THE YOUNG FAMILY, by Patricia Piccinini
Can the art world really do Hollywood better than Hollywood?


The City in the Age of Touristic Reproduction
Boris Groys
The tourist and the city dweller become identical.

Can the art world really do Hollywood better than Hollywood?
Steven Rand
The hypnotism
of technology: where is the end?

Mobile Utopia
Charles Esche
A utopian day-trip through two views of humanity 400 years apart.

Light Type Writer
Constantin Luser


Utopia with Lara Croft and some other monsters and Aliens
Marina Gržinić
The re-direction of desires, facts & bodies in the global world.

Žarko Paić
How to envision utopia, and not run away from society’s real repression / depression into a ghetto or exile for fantastic outsiders?

Zoran Roško
The rejection of human will, civilisation, & the search for what we have left.


Utopia with Lara Croft and some other monsters and ALIENs

I am interested in creatures like Alien, Lara Croft and Monsters, as all of them display identity reproduction, genetic engineering and technoscience so painfully naturally. Lara Croft is almost like an old, strategically well re-designed colonial weapon for identity politics, which will transform, exploit and expropriate the whole system of female yearnings and the power structure of science fiction images.

It is worth discussing this film, as it introduces new elements in the process of re-territorialization. It presents the newly capitalised sector of physical and spiritual data transformed in a territory of flexible capital. The plot of this feature appears very simple to someone who will not go to the movie or make an effort to see the film elsewhere. A fleshy upper class woman – named Lara Croft – mixes the roles of James Bond, Spielberg’s Harrison Ford adventure man, The Mummy’s best girlfriend and so on, fighting and killing in order to save the world (you expected something else?), so as not to end up with eternal evil. Lara Croft is precisely such an intersection, where hypercapitalistic market entertainment apparatuses meet the flexible accumulation strategies promising an eternal reproductive freedom.

Lara Croft is the newly established little engine in the process of re-territorialization, showing exactly what kinds of bodies and what forms of alliances called identity relationships are appropriate at the start of the new millennium and at whose cost, and to whose benefit. That she is a white, upper class lady is equally important. But beware! The new domination does not consist of the establishment of a hierarchy simply based on cultural differences, but of the evacuation of histories of domination and resistance through technological reproduction.

From now on, women in blockbuster cinematic adventures will be subjected to the paternal male capital rules. This is the new millennium deal, newly invested and capitalised. The rules are clear: killing, beating and fighting like our male pals. This is the way women can join the club. The only thing to do is to make their brains invisible. That thick worm-like structure, namely the brain, which was engaged critically in some other productions, is gone. It is not necessary to think any more, just to act. In order to join the club of constant re-territorialization it is important to repeat the same rules. Lara Croft reproduces the capitalist mode of an entertainment machine using the same violent methods of massacre as her male pals, in the same way they used to expropriate and to conquer all the others in the past, including women. The result is uniform, without any change, simply the reproduction of the pattern of dominance and the recurring ideological stories of the good and the bad guys, no, sorry, women.

The story of the woman cloned to be as good as her male partner or even better is a recreation in neo-imperialist and colonialist ventures in the moving image territory and in the representation and colonisation of bodies. The white woman in such a context, coming from the USA or the West is a tool for capital to produce clones of itself and its ritualistic imaginary pattern, in such a way becoming re-born (it does not matter if it is with a fault) over and over again. And not to mention re-territorialization, which is going on only in places where it has not been before, and cloning itself in places where it is not, according to Hito Steyerl in her text EXPO 2000: A Bourgeois Utopia.

Furthermore, she claimed: the bourgeois Utopia is literally created by the destruction and devastation of localities and of their transformations into non-sites, by all kinds of weapons, engines and bodily modifications. Similar is the story of Hardt and Negri about the Empire: it is in and out, and at the same time it seems centralized, although it is without a centre; the Empire is “everywhere and no-where,” it is centralized and at the same time “u-topic,” which means it is a non-space! Hardt and Negri propose a transformation of the productive processes into “cognitive turn.” That means that dominant processes of production give a primacy to communication, and co-operation, whereas biopolitical production replaced production activity. The focus is on the production and reproduction of life in itself. The production of the surplus by workers in industry and fabric, is today replaced by an increasing immaterial intellectual power labour, based on communication, which gives exploitation an immediate social dimension while introducing labour-work within all social elements. Human contacts and interactions and intellectual work – the “accumulation of conscience, technology and skills” not only turn out to be a fundamental productive force, but are one of the most influential industries of the production of theory, interpretations and fields of intellectual power.

The question is not if women are intelligent enough to kill, but if it is necessary for them (us) to be localised as a non-site (Hardt’s and Negri’s “non-space”) in order to obtain physical and epistemological visibility, without identity, history, context. In the past they were invisible, but with a hysterical identity. In short, identity is a relationship, not a preformed category of being or a possession that one can have. The effect of a missing analysis is to treat identity as a preformed category, just being present at or absent from the scene of action. On the contrary, identity is always constituted within several practices and technologies. As Karen Barad in Donna Haraway’s Modest Witness argued, identity is always formed in intra-action, in a close system of stratified relationships, the part of reconfigurations of knowledge and practices that constitute contemporary philosophy, art, cultural activism and theoretical analysis.

In our times identity is intrinsically connected with the most inherent processes of capital. It is important to identify that contemporary global capitalism with its inherent de- or re- territorialization processes, creates conditions for the proliferation of new multiple identities. This production of fluid hybrid identities results in an inherent internal mark that is the failure of identity, identity perceived in its absolute incompleteness. In fact, no social movement can nowadays subsume to be an open-ended, democratic political project without taking into consideration, without operationalizing the failure of identity, and the negativity, directly at the heart of identity. In which way is the process of de- or re-territorialization of capitalism connected with the politics of identity? What is one of the basic laws of capital? To acquire new territories, over and over again. The purpose of capital is to achieve the absolute limit or to exceed the very idea of limits, always transforming into, or rather behaving as a cannibal, devouring, internalising all that was before. Capitalism has always been a system of internal, correlative, contingent limits, of limits that constantly move and reproduce themselves on a broader scale. It is possible to see the scenario of postmodernism breaking with modernism in the line of capitalism that inverts all perimeters and limits to internal limits. Western national modernism and third world “modernism” both became the central part of capitalist territory, not as its bastard products, but as an inherently internal bastion project that was transformed, swallowed and spat out as a territory for future art capitalisation. The Western world achieves its goal by creating new movements and styles, simultaneously reproducing and widening the limits of the market. Postmodernism is the aesthetics of the colonisation of previous styles, the occupation with its own history transforming it in internal, correlative, contingent limits. Frederic Jameson’s periodization, which defined postmodernism as the cultural dominant of multinational or consumer capitalism (modernism as a cultural logic of monopolistic or imperialistic capitalism, and realism as the cultural logic of classic capitalism), is also an index of a progressive internal cannibalisation, establishing a process of constant de-territorialization and re-territorialization.

The history of capitalism is not limited to one original accumulation. When capital started reaching the limits of accumulation within the nation state, where there was suddenly hardly anyone left to be expropriated anymore, the process of original accumulation started again at the beginning. Capital was forced to reproduce itself again and again, and this process of constant repetition and reproduction moved the notion of territory activating new sectors of production, distribution and exchange. De-territorialization is not a process of erasing territories, but first and foremost it is a process of re-territoralization: constant cannibalisation of old and constant re-invention of new ones. David Harvey elaborated the theory of the flexible accumulation of global capitalism, becoming “the one” after the original accumulation, to describe the emergence of new sectors of production, new ways of providing financial services, new markets, and above all, greatly intensified rates of commercial, technological and organisational innovation. Biotechnology and genetic engineering are the trademarks in such a framework, whereas the Internet provides re-territorialization at its new address. “Sold out,” “broke down,” but always look for us at http://www… is the new re-direction of desires, facts and bodies in the global world.

The Internet is the purest sign of this process of flexible accumulation. It started as a territory without borders, without restriction; but today formal legislative and economic regulations transform the Internet into a new territory with old mechanisms of control, distribution of power and ways of accessing it, colonising, controlling it daily, by computer corporations, multinational banking systems and investigative federal agencies. One can say that what was secretly capitalised in the still very near past is made visible with such processes in the Internet now. During the first phase of capitalism, the time of its realistic doctrine of colonial and imperialist ventures with the goal of exploiting and expropriating space, the physical space, meaning land and geography, was at stake. But today it is not about territories in the classical geographical sense any more. Everything and everybody can be transformed into a new territory, can be a territory and part of the re-territorialization process. Capital moves from the physical space to a virtual and “spiritual” one. Everything and everybody can fit the need to be a new territory. The transference, the transposition, the colonisation is very precise. In establishing new territories, the borders are moved up and down and enlarged. It all depends how big the need for fresh blood, genuine identities, hybrid states of mind and virtual fluids is.


Light Type Writer
Constantin Luser


Lionello Borean & Chiara Grandesso

Light Type Writer
Constantin Luser

The Digital Golem
Eric Van Hove

Good News©
Mihael Milunović

A View ThRough the Red Window
Sarawut Chutiwongpeti