Stefaan Decostere on Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:46:20 +0100 (MET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> AMSTERDAM MACHT FREI (re: The Amsterdam Agenda) |
AMSTERDAM MACHT FREI The Amsterdam Agenda is indeed one more 'landmark' towards the current dominant type of 'cultural policy' in Europe, as it makes very clear that it aims at integrating and making useful the latest manifestations of independant cultural production for the market driven world order. Some of us may know what thousands and thousands of jobless people already know, namely, that a new kind of total authority is in the make, in the name of 'the sovereignty of the market'. Representatives of that authority were present during the announcement of the A'dam Agenda, using the platform to advertise their ultimate recommendation for artists, that is : 'to join efforts with the entrepeneur and the industrialist' (again). Nothing we didn't know already, except that the whole event, this time, has been organized by media-responsibles (some of them running festivals and institutions for years) trying to solidify their positions and therefore - in panic - pushing to full speed a mega-treaty with policy-makers. One of the things unacceptable is that all this manoeuvring was done in the name of 'culture, art and independance...', whereas this kind of treaty, more than just potentially, opened the door for 'mutually desired' recuperation. Isn't this Agenda then not just another example of what Baudrillard lately has called a farce, reversing and thus updating Marx : 'Une Farce qui se répète et devient Histoire'. It definitely became clear what the new media-responsibles have been preparing the last years and what kind of cultural history they want to promote. It was so significant that during the whole event not a word has been said about the recent major shift of European public television, that is, from content provider to marketer, and definitely nothing about the consequences. That latest demonstration of what 'practice to policy-making' actually entails, clearly was not welcome, and was therefore not remembered. Is it for the same reason that all terms were kept as vague as possible ? Such as (and I quote some) : 'independency, interdisciplinarity, virtual public, social quality, political questions, innovation, margins of society, youth culture, community participation, unexpected impacts of technology on society'... Whereas other elements were tactically re-defined, with statements about artists who 'can be valuable to developers of hardware and software' and who 'are by nature critical' Are they? Of course concerns were expressed, but only then defined as 'dangers', as if these 'dangers' are still to come : >* The danger that the agendas for the Information Society are purely commercial. >* The danger of homogenisation and the Disneyification of European culture. >* The danger that culture may be understood only in terms of entertainment. Whereas the real issues were forwarded to future agenda's (the usual trick), and were re-termed as 'needs' : >* The need to understand the fundamental transformation of the public domain > through privatisation. >* The need to protect democratic control and cultural diversity. As Agenda entrepreneurs stated that : 'The potential is there' (where?), but it has to be exploited' (by whom?) - 'A productive relationship in which art can maintain its autonomy, and in which art and industry can learn and mutually benefit from each other's achievements and talents, is desirable for both parties'. In the erotical way, then? My a..!!! - 'Many media artists believe industrial partners should not only provide technical knowledge and money, but also contribute to the content of the project'. The way tv-managers do it? Thanks!!! Yes, Willem Van Weelden : 'the aim of the organisers was clear' ... : 'to break open an entrance in the European, to adopt and appropriate the lingo of European policy makers', in order 'to conclude that policy makers in government and industry can work profitably together with media culture on the basis of an exchange of benefits'. However, useless to quote Benjamin : he would just have turned his back and continued his work. Stefaan Decostere --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@icf.de and "info nettime" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@icf.de