Visualizzazione post con etichetta Conflitto. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta Conflitto. Mostra tutti i post

martedì 17 febbraio 2015

Ludovico Pratesi: L'arte contro la guerra. Intervista con Shirin Neshat @ Exibart, 16Feb2015

L’Intervista/Shirin Neshat

L'ARTE CONTRO LA GUERRA Read more @ Exibart

È possibile. L’artista iraniana ci spiega come

Donne velate che puntano pistole con sguardo altero, con le mani coperte da  frasi scritte in farsi, l’antico persiano. Nei primi anni Novanta le opere fotografiche dell’artista iraniana Shirin Neshat (Qazvin, 1957) hanno denunciato la situazione delle donne in un Paese piegato dalla rivoluzione di Khomeini. Sono le Women of Allah, immagini scattate nel 1993 e esposte di recente al Mathaf, il museo d’arte moderna di Doha (Qatar) in occasione della mostra antologica Afterwards, insieme a opere più recenti, come The Book of Kings (2012) e Our House is on Fire (2013), dedicata ai protagonisti della Primavera Araba. Le opere di Shirin Neshat sono perciò sempre impregnate anche della complessa e spesso difficile realtà politica del suo Paese e del mondo arabo: per questo le abbiamo chiesto un’opinione dopo i fatti di Charlie Hebdo e il clima di terrore che l’Isis tenta di instaurare. 

Oggi, come artista iraniana, qual è la sua posizione sul massacro di Parigi e, in generale, sulla libertà di espressione?
«Credo nella libertà di espressione e per questo vivo in esilio e non nel mio Paese, che priva il suo popolo dei diritti umani fondamentali come la libertà di espressione. Nonostante questo, non credo nella provocazione come valore per affermare questa libertà. Però mi considero una musulmana laica, e per principio sono contraria a ogni forma di estremismo religioso che possa causare violenza o sofferenza, introducendosi nella vita privata delle persone, da qualunque fonte provenga: cristiana, musulmana o ebrea».

La libertà di espressione è un tema rilevante nel suo lavoro?
«Dal momento che vivo fuori dalla mia patria non mi confronto con le autorità iraniane ogni giorno, anche se il mio lavoro continua a indirizzarsi verso tematiche socio politiche e religiose relative all'Iran. Ma rifiuto di utilizzare l'arte come uno strumento per creare controversie, o per inasprire, offendere o contrastare qualsiasi forma di credo religioso o ideologia politica. In generale penso che qualsiasi espressione artistica che sia fondata su un pregiudizio sia sempre manipolativa e sbagliata, dal momento che spinge verso lo sdegno o addirittura la violenza».

Ricorda quali furono le prime reazioni alle sue Women of Allah?
«All'inizio della mia carriera, molti occidentali pensavano che  le parole scritte sui corpi femminili nella serie fotografica Women of Allah fossero versetti coranici. In realtà ho sempre usato soltanto versi poetici, perché non potrei mai immaginare di rendere banale ciò che è sacro per milioni di musulmani».

Adesso che reazioni provocherebbero?
«Quello che è successo al giornale Charlie Hebdo a Parigi, mi sembra che riaffermi l'idea che la rabbia nutre la barbarie, e che una forma di rabbia conduce ad un'altra forma di rabbia, e come siamo spinti verso un circolo vizioso di astio, rivincita e brutalità. La risposta può essere la creazione di dialoghi su come possiamo prevenire l'ira immotivata che causa tanta sofferenza. Mi piace credere che ci sono persone che hanno valori ai quali non aderisco personalmente, ma che rispetterò e tollererò finché saranno pacifici».

Crede nella possibilità di un dialogo vero e profondo tra l’Islam e l’Occidente?
«In qualità di artista e non di esperta, ritengo che la cultura occidentale non riesca a comprendere che non tutte le culture aderiscono ai valori razionali dell’Occidente. Il problema è il pregiudizio legato all’idea di confine, necessario ai musulmani per proteggere alcuni valori, e così estraneo agli occidentali che cercano di eliminare i confini per consentire una società aperta e giusta».  

In che modo?
«Può sembrare troppo ottimista e ingenuo da parte mia, ma credo che la risoluzione di questa divisione storica tra le culture islamica e occidentale sia possibile solo se i popoli cominciano ad assumere un approccio diverso da quello dei governi. Penso che una soluzione sia possibile soltanto nell’evitare ogni ritorsione, con una diplomazia pacifica che conduca al rispetto reciproco, alla tolleranza e perfino alla celebrazione delle nostre differenze».

Crede che gli artisti possano avere un ruolo in questo dialogo?
«Sono fermamente convinta che gli artisti possano giocare un ruolo significativo nel costruire un dialogo tra culture in conflitto, perché il linguaggio dell’arte ha l’abilità di rimanere al di sopra e oltre le differenze religiose, culturali e nazionali, e arrivare nel profondo della psiche umana. Spesso però gli artisti si trovano nella posizione difficile di rispondere alle problematiche politiche del loro tempo, senza essere apertamente controversi, manipolativi, di parte o didattici. Dopotutto, è molto più facile fare un’arte che punta il dito su quello che è giusto o sbagliato, e più difficile fare arte che crea un momento di discussione, un forum che apre nuove prospettive e invita lo spettatore a formarsi una propria interpretazione. È attraverso quest’ultimo approccio che gli artisti possono giocare un ruolo significativo in questo momento storico».

Per concludere, l’arte contemporanea può assumere un valore politico?
«Sicuramente dovrebbe essere più consapevole dei problemi politici. Oggi percepisco una forte assenza di dialogo critico su temi politici, anche quelli relativi alla libertà di espressione, che è al centro di ogni pratica artistica».

Pic: Shirin Neshat :: Women of Allah

mercoledì 5 giugno 2013

Irfan Erdogan: A Report on the Situation in Turkey from CULTSTUD-L @ Virality, June 5, 2013



A Report on the Situation in Turkey

I am writing this to inform you that people in over 65 cities of 81 in
Turkey are demonstrating against the reactionary and oppressive regime of
Tayyip Erdogan and his party. We have demonstrations even in the most
reactionary cities in Turkey. People in every neighborhood in the cities
are on the street. Police throw gas bombs at demonstrators, beat and arrest
people. It is not like in the late 1960s, because people did not care about
us much then. We students were demonstrating for independence and socialism
then. Now everybody is on the street. Nobody cheered when we were
demonstrating in the late 60s in Turkey. Now people are cheering and
supporting the demonstrators. Today we have more people on the street in my
neighborhood in Ankara than yesterday. Police are shooting gas bombs inside
the houses because people are providing shelter for demonstrators who are
escaping from gas and police beatings. Youngsters and people from every
walk of life are on the street and want the Erdogan government to resign.
Erdogan uses the classic rhetoric about demonstrators and he threatens them
by saying that he can send one million supporters to the street (he means,
to smash the demonstrations). He says: “I keep 50 percent of the population
at home” (he means that he can use 50 percent of people who support him
against the other people). His mindset and approach reminds me of Jay Gould
who said once that he is not worried about demonstrations and labor
strikes, because he can hire one-half of the working class to kill the
other half. For a lot of people, Erdogan is a reactionary dictator.
 In Turkey people are scared to say something against Erdogan. Television did
not provide any news about the demonstrations except the television
stations of the major opposition party and Turkish Labor party television,
because mainstream media either support the administration or are scared of
Erdogan’s rage/wrath. People in Istanbul walked in front of the major
television stations and announced that if they do not feature them in the
news they will occupy the TV station. Then, TV stations started reporting,
but in a highly distorted manner. After this incident, very few media
personnel resigned from their posts in the TV channel. Erdogan scolded the
Reuters journalist who dared to ask him a question that he did not like.
The Internet is used for the most effective channel of communication and
organization of the protests by everybody. Erdogan expressed his utmost
anger against Twitter and social media. Everybody uses their mobile phone
for communication and recording the events and putting/disseminating them
on the Internet. Mainstream media started lying as usual. Two main labor
unions in Turkey run by those who ask some meaningless concessions from the
government try to stop workers to demonstrate, but workers are on the
street, too. Demonstrations are rapidly spreading all over the country.
Soon, I know, religious reactionaries (not all religious people are
reactionary) will attack demonstrators. There is a high probability that we
will witness a domestic/civil war in Turkey.
I was at the center of the demonstrations in Ankara yesterday and the day
before. Demonstrators do not do anything wrong, but police continuously
shoot pressured water, gas and noise bombs at them and attack
demonstrators. Police behave like they are fighting an enemy. They curse at
and threaten people by e.g. saying: “get lost otherwise we arrest you and
you know what we do when we arrest you.” We know there are some progressive
and conscientious people in the police force, but they are also under the
threat of the empire of fear. But we will see a differing police behavior
as the time goes by in the process. Now, there is an indiscriminate use of
gas bombs (CS gas). Your eyes get severely burned and you cannot breathe,
you start coughing, and you feel dizzy if you are close to the fume. Also
when it hits you or blows up beside you, you get shocked (I saw it). So far
we have four killings and many wounded.
As usual, they claim that demonstrators/provocateurs destroy and vandalize
everything around. Yes we see a lot of destruction; in fact, it is started
and done by plain-cloth police. How do I know: (1) this is a historical
fact. (2) I know from the late 60s, because we could recognize the police
then, but it is difficult to recognize them now. (3) How come there is no
vandalism, destruction and terror where there is no police around? Here are
few examples: I attend demonstrations at the center of the city where
police provokes, attacks and where plain cloth police destroys everything
around provoking some young people to do the same. My daughter and my wife
and neighbors attend huge demonstrations in our neighborhood where there is
no police presence yet: You can see no violence, no destruction and no
vandalism in these demonstrations.
Read more @ Virality
Pics: Police is throwing urticant gas against demonstrators

Jussi Parikka - Istanbul: Becoming People @ Machinology, June 2, 2013



No smoke without fire, although with the tear gassed Istanbul, Ankara and numerous other cities, one should say: no smoke without tears.
While things are unfolding on the streets of Turkey, the international audience of the events are trying to figure out: what is going on. Who are the demonstrators? Hence, kicks in the usual suspects of repertoire of explanations: is this like Occupy Wall St.? Is this the Turkish version of Arab Spring? Are the demonstrators a vocal minority, and we are just misperceiving lots of social media traffic as a major event?
Perhaps the question itself should be differently posed. There are lots of great commentariesfloating around, longer texts with already now some excellent contexts of the events. Some of it suggests in a rather good way that we need alternatives than just choosing one existing model of explanation.
Perhaps what is unfolding in front of the international community is what Turkish people already knew: a corrupted and authoritarian culture of politics and business where having firm relations with the ruling party AKP is a benefit for a variety of jobs and economic success for private sector companies (see here for some context);  lack of transparency in political decisions that however affect the majority of the people, such as the building of the third bridge or for instance in this Istanbul case, the demolition of Gezi park. The sentiment of dissatisfaction was there already in a way that was not just about secular vs. Islamists.
What is already being voiced is that “This is not about secularists versus Islamists, it’s about pluralism versus authoritarianism,” (quoted in The Economist).
Besides internally about Turkey, the events reveal a lot about the logic of capital: it benefits from authoritarian state measures and tight security controls. As for the case of Turkey, things are supposed to be fine on the economic front.
Interestingly, The Economist writes:
“Like most people, Turks tend to vote with their pockets. A decade of AK rule has brought unprecedented prosperity. Per-capita income has trebled, exports have increased nearly tenfold and Turkish banks are in good health”
But the problem is how much of this growth is exactly focused on the banks as main benefactors and how much of the consumption and investments is done only on credit money. If there is a major economic (read: construction business) bubble growing in Turkey and it bursts, things might very soon be very different – economically and politically. Even a lot of the middle class is actually still, despite university degrees and stable jobs, in a precarious situation.
In any case, the question  ”Occupy or Tahrir” is actually: what is the specific case of Turkey? Besides revealing details of more global trends of how capitalism enjoys authoritarian regimes (seeZizek on this point) it demands the continuous question of what then is happening specifically in Turkey.
Discussing with my friends in Istanbul, one thing popped up when they narrate the events of the past days: even they, participating, just don’t know everything. They are not sure how things will develop, but they remain hopeful. There is  a sense of momentum and an affect that binds across groups, but also the question “who are we”, referring to the protestors, is an open one. Perhaps it is open for a good reason, summarised in one of the placards from Istanbul.
It refers to the various attempts by the prime minister to publicly discredit the demonstrators. But it also gives an affective response, one example of the various texts and visuals that express a strong positive sentiment.
We are not sure who we are, but we will be the people.
A people to come
A placard from Istanbul:
Day 1 we were the terrorists
Day 2 we were the provocateurs
Day 3 we were the protestors
Day 4 we became the people

giovedì 13 dicembre 2012

The Least of All Possible Evils: Humanitarian Violence from Arendt to Gaza by Eyal Weizman - Verso Books, Uk, June 2012,



The Least of All Possible Evils: Humanitarian Violence from Arendt to Gaza

Groundbreaking exploration of the philosophy underpinning Western humanitarian intervention.
The principle of the “lesser evil”—the acceptability of pursuing one exceptional course of action in order to prevent a greater injustice—has long been a cornerstone of Western ethical philosophy. From its roots in classical ethics and Christian theology, to Hannah Arendt’s exploration of the work of the Jewish Councils during the Nazi regime, Weizman explores its development in three key transformations of the problem: the defining intervention of Médecins Sans Frontières in mid-1980s Ethiopia; the separation wall in Israel-Palestine; and international and human rights law in Bosnia, Gaza and Iraq. Drawing on a wealth of new research, Weizman charts the latest manifestation of this age-old idea. In doing so he shows how military and political intervention acquired a new “humanitarian” acceptability and legality in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

Eyal Weizman is Professor of Spatial and Visual Cultures at Goldsmiths, University of London, where he directs the Centre for Research Architecture and the European Research Council funded project Forensic Architecture. He is also a founder member of the collective Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency (DAAR) in Bethlehem, Palestine. He is the author of Hollow LandThe Least of All Possible Evils, and co-editor of A Civilian Occupation. He lives in London.

In this extract from The Least of All Possible Evils, Eyal Weizman details the dyanamic of the transport of provisions between Israel and Gaza, comparing it to a reverse Milgram experiment—a classic psychological experiment in power and authority and the capacity to inflict pain on ordinary people.

Milgram
 in
 Gaza
The legal petition against the further reduction of provisions into Gaza was rejected at the end of January 2008. ‘This is the difference between Israel, a democracy fighting for its life within the framework of the law, and the terrorist organizations fighting against it,’ the High Court stated, as if it were a state spokesperson. The court performed the task of an administrator rather than an adjudicator, a partner in the calibration of how much pain Gazans are to be made to legitimately feel. As such, acts of torture and terror aimed at forcing civilians into political compliance conferred on their makers a dignified image. Those proportionaly admin- istering the level of pain could now see themselves as being responsible for the necessary and tragic task of calculating and responsibly choosing the lesser of all possible evils.

Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation by Eyal Weizman - Verso Books (paperback), Uk, August 2012



Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation

Acclaimed exploration of the political space created by Israel's colonial occupation
From the tunnels of Gaza to the militarized airspace of the Occupied Territories, Eyal Weizman unravels Israel's mechanisms of control and its transformation of Palestinian towns, villages and roads into an artifice where all natural and built features serve military ends. Weizman traces the development of this strategy, from the influence of archaeology on urban planning, Ariel Sharon's reconceptualization of military defence during the 1973 war, through the planning and architecture of the settlements, to the contemporary Israeli discourse and practice of urban warfare and airborne targeted assassinations.
Hollow Land lays bare the political system at the heart of this complex and terrifying project of late-modern colonial occupation.

A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture - Edited by Rafi Segal, David Tartakover, and Eyal Weizman - Photographs by Milutin Labudovic - Verso Books, Uk, 2003



A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture

Israeli architects, scholars, journalists, and photographers highlight the role of architecture in the Middle East conflict.
Bringing together essays and photographs by leading Israeli practitioners, and complemented by maps, plans and statistical data, A Civilian Occupation explores the processes and repercussions of Israeli planning and its underlying ideology. It demonstrates how, over the last century, planning and architecture have been transformed from everyday professional practices into strategic weapons in the service of the state, which has sought to secure national and geopolitical objectives through the organization of space and in the redistribution of its population. In fact, as the book shows, Israeli architecture has consistently provided the concrete means for the pursuit of the Zionist project of building a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. As such, it is the first study to supplement the more familiar political, military and historical analysis of the Israel-Palestine conflict with a detailed description of the physical environments in which it is played out.
The banning of the first edition of this book by its original publisher was proof, if any were needed, that architecture in Israel, indeed architecture anywhere, can no longer be considered a politically naive activity: the politics of Israeli architecture is the politics of any architecture.
With contributions by Meron Benvenisti, Zvi Efrat, Nadav Harel, Gideon Levy, Ilan Potash, Sharon Rotbard, Efrat Shvily, Eran Tamir-Tawil, Pavel Wolberg, and Oren Yiftachel