[transcription of a ‘dictaphone street improvisation’, 2012-10-05]
“When talking about the culturally sustainable processes in a collective, I was talking about two aspects that are characterizing these processes, one being the fact of using what I term as cultural recycling, and the other being shared ownership.
I would like to add to the question about cultural recycling that what is different between a culturally sustainable collective and our current consumer based model is that in the latter there is an abundance of cultural tokens and of works of art, – the market is so to speak satiated by still more and more cultural products.
You see it when talking with people working as artists, that they often feel that their work is meaningless because there are SO many works of art, and so many good ones as it were. At some point they then seem to come up with a very good excuse, and continue producing works of art, – or they simply stop. The river of (divine?) inspiration simply dried out.
In a culturally sustainable collective this crisis simply doesn’t occur, since you don’t have an addition of art works, an accumulation of objects. If we stick to the metaphor from ecological sustainability, you could say that within a culturally sustainable collective, what happens is that you recycle the ‘cultural material’. The composed assemblages consist of ‘degradable’ elements, that are easily broken down into ‘reusable’ constituents. “
Learning from folklore – reversed colonialism 2.0 (akutsk.wordpress.com)
How do we store the analogue? (akutsk.wordpress.com)
Paola Antonelli Discusses R&D at MoMA (http://www.architectmagazine.com)
|The logo of Danish copyright organisation floating with an abundance of cultural products, illustration by Casper Hernández Cordes|