Eda Čufer: A conversation with Oliver Marchart

I know that you have written a book (*1) on this subject, but what exactly is Neoism?

One of the most sarcastic definitions of Neoism is defining it as a prefix and a suffix with nothing in between. Therefore we can say that Neoism does not have a true content, meaning or program. However, the suffix and the prefix still carry some sort of a meaning which is closely linked to the avant-garde. The question posed by Neoism is what remains after we leave out all contents and goals that usually accompany a movement? What remains is a clear form of movement, defined by the suffix 'ism' and the avant-garde obsession with innovation, denoted by the prefix 'neo'. But what happens when "neo" comes into conflict with 'ism'? Neoism, as I see it, is a practical reflection of this issue. On one side there are all these classical problems with innovations and the new, while on the other side are the issues of history, musealisation and canonisation, which accompany the initial process of a movement. This is why Neoism can be explained also as an avant-garde movement, the only content of which is the avant-garde itself. We could also say that it is an avant-garde reflection of the avant-garde in conditions in which the avant-garde is not capable. Or, to put it shorter: it is an avant-garde within the conditions of its own incapability.

How does the Neoistic practice look like? What is it all about?

There are at least two movements within Neoism. The first movement is connected to Ištvan Kantor and is based on a constant turning around of one's own identity and existence. The second, later movement was mainly created by Stewart Home and is based on the strategy of 'self-history'. From a latter perspective Neoism is defined as a movement, which creates an illusion of the movement called Neoism. Here we are actually dealing with the creation of one's own history or to be more precise with a highly conscious process of 'self-history'. However, in both cases Neoism does not have any other contents except for the aforementioned paradoxes, which are embodied in the operation, the movement, or in the practise, whatever you prefer.

From the lecture on 'multiple names' which you held at the Škuc Gallery, we could deduct that neoism as a movement is actually based on these 'multiple names', i.e. names that can be used by anyone and are not linked to any specific individual. The abolishment of the individuality cult is supposedly one of the basic ideological starting-points of Neoism. However, you still seem to mention Ištvan Kantor and Stewart Home as the most noticeable representatives. How do you explain this paradox?

This is true. The use of 'multiple names' is connected with the idea of a movement which on one hand turns around and on the other simulates its own identity. What are multiple names? The most popular multiple name is Father Christmas or Santa Claus. These are names that anybody can use. You do not have to be a man to put on a beard and entertain children. Theoretically anyone can be Santa Claus. In Neoism the use of 'multiple names' is very common and it started between Canada and the United States with the concept of the 'open pop star' where various people were supposed to perform under the name Monty Cantsin. When this name would become famous any unknown musician could perform under this name and fill a concert hall. Ištvan Kantor used this name most often and most consistently and thus their identities seemed to naturally intertwine, especially due to the fact that Kantor, who is increasingly establishing himself as a classical video artist, often signs himself with both names.
On the other hand we can also recognise critical moves within this strategy, for the use of "multiple names" in some way also represents the deconstruction of the star system and terms such as personal identity and artist as an individual. At a certain point anybody could become a neoist and a part of the movement already by calling oneself Monty Cantsin. Soon 'competitive names' emerged, such as for instance Karen Eliot, which was put forth by Stewart Home. A very well known multiple name is also Luther Blissett. Of course it should be stressed once again that there are two sides to using 'multiple names'. On one hand this procedure deconstructs the myth of a creative individual, while on the other hand it is simply a promotional pose, it is a way to become bigger and more important than you are in reality. The entire strategy is in a way an imaginary self-reproduction, therefore we should not be surprised, by the fact that terrorist groups such as the Angry Brigade used it and openly proclaimed that anybody who is fighting against the state in one way or another is already a member of their organisation, i.e. the Angry Brigade is everywhere. This is one of those tactics, in which somebody places a large number of paper tanks on the battlefield in order to look stronger.

Therefore Neoism does not reflect merely the logic of the avant-gardes and the logic of keeping track of history, but to a certain extent also the logic of politics?

Most certainly. I would be quite confident in stating that there is a very clear connection between the logic of 'multiple names' as proposed by the Neoists and the logic of political slogans. We can learn a great deal from Neoists as regards the functioning of politics. Empty names are very similar to what Ernesto Laclau calls 'empty signifiers'. These work in such a way, that a number of projects, demands or goals are joined with a specific concept such as for instance "freedom", the less concrete the concept, the emptier its contents become. The success of the forces fighting for hegemony is based on strategies of emptying these carrying concepts of their political discourse. The more demands you can articulate as a politician the less concrete they will become and thus they will also be less bonding. Therefore a deeper logic exists, a logic which works behind the successful political concepts or behind the so-called 'empty rhetorics' of the political discourse. And there is also another aspect. As soon as we have a universally adopted concept, such as for instance "freedom" the issue emerges as to who will hegemonise this empty vehicle and fill it with his project and his demands. The Ištvan Kantor definition nicely reflects this mechanism. At the beginning he stated 'let's start, try and whatever will become of this will be called Neoism'. Neoism is an empty label and the meaning will be defined later on through practice, which will fill it with contents and meaning. In opposition to artistic concepts it is much clearer in politics that the battle for filling up the contents is present, i.e. the battle called hegemony. Who will be able to define the meaning of the empty sign? Whoever will be able to do this, will have the greatest power and authority. And even within a relatively peaceful artistic movement such as Neoism the battles for defining the empty concept start as soon as the emptiness of the concept is ensured and made consious. For example the battle between Kantor and Home. Or, let's remember that some advocates and representatives of the name Luther Blissett reacted surprisingly jealous and offended when other people started using the name in a way which was out of their control. Therefore, if there is no transitional definition of something somewhere, the battle for the contents and meaning will become very obvious and this rule is also the reason for the success of 'multiple names'.

I am interested in your position at writing this book. Can you identify yourself with the ideological and tactical frames of Neoism or do you think of yourself as an art historian, political theoretician and interpreter, who observes events and notes them down from a critical distance?

When my book on Neoism was published, one of the book critics defined my art history as art hysteria. Not only do I accept this label, but I can also completely identify with it. The book is truly a hysteric search for the answer to the question as to what is art history in relation towards art. This question is not only the basic theme of the book, but the book itself is a symptom of this issue. Therefore, the research is materialised in the book as a unique practical case of paradoxes connected with keeping track of art history, especially in relation to avant-garde movements. On the manifest level the avant-gardes seemingly resist to be placed within history, while on the other hand, on the latent level they would very much wish to be a part of history and this is even knowingly encouraged. As regards this I am especially enthusiastic about the Neoist movement represented by Stewart Home, with the issues of keeping track of history in art by oneself. And this does not hold true only for art. Usually we have very naive ideas on artistic and political avant-garde. We believe whatever they proclaim and proclamation itself is usually the task they perform to their best. At our beliefs we usually do not watch out and observe what they are truly doing. For instance, while they are shouting aloud the slogan 'demolish serious culture' or 'burn down all museums' they are carefully gathering, documenting and thus creating history of their own actions and the remains of such actions. This form of documenting is not something that would take place later on; it is constantly present. During the student demonstrations in 1968, some of them were in charge of documenting the entire movement. Today everything can be found in museums and situationists sent their archives to museums. The same was performed and still is performed by Neoists.
Keeping track of history is not something that comes from the outside or after a fact, but is a component part of the movement itself. How can we, as art historians, deal with these mechanisms? What to do when self-reflective avant-gardes appear with an open intent and program, and they already in advance use you as a historian. How will you position yourself, when your position is already defined in advance with the sole nature of the movement? Obviously you have to denounce the position of the cold observer, for whatever you will write is anyway already a part of the game. Even more, if the movement programme is nothing more than self-history and musealisation, the realisation of the program is dependent on your intervention as an art historian. Such a movement is not only the theme of the research, but the research becomes part of the movement.

This sounds a lot like Catch 22.

In my opinion this mechanism reveals the structure of keeping historic records as such. The thing that trills me at Home's version of Neoism is that it does not defy any sort of definition or danger that any system would demolish or abuse it. On the contrary. It does not lean towards the ideology of anti-art or undermining the artistic system with constant endeavours to evade keeping historic records, but it prefers to turn around the avant-garde and anti-art ideology itself in a way that clearly proves that the avant-garde is always already in advance a part and a co-former of this system. What we can learn from the Neoists as regards keeping historic records is that a desire to be a part of history always exists and that the desire to escape this desire is only another aspect of the desire to be a part of history. That is why in the reverse sense the desire of the art historian to keep track of history is inseparably connected to the desire of the artist to become a part of history. However, this relation is always a bit out of order, for the desires of these two sides never match completely. Similar to Romeo and Juliet from the Shakespeare tragedy. Not because one or the other side would resist this process, but because the process of keeping historic records is marked with a certain gap. It is an impossible process, therefore it is more art hysteric then art historic. The reason for this split and incapability is that the artist as well as the art is a moving dot in the centre of art history. Out there, removed from the historian bird's eye, does not exist, it exists right in the centre of the historian's practice. In this sense art is not an object of art history, but more of a blind spot in its field of vision. Regardless of this, art history must simulate historic knowledge on something, which it by definition can not truly see, only to keep the institution alive. As a rule the results are truly absurd. Anybody who had the same bad luck as me to study conventional, academic history of art is aware of this fact.

You are linked to the organisation called Get to attack, which was formed after Haider had been elected as the prime minister of Austria. Can you tell us more about this organisation and how it operates?

Get to attack is a name chosen by some cultural workers and theoreticians in Austria. Its main goal is to set up an anti-racist coalition which would be in opposition to the existing government. This coalition is set up to work within as well as outside the field of art. That is why they have chosen to use a multiple name with the appeal that the name is on offer to anybody who wants to act against the government from the anti-racist position. In the process it was shown that it is extremely hard to keep the name 'empty' also because of the fact that the media demands concrete individuals, i.e. heroes. It did not take long for the media to focus upon one or two individuals and expose them as the 'speakers' or representatives of the movement. This mechanism is, as it seems, a determinant which accompanies the use of multiple names.
On the other hand, the group Get to attack occasionally managed to overcome the field of art and operate within the political sphere. The classical avant-garde movements maybe had political goals and programs, but it was very rare that they managed to enter the political sphere in its entirety. The post-war Austrian avant-garde movements such as the Vienna group and Vienna actionists were involved in a large number of individual anarchistic practises. They focused on the practise of physical and psychological self destruction. The belief that in the ossified post-war circumstances these practices were in themselves and for themselves political still remains. To a certain extent this might even be true, but in general these practices have only on rare occasions overcome the level of an individualistic protest in the field of art, and this was sometimes even noticed by the media. There were rare occasions when these artists 'politicised' around specific demands. When the artistic and cultural field in Austria started to politicise as a reaction to Haider, we broke off with the transitional post-war anarchistic tradition. Politicising against politics as such became non existent, instead it became oriented towards racism, the racist party and a very concrete racist policy. Get to attack belongs to this movement, which left the hermetic field of art and started constructing coalitions with political groups, emigrant groups and others. Will they be and to what extent will they be successful is a different question.

Note:

(*1). The book ( Neoismus : Avantgarde und Selbsthistorisierung, Edition Selene, Klagenfurt / Wien 1997) in Slovene translation was published in our Žepna (Pocket) Edition in 2001.