have to be intentionally formed.These groups are made up of people who are fo-cusing their attention on one or two character-istics that they share in common, and who putpotentially conflicting differences aside. Thiskind of alliance, created for purposes of large-scale cultural production and/or for the visibleconsolidation of economic and political power,is known as a coalition.

CAE has supported a number of coalitions in thepast, including various ACT UP chapters andPONY (Prostitutes of New York), and has orga-nized temporary localized ones as well. One ofthe problems CAE had with such alliances wasin negotiating service to the coalition whilemaintaining its collective practice. Coalitions areoften black holes that consume as much energyas a person is willing to put into them; hencemembership burnout is quite common. CAE wasno exception. After a few years of this variety ofactivism, members were ready to retreat back intoless visible cellular practice. CAE began lookingfor a model of coalition different from the single-issue model.


One potential answer has come by way of CAE’saffiliation with Nettime.* Nettime is a loosely knitcoalition of activists, artists, theorists, techies, col-lectives, and organizations from all over Europe andNorth America that have come together for rea-sons of generalized support for radical cultural andpolitical causes. It has approximately seven hun-dred members, and has existed in various forms forabout six years. Nettime functions as an informa-tion, distribution, and recruitment resource for itsmembers. The core of its existence is virtual: Mem-ber contact is maintained through an on-line list,various newsgroups, and an archive. In addition,the coalition holds occasional conferences (thefirst two, Metaforum I and II, were held inBudapest in 1995 and 1996; Beauty and the Eastwas held in Ljubljana in 1997), produces and con-tributes to the production of cultural projects(such as Hybrid Workspace at Documenta X), actsas a resource for various political actions, and pro-duces readers and books from its archive (the mostrecent being README: ASCII Culture and the

Revenge of Knowledge).

From CAE’s perspective, one of the elements thatmakes Nettime a more pleasurable experience isthat unlike most coalitions, it is anarchistic ratherthan democratic. Nettime has no voting procedures,committee work, coalition officers, nor any of themarkers of governance through representation.Hierarchy emerges in accordance with who is will-ing to do the work. Those who are willing to runthe list have the most say over its construction. At

*The description of the Nettime coalition given in this essay is solelyfrom CAE’s perspective. It was not collectively written nor approvedby the Nettime membership.


the same time, the general policy for coalition main-tenance is “tools not rules.” Those building the vir-tual architecture govern by providing space for dis-cussions that are not of general interest to the en-tire list. They also direct the flow of informationtraffic. Whatever members want to do—from flamewars to long and detailed discussions—there is aplace to do it. For events in real space, the primaryrule of “those who do the work have the biggestsay” still applies. Indeed, there is considerable roomfor exploitation in such a system, yet this does notoccur with much frequency because members havesufficient trust in and allegiance to other members;the coalition as a whole won’t tolerate system abuse(such as spamming, or self-aggrandizing use of thelist); and there is a self-destruct fail-safe—memberswould jump ship at the first sign of ownership and/or permanent hierarchy.

Perhaps the real indicator of the congeniality sharedby Nettime members is its cultural economy.Nettime functions as an information gift economy.Articles and information are distributed free ofcharge to members by those who have accumulatedlarge information assets. Nettimers often see sig-nificant works on the intersections of art, politics,and technology long before these works appear inthe publications based on money economy. For realspace projects, this same sense of voluntarism per-vades all activities. What is different here fromother cultural economies is that gift economy is onlydemanding on those who have too much. No oneis expected to volunteer until they suffer or burnout. The volunteers emerge from among those whohave excessive time, labor power, funding, space,or some combination thereof, and need to burn itoff to return to equilibrium. Consequently, activity


waxes and wanes depending on the situations andmotivations of the members.

CAE does not want to romanticize this form of so-cial organization too much. Problems certainly oc-cur—quarrels and conflicts break out, enragedmembers quit the list, and events do not always goas expected. However, Nettime is still the mostcongenial large-scale collective environment inwhich CAE has ever worked. The reason is thatthis loose coalition began with the romantic prin-ciple of accepting nonrational characteristics. Itbelieved that a large collective could exist basedon principles of trust, altruism, and pleasure, ratherthan based on the Hobbesian assumption (so typi-cal of democratic coalitions) of the war of all againstall, which in turn leads to a nearly pathologicalover-valuation of the organizational principles ofaccountability and categorical equality. Nettimefunctions using just one fail-safe system—self-de-struction—and it thereby skips all the alienatingbureaucracy necessary for managing endless ac-countability procedures. If Nettime self-destructs,all members will walk away whole, and will lookfor new opportunities for collective action. An al-liance with the temporary is one of Nettime’s great-est strengths.

Final Thought

Although they are in a secondary position in terms ofcultural organizational possibilities, cells and coa-litions still present a viable alternative to individualcultural practices. Collective action solves some ofthe problems of navigating market-driven culturaleconomy by allowing the individual to escape theskewed power relationships between the individual


and the institution. More significantly, however,collective action also helps alleviate the inten-sity of alienation born of an overly rationalizedand instrumentalized culture by re-creating someof the positive points of friendship networkswithin a productive environment. For this reason,CAE believes that artists’ research into alterna-tive forms of social organization is just as impor-tant as the traditional research into materials, pro-cesses, and products.

join the communitycritical-art.net/books/digital/tact4.pdf · the signature is a commodity that is...

Documents