“I Am Not a Philosopher”: A Conversation With Nicolas Bourriaud

7/24/2019 I Am Not a Philosopher: A Conversation With Nicolas Bourriaud

1/21

I am Not a Philosopher: A Conversation with Nicolas Bourriaud

by Tomas iuelis and Gintar Matulaityt

Source: Echo Gone Wrong Magazine (Nov. 2, 2015)

Stable URL:

http://www.echogonewrong.com/interview-from-lithuania/i-am-not-a-philosopher-a-conversation-with-nicolas-bour

riaud/

Accessed: 05-11-2015 16:00 UTC

Contact: [email protected]

Due to the occasion of its 10th anniversary, Kaunas Biennial featured a star curator NicolasBourriaud who was expected to turn it into an exceptional and memorable event. Apparently thisaim was achieved because visitors from both Vilnius and Kaunas had a chance to experiencethemselves a bit like foreign tourists coming to another countrythe former because of the newscenography, and the latter because of the influx of new faces. Obviously, the presence ofBourriaud was a surprise to everyone. Driven by curiosity, we took the occasion to enquireabout the curatorial practice, concepts and motivations of the author of The RadicantandRelational Aesthetics. The conversation touched upon a variety of topics such as critique ofpostmodernity, roles of artists and curators, the problem of representation, abolition of distance,and loss of uprootedness. It is important to note that all the inconsistencies, polemic points andmiscommunications that punctuate this conversation are just as crucial as the ideas it touchesupon. The discussion is a part of a more general enquiry by Echo Gone Wronginto how artistsfind themselves within the pre-articulated contexts brought by curators. What ideas andideologies can we find behind the contemporary curatorial practices?

The conversation with Nicolas Bourriaud took place in August 2015, more than a month beforethe opening of the Kaunas Biennial. We met him in a dysfunctional Post Office building theempty rooms of which were yet to be filled with art. As a guest curator, Bourriaud was working

on Threads: A Phantasmagoria About Distance, which was one of the main shows of theBiennial.

Nicolas Bourriaud curatorGintar Matulaityt editor (Echo Gone Wrong)Tomas iuelis philosophy researcher (University of Dundee)

http://www.echogonewrong.com/interview-from-lithuania/i-am-not-a-philosopher-a-conversation-with-nicolas-bourriaud/
mailto:[email protected]://www.bienale.lt/2015/en/uncategorized/kaunas-biennial-starts-from-nicolas-bourriaud-exhibition-threads/http://www.bienale.lt/mailto:[email protected]://www.echogonewrong.com/interview-from-lithuania/i-am-not-a-philosopher-a-conversation-with-nicolas-bourriaud/http://www.echogonewrong.com/interview-from-lithuania/i-am-not-a-philosopher-a-conversation-with-nicolas-bourriaud/


2/21

1

Ithe radicant the end of postmodernity altermodernity

looking for the newness leaving for the desert

Tomas:The particularities of your exhibition are still not clear yet, so we will probably have to

see the exhibition in order to talk about the exhibition. Meanwhile, what is interesting now isthose fascinating ideas that move and inspire your readers. I suppose youve been asked aboutthem a lot, you explained these ideas many times. Every time is like a repetition.

Nicolas:Thats not a problem because you never say exact same things.

Tomas:Thats true. Do you feel like your answers change every time, is there a sort of adevelopment?

Nicolas:Its like a system of thought. Whatever it is, its like a human brain, you knowitcreates new connections all the time. Things evolve slowly, this is how things are. So its

impossible to repeat the same idea exactly the same way, you have to consider it from adifferent angle sometimes and the questions might be different, but it allows you to express thesame idea from a different point of view. It shows that ideas are alive, otherwise ideas that couldbe seen only from one point of view, might be already dead.

Gintar:Considering that The Radicantwas released in 2009, could you say that the ideas likeradicant and altermodern went through an evolution?

N:Yes, these are distinct notions, I would say. Altermodern was an attempt to create a bridgefrom what proves to be a kind of dead-end: postmodernism is a dead-end for me, and the ideawas to create a word as a key to actually get out of it. So, Altermodern is an attempt to pass

from this prefix post to another prefix that would allow new ideas to emerge.

Radicant has a totally different function, actually. It functions differently as a concept, because itis actually clearly linked to the vision of modernism and modernity. I would prefer modernity,actually, because modern means belonging to the present. Thats the original meaning of theterm. Modern is modernusin Latin. So its exact synonymous of contemporary, but it has beenused to qualify a period of time and also a set of values, concepts, and attitudes, which werecharacteristic of this specific period. So the prefix alter was intended to open up asituationone of connections and not one of progress, like in modernism, or that kind ofpermanent combination of past like postmodernism was. And I say was because for me it isover.

T:This is interesting. So in way you see modernity as a certain mode that can be repeated. Theway it can be revived now is not in its historical mode, or shall we say, not as a historicalmotive.

N:but more like an attitude or behaviour, an attitude towards the present I like this passagefrom Peter Sloterdijks book on Derrida where he talks about an exile from Egypt.



3/21

2

T:Yes, Peter Sloterdijks Derrida The Egyptian.

N:It is about leaving the bureaucratic Egypt behind: the pyramids, the priests, etc. Leaving thisapparatus behind and going into a desert for me is the most accurate definition of modernism, ofbeing modern I would say. Becauseismis not the right term, being modern is to leave big

architectural institutions behind you and leave everything to find something new, actually. Thereis a verse by Baudellaire which is great: diving into the unknown to find some newness.

T:But what does it mean to be concerned with today, with the time of now, or with the momentof now, with nowness? You use this metaphor of leaving the construct, the town, leaving thebureaucracy and everything [N:Its the main pattern]. But this gesture of leavingisnt it in away a refusal to dealwith the situation instead?

N:I think it would be more like going away from the rarified and petrified forms of our now andbeing able to acquire the new flexibility for the mind. I think thats the meaning of the exile out ofEgypt.

T:So the gesture of moving away is important.

N:Moving away and trying to find a kind of a desert. It is interesting that in contemporaryphilosophy, for example, the pattern, the image of the desert is very present, actually. Althusserwas saying that you have to create a void in order to access any kind of new. And its somethingyou can find in Slavoj iek alsoits his The Desert of the Real. Its coming from Althusser forme, actually. So its not random, its not accidental that the motive of the desert is becomingmore and more present, because the desert is the rarest thing today: a place where there isnothing.

T:But what do you think is happening in the desert with the subject?

N:Thats the big issue. Its interesting to see what happened historically in desert during theexodus, for example, if we come back to this original scene. Because walking, hearing voices,dealing with a few elements, like a bush or [T:phantasms] yes, phantasms andrecreations of new values, new order of things out of nothing, out of small elements that can befound. And thats the passage from the architecture to the book, I would say, thats exactly whathappened historically: the origin was based on the book [T:which is carried around and readby everyone.] Exactly. [T:Instead of being bound to a place] Yes, its portable.



4/21

3

IIaesthetic thinking vs philosophical thinking the role of an artist

the problem of representation the sublime abolition of distance

T:So can we perhaps jump to [N:Now? [laughs]] Yes, to the now.

G:So you didnt really answer the question how these ideas are modern in a way that theycorrespond to the now and did they change from the point where they originated and how.

N:I think the most important thing is to understand that Im not a philosopher. I am an art criticand curator and I think asa curator. So all the ideas I could express are translations of what Isee in the studios and exhibitions, thats really important. I dont invent the concept in order toapply it to art or artistits exactly the opposite. Its a way of thinking which is really differentfrom a philosophical one.

T:So its an aesthetic thinking.

N:Yes. I think so, its my basis. The same way Lacan could invent concepts out of this veryspecific field which was psychoanalysis, in a way Im trying to do the same from art, aestheticsand I think it is legitimate to do so. I think art is a fantastic point of view from which we canunderstand the now and where we can dwell in. We can really expand artistic intuitions andways of thinking into much broader contexts and then use these ideas that are up to a reader tounderstand. But in a way it is always about a connection between art and society.

G:So you trust art and artists to provide you with the experiences of contemporary life. It alsomeans you trust the sincerity with which they come up with ideas. But they are also influencedby these ideas, so there is a two-way process. Theyre not just experiencing life as it is.

Sometimes artists want to fit in the contemporaneity.

T:So the question perhaps is whether an artist is seen as a litmus paper of some sort, an artistas a detector, because she detects somethinga vibe? Something is happening in her world,and perhaps an artist is not necessarily conscious of what she is actually doing?

N:Sometimes, yes. But it would be a bit reductive to see all artists as a kind of a warner orwhatever of this kind, but if you readwhat is going on in their studios and exhibitions, you candevelop a very specific vision of our times. Sometimes an artist is not fullyaware of what he orshe is doing, yes, but sometimes he or she isfully aware, [G:to a certain extent] so youhave many many approaches to the world that cant be reduced to one.

G:But then there is a question of isolation of the art world and, most importantly, art world isalso part of the global market: quite often artists are not in full control of what they are doing, it isnot fully up to them to disrupt the market relations. And when it isup to them, they choose infavor of the market.

T:I come from art background as well, as I started my education in art academy, but I went fortheory immediately after graduation. I often try to reflect on my own escapebecause in a way



5/21

4

for me it was an escape from Egypt into something: into the desert of the real, into desert ofideas in order to rethink everything. I remember those conversations with some of the artistsabout the issues of representation: it was a motive of an artist who representssomethingconsciously, unconsciously, perhaps it doesnt even matter, because what doesmatter is the result. This issue revolves around how and where artistic ideas are distributed,

under which conditions, who is visible, who is not visible. So it is one of the key questions:representation and the visibility of this representation, how and where it circulates, in whichcircles. So these are the conditions of my interest. Such focus on the conditions themselves canreveal something about an artist, or about who is in the process of selection or the decision toparticipate or not to participate. We had a really interesting initiative in Lithuania recentlythereis a huge book in two volumes: (In)dependent Histories of Contemporary Artwhich focused onwhat can be called the unrepresented. What or who is unrepresented in art? How does thisunrepresented remain operative in the official discourse, or historical discourse? It was anattempt to create an alternative history or, rather, to recognise the alternative history and Ifigured it was one of those rare attempts, at least in Lithuanian recent art history.

I found it interesting that there was this need to discuss the question of representation. Anotherexample is when artists participate in an event, they establish a connection or a link betweenthe content that they produce (art itself) and the context that they use. This creates a certainstructure: form and context. It is a really simple structure, but the fact is that one can neverescape it. So the question is, how we think about this structure. Does it reveal something?

N:To answer your question, one has to analyse the different modes of what used to be calledrepresentation. I would say, representation is just one aspect of artistic practice. Sometimes itcan also happen that an artistpresentssomething: its presentation, its taking something out ofany context, out of a functioning world and presenting it. An artist sometimes designates

something, it is not representation anymore, when artist designates the situation, indicates away toward something elsethat is another facet of art. Sometimes an artist uses alreadyexisting structures and thats the way he or she is involved in his or her practice: by using theworld, using already existing structures, using institutions, using the apparatus of everyday life.Thats another postulate. So you have four attitudes that are equal to representation incontemporary art today. Neither of them is stronger than the other. They all co-exist.

T:So, what is representation to you?

N:Representation is one figure of this work of work of we should probably try to findanother word for this, because presentation, designation, usethey no longer OK,

representation is presentation of a different aspect of the work of showing. To show somethingis completely multi-faceted today. Every exhibition mostly uses these four possible attitudes.

And then we can talk about representation that is also something elsei.e., when somethingcannotbe presented. Its a Kantian definition of the sublime in a way, its what Lyotard wastalking about when he was referring to the sublime. So, presenting the unpresentable. And itslike in a way, in Lacanian psychoanalysis, the notion of the objet petit a: something which isalways missingthats the real in Lacanian philosophy. The Real is something that escapes,



6/21

5

that cannot be presented, that can only be seen through anamorphosis and that is also a figurewhich is very strong in contemporary art. But they are not excluding each other, no, all thosefigures are actually adding to one another. I think.

T:I just remembered one of your passages on Alain Badiou. Did I sense a certain critique

towards Badiou?

N:Yes, Im not always agreeing with Badiou.

T:When Badiou speaks about representation, for him there is a situation and its representation,which is what he calls a state. So theres an event and there is always something like amemory of this event in a representation.

N:But what we call representation here during our discussion is nothing but distance betweenwhat is lived through our everyday life as something real and its [representation]. Its thedistance that [one covers in order] to see something in an exhibition. Representation is only

about distance and what we call showing subsumes all those four different attitudes. It is adistancing away from reality, its a critical distance. Thats the way we could define what we seein exhibitions: sometimes these are the same objects we see in our everyday life but now theyare seen from a critical distance. Its very simple in a way, but I dont think there is any othermore precise definition that would embrace everything that we see in contemporary artexhibitions.

T:So distance is one of those keywords that you use and perhaps for you an art exhibition isone of the ways to see distance at work?

N:And thats also seen in the exhibition here, but it is seen from a totally different point of view

which is the idea ofphantasmagoriawhich for me (and thats the key for this exhibition) is also akind of ancestor for the contemporary art installations. From the very end of the 18th centurythis very specificalmost ephemeraltype of events that originated in Paris at the very end ofthe 18th century, is very important for me. And the key word is distance because this is whatwas actually happening during the last two centuries: it is the abolition of distances.

T:Lets talk about this abolition or disappearance of distance. So the distance itself vanishes,but there is a condition of this vanishing, which is primarily a technological, so perhaps it meansthat distance withdraws into the unconscious. Perhaps this is also a Heideggerian moment: itwas Heidegger who made us aware about the withdrawal of a tool or an object. For example,you are not aware about the chair until I mention the chairthis is what withdrawal is forHeidegger. Abolition of distance perhaps happens in the same fashion, because we cannotescape the conditions of this disappearance. Today we travel easily: we simply board the planeand the world becomes accessible because of that. This is not anything new, the very idea oftechnological conditioning does not give us anything new philosophically, but what actually isinteresting is how art contributes to this: how the very structure of art contributes to thoseconditions of abolishing the distance? There is something in art, that always seems to resist the



7/21

6

technological conditioning: it can question it, it can refuse it, it can distance itself from it, but atthe same time we have a paradoxart cannot do without technology.

G:And this is how it alsoprovides distance.

T:So, the abolition of distance.

N:Its a crucial question I think. Lets think about the definition of the aura by Walter Benjamin, aunique apparition of something which far away thats exactly what has been abolished incontemporary art in the last 30 years, I would say. Its not a unique apparition of somethingwhich is located far awaysometimes it can be something very close to us and reproduced onemillion times. We are living in a totally different visual and intellectual context compared to thetime of Benjamin. The role of reproduction has totally changed, and that is the new paradigmthat an artist has to address today.

The exhibition Intense Proximity that Okwui Enwezor did in Paris was also about this collapse

of distance. Based on the analysis of anthropology and ethnology. Going far away to bring backimages and documents about the way people were actually living. Today, what is really striking,is that technology is in your pocket: we have smartphones to take pictures

G:yes, if you are lucky to have them

N:we have computers to record images. Images are absolutely everywhere: Facebook andall the social networks are providing us with tons and tons of images from everywhere in theworld every day. It is exactly this collapse of distance that has become a reality. It is somethingthat all of us live with on a daily basis. And that creates the context which is radically differentfrom the 20th century. We have to address that and take that into account if you want to

understand the evolution of the aura.

You were mentioning the role of art in this erasure of distance. Language was originally a way todestroy distance: when you write a text you can talk about, say, a ziggurat of Babylon whilebeing in Kaunas. It is an abolition of distance. And artists are addressing realities which are veryfar from them. But what is actually interesting is that modernism in the 20th century was actuallybased on the reflection about distance. We have artworks that Lszl Moholy-Nagy made bytelephone in the 1930sas far as I know, these were the first ones of this kind. In the 1960s itallowed Lawrence Weiner to work in the same way: he can be in New York and do a show in

Amsterdam because it is all about language. And you can reproduce the language. Even SolLeWitt was working in the same way.

Today I am showing a piece by Liam Gillick, who is very close to Weiner andthats notaccidentalhe is showing a piece created by correspondence that could also be collaboratedby others. We are in a very interesting dialectics between hereand there all the time. And thatsalso one of the main issues of the exhibition.



8/21

7

III

critique of postmodernity critique of presence demand of presence in art act of resistance

critique of the originary Derrida and language targets of altermodernist critique

postmodernism as ideology economical crises and postmodernism

T:One of the points [in your book] is the critique of postmodernity. This is one of thoseinteresting hot points. I must recall here the whole postmodernist project of critique of presence.It is all over in the works of any post-Heideggerian up to Derrida. The absence of distance or thevector that draws you to this state of distancelessness is precisely what they were criticising.

N:But art wasand still islinked to the notion of presence: you have to goto an exhibition.Seeing an artwork on the screen is not enough, you have to see it. Exhibition is one of the lastplaces where you have to move towards the place in order to see something. Cinema is slowlyvanishing, the theatre is still there, of course, but the very last place where presence hassomething to do with our understanding of the language which is presented is contemporary art.

Exhibitions are also small temporary templesplaces to go. That is the way Georges Bataillewas defining the museum as a kind of lungthe city goes into this lung in order to have someair, in order to breathe, to refresh itself.

But of course within this structure of presence artists are criticising this notion of presence. Andit is a very interesting historical moment. The structure of distribution of artworks demands ourpresence, while artists are criticising this presence.

T:What do you mean by demands our presence?

N:One has to see the artwork. You receive an invitation for an exhibitionthats the demand.

You are not supposed to stay at home and look at the website. Not yet! It will happen.

G:Presence has to do with our body.

N:Yes. And also it is an act of resistanceone has to take this into consideration. Everything ismade today in order to erase our body or our nervous system. According to the logic ofentertainment, you are not supposed to bring your body in many places today, bodily presenceis something that has become rare. Working with ones hand can also be an act of resistance incertain situations. Resistance towards total mechanisation of the production.

T:So this is reflected in the new trend of the maker movement which calls for just making

things manually. So the last bit about the critique of the postmodernism. In your book youmention the critique of the originary.

N:Yeah. It is a common point in all my texts.

T:Do you see the dependence on the originary as one of the defining traits of the period thatresponded to modernityi.e., postmodernism?



9/21

8

N:Yeah, I think so. At least one important part of postmodernism was based on identities, onthe vindication of identities, and it always has something to do with origins, and thats what I amcriticising. Many postmodern modes of thinking have been based on a kind of assignation ofresidence for the peoplee.g., if you belong to such and such minority, its enough to defineyour identityI dont agree with that. Identities are constructions and it is much closer to the

queer way of thinking than to most of the postcolonial thinking, for example.

T:What do you think about Judith Butlers notion of [sexual] identity [as a performativeconstruct] then?

N:Yeah, I think it is close to this way of thinking actually. Much more than many postcolonialsystems which are based on the fetishization of the origin, and that is what I think is obsoletenow and we have to go through it in order to find new ways of thinking.

T:But isnt it interesting that both Derridas and Butlers and many others critiques of the idea ofthe originaryalso you can find it in Derrida a lotcomes from what we call postmodernism?

N:Not really, I think Derrida is coming from structuralism -never forget that, its really important.

T:That is true. But that was not what I meant.

N:He was incorporated, included in whats called postmodernity, but in many ways hes beyondthat.

T:So is it that Derrida makes a detour over what we call postmodern?

N:Derrida is postmodern in one specific way which is super important in his work: it is the factthat he has actually created a kind of closed territory which is language. From the very

beginning of his work there was nothing outside the text, you cannot get out of the text, and thatis very postmodern in a way. This way it is postmodern, but many of his concepts and ideas areactually coming from the Ecole normale superieure where he studied together with MichelFoucault and Louis Althusser who were already at that time teaching there. You can see thestructure in his first text Of Grammatology.

T:So basically his critique of the originary is, shall we say, correctalthough I dont like thisword, but lets use this word for nowit is correct but the tools he is using or the conceptualgrounding is restrictive because it is language.

N:For me he was always almost jailed in this pan-linguistic vision of the world which is verystructuralist actually, and not postmodern at all. Its something you can find in the legacy of thefirst wave of structuralismRoman Jakobson, etc.

T:So who would be the postmodern targets of our altermodern times today?

N:Good question, but difficult to answer.



10/21

9

T:Perhaps broadly.

N:I think strangely enough I should give it more time because it is a very wide question. But [ingeneral the target is a] specific type of discourse which is shared by many rather than one twoor three thinkers. Its more like a form of ideology, I would say. Strangely enough,

postmodernism is much more an ideology than someones articulated thought. Its spread out,its not going from one or two specific sources, its the combination of many sources that createa discourse which has become an ideology.

T:So its also difficult to define the point in time when postmodernism crystallised itself.

N:But the term just appeared in the mid-70s and it is interesting to see that it was exactly at themoment of the oil crises in the Western countries, which happened exactly in 1973. And thenvery shortly after that Western countries understood that oil was not infinite, you could not spoiltons and tons of energy, its not possible any more. Progress, as it was understood in themodernist times, was over. And then ecology appeared both in Europe and in America at this

exact moment. The political ecology appeared as a shared consciousness. Thats a veryimportant moment.

T:So this shared consciousness is one of those targets of an altermodern critique. This is thekind of state that you want to turn yourself against in a way.

N:Absolutely. But the main effect of the oil crises was the financialisation of the economy.Suddenly it was not based on the exploitation of the specific soil but on the transformation of thefinancial system into something totally abstract. That is what America did, while Japan went intotechnology, and Europe basically went into the financial system too. 1973 was the year whenstates had to borrow money from banks instead of producing money by themselves. That is a

historic date because the crisis of 2008 is born exactly in 1973. That is why I tend toand Iknow its a bit artificialbut I tend to say that postmodernism lasted from 1973 till 2008 becauseit was based on a very specific idea of the financial system which collapsed completely in 2008.Well, maybe it did not collapse, but at least there was a huge crisis which transformed the worldcompletelyjust see what is happening in Greece at the moment. So the idea that soil was notimportant, the ground was not important any more, the Real was not important any moreallthat appeared in 1973. One might even say that since thenthe end of postmodernism [in2008]we are slowly getting back to the Real, but in many ways, not in a caricatural way. Wewant to find something more solid

T:So perhaps this is how we can actually connect it to the speculative turn, and the turn towardthe real in philosophy.

N:Yes, absolutely. Its a side effect of it.



11/21

10

IV

the problem of roots plasticity phantom pain of an amputated root

treating the loss of uprootedness the dualism of globalisation and fundamentalism

the need to escape from the dualism false idea of contemporary art

T:Perhaps now we can jump to another topic. Lets talk about your idea of a radicant. In your

book you launch a critique of rootedness and you insist on the disappearance of roots or at leastthe loss of importance of roots. You describe it in a very visual manner, so its easy to startthinking about this notion in terms of, for example, Deleuze and rhizomatic networks. The notionof rhizome has been exploited a lot, but the way you introduce your concept is quiteparadoxical. Say, if I am a radicant, instead of putting down roots deep into the soil, I amgrowing my roots on the surface. That way I can move around and adapt to any other area. I amno longer tied to a specific place.

N:One can also consider different uprootings (plural) [or offshoots]. Its important to think that

these things are not exclusive one to another: the idea of radicant is the horizontalisation ofones way of thinking, ones own life in a way, its not the verticality of the place one was born at,or the place one decided to live. Uprooting is very vertical, while radicant offers a very horizontalplain.

T:So the root does not disappear after allit changes instead.

N:There are multiple roots. If you take the ivy, for example, to go back to an image, it doeshave roots, but it depends on the soil. On some surfaces ivy would grow only a really superficialroot, while in a more fertile ground it can grow a much deeper root. Its not roots againstuprooting, its more complex than that. I think this complexity reflects the complexity of the

subject in a way.

T:It made me think immediately about what Catherine Malabou is working on.

N:Plasticity.

T:Plasticity, exactly.

N:Not super familiar with it but

T:This idea resonates with the notion of a radicant a lot, although I am not entirely surebecause I did not familiarise myself with the notion of a radicant well enough. The thing is thatMalabou borrows the term plasticity from neuroscience, and in Frenchplastiquealso meansplastic explosive. But the main idea is that we are all plastic in the sense thatto go back tothe language we used just a minute agowe have roots and we do uproot ourselves, but onlyfor a certain period of time until something happens, until we have to relocate because of somecatastrophe.



12/21

11

N:Exactly, then the ivy does not die, it survives and evolves, because if you cut the original rootof an ivy, it still goes on. I think to have multiple roots is the only way to survive thedisappearance of your origins.

T:But the key difference between those ideas is that in plasticity there is still this linearity.

Malabou claims that you can not be plastic in the sense that I am multiple in many places at thesame time. Its not what being plastic means.

N:Then the difference for me is that the idea of a radicant represents a ramified line. In radicantyou have ramifications, but it is still a line as well, so they are not opposed. Its important to getout of the binary oppositions here. I think one of the characteristics of postmodern thinking isbinarism of yes/no. A line is not necessarily opposed to a tree. The very pattern of the radicantcombines the two actually. And that is what interests me a lot. In a way one can see a tree as aline: the direction is always the same but it does ramify and the two are not opposite.

T:There is this interesting passage from your text about the radicant, I quote: It is roots that

make individual suffer. In our globalised world they persist like phantom limbs after amputationcausing pain impossible to treat since they affect something that no longer exists.1

N:Thats the unhappy exile, the unhappy emigration, and that is a very contemporaryphenomenon.

T:So do you think there is a way to think about some new mode that would cure or treat thisphantom pain, this loss, this lack?

N:The Radicantwas written in this way.

T:Do you see it as a some sort of a treatment therapy or psychoanalysis, if you will?N:Oh, I wouldnt go that far Well, psychoanalysismaybe, yeah. Maybe its something I amquite familiar with, so in a way yes, this discourse might be somehow linked topsychoanalysisa kind of psychoanalysis of the collective disease which is based on thefetishisation of rules. There is a two-fold enemy I am fighting against in The Radicant: one is thenormalisation and standardisation of the world according to whats called globalisation and theother one is the fetishisation of the roots in nationalism, various religious fundamentalisms, etc.These two ways are my enemies, so you have to find the third way because what we actuallysee around us now is the mix of globalisation and fundamentalism.

T:I agree. Perhaps this is what makes this idea so vibrant: you talk about globalism but at thesame time you still use the notion of root. But the discussion or thinking doesnt stop here, westill have a lot of questions. For example it might seem that the radical(sic!) leftist politics canturn towards some sort of a weird nationalism when it appeals to a certain uprootednessthis iswhat we saw in Greece recently. It never happened before, at least to that extent. Perhaps Isense a similar kind of thinking here in Lithuania as well because on the one hand leftist thoughtgoes absolutely against any kind of nationalism or any kind of fundamental fixation, its been

http://www.echogonewrong.com/interview-from-lithuania/i-am-not-a-philosopher-a-conversation-with-nicolas-bourriaud/#link_ajs-fn-id_1-11067


13/21

12

criticised throughout for a couple of decades now, but on the other hand we stick to it when weoppose globalisation. What can be criticised is the false solution that we have overcome theproblems of nationalism through being truly global. I guess those problems have become morecomplex. I am always suspicious about any kind of solutionit is never a solution, its always aprocess.

N:But The Radicantcalls for individual solutions or collective ones but in smaller groups. It isnot about trying to avoid specifically this disaster of the uniformisation of the world which is notthe answer to the radical fundamentalisms or nationalisms. We shouldnt jail ourselves or lockourselves up into this dilemma between globalisation and fundamentalism. Its urgent to findother ways, otherwise we are all condemned. So art is important here because I think thesolution will come only from creativity. Assuming the fact that every existence is a constructionand a creation, it means it is also related to art, and that is why I am [mediating] for art or evenfor a political scene. It is really important to address it and propose solutions, and artists do,actually.

T:For example, one of the problems artists are addressing here in Lithuania is whether toparticipate in the already constructed and easy to access international model of exposurethisis something I have been working on recently as well, I am still trying to get more information inorder to research this problem. However it is quite obvious that there is a dilemmaandperhaps its not a well represented dilemma, its not very official dilemma, but its always there.Once, while I was still studying at the Academy of Arts, I was even told by one of my lecturersthat an artist today has to choose between doing marketable contemporary art and thusbecoming a contemporary artist, and just doing her own thing.

N:Thats crazy. Thats based on a totally false idea of what contemporary art is.

T:What is contemporary art?

N:It is art that is made today. I dont have another definition for it. Its not a genre of work. Whatis genre, actually? In my exhibitions you have as much paintings or video art or performance art.I dont see the difference.

G:The problem lies elsewhere.

T:Yeah, I was addressing a different problem.

N:Art is not a medium.

T:Its not a medium, its not a genre. Of course, if one does her art today, everything one doesas an artist is contemporary. The question is how does one see it.

N:But if one incorporates ideology within ones work it means one is a bad artist.

G:But can ideology be avoided?



14/21

13

N:The main criteria to judge an artwork for me is this singularity of the proposition which ismade. If I already saw it one hundred times its not interesting to me at all. Singularity is the key.If I discover someone with an attitude, inventing forms that I never saw beforethats what iscalled quality as far as I know, I dont have any other criteria. Sometimes its not a matter ofcorresponding to such and such criteria. Singularity is the key word.

V

singularity how to grow a tomato

T:What is singularity? Can you elaborate a little bit on it?

N:Singularity is the impression you get from an artist whose work could not exist if she wasntdoing it, thats very simple. Its the same when you meet peopleits not about seduction at all.Singularity is difficult to explain, singularity is exactly like we have it in the dictionarythe factthat something has not been seen or heard before.

T:Did you borrow this term from somewhere?

N:No, its really about being singular. A collective kind of singular. Its not a matter ofindividualism, but you can be in a group of artists and be totally singular.

T:I find it very interesting the way we use singular. I remember immediately that, for example,Alain Badiou finds it very complicated and problematic to talk about theOne, thesingular.

N:Yes, I know, its always two.

T:Its like counting to one is the most difficult thing, and perhaps it is also an impossible thing todo.

N:But perhaps its not contradictory because any singularity has to find its counterpart in theaudience in a way. Singularity is more of a situation, its always about a confrontation ofsomeone in front of something. Or it is a situation that is created by an artist.

T:So its a conjunction.

N:It is a conjunction, of course, because no work exists if its not seen or apprehended by

someone. That is a definition of art in a way. I could define singularity a bit more precisely if youwant. There is a number in mathematics which is omega, the cipher omega is the sum of all thenumbers plus one [+1, or infinity plus one]. Artand what is singularity in artis this plusone, this impression that you see something that you havent seen before, thats the way Iwould define singularity, its this omega number.



15/21

14

G:Ive written down an example if we may go back to the problem of uprooting as a sort oflinking yourself geographically as well as your own identity. You compare radicant to a plant

N:Its a botanical term which is in the dictionary, I didnt invent it.

G:So we know that the plant doesnt grow from roots, it doesnt start there.

N:It does.

G:But it comes from the seed and then, as an upper part of the plant grows above the surface,the root grows as well in order to provide the plant with nutrition which is necessary for the plantto stay alive. So I just have this visual example of a farming practice that is based on deprivingthe plant of water. For example, if you regularly water a tomato, its root will spread on thesurface in order to absorb as much water as it can quickly, because the surface of the soil driesout .

N:For me thats globalisation exactly, that is the best image of globalisation: the roots are notinto any soil but they are just fed with chemicals, abstract chemicals, recreating the qualities of asoil. So on the one hand you have this postmodern tomato, and on the other hand anotherenemy for me is the big tree with one root because that is what we call radical, its radicalism.

T:Yes, the radics.

N:Thats one root.

G:If I may continue with that example about tomatoes What is interesting in the tomato caseis that it is possible to grow them differently. Instead of watering it regularly you water it onlyonce and cover the soil with hay as soon as the tomato has been planted. This way its roots

grow deep into the soil because when there is no artificial watering it needs to find its naturalsource of hydration.

N:Sure.

G:The procedure of watering is artificial. Its not natural because the whole system of wateringneeds to be taken care of constantly. But the point is how to have a system that is self-sufficientand efficient enough, because a large amount of energy is wasted for care and maintenance ofthe artificial watering system.

N:Absolutely.

G:Which is not necessary or efficient at all in the case of a tomato. I was told by a self-taughtgardener that when she shared this non-watering idea with other gardeners, they were reluctantto apply itthey prefered watering to not watering. Surprisingly, they found wateringconvenient. Perhaps, it is because watering gives people some sense of occupation andrelief



16/21

15

T:and a sense of contribution.

G:And it is a relief from thinking in a way. So it is painful and hard to do thinking that wouldchange the system. So the question perhaps would be if the idea of radicant helps us to thinkabout systematic change or is it about describing the new state of the worldi.e., the state that

changes rapidly by itself due to the technological advancement? Does this idea provide us withtools for implementing the change?

N:I think the key pattern for the times to come is the combination of the two: technology plusthe acknowledgement of specific situations. Differences cannot be erased by some new kind ofwater system for tomatoes, so to speak. The danger lies there too.

VI

technologies as tools the use of tools phantasmagoria the Post Office building

curatorial practice choosing artists curator as a conductor commissioned art

T:I found a really interesting passage from Gary Zhexi Zhangs article on post-internet art about

this technology problem. The article is called Post-Internet Art: Youll Know It When Youll SeeIt. Its about the aesthetics of post-internet art, and there is an interesting passage: Art mightlike to talk about what it feels like to live through social media but, by and large, artists findthemselves complicit like everyone else, they are always twelve steps behind the techcompanies, the parameters of their freedom are established elsewhere. So he is veryconscious about this problem that we always have to be technological, but how to betechnological without being behind the solutions that have been already created for us? This is

the problem that we perhaps cannot escape, or can we?

N:We can, because technologies are tools. The main issue is the way we use the tools, whatsthe ideology behind the tools. Any tool from a hammer to our most advanced technologicaldevice today is exactly the same. They are tools. How do you use them and for what purpose?The key problem is in the ideology, then in the ideas. People dont want to see it because theytend to follow the dominant ideology which provides the use for those tools. But actually we canreverse that. The most accurate political task for the contemporary art is to become a kind ofediting table for unproduced new scenarios from the same images. Dominant ideology providesspecific scenarios including scenarios for telephones, for tools, for art, for human relationships.

Art has to reinvent these scenarios, rewrite the common scenario, and provide a different usefor all the tools we have, and that is a very political task, and that is the main politicaltaskeven more political than criticising the given. Its about producing a kind of newphilosophy of the use of the world in general, and the tools, in particular.

T:So what is the most important thing in using something?

http://www.elephantmag.com/youll-know-it-when-you-see-it/http://www.elephantmag.com/youll-know-it-when-you-see-it/


17/21

16

N:The use is everything for me. Its the alpha and omega in a way. What else do we have inour lives other than using? We use a table, we use this coffee cup, you are using this computer,we are using words to discuss and exchange ideas. We are using the tools that we have, andthat is the core of contemporary art for me.

G:Maybe lets shift now to this particular exhibition. In 2012 in Klaipda there was an exhibitioncalled The Prestige: Phantasmagoria Now where the motive of phantasmagoria emerged aswell. We have the same concept used in the Kaunas Biennial exhibition, so I was wonderingwhether there is a relation between todays art and phantasmagoria. Especially given thatphantasmagoria does not just carry features of both movie and installations, but it also is orcould be associated with a form of entertainment.

N:For me not at all. I wrote a text for this exhibition, but the funny thing is that I totally forgot tomention this in it. Sometimes phantasmagoria for me its not about entertainment at all, its notat this level I am using this term.

T:Is it this scary aspect that?

N:No, its just the fact that it was invented by Richardsonthis very strange Belgian guy whocame to Paris at the very end of the 18th century. He was actually inhabiting old buildings inParis in order to create a kind of environment. So, structurally speaking, he was the ancestor ofwhat we call installation or environments. And the other characteristics was that it was all verymuch based on the idea of calling the spirits and abolishing the distance between the living andthe dead.

T:That was a very popular motive at the time.

N:And it is this notion I am using here. In a way it is a comment on Aby Warburgs quotetelephone and telegraph destroy the cosmos. It is an interesting quote. In a way it was astarting point for this show. What does it mean? Can we now have a different point of view onthis? Maybe telegraph and telephone, to use his words, are not destroying the cosmos butcreating something different which is not purely destructive or negative but something thatwould lead to another perception of the cosmos. But it is interesting to see how this ishappening here in the Threads exhibition at the Kaunas Post Office.

T:Very much so.

N:Its absolutely perfect for me because its bothas we said beforecommunication and the

destruction of communication: this old Post Office was a place both for communication and forjamming the Western radio signals like those of The Voice of America.

T:Is this fact going to be included in some way?

N:Its included in a way that I want to keep the building exactly as it is. Its not going to betransformed into a white cube.



18/21

17

G:It would not even be possible because its a heritage building.

N:We are going to have some white walls when needed. I could have transformed it into awhite cube, but I want to keep it as a ready-made in a way. Its not a postmodern exhibition. Apost office exhibitionthats something very different.

G:Now a practical question regarding the communication and the disruption of communication.It often happens that the invited curators do their research into the local art scene throughassistance or even just by addressing contemporary art institutionsand Kaunas Biennial isitself an institution in a waylike National Gallery of Art, or Contemporary Art Centre, or theircurators because of the lack of time or

T:because it is more convenient.

G:In a press conference of a Biennial this January you said that you dont care about the bignames but its usually the big or bigger names that appear on the lists of the recommended

artists that gained the trust of the institutions in a way. On the one hand, we can also say that itis precisely the correct kind of artists that are included to the listi.e., those who were fit torepresent the ideology of these institutions. On the other hand, these artists made it to the listbecause they are worth of the attention, because they are relevant (again, according to thosewho have been trusted to give an advice). So in the case of Threads and Kaunas Biennial,how this seemingly technical issue of research, communication and selection of participantswas solved?

N:As a curator I am doing the research myself actually, so my assistant Mariana, she is mainlyworking on production, relations with the artists, etc. So that is the way I work. Some people canwork differently but my job, my thing is to

G:to engage with artists directly and speak about their work, their practice?

N:Sure, otherwise what is the curator? The one who organises all those elements in order tocreate a specific meaning in a specific place. Just like a movie director.

T:A director?

N:Yeah, its not that far from it, there are many similarities.

T:I remember in one of your interviews you said something about the curator as someone whoorchestrates, who is creating an opera while the musicians are still on stage or something likethat.

N:I think I was addressing the idea thatjust like in the operaone can either follow a libretto,a storyline, a narrative or not, actually. A good exhibition could be visited both ways.

G:So who is the composer in this case? If a curator is a conductor and the artists aremusicians



19/21

18

N:The equivalent of the composer is the edition of all the voices of the artists.

T:So its some sort of a loop.

N:There is no composer, the music comes from the artists, I am only here to provide thestoryline or the elements that stick all those voices together in a specific situation. And thenightmare of these kind of shows is to decide what work you will see next during the show.

T:You mean the challenge of how to arrange a narrative?

N:Narrative might not be the exact term for it actually, because it is not about a story, its, letssay

T:A sequence?

N:It can be a theoretical story or just a theme or an idea that actually makes the meaning moveslightly towards one aspect.

G: to continue this example of an operaisnt there a risk of art and exhibitions becoming forarts sake?

N:For arts sake? For which other sake do you want to make an exhibition?

G:To help us survive in a way. For the sake of having an experience of life

N:But the same [is with] artists, [they] have to survive if its a good art.

T:If its a good art?

G:But who decides then?

N:Me, who else.

G:Yes, but I have a feeling that people less and less have time to actually do their work, so Iwas wondering how do you manage to distribute your time, how is your attention distributed?

N:I try to focus on the ensemble, the unity of the whole, and then, at the end of the day, on thedetails. In between there is something which is very important: it is production, contacts with theartists, shipping, etc.something which I am not focused on at all. My main focus is ontogetherness and the [construction of] meaning obviously, and then the small details like the

labels, or shapes of the labels, do we need to [buy?] this colour or that colour, these kind ofthingsdetails which are really important and you can only decide if you have a clear view ofthe ensemble.

G:Are any artworks going to be produced specifically for this exhibition?

N:Many, I think. But I am not fetishistic about the production of new work in exhibitions ingeneral. Sometimes an artwork can be seen in a different context and if its a good artwork it will



20/21

19

also deliver new meanings, new layer of meaning. So its not so important to have new thingslike something completely unseen or works that havent been shown somewhere else, in Tokyoor whatever.

T:So its the whole combination that is new.

N:Totally, but some works are actually made here or will be produced for the exhibition so itsboth, its going to be a combination.

G:I am quite sceptical about the artists who get their work commissioned constantly orregularly, as there is a risk that the work will be produced to fit in the content.

N:But its a discussion with the curator every time. Sometimes you have to appreciate it byyourself, see if its more convenient to have this piece which corresponds perfectly for thepurpose, or if you trust the artist to produce something totally new, if she or he has a project. Itsa permanent negotiation with every one of them. I dont have any formula for everyone, I have a

different discussion with each of them. Thats important, I think.

G:But should art be commissioned at all?

N:Yeah.

G:So you have no problem with commissioned art?

N:No, why would I?

G:Because I think the artist should show commitment to the

N:But that is what a commitment is if you do a specific project for the exhibition.

G:A long term commitment.

N:What is the long term here? Its a temporary exhibition, there is no long term. Commitment towhat you mean?

G:Commitment to the problem that they are working on.

N:Ah, I see what you mean. But you know for example if you are doing an exhibition about anytheme, this theme can belong to the work of an artist who can be really deeply involved with itfrom the beginning of her whole career. That is the way I invite artists generally. Ah, by

commission you mean something which has nothing to do with Ok, I got your point. No, itnever happened to me that I would invite an artist and ask him or her to do something specificthat has nothing to do with her or his work. No, never. It would be stupid, and nobody would dothat, thats totally crazy.

G:But you might not need to ask them to Because that might be the solution for them how toget into the show.



21/21

20

N:No.

G:But you cannot guarantee the sincerity.

N:But if you choose the artist I dont know, its my job, I would never choose an artist for anexhibition who doesnt correspond to the idea of an exhibition, so the problem doesnt exist forme, it has never happened.

G:So the way you work is you come up with an idea and then invite artists who would thencorrespond to this idea.

N:Of course.

G:And you modify, you sort of embrace the differences, and sort of make an amalgam from it,but its not something that you have envisioned in your research

N:My life is a research. I dont do research specifically for one thing, I do it every day of the

year.

G:So if artists produce the material according to your own ideas and the concepts that youcreate, then are they not just illustrators of those ideas?

N:Never. Also why its very bad, so it would be stupid to ask an artist to do something bad. If itsartificial, if the connection is artificial we will always see itits obvious, its clear. It creates abad zone in the exhibition.

T:So perhaps the question is about the solution: whether its descriptive or prescriptive?

G:A diagnosis.

T:A diagnosis. Yes, its the problem when we create a concept or a notion and then we look foran event that would match this notionthis is something Badiou is interested in, he names andthen he waits for an Event to correspond with its prescriptive naming. Or is it a descriptive modethat we are talking about? There is a difference between them.

N:Its not a dogmatic approach that I have. When I start working on an exhibition, first of all I dothe lists of artists whose work goes into that direction, obviouslythat is the first level. And thisis how I developed this show, for example. What is the most phantasmagoric side of theworkwhat are the aspects of the distance and correspondence, etc. You have to decide things

and you have to incorporate those themes into the general view, but its never about asking anartist to correspond to an idea, that would be a wrong interpretation of a work, so its pointless.

T:So now that we have discussed the idea of the show, it is going to be interesting toexperience the before and after thing.

N:Yes, I am impatient too.


Documents

“I Am Not a Philosopher”: A Conversation With Nicolas Bourriaud