e-flux Journal #75

<p>Businesspeople talk about art like artists talk about money: gratuitously, without compensation. Hired to talk about money, an entrepreneur will speak in terms of art. Put an artist on a panel and you will often get disquisitions on exchange, capital, and commerce. Both constituencies are compelled by what lies outside their professional responsibility, and the response to this compulsion vibrates between veneration and contempt. For every <em>Übermensch</em> crypto-expressionist billionaire patron, there is one who sneers at the foolish valuelessness of art history and its scribes. For every dedicated anticapitalist artist, there is one who happily understands themselves to be making money. This tension is inherent in professional life, which promises to transform our spontaneous, effortless attractions into a pleasant but endless labor of necessity. For the money-professional, art presents like money does for the art-professional: an opportunity to misrecognize diligence as transcendence. In “The Perfect Con,” Mari Bastashevski encounters the limits of this mutual misrecogntion during a residency on a container ship. What is the fate of (the critique of) institutional critique in the age of the containerization of art? What still holds water?…</p> <p><strong>Editorial<br /> </strong>Editors<strong><br /> </strong></p> <p><strong>Tentacular Thinking: Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthulucene<br /> </strong>Donna Haraway</p> <p><strong>Abnormal Encephalization in the Age of Machine Learning<br /> </strong>Matteo Pasquinelli</p> <p><strong>Little Daniel Before the Law: Algorithmic Extimacy and the Rise of the Paranoid Apparatus<br /> </strong>Antonia Majaca</p> <p><strong>The Perfect Con<br /> </strong>Mari Bastashevski</p> <p><strong>Obscure Sorrows: Thoughts around the 9th Berlin Biennale<br /> </strong>Ahmet Öğüt<strong><br /> </strong></p> <p><strong>Simplicity Craving<br /> </strong>Ariel Goldberg</p> <p><strong>On the Social Media Ideology<br /> </strong>Geert Lovink</p> <p><strong>The Suspicious Archive, Part I: A Prejudiced Interpretation of the Interpretation of Archives<br /> </strong>James T. Hong</p>