Original Text:
What has happened. Analysis. Future.
From a conversation between ****** (self-organized space in the Academy of Fine Arts in Munich, emerged from the occupation) and Stephan Dillemuth
*****: The attitude the Bologna process embodies is now completely clear. Earlier my criticism was directed against implementations of unwelcome ideas, but now I'm confronted with the concrete impact of this. Overcrowded classrooms, tinnitus, bureaucratization, loss of libido, elite training, racing heart, shortness of breath. I am sick of this and I want to do something against it.
For example, here in Munich: Someone placed a banner, a simple gesture of solidarity with the occupation of the artschool in Vienna, above the entrance portal of the Munich Academy of Art. Parallel to this someone had printed a flyer announcing the Acqademy was 'to be occupied'. The rumor quickly made the rounds. People met the next day, speeches were made, a few flags were waved, then the assembly hall of the Academy was effectively occupied. A week later the occupation moved into the lecture hall (audimax) of the university. From the idea to its implementation, it was a way of surprising ease.
For now a reversion to conservative legal forms of protest is only logical. A caricature of the education system is formally answered with a caricature of protest. It is crucial now, which side leaves the caricaturesque setting first in order to find a new way of articulating its needs. The addressees of the protest respond with rather phlegmatic strategies, delay, empty rhetoric or bungling efforts of ingratiation... the usual reactionary boredom.
On the side of the protesters is more fun. The intensity of the protests gave birth to desires and needs, which have nothing to do anymore with all the imperatives about self-expression and its stupid friends: competition, performativity, flexibility and mobility.
Community, self-organization, collective experiences and other forms of communication are the appropriate techniques in the present situation. Used correctly it can create the basis for real resistance to the prescribed Bolgna bullshit.
sd: Is it not the fact that a new kind of capitalism which had learned its techniques from cybernetics has created an all-encompassing rule? The fact that the privatization and regulation of the schools and universities seizes exactly the place for ideological reproduction? Thats why the Bertelsmann Foundation has triggered the Bologna process, and pushes it since then - and now to say that the stress is so high in these institutions, can we please make a few points less, that does not meet the point exactly.
*****: At this point, the reflection of ones own role in the system of education has to start. What do I really, really want?
Just reproducing the current logic of profit and consumption? And when it gets uncomfortable to scream for updates in order to have a career? But never questioning the operating system?
Its clear that education is the integrative moment in our society. Education does not just begin at the university, but in kindergarten, and has a lot to do with the income and the biography of ones parents. If they had not been on the high school, it looks bad for the children to get a degree.
The education system has to be questioned as a whole and fought against. I refuse to follow the idea of unconditional functionality fatalisically.
I want an emancipatory form of learning, an open outcome, self-reflective and critical, which parallels its counterpart in a practice that is not based on alleged necessities.
sd: The Rector of the University in Innsbruck called the occupation a "university in the best sense." I totally agree! However, one must distinguish between self-organisation and self-help. It would be self-help to mend the holes in the Bologna process with one's own initiative. Self-organisation wants more, namely a change of society against the spirit stands behind Bologna, which hovers over everything anyway. Specifically, it could seem as if self-initiated student projects are very welcome to those failed institutions due to the Bologna Process. It would be possible, for example, that in addition to 70% of alienation through the work-to-Bologna-rule a further 30% could be granted to establish identity in projects and/or spaces determined by the students themselves. As you say, one has to occupy and use the in-between spaces, but not in order to strengthen the system which one critizises, but widen the crack in order to let more light in.
*****: Of course, there is now no reason to rest, I agree.
I am becoming aware of my needs only through the intensity of the actual events. It would be naive to hope that my desires would be be fulfilled by virtue of any petition. I never get what I really want if i do not take it in my very own hands. Now to feel conveniently at home in the university via the status of the occupation is by no means the end of the flagpole. The occupation, the formulation of demands and petitions, the protest are by themselves just the beginning and not the goal.
sd: I think the circumstances will soon become more sharper outlined, and conflicting with each other. In view of the financial crash and the scarcity of natural resources the hype of a "knowledge society" is being advocated more emphatically. It is said 'knowledge is the oil of the 21st century' and thats why wars will be raged also about knowledge - and we are already at the front. Knowledge is capital. Seizing the universities, patenting, even of living organisms, copyrights being extended on all areas of life - all that are privatization strategies, in order to create scarcity of what is abundance. According to prevailing logic of profit knowledge and access to knowledge has to be made scarce. This goes hand in hand with control of all human communication channels, internet, telephone, public space. Even the reformist criticism of tests or scoring systems will recognize that we are already in the midst of a dystopian science fiction, and because that becomes more and more clear for an increasing number of people, there is no cause for depression: Arise, brothers and sisters, to the sun, to freedom !
Whilst the conflicts will grow more acute, we will continue to live in the ruins of patriarchy and neoliberalism. In order to shake the foundations it needs stamina to learn to live, to think and to act in a fundamentally different way in order to take opposition into the next generations. How can we create solid foundations for this resistance, how can we together produce sustainable knowledge, and keep its processes and outcomes open and available to everyone? How does this knowledge differ from the elitist, technocratic knowledge of a knowledge society that already dominates here and on other continents the many millions that do the dirty work?
*****: I am human capital. What a shit! Despite all contradicting rethoric it has to be made clear that classic material factors and primitive accumulation are underlying those concepts of immaterial labour in our information society.
Until now the disruptions have not been really relevant in a systemic way. The aim must be a resistance which is such a systemis disruption, i.e. the symbolic spaces have to be left, it has to be fought on various fronts. Then the game becomes more serious and goes into an infinite extension. The tools that we are building for ourselves now, the knowledge that we acquire now, the communities that we form now: On to battle!
Rozsa's Draft Reponse:
Response to: 'What has happened. Analysis. Future.'
in introduction, reference to the burgeoning effects of the Bologna process such as overcrowded classrooms, bureaucratisation and elite training, producing a charicature of the educational system is a norm for us in England, as we entered into an Education which is defined by these aspects prior to our decision to engage with it.
So why engage? It is not a woe of education now, but it is a symptom of a neo-liberal individualistic society. One which we know and are groomed for.
One decides to enter the higher educational system, not particularly conscious of its failings, due to the selling of the promise that you reap what you sow. And in embarking on an educational journey which sees more people attending, paying increasing fees, whilst institutions cope with funding and staff cuts, and higher numbers of students seems a good idea if through your cultural social and school life one is told that to be 'educated' guarantees a career, and a career guarantees a comfortable life.
I noted the point of lost community, self organisation and collective experience. This is in its pandemic stages in England. Apart from the recent Sussex University occupation. Students here are defeatist in the sense of protest and direct action as effecting their educational well-being. When fees were introduced to the British University system there was mass student protest and general cross-country objection. Nothing Happened. Fees went through rapidly, as with many laws passed in our New Labour era, under their slogan of "Education, Education, Education". The common mentality to subscribe to this failing system, rather than revolt against it is not just due to our apathy and loss of faith in politics. It is a direct result of pressure for individual success, which permeates every facet of our society. For students this pressure is not simply put upon us through the individual ideology of our nation, but it is a physical, though intangible pressure. A financial pressure. If one wants to be educated, then one has to owe the government a minimum of just over £9,000 (and this is increasing year by year). This does not include ANY money to live on. Therefore, if one wants to be education in England then generally one has to subscribe to the prescribed dominant ideology of personal gain. We must force ourselves to believe that a job is waiting for us, that we reap what we sow, and we will pay back the government bit by bit the money charged to us to better ourselves and our future possibilities.
The psycological effect of the now old Bologna process of this country, is that Education is not a tool for growing, for learning, for discovering who we are or what we want to be. We sign up to it with a prior notion of who we are going to be as a result of our purchase.
Surely we are lying to ourselves. This is not an educational problem. It is a social one. There are no jobs waiting for us when we get out, and that will not change soon with the increasing population and increasing number of graduates.
Ideological reproduction is a description of an effect of the Bologna process, an ad lib to this would be in the Art-education system here the theory taught now is close to, and almost the same as that taught in the eighties (death of the authour,etc).
How will a generation be born out of universities to think forward and help deal with the problems facing us now and in the future on a social level (globally), if we are thinking backwards? Dont get me wrong, we are not children needing to be spoon-fed knowlege, it not just the problem of what we are 'taught', there are individuals seeking more than the basic one-size fits all curriculum. But a few individuals are not a generation, and change is not made by single entities but by mass discontent and demand for change. This will never be achieved in this country if we continue with the level of lost community and self organisation that I have experienced.
There is no resistance to the Bologna process, just everyone's singular tale of their attempts to survive it.
the reflection of ones own role in the system of education has to start. What do i really, really want?
reproducing the current logic of profit and consumption?
Yes, reflection has to start in the UK too. Is personal gain a valid enough reason to enter higher education? If one is 'intelligent' enough (or socially lucky enough) to go to university, should one be intelligent enough to debate for oneself whether the structure you agree to buy into is the one you want for your next generation? This is an increasingly difficult concept when the here and now, instant gain and gratification is socially and morally widespread.
Here, when we allow ourselves to be 'educated', it is the current logic of profit and consumption we adhere to. We borrow money, that gets paid back into the system, which is ok, as we will make more. This is not ok, and it is not true. [elaborate]
Education does not just begin at the university, but in kindergarten, and has a lot to do with the income and the biography of ones parents.
but hasn't this Bologna process in the UK allowed those who traditionally were excluded (financially/socially) to 'better themselves' too? Yes, there are more graduates (numbers helped to rise with the introduction of degrees, such as 'tourism', another sign that we go to uni, to get a job). This is due to little variation of money allocated, MONEY LOANED.
Does this democratize education? I am doubtful about the truth in this reason behind privatisation, not just from remembering articles preaching the ingenuity of the students money lending with their loan, or buying stocks and shares, or investing in high interest accounts, the students that heve this option are being funded by their parents, which is fair enough; yet axcess to state funds, to increase private capital, is not what comes to mind when I think of a democratised educational system.
also, if a person is brought up in a society and culture (class) where it is inbuilt into your psyche from an early age that you will be successful (like your parents etc), you are inclined to accept the debt as it seems easy to pay off, along your road to success.
However, if you are not from this background, the prospect of leaving university with the normal £25,000 weight on your shoulders is a daunting one, and a 'lower class student' can often be seen not fulfilling their potential, either through the choice to not continue studying, or the sense of responsibility to minimise the debt in tandum with getting an education. The student-worker. [elaborate on types of work common]
this is not democratised education, the lower level income family's son or daughter cannot fully apply themselves to their course when they are having to give hours in labour. This in turn helps universities provide less tutor-student time etc, as it is beneficial financially to the university and to the student-worker, (the majority). Those students not working thus have more time to self-educate (individually), maintaining the class boundaries that privatisation was supposedly going to break down.
self organisation is lost here, self 'help' is subconcious and advanced. If you see a tutor for a pre-determined 20 minute slot 3 times a term, the self-teaching is normal. We finish uni and give our self-given knowledge for free, in the form of internships, due to competition for individual success (not humanitarian or collective) being so high.
an example of what to expect post Bologna process in regard to the increasing price on knowledge, probably transcends your predictions, eg: there are lectures within my university, which I pay over £3,000/annum for, that I am charged an additional £5 to attend. The price on knowledge, in art education also becomes a price on creativity. No materials are provided, the student has finance that too.
emancipatory form of learning is needed. How do we take opposition into the next generation?
opt out? If, like the faded slogan from a past student (1997) on the roof of my college is true, that csm=business, then stop the business' profit, as it will keep perpetuating itself as long as funds from those with non continue to fuel its capital.
This idea is an impossibility in the current epoch of individualism and consumerism. It is the predominant mindset of our nation which needs changing before structure, and thus education will be changed.
sustainable knowledge should be our goal. Is the traditional form of disruption the way to achieve this? for uk I am not so sure, we are so far down the post-bologna road that envisaging this is almost an impossibilty. I wonder that perhaps it is disruption, in the form of non-subscription to the educational status-quo, that is what is required to initiate change. A beautiful evolution out of this is that produces greater potential for a self-organised free alternative education: if creative and intelligent minds are not halted by need to individually achieve in current system due to the worry of debt.
The consensus I feel is among art students now, is that we pay for (small) studio space and facilities, not for knowledge. So, sustainable knowledge is not being adequately provided [elaborate]- then it is time for us to choose what is of greater importance: the promise of the waiting job which doesn't actually exist/the space/the facilities? Or knowledge?
My Response in Light of Rozsa's;
Response to: Response to: 'What has happened. Analysis. Future.'
First I want to give an account of my experience and observations of the British Higher Art education system at Central Saint Martin (I can only speak from the point of view of Art education, though this setting is key to my evaluation) in order to contextualise my response to the Salong/Stephan Dillemuth Munich text and also to Rozsa’s response.
I would agree that since being a long way down the path that the ‘Bologna Process’ will in effect enact- in an educational landscape of standardization of accreditation, budget and staffing cuts, and market orientation – that there is a latent, low-level, and pervasive disappointment, modulated by resigned acceptance. However, at this point I feel bound to point out that this is proving itself – for an increasing number of students and graduating artist - a useful catalyst, for the reappraisal of how one approaches the learning process and Art practice itself. This is scarcely though, to straightforwardly valorise the state contemporary state of Art education.)
The emerging practices of my contemporaries, the impending results of the ‘Bologna Process’, and its developed contemporary counterpart in the UK, seem to embody and display a bewilderment that mirrors a wider socio-cultural bewilderment in the face of hyper-mediation (a key issue in the study of the visual). This for me is one of the most troubling reactions to the state of art education.
Instead of re-grouping as with the protests and opposition characteristic in the mainland Europe and the U.S., British students seem to be trying to simply ‘come to terms with’ the constitutive phenomena and implications of this cultural and educational confusion and its sources of hyper-mediation.
The exploration and creation of (often dubious and self-consciously false) narratives, - nostalgic, utopian, dystopian, fantastical, - and (continued) commercial gallery-courting; together with the theoretically unstable analysis of mediation all seem to be the current modes of discussion. These allow us only to carry on in the face of confusion and sense of loss particular to our phase of Super Modernity (Augé, 2008). Yet, there appears to be little suggestion, in these forms, of an alternative to the simple asking through the Artwork of “how can we survive?” – both, as artists (financially, critically etc) and, as psychologically stable humans.
I feel that this is a resignation to a practice based on alleviation of the inevitable, in attempting to process the experience of the British educational (and wider) culture we seem to be merely re-phrasing and blindly appropriating the very ideological forms and social relations that create this malaise. Simply attempting to retain some sense that Art has (in spite of what Postmodernism tried to achieve) retained some allusive cultural aura or cultural exclusivity has clearly made no difference. This is symptomatic of a continued un-critical involvement in the Art market, but also of an inexorable and unquestioned merging of Art practice into experience/spectacle economies and cultural forms, while continuing to display works in complicit delineated art spaces.
Strategies of appropriation and re-contextualisation with a big dollop of “knowingness” do little to staunch the effects of this entropic equalization (not clear what equalisation means here – find alternative word) , super-specialization and increasingly singular reading of information and experience.
The financial context of the British education system does not help to engender an ulterior cultural discourse either. As soon as education is commoditised one enters into a contractual sense of entitlement: though this is purely anecdotal, I feel I speak for the many. You expect a quantifiable return, moreover one doesn’t expect to be entirely self-supporting, and simply be paying for “for (small) studio space and facilities” (Rozsa’s response) and little tutorial interaction. This sense of want is compounded by the context of seemingly free and bountiful access to information of the Internet and the promise of personal gain that sustains the service/life-style economy which contextualises and is culturally parallel to the re-positioning of the higher education system. (I do not blame the Institutions here; it is yet another unpleasant ramification of the ‘wisdom’ of market drives.) This is especially true when an Art education and subsequent Art practice can seem so bewildering and potentially pointless.
Worryingly the emergent rhetoric of movements like the American Tea Party Movement and companies like Google, of freedom from physical and tangible cultural forms looks like it could be easily exploitative of an anti-institutional critique:
“As you say, one has to occupy and use the in-between spaces, but not in order to strengthen the system which one criticises, but widen the crack in order to let more light in.” (Salong/Stephan Dillemuth text)
Further, this promise of freedom, combined with the invisible mass of virtual culture raises my concern: that an archipelago of oppositional institutional opting-out would not have the critical mass to compete (with the economic and ideological rhetorical weight of dominant neo-liberal culture) and enact change.
It must be said though, that can I speak here with a bizarre mix of hindsight and observational objectivity that lacks the same sense of urgency of action that no doubt animates students in mainland Europe.
“The fact that the privatisation and regulation of the schools and universities seizes exactly the place for ideological reproduction.”(Salong/Stephan Dillemuth text), it is vital that artists and art student’s practice situates itself in the path of this ritual reproduction of knowledge, to act as a distorting lens.
In a world characterised by a sign-exchange economy, the arguably purely symbolic act of occupying a lecture theatre and therefore disrupting the brand-image of a university could be considered the ultimate violent act, though I am dubious of its actual effectiveness.
Hence, I would call for, divisive engagement, rather than the frankly more romantic battle cry. Being inseparable with its nostalgic, and utopian semantic value, it is unlikely that this cry can go far beyond a seductive distraction.
Personally I feel this aim of politically diverting the trajectory of society by physical engagement has more in common with the original aims of occupational strategies derived from the politics of peaceful protests as seen in the twentieth century.
Having said which, given that this context of spectacle exists, gestures and symbolic acts are the key to beginning a process of change and creating a situation whereby collectivity and organisation can be initiated. (It makes sense that the alternative: individualism, again just mirrors the cultural forms that instigate the need for critical action.) This must not however, be the only goal.
For me the imperative is critical, theoretical, and tactical engagement that is driven by peer discourse, research to create a critical mass sufficient to oppose the rhetoric and cultural implications of increasingly hyper-mediated and virtual late capitalist market driven forms. I do not believe that fractionalization and (specifically) micro-organization offer the solution; in fact in mimicking the specialisation of the World Wide Web and its supporting Internet, one only aids the slide into cultural and educational entropy.
