2398 – UAP Romanian Socialist symposia (ost: Kate Bush Running on the Hill)

This is one of my favorite detournement videos by Victor Plastic, an infamous digital media and dead media analog archivist from Romania who collects forgotten recordings, tapes, pop culture gems, games anything that escaped the Digital Dark Ages. I am really glad the video is still up and that I was able to find it after some lengthy search. Everyone is of course free to interpret the video however one likes, but below I will try to give some context.

CONTEXT

I was one of those kids who spent much of my childhood from the late 1970s through the 1980s and early 1990s (basically all summer vacations) not in Scout summer or Bible camps, but at artist Union symposia, sculpture parks, Seaside Artist collective homes or “Tabere” (literally camps) as part of the UAP network. Uniniunea Artistilor Plastici – the Artists Union spelled for short UAP like the English Unidentified Aerial Phenomena is now somehow despised or seen as an epitome of conservative ideas by the young generation, its name associated as a throwback to another era. It now stands accused of nepotism and crooney capitalism. But before we rush to that conclusion let us consider that it used to offer an important economic (and welfare) support and was a viable cultural infrastructure that spread throughout Socialist and post-socialist Romania (other Socialist countries had similar structures). After 1989 attempts at privatization and accruing costs (unpaid gas and electricity tabs) basically made the union close down its spaces, transform them into commercial spaces, sell or foreclose them, or even evict the artists who started to lose their aura of ‘living national treasures’.

ET IN ARCADIA EGO

This Union was quite powerful at the time and had a lot of bargaining power because it represented all painters, all sculptors, all decorative and monumental art (think about the Yugoslav and Bulgarian brutalist monuments and fabulous mosaic art) practitioners and under Socialism in Eastern Europe. Also all official art was done by UAP artists. So even if you were not allowed to be openly critical of the party and its leader and you were supposed to represent the values of communism and of progress, you had a lot of liberty (especially in Hungary) and supportive structures as backups, exhibition spaces, free ateliers (although some more central or bigger than others). You could also do a tour exhibiting around the country and you could travel from one city to another with all expenses being paid. It was really an ideal deal if you consider the austerity politics of the times and the later shock therapy years. Most importantly you also had a community to support you that would visit the exhibitions and also the willing state that was also regularly buying works from you on a yearly basis.

Of course, there were guiding lines and even preferred styles (pressure to conform to Socialist Realism went in and out of fashion over the years). From a purely experiential perspective as a young kid, it was amazing to hang out with the local cowherd shepherds and countryside kids and take turns caring for the animals, learning to dodge kicks from animals that you never encountered in a city environment. I was also the first generation and 2nd of city-born kids on both sides of the family. The same was true for the countryside kids – taking up sculpture and drawing and actually joining in with the sculpture. Food was also excellent in a time of penury, wine, and slivovitz (tzuica) were aplenty, and most of the artists were former peasants themselves (my father included – or at least he never lost the skills he learned as a kid – how to milk, etc) who made the jump from the land to the city/university.

ARTISTS OF THE PEOPLE

Most of these very masculine and quite sexist at times groups were also fishermen, occasional hunters or seasoned mushroom pickers and knew how to build their own furniture and design and build their own houses or make their own clothes. It was also the reality that this was a time when the artist was a special creature – an “artist of the people”, some sort of national treasure, treasured almost like handicraft artists still are in Japan nowadays. They were spoiled in the best of ways, had plenty of food and booze all the time, and feasting was done at almost middle-age levels with wildfowl, freshly hunted deer (that was mostly reserved for the party apparatchiks), and plenty of wild mushrooms from the forest and excellent bread from ovens. Also, local party bureaucrats, and benevolent mayors, were happy to act like art patrons. They loved talking and spoiling these bizarre and quite brazen artists with the best products of the land. Another thing to remember – having a beard or long hair was a big nono in that era, you could lose your job or get even caught by the police (or Milicia how it was then called) and forcefully shaved.

That is not to say that women did not play an important role and even this hierarchy of textile art ranking lower than the other art – overlapping hierarchies (particularly in regards to North South relations) did not exist so clearly in opinion. There were collaborations btw textile factories and large-scale textile art done by both genders (for example see the great piece “Theatre of the Heart” inside the National Theatre done by Florin CIUBOTARU si Serban GABREA btw 1969-1979). This was part of a series that included “War and Peace” and “Ode to the Country”. There were many women artists and even families of artists (art was a dynastic thing) and art historians and critics. Independent of gender, everyone basically painted or went “la peisaj” to paint landscapes. Many women participated in the neo-avant-garde and only later got the recognition they merited (thinking here of Lia Perjovschi or Geta Bratescu). To end this long digression, some of these camps still exist, and now they are mostly linked to what could be called land art or have turned towards more or less openly ecological concerns. Some of them are still touted to keep up the spirit of the times, mostly dependent on local artistic networks and long-term friendships. I always meant to join one of them near Bistrita, but never did.

NEO BARBARIANS

This video also compares two pop cultural expressions that were roughly contemporaneous. One was glamorous, quite urban, and entering the pop charts. While across the Iron Curtain in Romania, you had these strange bearded hordes of ‘alternative’ men. I am using the word ‘alternative’ under scare quotes because they were really odd in retrospect, not really workers, peasants, or intellectuals, nor counterculture members in the sense of artists boho chic from the West (think NY Greenwich Village). They enjoyed a kind of uneducated and anti-intellectual and cultivated look of ‘wildness’ (they all pretended they were uneducated even if they had a good cinema culture and were bibliophiles). They also preferred an image of the unsophisticated noble “barbarian”. They were some sort of Stone Age Socialist neo-barbarians using self-made tools (I remember those incredible wooden hammers), close to natural materials (stone, wood) in wild countryside surroundings (not really the wilderness of the Wild West) but some sort of Arcadia impossible utopia setting of the Renaissance or classical times. They now seem somehow neo-pagan in their pastoral landscape and interest in non-European art always ranked high (they also had the Meridiane publishing house who translated a lot of the most important art historical materials such as Panfosky, Arnheim, most of the French Annales longue duree school books). Every artist’s home had a library with those books. Religion was not really present apart from the usual orthodox icon-making business, and religion was frowned upon, but there was always some sort of mystical attitude. Some groups fused the abstract with the religious (Horia Bernea) or dabbled in Neo-Byzantinism (see Sorin Dumitrescu and Anastasia Publishing House).

PEASANT ARCHETYPES

And now for these memorial houses, countryside retreats, and artistic summer camps. They were indeed incredible places because they fostered a sort of mixed ideal existence in the middle of the forests sometimes with all the local kids and the rural community having active contact with the artists. Lazarea depicted here is a very interesting case since it is actually situated in the Hungarian enclave in Romania. The “rural” always had a difficult status in countries that were predominantly agrarian but were prioritizing industrialization, high modernism, and proletarian culture. The peasant was more a revolutionary subject in the Global South (see Vietnam, India, or especially Maoist China) than in the former Soviet Union or the East Bloc. It is important to understand that this idealized image of the farmer or Taranul Roman “Romanian peasant” was easily used by racist proto-fascist constructions of genetic and ethnic purity btw the wars. Eugenics and miscegenation discourse were so popular in Romania’s 1920s that pseudo-scientific anti-semitic marriage counseling books written by countryside doctors in Romania warned against peasants mixing with despised ‘others’ (who at that time meant mostly the Jewish or Rroma population associated with slavery or the corrupt city). There were echoes of inter-war Eugenics in the later pronatalist policies of Ceausescu-era Romania.

PRODUCTIVIST RATHER THAN CONSTRUCTIVIST

The socialist state project was also interesting not as much as a constructivist but a productivist social project that would eventually usher in new anti-capitalist relationships, transformative for both society, sexuality, and humanity as a whole (as Bogdan Popa explores in his recent book De-centering Queer Theory: Communist sexuality in the flow during and after the Cold War). It is not a mystery any longer that across the Iron Curtain in the former West “Cultural Cold War” was raging, and the CIA was also sponsoring and actively supporting modern art against Socialism Realism. After the Cold War had ended, we have to reckon with the fact that only abstract and avant-garde was ‘recovered’ and integrated by the art market forces. It was much more convenient for financial speculation to sift the art collections in search of forgotten members of the avant-garde than it was to appreciate the value of Realism Socialism. The work of artists that straddled the divide btw avant-garde and Socialism Realism is a particularly interesting case study, as demonstrated by the project of Miklos Szilard Mattis Teutsch: Avantgarde and Constructive Realism(exhibited in both Budapest and Bucharest). e

2120 – Red Modernism: The Films of Miklós Jancsó  (Red May 2022 discussion)

“One of the most acclaimed Eastern European directors of the late 1960s, Miklos Jancsó became known for his abstract long-take style which explored the intersections of power, politics, history, and myth. (“Radical form in the service of radical content,” as the Village Voice film critic, James Hoberman, put it back then.) Now that the Beacon Cinema in Columbia City is hosting a retrospective of six of his films (including Red Psalm, which won him the best director prize at the 1972 Cannes Film Festival), Red May has invited three film scholars–Eszter Polonyi, Zoran Samardzija, and Steven Shaviro—to discuss Jansco’s boldly stylized film language with Tommy Swenson, Film Curator of the Beacon Cinema“. (YT channel)

Among the films by Miklos Jancsó discussed:

The Round-Up (1965) The Red and the White (1967) The Confrontation (1968) Winter Wind (1969) Red Psalm (1971) Electra, My Love (1974) as well as many of his later (ignored by the Western film publics and critics) from the 80s and 90s.

short made on the occasion of the new 4K restorations of six films by the Hungarian master are touring select cities before coming to Digital, Blu-ray, and DVD.

As a person from the former East – I find it both satisfying at the same time – when one of the most important film directors to have come from Eastern Europe gets the due recognition and sparks such fruitious exchanges as the above (hosted by Red May red arts, red theory, and red politics show from Seattle) – and also frustrated by the fact that his movies are tough to find/watch on the net. I am also emboldened to post this here – as we live at a time where the East and West left seem irredeemably split around Russia’s aggression of Ukraine. There are many receptions of his Jancso’s films – both in the West (in France in particular) as well as different reception in the West than from his native Hungary (as Eszter Polonyi makes amply clear above). It is impossible to give due attention to all what’s been discussed above but here are are some attempts:

  • One cannot split Jancso’s oeuvre into his modernist middle works appreciated by Western film critics (roughly 60s and 70s) from his early more social realist documentaries (one would say ‘progagandist’ 1950s work). He is not anti-system but part of the system while still continuing the negative dialectics. Although it is about two different media (one is cinema and the other painting) and different historical periods I still see here a similarity with the late-reception of Hans Matthis-Teutsch work and the selection mechanism that has somehow frozen a canonic take of him. I think that the reappraisal of the work of avant-garde Hungarian-Romanian painter Hans Mattis-Teutsch by visual artist and researcher Szilárd Miklós during a show at Scena9 BRD and Lajos Kassák Museum in Budapest comes close to how commercial galleries and art collectors have tended to separate or recover (and sell): the avant-garde core. All the questions about a (red) modernist art that has been supported by the state institutions during the Socialist times put his work apart from his modernist peers in the West. The art cinema enclave of the West modernist directors worked against and outside the Hollywood system (Godard, Antonioni, etc.). There is also – the possibility that Jancso would not have the same reception at Cannes today – considering the fact that today’s art cinema has become a sort of globalized product in itself (Zoran Samardzija).
  • Miklos Jancsó’s work is not at all easy to place, even if influenced by Antonioni, it does stand on its own. It is doubly interesting because it is made not in a reactionary frame, but as a critique (Miklos Jancsó is a pessimist) from the LEFT of the Socialist project without renouncing critique by envisioning that a better or another world is possible.
  • Formally he is also unique (following the points made by Steven Shaviro and others on the panel). There is nothing comparable even if one can pick on contemporary work by Lazlo Nemes or Bela Tarr. In the way he combines the fluidity of time-space Miklos Jancsó where free rhythmicities exist (“the life of matter”) with being both rigid and formalist plus having a political power structure overlay, it is hard to find similarities or attach him any labels. With his long-take his cinema work appears related to the minimalist slow cinema – yet he is doing something completely different (from Chantal Ackerman in Jeanne Dielman) because there is a lot of going on, a lot of uncontrollable (documentarian? – as Eszter put it) elements, animals going in and out of the frame and basically a lot of things happening at the same time.
  • Some of Jancso’s work in Hungary comes close to the NSK/Laibach 1980s way that confronted the Yugoslav state not with its ‘humanistic’ or anti-nationalist side but with its nationalistic and authoritarian side (an edge that was later lost during the post-1989 Yugoslav wars). There is something even an ironic attitude similar to the post-modern use of irony in his later movies. These contradictions and refusal of easy closures (or synthesis) can be followed in his less known, Italian movies – that seem much less elaborate and low-budget than his Hungarian ones (La tenica del rito, Rome wants another Caesar).

2103 – 1921 (2021 movie)

spacetime coordinates: 1921 is a 2021 Chinese historical film directed by Huang Jianxin and Zheng Dasheng and starring Huang XuanNi Ni, Wang Renjun and Liu Haoran. The film tells the story of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party at the 1st National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party held in Shanghai.The film premiered in China on 1 July 2021, to commemorate the centennial year anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party. (wiki)

I am very happy I managed to see this movie. It has been a quest to find a subtitled copy and serendipity helped. Finally found a platform with new Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese, HK, Indian etc. dramas to watch online. To watch a movie like this today can instantly mark one as a victim of Chinese propaganda or as completely disconnected from the world we live in. Well, think it is quite the other way around – in order to try and understand how connected we are and how we got here or how our world is at least partially the result of these vicissitudes of CCP having steered the worlds most populous country trough troubled waters. Watching 1921 from where one stands today puts in perspective the Western worlds trouble with China today, so one should give it a try.

There are several ways in which we might categorize bulk responses from a liberal democratic West to Chinese news outlets, CCP official documents, speeches, official spoke persons or historical dramas such as 1921: 1) they are lying 2) they are saying something else 3) they are trying to brainwash me or themselves 4) it is really hard or impossible to understand what they are actually saying 5) i do not care what they are saying since it is all authoritarian junk and propaganda anyway 6) i told you so it is the Yellow Peril. I am trying to steer clear of all of those knee-jerk responses and pitfalls. Essential to this is taking recent Chinese movies such as 1921 at least as seriously or earnestly as the ones who produced, played in them and contributed to them in any form. I think 1921 is important in how it stands within the legacy of “red modernism“, since we just found out that ‘the end of history’ did not happen in 1989. What is the place of socialist realist art or socialist state controlled + privately sponsored art of cinema nowadays and what is its relation with Hollywood Marvel capitalist superhero blockbusters? What about the older discussions about how and if the historical avant-garde’s art education ideals clashed or survived and coexisted (got repackaged?) within more poppy expressions or it they just got in line with what was (later) conceived as subservient propagandistic socialist-realist artistic expressions (an important counter-example constitutes the late oeuvre of Hungarian-Romanian artist Matthis Teutsch uncovered by artist/researcher Miklos Szilard)?

It is clear that nobody, at our particular historical juncture, in the 20s of 21st century is able to produce a movie like this or approach this particular history of communism or Comintern with something amounting to style. I do not think this is a product of propaganda in the usual sense (official parroting stale uninteresting statements). If you insist on the propaganda value of such a movie (beyond it being a mere fun historical drama), why not regard it as a contemporary form of stylish ‘pop-aganda’, that has more to do with K-dramas or J-dramas, C-bands or ‘young adult’ cultural productions?

1921 uses freely both the rich pictorial and iconographic history of Chinese Communist painting, poster and graphic art as well as the current wave of dramas and streaming services. In seeing these aesthetic overlaps or different vibes, I am not trying to diminish in any way the originality or the aim of this vibrant yet heavily controlled production. At the moment of this writing the CCP is not only the oldest, still surviving example of a ‘vanguard party’ in the world that surely has transformed over the years, but also serves as a strong, still-standing example or existing offshoot of that relevant revolutionary period, embodying its dreams, anxieties, constraints, trials, failures and plans that sprung up right after the successful Bolshevik October Revolution. Of course this does not make them founder saints nor wash countless (later) rectification campaigns or excuse Mao’s ‘war against nature‘. This movie is a total oddball in today’s capitalist realist world, but one that is also interested in making this content available in tune with today’s changing taste, keeping it real & intriguing, emotional and sexy enough to watch for 2 whole h. When there is so much clamor about strawmen like Cultural Marxism or the whole paranoia about the PC, it would be good to actually forget all that for a second and watch 1921.

A few observations (please forgive me for not going into detail or getting stuck in debates about historical or ideological arguments and finer points):

-this struggle for founding the Chinese Communist party (like other various parties across Asia) is the culmination of a hide-and-seek with the European (and Japanese) Imperial powers. This is only the result of a long Asian (in this case Chinese) anti-Imperialis struggle that was already globalized, reaching from the heart of Empires (London, Paris) to Shanghai, Penang and Singapore. Asian revolutionaries dotted the urban centers as exiles, and they actively plotted and tried to subvert and leverage the overwhelming advantages of the West like in Tim Harper’s excellent book – using shadowy networks, printing presses (see below) and false identities to be able to stay one step ahead and avoid being crushed under the Imperial boot

-the movie is not just about the CCP youthful rise or the many (hard to keep track of) historical figures and contributors to its cause, but the Chinese people’s continuous struggle for national self-determination, against a backdrop of foreign power’s aggression and multiple competing interests that kept China under-developed, divided and in the grip of warlordism, basically a semi-colonial region in a permanent dependency limbo (important to understand that the later recognition of China as a state and the diplomatic taw – is linked with the US/West’s support of China’s only after the Sino-Soviet Split)

-remarkable is the “Internationale” song that is hummed and reappears, a sort of internationalist leitmotiv background that puts the whole small, incipient party 1st congress in a larger, global or historical context (that is unavoidably & always connected to larger struggles or aims)

-in its initial stages the CCP functions mostly on a pattern established by the patriotic ‘secret society’ model with the difference that it didn’t have the clout or influence or resources to match and somehow (because of its ideological support for worker strikes & unions) found itself in direct conflict with both foreign interests in China + ‘Green Gang’ crime syndicate type of secret society that was well connected with the police & KMT officials. Of course there was also another important element – Diligent Work-Frugal Study Movement – a series of travel and work programs were organized between 1912 and 1927 largely by a group of Chinese anarchists who had come to Paris and wanted to introduce French science and social idealism to China (among the beneficiaries of such programs where Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai)

-the movie presents what AN Whitehead would likely call ‘an adventure of ideas (even if after reading his Aims of Education essays I am not sure he appreciated revolutionary thoughts themselves, though in practice he supported everything new, interesting and ‘kicking), in this case, the evolution of Marxist (or Marxist-Leninist), particularly after the May Fourth Movement ideas (one of the movie’s examples being classroom ‘class struggle’ lessons) outside of their actual place of initial elaboration (Western Europe), diffusion and further elaboration under different socio-historical circumstances

-remarkable is also the fragment when the foundation of the party sounds like establishing a successful ‘firm’ – yeah you heard me right, and this is not cynical, it’s also this business (?!) acumen in view of future profitable investment returns, and this has something peculiarly SF (not in the usual sense of superlative tech but in the sense of counter intuitive, not according to immediate facts), something quite speculative in it (that more or less led to today’s quantum entanglement space-based communication & Moon exploration program?!), the CCP being at that time mostly a ‘pipe dream dreamed up by a bunch of certainly at the time – pretty powerless youthful minority group – with a strong feeling that history was on their side

-1921 is mainly a history happening inside big urban centers (Beijing and Shanghai), inside reading groups or study groups, foreign language schools, of modernizing translation efforts and printing presses, a history that plays on largely inside (under the noses of) the French Concession in Shanghai and largely underground, small scale and always at risk at being found out, stopped in its tracks and quickly disbanded/eliminated (important to mention that the peasant question is brought only one time and only by Mao particularly) and you can always feel that it’s largely about young metropolitan Chinese literati

-we see here the very beginning of something in nuce – full of preparative phases and incipient stages, a very early start-up that is not yet steeled up or fully organized (or militarized), not yet having suffered the tremendous losses of the Long March and massacres under Chiang Kai Shek’s White Terror of 1927 , far from ready to win in the Chinese Civil War of 1945-1949 (all this later history is compressed in the last 10 minutes or so of the movie in an B & W explosive, harsh, heroic + dramatic collage that includes the famous 1949 declaration in Tiananmen Square by Mao)

-another interesting effect is its decision to cast boy band members or Chinese rappers celebs in such important historical roles, this brings us back to the whole ‘auratic’ survival aspect of today’s media celebs (discussed by Shaviro elsewhere as in the aura of ‘cinema stars’ in the age of mechanical reproduction cum démocratisation and as a response to W Benjamin’s key text)

-liked the iconic reinterpretation of the Pacific WWII flag photo of the US victory with the red flag instead of the stars & stripes, this might inflame many since a lot of critics try to depict today’s China as just another US, not as an alternative model

-really enjoyed the role of Japan – or let’s say the conflicting role of the Japanese, the freshly modernized Imperial power of the Far East playing this double role, of translating the Communist Manifesto and harboring ‘dangerous’ Chinese emigres, but also with secret police infiltrating and hunting down both its own Japanese citizens and Chinese anarchists (also considering Mao’s stint with anarchist thinking in his 20s) or socialists

-significant is how much political learning, teaching and practicing foreign languages (English, French, Russian) was part of this active transfer of radical ideas and how this was part of a longer modernizing effort that was very much part of China’s young literati intellectuals and students lives at the end of 19th c and early 20th

-really loved the great cameos of young (jokingly and affectionately called ‘small’) Deng (D Xiaoping being arguably the toughest of Mao’s 1st generation revolutionary peers, surviving all purges & perils) in a printing house basement in Paris ready for Bastille Day & spreading pro-Chinese manifestos or the Mao scene when he’s running at night being really pissed off after being kept outside the gates of the asshole french party people. It’s a scene almost emblematic – of RPC quest for international recognition and/or “Beijing Consensus”, craving inclusion while always being shoved around & emboldened to reinvent these organizations & forums that kept China on the outside

-a culture of lively debate was at the center of the establishment of the first Congress, but essentials are already there (dictatorship of the proletariat) – still, a lot of discussions are about how to adapt Marxist ideas or Bolshevic experiences to the local conditions, or what was the actual time scale of transformations or if one had to wait till the proper conditions (a key point) came about, yet this also tells us precious little about the future transformation of a revolutionary party into a ruling party. The movie also brings forth the way the Comintern (especially through the difficult role of Dutch internationalist communist Henk Sneevliet who was basically, according to Tim Harper, on the most important Western Chinese mission since Jesuit priest Matteo Ricci) started linking up the various revolutionary cells around the world

imdb