A Direct Perception
a conversation between Louwrien Wijers and The Publik Universal Frxnd
image credit: Kyle Tryhorn
Part 2
Tomorrow’s Language
Louwrien Wijers – We have to change our language all the time. We can’t be clumsy or lazy. We have to find the words of tomorrow; Tomorrow’s Language. We have to work on that. We’re stupid if we don’t do that. So therefore speaking is important, especially to know what can be done. Because if you always use words from before, where do you get to? And that is what in writing and literary work very often happens. They don’t go forward, but they go backwards. To say it a little bit too heavy, of course.
Publik Universal Frxnd – So I understood something which I think is interesting, particularly about the Mental Sculptures or this idea of organising things. When I was in London and I was running Auto Italia South East, which is this artist-run space that we were organising. I was very interested at that time about this kind of feminist reading of labour and the idea of reproductive labour. So thinking instead that labour is not to do with producing things and value and worth, but looking at the kind of labour that traditionally women had done, which is reproductive labour. Creating children, taking care of children, taking care of the home, like all of the things which have in a capitalist sense no monetary value, but it’s a huge amount of work. So this kind of idea of the amount of work that’s done in reproducing the conditions to allow things to happen. And I was interested in that, running a space, because I always saw that as a form of artistic labour as an art practice, you know, to run a space is an art practice.
It’s true, yes.
And I think because you make the conditions for something to happen or you, even if sometimes that’s administrative or to do with getting funding applications or cleaning, you know, like painting the walls, like these kinds of things. There are all these kinds of acts which altogether make up an artistic practice of making something possible for something to happen, you know?
Yes.
And so I was also connecting with your Mental Sculpture in that way, because the work that you’re doing, I guess, and also this thing recently at the Fries Museum, where you invite all these people, you bring all these people together. And that, you know, the actual practice of that is quite… it is to do with coordination, organising, emailing, talking to people, setting it all up, inviting people, making sure that they have drinks and food and that they have everything they need and you know all of that is the actual work that’s being done and then it creates this possibility for this Mental Sculpture to happen when people are in the moment and talking and coming up with ideas and thinking about the future. So I think that I had that kind of understanding, a little bit, about the way that you were working. That there’s a kind of feminist aspect to it.
Could be, yes.
Well that’s the other thing actually, when we talked the other day, of course the people you’re interviewing or talking to, because it’s the 60s, 70s and even the 80s, they’re all men.
Yes, incredible.
And I think, you know, in that time, to be a successful artist or to be visible as an artist meant also that you were a man. It was quite difficult, I think, for women to have the career that men would have in the arts.
It was impossible to do anything as a woman.
And yet you did in this way that you did. That’s what I think is interesting, that then you found a way of making work and being an artist in the way that you did, through writing and through this way that you thought about the writing.
Yes.
But you had this story that you told me the other day about coming from a… the way you grew up was a matriarchy.
Yes, so yes, you know, that matriarchy… Audrey Tang mentions this too, ‘Matriarchal Society’. We had it all over Eurasia, I’m sure. Women were much more doing the things, and the men were helping when help was needed. So all I wanted to say is where I come from. You were not to go over the river IJssel, the IJssel was the end of that area. And you were always marrying somebody, from 1500 onward in our family, you can see that my whole family marries people on that eastern side of the IJssel. So that whole thing was very strong. And that’s how I think they could keep that original matriarchal society where my grandmother and my mother were very respected.
Yes, but you said, so you grew up in this matriarchy, and then you went into the world, and you were surprised to see that women were not in any position of power.
Completely! So I think that is a mistake that was made a few hundred or maybe a thousand years ago. But it is only a short period if you see the whole.
And then also there’s this aspect as well where you’re drawn to these… Or there’s people that you very much respect, like Rauschenberg, but also John Cage, and these kinds of queer artists, queer men.
Yes
And that’s also something which is part of your history I think and that somehow you have managed to connect with these artists so they’ve spoken to you or their work has spoken to you in a particular way.
Yes I don’t know how exactly to say that but when I was young of course there were all types of relationships between people. But it was never talked about. And everyone knew. Because I think there are so many possibilities of making a relationship with another person and making it a deep relationship. If you would give it all names, it would destroy the real beauty of it. And I think that is the original way that Audrey Tang mentions it too. The original way of dealing with… you could say love. Because love is… When you can have it with another person, it becomes bigger.
Yes. Wait, I did have something that was just on my mind. Oh yeah, so it was to do with the importance or not of biography. Because to me that sort of touches the artists that you were, particularly these kind of queer figures… there’s a particular, I think it’s also an art historical position, there’s a whole school of art history, a conservative or even this mainstream school of art criticism and history in which the biography of artists is not discussed. That the artwork speaks for itself.
Yes, yes, yes.
And in that sense, I think it also creates this freedom in a non-identification for artists too because then they’re seen as somehow separate and then obviously it’s interesting with characters like Warhol and Beuys because then in some way they are also the art of, you know, their personality is the thing that they are creating.
Absolutely, and I think Duchamp has that already. Have you noticed?
Yes, yes, of course.
And so it is a freedom when this comes in. And I don’t know how it was before, but around 1910, 1900, 1890, a big change is happening and you get a nicer way of looking at art.
But I wondered how important biography was to you.
What do you want to say about biography?
No, I wondered in your history of writing about these things, how significant was the biography of the people you were writing about?
No. I don’t even look at it. It is very strange. Nowadays you can go to your computer and…
Nowadays I think there is a complete inversion of that. So it’s gone to the point where the biography is presented somehow first and then the work is seen as a product of a biography, or as being interconnected intimately with the position of the person who made it. I think that’s definitely something that I see a lot now.
You see it a lot now. But normally I don’t think about the biography, yes of course when they have been in the war it’s good to know. Most people have suffered a lot and that is in my case too. I have a feeling that the war has made such an impact on me that there’s no other way out. And that’s also how they came back from the concentration camps, who had been there many years, knowing there is only one way to get out of this misery and that is art, you know. But so yes that art thing is something that you can have because you suffered and you saw the reality. You saw how…
And in that sense, the biography is important in that way.
Yes, in that way I find it something that is nice to know. He was in the war on ships.
Who? Rauschenberg?
Yes, Rauschenberg. People who had accidents or whatever, shooting, so he had to take care of them. He was taking care of sick or damaged people. So that’s also a very heavy thing to do.
So it is important to you then?
Yes, but then studied there and taught there, then it doesn’t interest me anymore.
And when you were doing interviews, you would then really just ask people about their ideas?
Yes, about what is their insight. I don’t need this and that.
And then I guess, well, then with the quality of their ideas, or the…
Yes, the quality.
Then you would.. I guess you then can have a sense of somebody’s experience through the way that they talk about it.
Yes, or intensity. Yes. Because the older they are, when they’re very good artists, the more they can put it in front of you or show it, you know, in words. You go home and you’re amazed about what you heard, what they gave you. They give you presence almost, really. It is a very beautiful thing to do.
Yes, I mean, one of the most inspiring artists for me is Barbara Hammer, this lesbian filmmaker, and she… I think what made her so unique was that she constantly was reaching out to talk to younger people and artists and work with younger artists. Like she was so open to me. And in that I think also it was interesting because she obviously had this biography, this quite specific biography, but she could also change, move with the times. You know, she was so curious always what the newest thing was. And then I think in that sense she went beyond herself. The biography is important, but it’s also how you can connect with the present moment. It kind of goes beyond the timeline of a biography.
My biggest problem is how successfully can I change my mind again.
Is that a quote from Rauschenberg?
Yes.
How successfully can I change my mind again? Yes. I love that.
Isn’t it lovely? He says that in the ‘Art meets Science’ film of Panel 1.
A sweet kind of thinking
Publik Universal Frxnd – So maybe it’s a nice moment to change the conversation and talk about the last Mental Sculpture you made in the Fries museum.
Louwrien Wijers – How did you like her?
Audrey Tang? I was very impressed. Really, really amazing. Could you introduce that or do you want me to do it? What happened there? Because basically you got a group of people together.
Ah, yes.
Including Audrey Tang. And Audrey Tang is this minister for…
Digital Affairs in Taiwan.
And she comes from this Sunflower Movement.
Yes, she is one of the Sunflower Movement people. And she has helped to bring democracy back to Taiwan.
And the Sunflower Movement, they also kind of started as a student movement with a lot of hackers also and programmers. And they were demanding for more transparent governance and democracy in Taiwan. And so there has been this kind of transformation in Taiwan using programming and digital tools, algorithms, this kind of thing, to actually increase democracy and participation and direct democracy.
Yes, and they’re very good at it. And so, of course, I have been working for ‘Direct Democracy’ and ‘Basic Income’ since 1968, since Beuys. Because if you look at it, that is the only way to go. There is no other way. It may look different because of people telling stories. But I don’t see how otherwise our society can reach a living quality, a quality of life that is what we are made for.
How did you find Audrey Tang?
Yes, my friend, she is Yukiko Shikata from Japan. I’ve known her since 1980 and she started the Beuys Magazine in Japan. And then I wrote for their magazine and started writing for other magazines in Japan about the ideas of Beuys. Then at a certain point, I was already living here in Friesland, it is 2017 or 18. And Yukiko Shikata does a thing in Japan where she invites Audrey Tang as keynote speaker and me. So we are both keynote speakers. And then I see first Yukiko’s interview with Audrey Tang. She goes to Taiwan and interviews her there and she sends me the film. I’m amazed. I think, oh, this is the type of person we are waiting for. To come and to really… this is exactly tomorrow for me. And that is how I felt that if I wanted to give a kind of, I always call it ‘a small crown’, put ‘a small crown’ on ‘Art meets Science and Spirituality In a changing Economy’, this is the best way to put a crown, or close it like a bottle with a cork.
Oh, you mean like this is the kind of final chapter of ‘Art meets Science and Spirituality In a changing Economy’?
Absolutely, yes, absolutely. Because I felt that in ‘Art meets Science and Spirituality In a changing Economy’, you hardly hear Beuys. You just hear the 20 people I could bring together in the five panels. But the original ideas of Beuys, sometimes it’s mentioned but not very often. And that is not what I was really after because…
What do you mean? The ideas of basic income and direct democracy?
Yes, ‘Basic Income’, ‘Direct Democracy’, ‘Everyone an Artist’, ‘Creativity is our real Capital’. All these ideas are actually the ground below my thinking of ‘Art meets Science and Spirituality In a changing Economy’. That was the ground, but I couldn’t touch the ground anymore because these guys all died while I was organising it. Beuys, Warhol and Robert Filliou died within one year and half. And then I had to keep going and I couldn’t get them into this meeting, their ideas, because it was very shortly before the whole thing was happening. And then I had to, well… lovely things came out of course, like ‘From Competition to Compassion’.
Then there’s something quite poignant about you being put together with Audrey in this event in Japan because it seems to me then that Audrey continues a conversation that maybe died or stopped with the death of Beuys.
Yes! No, she is the only one who really gives a window to the future because of her digital knowledge. Because we can’t any longer be bureaucrats as we are today and give thousands of words to everything. That time is over. We are now, we have to act, so we have to give everyone a chance to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to something. And we have to give everyone… Yes, a bigger world than that stupid world with nations. Nations are from way back. Because they were just for reasons of putting taxation on anything that you could buy, you know. They were never meant for anything different than just making money. So those times are really far back in history.
That should be the promise I guess of digital technology and the internet and all this kind of stuff.
Yes. So you don’t have to choose a representative. You can represent yourself. There is a whole different world and that is the world that I am looking for. And I think everyone is looking for it but you have to find the people. And Audrey Tang sees with a… because of her background, she sees things with a good heart. That is so beautiful that she has this Daoist background.
Is there something that you wanted to read from her?
Yes, that’s nice. So Audrey Tang is speaking. And she says, “the indigenous communities that I’m more familiar with because I spent quite a few months, actually if not a year, right after dropping out of the middle school because my mom was co-founding experimental primary schools in collaboration with indigenous people there. So the students there also learned the indigenous perspective and I really feel liberated from a written culture. This orally preserved culture takes me out of this human-centric point of view, in the view that the mountains and the rivers are long-lived spirits, and we’re just transient stewards that work with them. I think that really has influenced my politics a lot to be less human-centric.”
I love that point! To be less human-centric. Have you ever thought of it?
I mean, yes, but not quite like that.
She goes on. “There were more than 20 languages. There’s various different gender stereotypes going on. And once you have 20 different kinds of stereotypes, it becomes a rainbow and it helps people to break out of the binary kind of thinking, again when it comes to gender, but also to other categories. There is a lot more emphasis on social responsibility, starting from a more tender age, rather than just individualistic competition between people and people. We don’t quite go for this egoism. You don’t have to thank Taiwan every 20 seconds if our innovations have been of help to you. We really just want the world to be better. On the land of the Eurasian plate, there are many cultures and civilizations. The main interest for me is how those cultures transfer and learn from each other and make cultural innovations such as Zen, which is a trans-cultural conversation between the Buddhist tradition and the Daoist tradition. That interests me more than whether you call it a particular dynasty.”
Beautiful
Beautiful yes. So this sweet kind of thinking is needed. This compassionate thinking. ‘From Competition to Compassion’. All those guys we were interviewing for ‘Art meets Science…’, they were all coming up with the same thing, ‘Compassion’. It was so funny, not one but five or six. So that competition time is over.
So I’ve been doing this thing which has touched me in quite a way. It’s a job I’ve been doing writing labels for fossils and rock formations and archeological things for the artist Hreinn Fridfinnsson. It spans billions of years of time.
Oh incredible.
And I’m touched by this idea of animistic mountains and things of which we are just stewards. Actually, the world can be centred somewhere other than ourselves. And that is what struck me writing these labels because the story of life on earth or the story of earth itself is so beyond. Geological time. It’s such a different scale of time to human time. The human experience has been such a small amount of geological time. Like a blink of an eye. And there is this feeling of being connected to something so much larger than our understanding. It’s more than we could ever imagine.
And that way of thinking helps?
Yes I think it’s very beautiful because it puts it in context a little bit.
Yes it gives you a completely different feel. It makes more sense to you to be here now and then in some years not to be here anymore. What does it matter? Because you keep going.
And in this time, obviously over the story of Earth there have been these five major mass extinctions.
Oh what is that?
I mean the last one was the meteorite that struck the earth and completely changed the atmospheric conditions. It was the one that killed the dinosaurs. Basically everything that couldn’t fly perished then. And this has happened five times. You can see it in the geological record that there are these moments where there is this huge species diversity and then it all goes and I think there is something also about, because of climate change we are already looking at this coming mass extinction event and we are living already in it. And I think it changes the idea of what we might be able to do to maintain this species diversity. It’s a choice we don’t make only for ourselves but all the other living creatures.
And those still to come.
Yes.
Yes, that’s true. You know this teacher I had in India, when he was 106 years old he told me that two thirds of humanity would disappear.
Yes I remember you telling me before, it is a prophecy of a mass extinction.
Yes between 20 and 40, 2020 and 2042. Yes, so that feeling is something to chew on because it’s very real.
I wonder if that prophecy also refers to other living creatures.
I hardly see a difference between other species and us. Every animal is just as intelligent as I am.
Or they possess a different kind of intelligence.
A direct perception. And that is beautiful how she puts these words here, Audrey Tang. She already has her dictionary ready. As we are all looking for words, she just says them. It is an incredible richness I find. She’s 42, I’m 82.
Have you done an interview with her?
I have just spoken to her, some words on the phone.
Oh I think you should, to me that makes total sense. It would be one of your series of interviews.
I’m afraid to have more wishes because to realise a wish takes more energy and to do it, well it has to grow from its own strength. You can’t push it. But anyway it’s a nice idea what you say. Maybe. But you would be good for it too… your English is much better than mine.
That didn’t stop you until now!
[end]