S. Hänsgen, A. Monastyrski
A Dialogue on the Slogans of Collective Actions
SH: The name of Collective Actions’ (CA’s) most recent piece Slogan 2005 contains a dual reference: on the one hand, it invokes a certain form of political design in Soviet culture, and on the other hand, it is associated with an entire tradition of CA performances involving slogans. To me, it would be interesting to use this action as a point of departure to explore the meaning of the specific relationship between exterior and interior contexts to the work of the group.
AM: The retreat from exterior Soviet contexts took place almost immediately after the first action, Slogan-77, which still made use of the Soviet slogan’s form. The second action, Slogan-78, was already a reflection on the inner content of the first slogan, while the third slogan reflected the removal of the text from visual apprehension altogether, and its removal from discursivity to description, that is the complete formalization and “nullification” of any ideological discourse whatsoever. The next action, Slogan-86, began in complete emptiness with the quality of a landscape (without any visible “slogan-quality”), returning a completely different discourse to this series, connected with only a priori contemplation, with space and time (its text is the foreword to the 4th volume of Trips to the Countryside). On the level of plasticity, the formalism of Soviet ideology melts away into “childish ideology”, in the form of a “children’s secret”, buried owls and dogs, made from a blackened map of the USSR.
S.H.: On the one hand, CA’s slogans are assimilated to the expressive forms of the surrounding sign field, but the device of serial repetition presents the spectator with another horizon of perception. The act of distancing is also connected to critical intentions. The slogan’s banner contains a personal text. “We” is replaced by “I” (for an example, in Slogan-77: “I’m not complaining about anything…”). But in the continuation of the series through the second Slogan, the illusion of the lyrical subject is dispelled (“Why did I Lie to Myself…”). The variations within the series redirect the audience’s attention to the factors that supply the slogan with its form, while its content is emptied out. This already takes place in the poetic texts of CA’s first two slogans: through paradoxical linguistic constructions in the tradition of Zen-Buddhist koans, signification actually consists in the cancellation of meaning. Yet in the third slogan “To Georgy Kizevalter”, which is hung up in such a way that even the letters of the text are impossible to decipher, all that remains as a relic is the outer material form, a design with no content. In the example of the actions with slogans, it becomes obvious what an important role the serial principle plays in the aesthetics of CA. Seriality questions the conventional notion of the artwork, which is usually defined by the clear-cut boundaries of a separate thing. Repetitive structures refer to the age-old traditions of ritual culture, in which reiteration effects the self-affirmation of commonality as well as a sense of satisfaction at recognizing that which is expected. But on the other hand, in the traditions of poetry or music, variations of repetitive structures do not only affirm the expected, but also create an aesthetic sensibility for the most minimal of changes in the series’ development. This gives rise to the possibility for perceiving almost indiscernible nuances in the formative process. HOW everything repeats becomes more important than WHAT is being repeated. Through its endless textuality, the serial system of CA continues to generate new actions and new “eventness.” What is the relationship between the text machine of CA and the immediate perception of “eventness” in its actions?
A.M.: This question is very important. Text generates eventness. In the beginning of the series, “eventness” is generated through some “hidden”, “alien” text (explicit or implicit imitations based on the assumption that any aesthetic “eventness” whatsoever arises from text). But as the series develops and in the course of CA’s ongoing praxis over the duration of many years, we have quite a profound development: what arises is a “narrow” path of sorts, a footpath (in contrast to the initial field roads, barely visible or rutted). The aesthetic placements of new articulations are joined onto those that preceded them. From the field to the field path, as it were. The first slogans took place on open fields, while the last two were executed in a rather narrow clearing in the forest with a footpath leading up to it. In the first case, we are dealing with space and with horizons, while in the second case, we are dealing with place and verticality (the forest). The “field” slogans with indefinite aesthetic “edges” interact well with their exterior contexts and even dissolve into them (“poles of indistinction”). The “foot path” slogans, however, have their own rigid aesthetic carcass, and are separated from exterior contexts, through historicity, among other things, through Heidegger’s portrait or the Diamond Sutra (instead of the “currency” of the financial billboard or the existential state “here and now”). From an expositional point of view, the early slogans are derivative and secondary (post-modernism), while the later slogans are original and primary (modernism). The earlier slogans were made in a “background” aesthetic. On the one hand, they are instrumental. In a sense, they simply serve as a pretext for the perception and contemplation of the surrounding outer world (context). On the other hand, they are loaded with a strong explosive charge critical of this context’s ideological layers. The later slogans are self-sufficient; they offer themselves up to perception and contemplation, and in this sense, they are more “striking” in artistic terms. In other words, the text machine, in my view, leads away from immediacy and, in the end, creates worlds of its own, if you will.
S.H.: In the next-to-last action of the series Slogan-2003, a portrait of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger was hung up between two trees instead of a slogan. How can one understand the gesture of using this portrait? Is it a direct programmatic statement, that is, a reference to a certain philosophical tradition, into which the aesthetic praxis of CA falls? Or does the application of the strange device of reducing the portrait in size draw attention to the ambivalent relationship to this tradition? From my point of the view, this performance demonstrates the CA’s self-image as an aesthetic praxis that does not only create a situation for aesthetic perception, but connects this situation with the process of reflection, relating the direct experience of “now and here” with general systemic philosophical notions. As I see it, playing on spatio-temporal categories, perception, and cognition have a central meaning to the activities of CA. In this connection, one could ask: why didn’t you hang up a portrait of Immanuel Kant? Maybe because the case of Heidegger gives rise to a more provocatively ambivalent relationship to the philosophical tradition?
A.M.: We did actually use Kant – in the form of an unusually big (fat) book – in the action 625-520, the first action of the forest cycle, whose last action is actually Slogan-2003, which use the unusually small portrait of Heidegger. What is interesting in both cases is the distortion and hypertrophy of size, not only as a stylistic trait of romanticism, but as a certain pathology of discourse, which this plastical abnormality actually refers to. What we have here is a diagnose of CA: textual distension along with visual insuffiency and squalid design. But you could also apply this diagnose to the Russian logocentric mentality as a whole. The maniacal commitment to logocentrism in Russia (which I emphasize by carrying on the discourse of CA and opposing it to Western anthropocentrism) is, in fact, the “philosophical” basis for the total disregard for the human personality in Russia at all stages of its history, including modernity. In Russia (and in the aesthetics of CA, to my sincere regret and shame), the human being is an abstract structural element, dangling somewhere along the “edges”, a certain instrument of a supposedly “scientific” exploration of something “common”, of “everything”, etc. This is why human life has no value here, in essence.
S.H.: In conclusion, let’s turn to the last action, Slogan-2005. Unlike all the other pieces in CA’s slogan series, this action removes the “slogan-quality” of the slogan into the auditory sphere, if I am not mistaken. The initial phase of the action consisted in listening to a reading of the Diamond Sutra, playing on a tape recorder that suspended from a tree. The device of listening to an invisible voice is reminiscent of the form practiced by ancient religious cults, where the sphere of the invisible is associated with transcendental mystery. This tradition seems to shine through this slogan as a background. Then again, the action also gave rise to the state of listening as such, which supports the process of liberation from any concrete content that we were talking about before. This concentrates all attention on the perception of the material-formal details of the slogan as an installation in nature. One of the slogan’s points of affixment is marked by the fact that the tape recorder is fastened to the tree with yellow scotch tape. Another point of affixment is marked by an orange tumbler-doll. Between them, there are sheets of paper with scholarly commentary attached to the tree trunks. This obviously accentuates the design or the format of the slogan. And again, the text machine has been set into motion, producing text that branches out into various commentaries.
A.M.: I have no idea about contemporary contexts of Slogan-2005 and what’s more, I find them completely uninteresting. Even if they are there, of course. For me, this slogan is, most importantly, an abstract composition, a chromatic structure. It is like a piece of music. It is somehow related to Daoist and Buddhist mentalities (and these might be quite contemporary and current, at least to CA). What seems very strange is the inclusion of living elements, such as a bound bundle of branches that took the place of the tape player, and the participation of a Pharaoh hound in the action’s space. After the preceding four actions on the theme of Russian cosmism, this last action does not awaken any discursive desire to understand it at all. And that’s a good thing.
Translation: David Riff
 Trans. note: “Point of affixment” is a specific term from the discourse of CA that may require some clarification. To Andrei Monastyrsky, the point of affixment, usually considered as a purely technical moment (i.e. a nail), has a central aesthetic value in defining the artwork’s objectivity: it reveals the link of the artwork’s material placement (on the “expositional sign-field” of exterior reality and ideological motivations) to the immanent, conceptual logic of art. In other words, the “point of affixment” supplies the artwork with its conceptual objectivity.
KOLLEKTIVNYE DEYSTVIYA (COLLECTIVE ACTIONS). THE DESCRIPTIONS OF ALL THE ACTIONS, Photo and Video | BOCHUM ACTIONS [KD] | DISCUSSIONS | KD' PHONOGRAMS in mp3