hans ulrich obrist in conversation with antonio negri

8/8/2019 Hans Ulrich Obrist In Conversation with Antonio Negri

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hans-ulrich-obrist-in-conversation-with-antonio-negri 1/12

Hans Ulrich Obrist

In Conversationwith Antonio

Negri

Hans Ulrich Obrist: The last time we met waswith Rem Koolhaas in 2001, and we spoke aboutwhat could be called your Òcity projects.Ó Whatare you working on related to this subject at themoment?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAntonio Negri: I can start by saying thatwhile discussing the concept of the multitude,Michael Hardt and I found ourselves facing thequestion of the city, which we brought up as part

of the question of the territorialization of themultitude, the space in which the multitudedeploys itself. To be honest, I think that while anumber of problems started to clear up after wewrote Multitude, others remained in the shadow,like this fundamental question of space. Forexample, we are very interested in this problemof the multitudeÕs temporality, that is, oftransformative moments and raisingconsciousness, or the problems that arise themoment we think about what it means to ÒmakeÓmultitude, to construct it as a singularity that

tends towards shared, common projects. But thebig problem we have yet to consider concernsspace. Because we still require a place in whichthis multitude will exist Ð not only a networkthrough which it communicates, but also thepower to decide its living conditions. This powerto decide plays a role in developing a relationshipbetween the multitude and state structures orinstitutions, and from a negative perspective thismeans an uproar; from a constructiveperspective it means revolution. Now we couldsay that today this space is the contemporarymetropolis. Half of the worldÕs population, maybemore, now lives in cities. The population itself,we could say, is a refugee in these cities. In fact,we may now have one to two thirds of the worldÕspopulation living in cities of over one millioninhabitants.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: And these numbers rise every year!ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: ThatÕs right! And if the question of themetropolis is central, then in my opinion it isbecause there is a structure of the common thatis specific to it. This structure could be describedas the tension that exists between the demandfor services on the one hand, and the withholding

of these services, or the refusal to consent tothis demand, on the other. The refusal endangersthe demand, and the claims made to it. And thisdemand becomes more and more important. Iactually believe that two processes are currentlyunderway. The first is a definitive neutralizationof the traditional working class, which hasallowed for the distinct working-class space Ðthe factory Ð to be destroyed. But it goes beyondthis to something more general, because wecould also say that this disqualification hasmarked the disappearance of the productive

space as a clearly defined one. The secondprocess concerns the illegal reconstruction of

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 1 8

Ñ s e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 0 H a n s U l r i c h O b r i s t

I n C o n v e r s a t i o n w

i t h A n t o n i o N e g r i

0 1 / 1 2

09.09.10 / 06:18:14 UTC



Anti-riot police, Caracas.

09.09.10 / 06:18:14 UTC



urban space, the spaces not controlled byanyone, that are constituted by successivewaves of immigration and by extremely profoundcultural mixes. And all this produces two vast,enormous spaces, where all the energy of work,of construction, of sociality and solidarity, iscentered.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: So we could say that these are twoparallel movements.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Yes, because they are both intertwinedwith forms of biopolitical control. It is clear thatthey are not simply processes of controlling theconditions or the organization of work, but ratherof transforming living conditions in such a waythat only work and its organization becomeimportant. So when we look at the metropolis,we find ourselves facing a dialectical movementunique to our time. But it is dialectic in a uniquesense, because, in truth, these are processesthat lead nowhere. These changes are maderegardless of any communal frame. Each time we

arrive in places shaped by these processes, weexperience a sort of vertigo. I was recently inCaracas, where in a city of about seven or eightmillion people you have between seven and ninehundred thousand living in what we could callneighborhoods, or ÒdefinedÓ spaces, whereasabout six or seven million people live in totallychaotic conditions.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: And it isnÕt even clear exactly howmany people there areÉ

Some coordinators of the landless worker's movement meet todiscuss plans for the encampment, Par‡, Brazil, 1999.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Yes, we donÕt even have a precise figure!When flying over the city, I was absolutely struckby seeing the city everywhere, absolutelyeverywhere! Meaning that from about 1200meters above the ground, you can see only thecity, and nothing but the city! Everything is

occupied! And whatÕs more, the space is takenup by something that is totally wild, completely

uncontrolled!ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Could we describe this in terms ofÒself-organizationÓ? Of a kind of developmentthat evades all forms of planning?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Yes, itÕs completely self-organized. Andin Brazil itÕs the exact same thing.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: You mentioned earlier that you havebeen traveling extensively in South America.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Yes, IÕve traveled there especially often

in the past couple of years. I must say that Icompletely agree with Niall Ferguson, who hassaid that the new political context the Bushadministration was responding to was not one oflarge-scale terrorism engendered by the ongoingconflict in the Middle East Ð a situation that theythemselves created Ð but the fact that, for thefirst time since the assertion of the MonroeDoctrine in 1823 Latin America was completelyindependent. And now, if Mexico votes Left, itwill no longer be only Latin America, but LatinAmerica and Mexico! I wrote a little book about

this that was published in Brazil and inArgentina, called Glob-AL, where the A and Lstand for America Latina. In this book, I considerthe crisis of the ideologies of subordination anddependence, which were classic themes in thetraditional theories of the Latin American Left,and I note that the goal has now become totheorize the interdependence, alreadyconstituted, of this new continental front. And allthis goes hand in hand with the other emergingposition, which considers BushÕs or the UnitedStatesÕ coup dÕŽtat to have failed. The nexthorizon we will have to prepare for is that of thiscontinental pluralism Ð one that is extremelyvaried and passionate, but still poses a smallproblem for me, which is that we have yet tounderstand this problem in Europe. And I findthis fact regrettable!ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: How do you see Europe in opposition?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: I donÕt know exactly Ð IÕm stillconsumed by all that happens there, and IhavenÕt reflected on this question properly. But ifwe return to this question of the metropolis, wecan see that weÕll have to start by defining it asthe place where the transformation of capitalism

has, in fact, ruined its own tradition, in the sensethat there is no longer any difference betweenindustrial profit, real estate surplus, andfinancial structures. At the same time, the cityhas become a full-fledged productive element Ðand the metropolis even more so. We see thateven the most intelligent men have alwaysconsidered the city to be a positive externality,meaning that we consider the city to haveestablished conditions in which industrialoperations and processes could be organized,developed, and extended. But today the city, and

the metropolis in particular, have becomedirectly productive. And what exactly does this

0 3 / 1 2

09.09.10 / 06:18:14 UTC



production consist of? I would say that itconsists of the movement of people Ð it is in theconstruction of urban cooperation, in the libertyand the imagination of people who define andprovoke it. Look at Brazil. They say ÒBut there isso much miseryÉÓ And of course, itÕs true! But Iwould respond, ÒThen go look what is in thatmisery.Ó Because there is an incredible capacityfor creation in that misery, in those favelas.

Music, human connections, and, of course, attimes, deadly connections as well. But there isan enormous creativity that produces newthings, and that creativity does not come withoutnegative aspects. But the problem of murder andcrime, and more generally the problem posed bythe fact that certain expressions of this wildcreativity are dangerous, is evidently the problemof order and disorder. And I never thought thatthis multitude could exist without order. Make nomistake: I have never been an anarchist.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Yes, we spoke about this the other

day, when I mentioned certain urbanists whohave reclaimed anarchist thought, and you saidthat you do not support anarchism in the citiesunder any terms.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: I am not an anarchist from anystandpoint, regardless of the situation we findourselves in. Based on forms of self-organizationthat are becoming more and more collective, Ithink there is a ÒcommonÓ that grows strongerand stronger. We always have to createinstitutions! But creating institutions also meanscreating forms of cities, because an institution isnot a metaphysical representation or an idealarchetype! It is among other, concrete forms thatthe city has to be constructed, that themetropolis can constitute the common. And itgoes without saying that I am not only speakinghere of buildings! There are, of course, buildings,but there is also communication Ð the lines, thespaces, and so forth. Creating an institutionmeans creating a public space.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Speaking of the nature of this publicspace, in Multitude you describe the ongoingobliteration of the notion of Òexteriority,Ó whichalso seems to hint at the disappearance of the

idea of a single center. But how is this appliedconcretely in the city? It seems to me that it is nolonger a question of center and peripheryÉÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Well, we need to pay attention to thisproblem. ItÕs true that there is no longer a center,but it is also true that there is what we can call aÒdeviantÓ center. This, for example, is theAmerican center that raises its head in timesthat are more and more aberrant. I have a lot ofrespect and sympathy for the democratictradition of the United States, which issomething very profound and something I am

very fond of. Still, we can no longer ignore theharmful effects that the conservative and

religious culture in the United States has broughtabout. ItÕs a very dramatic change, and itsdisastrous effect has been to isolate thelibertarian experience of American culture fromany form of global consciousness and even fromits own capacity to intervene in the world whilerespecting peopleÕs liberty. The export ofdemocracy has been transformed into a newform of imperialism that has surpassed anything

we could imagine! WhatÕs more, it has produceda kind of imperialism that has been revealed towork against the interests of capitalism, which itwas supposed to serve. That is the absurdity ofthe situation. So the big question is not aboutwhat we can do in a world that no longer has acenter, but about knowing how the struggles forliberation Ð the liberation of people, anti-colonialism, anti-capitalism Ð and how themovement of the multitude, as the fundamentalthing to which all other forms of strugglesubordinate themselves, can redirect the

processes of communication and rebellion. Fromthis point of view I remain a dedicated Zapatista!There are ways in which the claims Ð the forms oforganization and the institutional forms Ð willbuild themselves. Today there are stillcampaigns around this, and we have to leadthese campaigns! ItÕs very clear, particularly herein France with the problem of the banlieues, andthe problem of the European suburbs in general.These are problems that we are going to have toface very soon. Next year, I am thinking oftransforming the seminar I teach at the Coll•geInternational de Philosophie into a sort ofÒnomad seminarÓ that will circulate amongParisian banlieues.

Women Zapatistas.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: So the seminar will be delocalized tothe suburbsÉÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Yes, yes! To Saint-Denis, Evry, Nanterre,all those places. And it will respond to

connections with the groups of people who workthere. But itÕs not only there that the problem of

0 4 / 1 2

09.09.10 / 06:18:14 UTC



Phillippe Halsman, Jump Book, 1959. Portrait of Walter Gropius.

09.09.10 / 06:18:14 UTC



the metropolis will become apparent, because aswe speak of the metropolis and its problems, aswe speak of the suburbs, the most surprisingthing is the total lack of discourse. You saw whathappened after the riots in France in 2006: onceagain, we talk a lot and say nothing. And I mustsay in particular that left-wing thought has notdiffered much from that on the Right. The rightwing claims that it is not its role or aim to search

for alternatives. It is there because it wants tomaintain order, so we shouldnÕt expect anythingelse from it. Whereas the LeftÉÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Yes, I was in Paris then, and likeeveryone, I think, I was amazed by the deafeningsilence of the LeftÉÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: ThatÕs it, they are content to remainsilent. But how will any connection between thismultitude and the new democratic project beestablished without the idea that things need tobe built from the bottom up? This movement hasto come from the bottom. Because with the riots

we really touched the soft underbelly of all thecontradictions in our society Ð which isessentially Fordist, but as a model this iscurrently undergoing a serious crisis, because itdid not succeed in allowing the new generationsto play a role in democracy. They called peoplefrom around the world to work in their factories,but once the factories started to close down,they found themselves with ghettos on theirhands. And they had neither the imagination northe ability to place all these people into vibrantcirculation; they did not know how to use all thepotential creativity that was there. Theyconstantly speak of a Òdecline,Ó but the onlydecline I see is that of their own inventivenessand ability. ItÕs the fact that they did not succeedor that they did not even want to take the elitesfrom those countries and place them into realcirculation. And now we need to think about howto use this metamorphosis that the politicalpowers up to now have not known how to engageproductively with. ItÕs a metamorphosis thatfinds its outlet in racism, that now has to facethe problem of violence, apartheid, andreactionary Islamists. But I believe that all these

are secondary to the fundamental problem ofhow to find ways of recreating an authenticdemocratic circulation and free movement.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Which implies the question of thetransformation of workÉÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: As always. I am a Marxist, you know. Ialways think that social activity is the mostimportant thing! And I believe that all the peoplewho talk about these problems without sayingthis are hypocrites. Because they know very wellthat social activity is the real problem, and yetthey do not speak of it. After this the problem of

poverty and wealth, meaning, the differencebetween those who work and those who exploit,

will remain as Machiavelli, my patron and mymaster, described.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Yes, we see Machiavelli here on thetableÉÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: ThereÕs a great piece here that I rereadthe other day, a text, Machiavelli says, Òthat isgood to remember for all its arguments, whichspeak to the proclaimed equality of men.Ó In it weread how one of the leaders of the 1300 revolt, a

man of the plebs, Òone of the most daring andexperienced, in order to animate the rest,Ódeclared:

Strip us naked, and we shall all be foundalike. Dress us in their clothing, and they inours, we shall appear noble, they ignoble Ðfor poverty and riches make all thedifference.

And it concludes with mistrust of the politicalgame:

Small crimes are chastised, but great andserious ones rewarded É We have nobusiness to think about conscience; forwhen, like us, men have to fear hunger, andimprisonment, or death, the fear of hellneither can nor ought to have any influenceupon them. If you only notice humanproceedings, you may observe that all whoattain great power and riches, make use ofeither force or fraud; and what they haveacquired either by deceit or violence, inorder to conceal the disgraceful methods ofattainment, they endeavor to sanctify withthe false title of honest gains. Those whoeither from imprudence or want of sagacityavoid doing so, are always overwhelmedwith servitude and poverty; for faithfulservants are always servants, and honestmen are always poor; nor do any everescape from servitude but the bold andfaithless, or from poverty, but the rapaciousand fraudulent.1

You see, this is Marxism! And we find almost

exactly the same thing in Spinoza, and withNietzsche, and indeed in Marx! We actually findthis in the writing of all intelligent writers, thisunderstanding of the fact that it is poverty andwealth that make the world go round. Povertymore so, it is the key, it is the salt of the earth;poverty and love are the two most importantthings. We will have to construct a city on povertyand love. And, in the background is this questionof how we can move from poverty to wealth bypassing through love. In fact, this is a questionwe should pose to architects.

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 1 8




0 6 / 1 2

09.09.10 / 06:18:14 UTC



Bust of Machiavelli, Pallazo Vecchio, Florence.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: That would be an idea for a future city.But to return a little to urbanism and art ÐÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: You want to talk about utopia!ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Yes, but before we go back to utopia,IÕd first like to speak a little about this book titled

Art et Multitude. One of the things that mostinterested me in this book is what you say aboutthe transformation of work. You wrote that thetransformation of work was your key to readingtransformations that took place in art. I wouldlove to hear more about this.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: I donÕt know Ð for me itÕs clear. All ofSurrealism is linked to Fordization, as is all thatÒrationalist art.Ó But I should explain what I meanby Òrationalist artÓ such as that of the Bauhaus.Suppose that I recognize two fundamental

processes: on the one hand, rationalization, andon the other, materialization. The latter gives usPicasso, and the former Ð Gropius! And I thinkthe history of modern art is made like this,though I am aware that this sounds absolutelysimplistic, but these are the two greatfoundations for my interpretation. Picasso marksthe peak of a tradition of Òexcavation,Ó of theheart, the soul, of modern reality Ð this realitycharacterized by the refusal of the image as itstands, by the desire to construct the image ofreality or realize new representations. And on the

other hand, we have this rationalization, and Ithink that these two things go together. Our

political milieu is constructed in a similar way,born out of the intensification of the rational, outof humankindÕs capacity. The outcome of this, Ithink, is Beuys. He suggests the magnificentclimax of a destroyed figurative vision on the onehand, and on the other, a material constructionof a new world, along with all the dimensions offinitude and disillusion that this new worldbrings with it. It is an epic and heroic cooperation

that exists in the dissolution of objects. But thenwhat happens in their reconstruction? I knowvery well that this is better handled by aspecialist, which I am not, so I cannot explain my

joy to you here. I rely on nothing but the emotionthat I feel when I find myself in an exhibition. Iam not like you priests of art Ð priests who knowall the sins of artists! That is my confessionÉ!ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Well, one fascinating aspect of Art et

Multitude is the number of very concrete reviewsof visits to exhibitions in the book. I rememberthat we ran into each other at the 2003 Venice

Biennial when you went to see ÒUtopia Station,Óand in the book you also mention the precedingBiennial in 2001, and how you were amazed bythe lack of formal innovation. You bring upnotions of transcendence, of the Òdeath of GodÓÉ

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Living in Venice, we are able to followthe Biennial quite regularly. From time to timethere are ones that are truly extraordinary, even ifat other times theyÕre not as solid, and we cannotsee why they are so necessary. To be honest, Ibelieve that they should be held every ten yearsrather than every two, as they are now! But forme, following the developments of art has alwaysbeen a matter of trying to anticipate a little ofwhat happens, and I have to say that there is arationality in this disappearance of, well,Òrationality.Ó Though this term came to me on itsown, I shouldnÕt use it, as itÕs too similar tocategories used in historicism: ÒThere is acertain rationality,Ó ÒThere is a certaintendencyÉÓ I prefer not to use these terms, buthow should I say it? IÕm trying to direct ustowards this idea that society expresses itself inart up to a point where a decision determines a

form. I am particularly interested in the notion ofkunstwollen Ð this capacity to transform thesocial and cultural content of a time into animage. But into one particular image, meaning,an image that produces, or, in other words, into astyle. This is a typically Viennese idea,associated with authors like Riegl and Dvorak.But what interests me in this is that there issomething analogous to the idea of a politicaldecision. This kunstwollen could be understoodas something that illustrates in an exemplaryfashion that which is the real political decision. I

had old teachers who taught me this, oldByzantinists who identified with Riegl and

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 1 8




09.09.10 / 06:18:14 UTC



Bettini! These are old traditions of schooling thatwere very vibrant in Padua when I was young. So Iam convinced that all of this is very important,from the perspective of a need to reconstruct thephenomenon of the decision, which is whatinterests me most today. How do we reach adecision? The decision to begin is neversomething personal, it is never private andsecret, which is to say that itÕs never something

fascist. In this sense, it is never a man like Hitlerwho decides. Every decision is literallydetermined by the capacity to absorb a mass ofdecisions, a mass of impressions and reactions.ItÕs a response to the great contradiction withwhich we are always faced, the question of howwe can make the multitude into a singularity. Weall agree on this point. And today we work in thesingular, and there too we agree that there is ahiatus. But this does not mean that mediation isnot possible or that the contradiction is bydefinition insurmountable. Because this

mediation exists, it lies in the notion of thedecision, in that which allows us to pose thepertinent question of how this ensemble ofsingularities constitutes the common, anontological basis. But how do we move from thatto the decision? Well, there is always this oldidea of the party, the state, the Òthing that

unites,Ó itÕs a real fetish and itÕs a horrible idea! Inlieu of this, what we need is that which art hasalready done with the kunstwollen!ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: So art is a model for what we shouldtry to do elsewhereÉÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Yes! ItÕs the model of a totality thatbuilds, that arrives at having this capacity toconcentrate all the forces that are already thereon one pointÉ You see that itÕs not this stupid

idea of wanting to use aesthetics. ItÕs like themouse that the cat chases Ð we are the cat andwe run after the decision. And this connects tothe question you posed earlier about therelationship between art and modes ofproduction. This also involves a rapport betweenthese two things. Now that we are within thesesingularities that rationalism produced, we haveto find a way out Ð the construction of theseplaces like Le CorbusierÕs Ville Radieuse, and soforth, is no longer possible.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Yes, this old model of the Òmaster

planÓ where the space for self-organization doesnot exist. But this question of the revolutionbecomes interesting. ItÕs a question that artstudents ask themselves a lot, and it bothersyoung artists too: one asks oneself whetherthere is still a space for resistance.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Today the elements around which we

0 8 / 1 2

09.09.10 / 06:18:14 UTC



can create points of reference Ð even points ofresistance to the market Ð are the ones built onthe land of the common. Because the commonbasically signifies that which costs nothing, thatwhich is necessary, that which is participatory,that which is productive, and that which is free!And I believe that there are new use valuesalready present in our common, and that thesevalues can be easily spotted. Just think of the

metropolis, where ninety percent of what we doare common things that cost us nothing Ð or atleast could cost nothing if we made the effort tomake them soÉÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Starting with the airÉÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Air, of course, but water too. Generally,there are museums, libraries, cinemas, these areall things that cost money, but in ninety percentof the cases they do not generate direct profit,they are Òfree of charge.Ó This is becoming anincreasingly fundamental element in what wecall the ÒsalaryÓ or the ÒrevenueÓ of citizenship. I

donÕt know whether the Left will win in Italy, but Iknow that half of the Italian regions have alreadyestablished welfare programs with the intentionof lowering the Òuniversal revenues ofcitizenship.Ó ItÕs a process that has begun andneeds to grow in scale. Our battleground hasincreasingly become concerned with thebiopolitical reproduction of populations. Allthese ÒfreeÓ things are on offer in the metropolisbecause, fundamentally, it is the place where themultitude recognizes itself and starts tostruggle. It starts to gain consciousness.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Which brings me to the notion ofutopia. In Art et Multitude, I found a veryinteresting passage in a letter dated December24, 1988, addressed to a certain ÒSilvano,Ó inwhich you discuss two equally illusorypossibilities that constitute, according to you,the two dead ends in which an artist could findhim- or herself. The first is that of utopia, and thesecond that of terrorism. You say that neitherone of these two possibilities is sufficient, andthat the only possibility for one who hastraversed the Òdesert of abstractionÓ is that ofÒconstituent power.Ó I would love to hear you

speak more about this. You wrote this almosttwenty years ago, and I wonder whether yourpoint of view on the notion of utopia has stayedthe same. Or has it has changed?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: You know, my book on constituentpower became a ÒclassicÓ in South America,whereas books like Empire receive far lessattention, and are even opposed by the Left,which in South America is mainly composed ofpatriots who favor the idea of the nation state.What reaches them the most Ð and IÕm speakingof people like Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales Ð is

the constituent dimension of power, which I tryto deal with in that book.2

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: And these are, in any case, the peopleyou are in dialogue with, no?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Yes. These are very important people inmany respects. They are foreign to our ownexperience, to our own culture, and that makes itall the more important and more interesting tospeak to them. This idea of spotting constitutiveprocesses that span multitudes Ð which are notÒmassesÓ or Òcrowds,Ó but a complex articulation

of a poor social fabric Ð is something thattouches them enormously. Now that IÕve saidthis, IÕll go back to the question of utopia. Utopiais first and foremost an extremely realist thing.There is utopia when there is construction, or arevelation of the common. To follow up on whatweÕve already discussed, an example would be togive the favelasÕ inhabitants property rights overthe land they already inhabit.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: And these are very concrete actions.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: I became quite close with Gilberto Gil InBrazil after we met in the context of very

concrete government projects trying to createopen access to computers and the internet. ItÕsthe same process, though it may not beimmediately apparent. These communicationnetworks are also a sort of favela.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: A virtual favela!ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Yes, virtual! And an extremely importantone. The other utopian domain is that whichconcerns how we can transform theredistribution of wealth into something active, aform of production. For example, both in Braziland here, when you assume power, youimmediately find yourself with wealth that youcan redistribute. In Brazil or Venezuela, itÕs therevenues from oil, but doing that does not createa new society Ð itÕs simply handing out money!The problem with doing that is that it neglectsother forms of cooperation that these fundscould go towards. What are these forms? Forrural communities, for example, such fundscould allow for the establishment of literacyinitiatives or stable and systematic medicalassistance Ð things that already exist, but mostoften in backwards or marginalized ways. InVenezuela, for example, there are thirty

thousand Cuban doctors who have beeneducated in CubaÕs medical schools, and they aresome of the best doctors in the world. All theNGOs in the world go to Cuba to preparethemselves for anything involving tropicalillnesses and other illnesses associated withthese climates. All this is very important, ofcourse, but what we still need here are places Ðif we implemented universities, hospitals, andcultural centers in these areas, if the value ofpeopleÕs lives was placed directly into economiccirculation, it would totally alter the equation.

But this has been an irresolvable problem: howcan the enormous investments that have taken

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 1 8




0 9 / 1 2

09.09.10 / 06:18:14 UTC



the form of direct aid be translated intodynamics that are productive andtransformative? I think it can be useful tocompare the situation in Venezuela to the one inIran.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: In Iran?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Yes. In Iran they continue to practicethis form of redistribution that seems close tocharity, while the same people remain in power.

Because the priests stay priests, no matter whatthe religion! And as they are actually the patrons,there is no way for this to change. In Venezuela, itis not priests who are in power, though there isobviously an oligarchy that may perhaps get whatit wants, namely for the United States tointervene and restore the previous order. Buttoday, the enormous difference between Iran andVenezuela is that in Iran the mullahs have Òtheweapons and the money,Ó as Machiavelli said,whereas in Venezuela the people hold theweapons. This is not to say that the situation in

Venezuela could not give rise to a new form offascism or a particularly virulent populism, justthat for the moment this is not the case and theinstitution remains open. The other thing is thatin Iran, though the arms are held by those inpower in order to uphold the revolution, themoney is distributed without utopia. On the otherhand, in Venezuela this is the decisive element Ðthe money is full of utopia.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: And if the money is Òfull of utopia,Óand is, as we said, part of a concrete utopia,could we talk about a utopia that producesreality?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Oh, yes! And also in relation to theproduction of subjectivity.

Nakagin Capsule Tower, Tokyo, designed by Kisho Kurokawa, 1972.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: I would like to consider the question ofgroups and movements in which these utopiascan be proposed. This year, we did an interesting

project with Rem Koolhaas in which we tried tocreate a Òportrait of a movement.Ó In the 1960s,

there was a very important architecturalmovement in Japan called Metabolism, uniquefor having tried to establish a link betweenurbanism and biology Ð they wanted to createÒmetabolic citiesÓ on the waterÉÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Metabolist organisms?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Yes, exactly. And so Rem Koolhaas andI found and interviewed each of the members ofthis movement and assembled accounts by

critics, architects, industrial designers, andothers, which together make up a sort of portraitof this movement, which we will publish as abook. The interesting thing is that even if theysay that they were not exactly a coherentmovement Ð there were never any concreteorganized activities like those of Surrealism orDada, for example, with manifestos, conditionsfor membership, or anything of the sort Ð thefact remains that there was a kind of pragmaticconvergence of points of view that metspontaneously in a given moment. And

meanwhile, we realize that in art or architecturetoday, movements have become very rare.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: But as you know, IÕm neither an arthistorian nor an architectural historian! I donÕtknow what I could tell you about thisÉÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Yes, but I think there is a certain linkto your work. We talk often about Operaismo, andI would be curious to know how you see themovement that your work brings about, whetheryou imagine something organized and structuredenough to express itself in a certain momentthrough a manifesto. Or is it something a bitmore like Metabolism, based on a convergence ofviews that is more spontaneous and lessconcrete? And, just briefly, how do you seeOperaismo today? I know that in his preface toGrammar of the Multitude, Sylv•re Lotringer saysthat none of it would have been possible withoutRussiaÕs invasion of Hungary in 1956, and hementions you and Mario Tronti as the originatorsof the movement, but I would love to have yourpersonal viewpoint.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Actually, we have to be careful aboutwhat we say with regard to ÒOperaismo,Ó becauseit was first and foremost a sort of political

activism Ð but an activism conducted byintellectuals. It was intellectuals who, at themoment they became activists, began toproduce.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Yes, they did both things at once.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Yes, and it is exactly what we were inItaly, the generation of Ð how can I say this? Takethe current editor of Corriere della Sera. Likemany other individuals who work in the media,he comes from this generation of the rupture atthe end of the 1950s and the beginning of theÔ60s. And Hungary was important for this

generation, because it marked the moment ofcrisis for the Communist Party in Italy.

1 0 / 1 2

09.09.10 / 06:18:14 UTC



ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: Lotringer later talks about 1961 as avery important year as well, but what happenedbetween 1956 and 1961?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: There was Renato Panzieri, who was thesecretary general of the Italian Socialist Party alittle bit before that. When he left his post therehe became editor in chief of Quaderni Rossi. Hewent to Turin, where we could say that he wasessential to organizing the intervention groups at

Fiat.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: And that was in the late 1950s?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Yes. Tronti was then the secretary of theCommunist Party in Rome, and I was thesecretary of the Socialist Federation in Padua.We found ourselves working with Panzieri atQuaderni Rossi, a journal aiming to revivepolitical discourse with the question of thefactories and the workers, shifting the strugglefrom the network between parties andsyndicates to those who worked on the assemblyline, also with an attempt to reveal the

contradictions embedded in forms of struggle. Atthe time there was no sociology in Italy, and nosociology of the workerÕs world in general.Sociology was one of the things that the FascistParty had categorically rejected, and as a resultthere was no teaching of it, no Italian school ofsociology. And we wanted to introduce bothsociology and struggle at the same time; weneeded the sociology in order to struggle. Andthe most amazing thing is that we succeeded! Itwas very impressive. I always return to theexperience of the artist, because thatÕs what itwas Ð to succeed in understanding the languageof the workers, to make a leaflet and find that ishas a direct effect on them, there was somethingmiraculous about it Ð you cannot imagine! ItwasnÕt the creation of merchandise with a price,but the creation of a war machine that destroyedevery notion of price! It was really impressive. Ialso remember that in 1963, my wife at the timeand I spent the summer in a village where therewere petrochemical factories employing thirtythousand workers, and there too we madeleaflets and distributed them, and the workersannounced: Òtomorrow we will not work.Ó That

was the very first time that the factory went onstrike, they had never done it before.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: That was the magic of beginnings, in away.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: And I was convinced that it wasimpossible Ð I didnÕt even wake up to go to thefactory that morning! But my wife did, and shecame back fifteen minutes later Ð we lived therewith the workers about fifty meters away fromthe factory Ð to tell me that they were all outside.Impossible! I went to see it, and saw thateveryone was afraid. It was their first time, and

no one knew how the factory would react once itwas left to its own devices. There were about

thirty chimneys, and at one point, a real ÒatomicbombÓ eruptedÉÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHUO: An explosion!ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAN: Yes, a dreadful explosion from theaccumulation of all this gas that they did notevacuate. I remember it as if it were yesterdayÉit was dawn, six in the morning Ð thatÕs utopia!ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ×Translated from the French by Orit Gat.

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 1 8




1 1 / 1 2

09.09.10 / 06:18:14 UTC



Hans Ulrich ObristÊis a Swiss curator and art critic. In1993, he founded the Museum Robert Walser andbegan to run the Migrateurs program at the MusŽed'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris where he served as acurator for contemporary art. In 1996 he co-curatedManifesta 1, the first edition of the roving Europeanbiennial of contemporary art. He presently serves asthe Co-Director, Exhibitions and Programmes andDirector of International Projects at the SerpentineGallery in London.Ê

Antonio Negri, born in Padua in 1933, is a philosopherand an Italian politician. In the 60s he was involved inMarxist movements, and participates in thedevelopment of Òoperaismo,Ó which focuses on theconcept of the Òsocial worker.Ó He has translatedHegelÕs Philosophy of Law, and specializes in legalformalism as seen in the works of Descartes, Kant,Spinoza, Leopardi, Marx, or Dilthey. He has taught atPadua, at the ƒcole Normale SupŽrieure at Rue dÕUlm,University of Paris VII, and Paris VIII, InternationalCollege of Philosophy and the European University inphilosophy. In 1979 he was accused of involvement inan armed insurrection against the state and complicityin the assassination of Aldo Moro. He spent four and ahalf years awaiting trial in a maximum security prisonbefore being elected into parliament as a member ofMarco PannellaÕs Italian Radical Party. When hisparliamentary immunity was revoked, he fled toFrance, where he remained in political exile forfourteen years before returning to Italy in 1997. Amonghis recent books are Empire, Multitude. War and

Democracy in the Age of Empire, and Commonwealth

(all with Michael Hardt), as well as Insurgencies:

Constituent Power and the Modern State and Time for

Revolution.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ1Niccol˜ Machiavelli, History of Florence and of the Affairs of Italy (Middlesex: Echo Library,2006), 97Ð98.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ2See Antonio Negri, Insurgencies:Constituent Power and theModern State, trans. MauriziaBoscagli (Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1999).

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 1 8




1 2 / 1 2

hans ulrich obrist in conversation with antonio negri

Documents