Monday, 20 April 2009

On Immortality

“In our present time, one feels somewhat embarrassed when speaking or writing of immortality, in particular the immortality of individual. You feel you have to explain how on earth you came up with such an odd – even kitsch- topic. Today the individual’s immortality seems a more appropriate theme for a Hollywood B movie than for a seriously wrought philosophical lecture. This was not always the case. In the past, it wasn’t considered uncomfortable to talk about immortality because people believed that the soul would outlive the body. Therefore, it was considered absolutely appropriate and reasonable to give thought, while still on earth, as to where your soul would end up when you died. But above all, our ancestors would pose the question of which part of the soul is potentially immortal and which mortal.
Philosophy, as it was initiated by plato, has been for a long period of history other than an attempt to anticipate the further life of the soul after death. In other words, to carry out a metanoia, that is, a transition from an innerwordly to an otherwordly perspective, from the perspective of the mortal body to that of the eternal soul. Metanoia is namely a necessary starting point from which to become metaphysical, to attain a meta-position in relation to the world and thus to regard and think of the world as a whole.
Today though, as modern, post-enlightenment individuals, we hold that God is dead and that the soul cannot outlive the body. Or to be more precise, we dont believe that such a thing as a soul can actually be differentiated from the body, separated – made independent. Correspondingly, we also don’t believe that a change of perspective, a metanoia – that is achievement of a meta-position in relation to the world – is possible. Of anyone who speaks today it is first asked where he is from and from which perspective he speaks. Race, class, and gender serve as coordinates whereby the positioning of every voice is located. The concept of cultural identity, which stands at the centre of today’s Cultural studies, also serves this same initial positioning. Even though the relevant parameters and identities are interpreted as social constructs rather than ‘natural’ determinants , this hardly invalidates their effect. It may perhaps be possible to deconstruct social constructions, but they cannot be abolished or deliberately replaced.”
Boris Groys, Immortal Bodies

presented future on 27.February 2009

While developing the idea of immortality I have been influenced by Boris Groys, as well as Zygmund Bauman who has written the book titled 'mortality, immortality and other life strategies'.
Immortality as a life strategy is the core of this project, as how such a notion can be strategically reproduced or positioned.
Besides the conceptualisation of such a term in social domain I am interested in what art has to do with 'immortality’, how art can interrogate such notion through visual products.
Tonight we will be experiencing three different and related expressions:

Performance / Lecture by The Museum of Non Participation

The Museum of Non Participation, the project aims to question, challenge and demystify all of our participation in systems which govern the workings of a globalised and struggling world in disparate locations. The Museum of Non-Participation is a timely appraisal of standard forms of representing and experiencing the everyday. In its Karachi context the flexible terms of the project have come to encompass a new way of moving through and looking at the city, in a city with no museums, the city itself becomes the museum. Non participation becomes a form of resistance and questions the choice and consequence of action or inaction. The Museum throws up questions of urbanism, institutionalisation, space, cultural and societal divisions. Mirza and Butler are questioning the concept of the city, and the issues at stake, carrying back to London with them questions which are poignantly relevant to their own sprawling metropolis.
The Museum of Non Participation is a commissioned project by Artangel Interaction

:mentalKLINIK presentation of recent works and discussion on the equalised state of subject and object on the grounding of their perceptibility as data.
:mentalKLINIK, with its “undisciplined” state of mind, finds space of movement within the limits of art. Tags 21st century’s fragments with its own point of view. It designs unidentified spaces, indecisive zones and frozen times. In approaching the immaterial world keeps records of relations with materials. Works on subjects /concepts /states /behaviors. Creates forms of relationships with people in times and spaces defined by itself. Uses processes of creation, design, production and consumption as sources for its works.
Thinks over the relations between time and space, subject and object, object and time and produces. Names the objects as interfaces. Shifts its view from the object to the back side of it. There, finds the necessary insipration.
:mentalKLINIK, locating itself in the passage between two centuries, wishes, in its own understanding of time and space, to bear holes inbetween the material and the immaterial world, while being nurtured by emergent cultures and the changes between the centuries in forms of production and lifestyles. :mentalKLINIK, with productions where value relations are discussed, with joyful anxities, with works that reflect augmented realities with reduced senses, with exhibitions that offer occupations, :mentalKLINIK creates encounters in its own microclimate and these encounters define the forms of the works.
Until 2005, :mentalKLINIK stated prototypes for the understanding art-design-production-consumption with its first projects. In these projects, an idea of total production in which includes the product itself, its context, production process and the relation between product and beholder. Since 2007, :mentalKLINIK focuses on encountering a multiple world with its singular stand, instead of producing multiple looks on a singular state.

Presentation by Z. Tül Akbal Süalp on the condition of the 'subject'.
She has been teaching cinema, media and cultural studies in various Universities in Istanbul and gave lectures at Humbold University in Berlin as a visiting Professor last year. She recently has become the faculty member of Cinema and TV Department at Bahcesehir University in Istanbul. She has her BA degree in Psychology and studied Political Science, Cinema Studies and Sociology (Cultural Studies) in New York and Istanbul in MA and PhD levels. She has been writing articles on cultural studies, cinema and critical theory in some journals and the editor of Kültür ve Toplum 1/ Culture and the Society 1, (Hil, 1995), Oyun/ Play (2002) and the author of the book titled ZamanMekan: Kuram ve Sinema/TimeSpace: Theory and Cinema (Ba_lam 2004) and co-author of the short fiction: Wanting Book Odd Notebook. (MudamCamp de Base & :mentalKL_N_K, 2004) and also co-author of the book titled From Liberties To Losses and Afterwards (De-Ki 2008) Her recent research interest includes «space and time in cinema and culture », « urban space and cinema », and « technology culture and public sphere»