Some really basic notes from Boris Groys and Terry Eagleton lecture – 15/01/09
Traces du sacre – Centre Pompidou
Medium Religion – ZKM Karlsruhe
Eagleton mostly 1960s-70s and work in the Catholic Left – the body as language, leftist theology. Christ reminded that the poor was always with them, committed them to revolution. (ref. Revolutions, series by Verso in London) Eagleton:
The word ‘belief’ – what are the implications of ‘I believe…’? the question of not-knowing, interpretation. Wittgenstein, I know that I am in pain was nonsensical. The knowledge adds nothing to the sensation itself. Redundancy. Knowing and believing only have force when DOUBT is possible. Doubt only has a place within accepted truths, there must be room for the negation of truths. IDEOLOGY ‘beliefs which are too close to the eyeball even to be objectified’. Rumsfeld’s ‘known known’ ‘known unknowns’ and what of the ‘unknown knowns’? What does it mean to have a belief? Like having a pair of kidneys, but how far do beliefs go…go to death for – these beliefs are known as CULTURE. How has this notion mutated. Constituative beliefs make up the self – would have to change dynamically in order to change these…more than a change of thought, practice as well. These have nothing to do with the postmodern obsession with options options options. Beliefs that you find in tragedy. Necessity and freedom. When I believe in Catholicism and Communism, I cannot change my mind NOT to believe in them. Beliefs are generated by our material forms of life (this in itself is a belief) – you cannot compare the two, as the existence of both is contingent on the other. Belief is your ontological foundation – a priori transcendental. CULTURE has become the new transcendental foundation…pluralism, diversity are not radical in themselves. The heresy that you can’t get behind.
Is belief the same as faith? What does it mean to believe in God – the ‘Bigfoot’ theory of God – the evidence is not complete…until we KNOW, we can only BELIEVE? Faith presupposed that He exists, but existence needs to be redefined. God is the condition of everything, begging the question of why is there anything at all? Faith in redemption, faith in love – Kierkegaard – the believer is the lover. To understand the faith in redemption you need to know the sensation of loss, of failure, of despair.
Faith of the New Testament is not presented as the signing on for certain exigencies, but in a political underdog who underwent torture for the belief in the transformative power of love – faith in a person/faith in a proposition.
Why would anyone continue to be a political radical in this time of post-secularism. This is not how things were meant to be? The depths of belief in transformation. In love with the belief in human kind? Believing IN and believing THAT. Division between those who believe too much and those who believe too little separates fundamentalists from liberals. Constitutes the Other.
Liberals and postmodernists see passionate believe as being totalitarian – this in itself is a conviction. Isn’t it? What is the power of belief in and of itself? Do we care what it is? Dawkins phenomenon?
Civilisation vs. barbarism now become civilisation vs. culture
Civ. meaning plurality, individualism, respect, diversity and cult. meaning extremism, collectivity, irrationality. Culture is the result of failure of religion in the West. Politics rather than culture tried to take over religion originally. This failed too. Culture in a different sense has taken over from politics – we call this postmodernism. Still dependent on Western imperialism? The shift though is deceptive. Just as war in North Ireland is not about belief. Like the Middle East – it is about culture/politics/material issues (land, armaments, famine)
Boris Groys – Science and Religion
A freedom of faith – after the enlightenment became a private affair and unallowed to share impose on others. Art and design analogous to religion. The place of religion to public discussion –should be publically discussed but shouldn’t result in any conclusion – Kant. Religion as a transcultural phenomenon. Where is science in all of this? Foucault – scientific knowledge = power. Every position in science can and should be argued for, as long as there is evidence to support that opinion. Two types of freedom are operating in ‘our’ culture today – scientific, faith (but this is solvent, as there is no condition to prove that one faith is WRONG, just as there is no way to prove that it is right).
Where is truth in relation to both?
The religious subject is a consumer of truth (ref. Zombie talk at the UvA conference). It doesn’t matter what kind of truth – yes, of course I love you – reciprocal. Kierkegaard: leap of faith is essentially reactionary. Faith is the at the basis on no knowledge. Best Boris quote: ‘See book of Job’ Each religious subject is distinctly cynical. The relationship between believer and God the same between a viewer and artwork? A matter of taste. Hm…
Today we are in the position of Abraham rather than Plato. The contemporary subject is attacked by truths of every kind. They are aggressive, propagandistic. Inconvenient. These truths are distributed not by subjects but by impersonal agents – internet, media, organisations. No need to discuss the politics of representation…by adding yourself to Youtube, Facebook your represent yourself. You can add what you believe on the status. Belief is seen as opinion. Groys describes belief as ritual – which is actually opinionlessness (adoctrine). Zero level of freedom of opinion – that means no opinion. The religious ritual can be repeated but not criticised or modified. Science is progressive and changes in time but religion is repetitive. Religious fundamentalist is the true materialist of our time – about form and tradition.
Always a revolutionary element to religious fundamentalism as it is no longer bound to any kind of rationality. There is always a loss of spirituality in rituality. Mechanical reproduction the love is lost.
Digitised turn in religious exhibition practice. Talks about his work as a curator of religious show and the relationship between the spirit and the body/ human and divine through digital art. The score in relation to the music piece. It needs performance and this is the gap between digital art and its function. What do we need to perform? And which generation are we talking about performing these…accessibility of religion in terms of this visualisation. Signs and wonders! The digital image translates invisible digital information. Immortality in the digital. The relation of time to these.
