Weimar ++

a. Friday – 07.25.03
b. Saturday – 07.26.03
c. Monday -- 07.28.03 (w/New York)

Leipzig ++
d. Friday – 08.01.03 (w/ Mexico City)
e. Saturday – 08.02.03


Friday Afternoon Lunchtime/Discussion/Event in Weimar -- 07.28.2003

1. About This Friday
   (an event in conjunction with participation in ACC's "Get Rid of Yourself")
2. Passage from Marx's The German Ideology in English and in German
3. Other 16Beaver events and projects connected to "Get Rid of Yourself"

1.  About This Friday
We have extended an open invitation to a number of artists, designers, cultural workers, thinkers, organizers, curators, and people here in Weimar and the surrounding area to join in a discussion with us (Rene Gabri and Paige Sarlin from 16Beaver) this afternoon in Weimar on the grass in front of the ACC galerie where the 16Beaver Group is  participating in the exhibition "Get Rid of Yourself."

It occurred to us as we were preparing for the exhibition and looking back  through the trajectories of the meetings and discussions that have occurred over  the last 4 years at the 16 beaver space that we have an opportunity to invite  this  new group of people (all  potential friends, colleagues, and  collaborators) to engage a  set of questions and problems which we and those  around us face in relation to "work," our own cultural production and artistic  practices and the selling of our labor to earn money in order to be able to live. 

We explored this "work/work" dilemma in a series of conversations early in  2000, just about 6 months after the renovation of the 16Beaver space was completed.   At that time, the conversation grew out a consideration of the form of the  work/work spaces that surround and subsidize the communal/shared space of the  16 beaver group., built as spaces in which people could both "do their art" and  work for money.  Curious about the complexity of these relations, this series  of conversations explored the vagaries and idiosyncrasies, as well as the  similarities and commonalities, of how individuals mapped out and constructed  lives as artists/cultural workers and were still able to eat,/make a living. 

Over a series of three weeks, the conversations ranged from people sharing their specific strategies/experiences to debating the merits of different national systems of cultural support/funding. 

We used the passage below from Marx addressing questions related to the division and alternate models of labor as way to jump start our initial discussions. We hope it serves a similar purpose within the context of a re-unified Germany and the radically altered social /economic/ cultural context of post-GDR Weimar.

2. Passage from Marx's The German Ideology Part I On Feuerbach
The German Ideology

Part I
On Feuerbach
Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook
Private Property and Communism

With the division of labor, in which all these contradictions are implicit, and which in its turn is based on the natural division of labor in the family and the separation of society into individual families opposed to one another, is given simultaneously the distribution, and indeed the unequal distribution, both quantitative and qualitative, of labor and its products, hence property: the nucleus, the first form, of which lies in the family, where wife and children are the slaves of the husband. This latent slavery in the family, though still very crude, is the first property, but even at this early stage it corresponds perfectly to the definition of modern economists who call it the power of disposing of the labor-power of others. Division of labor and private property are, moreover, identical expressions: in the one the same thing is affirmed with reference to activity as is affirmed in the other with reference to the product of the activity.

Further, the division of labor implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the "general interest", but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labor is divided. And finally, the division of labor offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man's own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labor comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.

The social power, i.e., the multiplied productive force, which arises through the co-operation of different individuals as it is determined by the division of labor, appears to these individuals, since their co-operation is not voluntary but has come about naturally, not as their own united power, but as an alien force existing outside them, of the origin and goal of which they are ignorant, which they thus cannot control, which on the contrary passes through a peculiar series of phases and stages independent of the will and the action of man, nay even being the prime governor of these.

How otherwise could for instance property have had a history at all, have taken on different forms, and landed property, for example, according to the different premises given, have proceeded in France from parcellation to centralisation in the hands of a few, in England from centralisation in the hands of a few to parcellation, as is actually the case today? Or how does it happen that trade, which after all is nothing more than the exchange of products of various individuals and countries, rules the whole world through the relation of supply and demand - a relation which, as an English economist says, hovers over the earth like the fate of the ancients, and with invisible hand allots fortune and misfortune to men, sets up empires and overthrows empires, causes nations to rise and to disappear - while with the abolition of the basis of private property, with the communistic regulation of production (and, implicit in this, the destruction of the alien relation between men and what they themselves produce), the power of the relation of supply and demand is dissolved into nothing, and men get exchange, production, the mode of their mutual relation, under their own control again?

In German

Mit der Teilung der Arbeit, in welcher alle diese Widersprüche gegeben sind und welche ihrerseits wieder auf der naturwüchsigen Teilung der Arbeit in der Familie und der Trennung der Gesellschaft in einzelne, einander entgegengesetzte Familien beruht, ist zu gleicher Zeit auch die Verteilung, und zwar die ungleiche, sowohl quantitative wie qualitative Verteilung der Arbeit und ihrer Produkte gegeben, also das Eigentum, das in der Familie, wo die Frau und die Kinder die Sklaven des Mannes sind, schon seinen Keim, seine erste Form hat. Die freilich noch sehr rohe, latente Sklaverei in der Familie ist das erste Eigentum, das übrigens hier schon vollkommen der Definition der modernen Ökonomen entspricht, nach der es die Verfügung über fremde Arbeitskraft ist. Übrigens sind Teilung der Arbeit und Privateigentum identische Ausdrücke – in dem Einen wird in Beziehung auf die Tätigkeit dasselbe ausgesagt, was in dem Andern in bezug auf das Produkt der Tätigkeit ausgesagt wird.

Ferner ist mit der Teilung der Arbeit zugleich der Widerspruch zwischen dem Interesse des einzelnen Individuums oder der einzelnen Familie und dem <33> gemeinschaftlichen Interesse aller Individuen, die miteinander verkehren, gegeben; und zwar existiert dies gemeinschaftliche Interesse nicht bloß in der Vorstellung, als "Allgemeines", sondern zuerst in der Wirklichkeit als gegenseitige Abhängigkeit der Individuen, unter denen die Arbeit geteilt ist. Und endlich bietet uns die Teilung der Arbeit gleich das erste Beispiel davon dar, daß, solange die Menschen sich in der naturwüchsigen Gesellschaft befinden, solange also die Spaltung zwischen dem besondern und gemeinsamen Interesse existiert, solange die Tätigkeit also nicht freiwillig, sondern naturwüchsig geteilt ist, die eigne Tat des Menschen ihm zu einer fremden, gegenüberstehenden Macht wird, die ihn unterjocht, statt daß er sie beherrscht. Sowie nämlich die Arbeit verteilt zu werden anfängt, hat Jeder einen bestimmten ausschließlichen Kreis der Tätigkeit, der ihm aufgedrängt wird, aus dem er nicht heraus kann; er ist Jäger, Fischer oder Hirt oder kritischer Kritiker und muß es bleiben, wenn er nicht die Mittel zum Leben verlieren will - während in der kommunistischen Gesellschaft, wo Jeder nicht einen ausschließlichen Kreis der Tätigkeit hat, sondern sich in jedem beliebigen Zweige ausbilden kann, die Gesellschaft die allgemeine Produktion regelt und mir eben dadurch möglich macht, heute dies, morgen jenes zu tun, morgens zu jagen, nachmittags zu fischen, abends Viehzucht zu treiben, nach dem Essen zu kritisieren, wie ich gerade Lust habe, ohne je Jäger, Fischer, Hirt oder Kritiker zu werden.

Dieses Sichfestsetzen der sozialen Tätigkeit, diese Konsolidation unsres eignen Produkts zu einer sachlichen Gewalt über uns, die unsrer Kontrolle entwächst, unsre Erwartungen durchkreuzt, unsre Berechnungen zunichte macht, ist eines der Hauptmomente in der bisherigen geschichtlichen Entwicklung, und eben aus diesem Widerspruch des besondern und gemeinschaftlichen Interesses nimmt das gemeinschaftliche Interesse als Staat eine selbständige Gestaltung, getrennt von den wirklichen Einzel- und Gesamtinteressen, an, und zugleich als illusorische Gemeinschaftlichkeit, aber stets auf der realen Basis der in jedem Familien- und Stamm-Konglomerat vorhandenen Bänder, wie Fleisch und Blut, Sprache, Teilung der Arbeit im größeren Maßstabe und sonstigen Interessen - und besonders, wie wir später entwickeln werden, der durch die Teilung der Arbeit bereits bedingten Klassen, die in jedem derartigen Menschenhaufen sich absondern und von denen eine alle andern beherrscht. Hieraus folgt, daß alle Kämpfe innerhalb des Staats, der Kampf zwischen Demokratie, Aristokratie und Monarchie, der Kampf um das Wahlrecht etc. etc., nichts als die illusorischen Formen sind, in denen die wirklichen Kämpfe der verschiednen Klassen untereinander geführt werden (wovon die deutschen Theoretiker nicht eine Silbe ahnen, trotzdem daß man ihnen in den

"Deutsch-Französischen Jahr- <34> büchern" und der "Heiligen Familie" dazu Anleitung genug gegeben hatte), und ferner, daß jede nach der Herrschaft strebende Klasse, wenn ihre Herrschaft auch, wie dies beim Proletariat der Fall ist, die Aufhebung der ganzen alten Gesellschaftsform und der Herrschaft überhaupt bedingt, sich zuerst die politische Macht erobern muß, um ihr Interesse wieder als das Allgemeine, wozu sie im ersten Augenblick gezwungen ist, darzustellen. Eben weil die Individuen nur ihr besondres, für sie nicht mit ihrem gemeinschaftlichen Interesse zusammenfallendes suchen, überhaupt das Allgemeine illusorische Form der Gemeinschaftlichkeit, wird dies als ein ihnen "fremdes" und von ihnen "unabhängiges", als ein selbst wieder besonderes und eigentümliches "Allgemein "-Interesse geltend gemacht, oder sie selbst müssen sich in diesem Zwiespalt bewegen" wie in der Demokratie. Andrerseits macht denn auch der praktische Kampf dieser beständig wirklich den gemeinschaftlichen und illusorischen gemeinschaftlichen Interessen entgegentretenden Sonderinteressen die praktische Dazwischenkunft und Zügelung durch das illusorische "Allgemein"-Interesse als Staat nötig. Die soziale Macht, d.h. die vervielfachte Produktionskraft, die durch das in der  eilung der Arbeit bedingte Zusammenwirken der verschiedenen Individuen entsteht, erscheint diesen Individuen, weil das Zusammenwirken selbst nicht freiwillig, sondern naturwüchsig ist, nicht als ihre eigne, vereinte Macht, sondern als eine fremde, außer ihnen stehende Gewalt, von der sie nicht wissen woher und wohin, die sie also nicht mehr beherrschen können, die im Gegenteil nun eine eigentümliche, vom Wollen und Laufen der Menschen unabhängige, ja dies Wollen und Laufen erst dirigierende Reihenfolge von Phasen und Entwicklungsstufen durchläuft.

3. Other 16Beaver events and projects connected to "Get Rid of Yourself"

To get further details on projects and how you can participate please visit:


 c. Monday Night  in New York & Weimar -- Languages and Power –- Selected Readings & Discussion led by Deidre Hoguet and Peter Walsh – in collaboration with Gallery P74, Ljubljana, Slovenia -- 07.28.2003


1. About this Monday
2. Text: “Imagined Communities,” Benedict Anderson, Chapters 5 and 6
3. About Gallery P74
4. About ACC in Weimar + Context ('Get Rid of Yourself') + Directions
5. Stay tuned for September discussion in Ljubljana, Vilnius, New York!

1. About this Monday, 07.28.03

When: 7pm
Where: 16 Beaver Street, 5th Floor + Burgplatz 1+2, 99423 Weimar
Who: Open to all

The Bush Administration’s “Coalition of the Willing” for the invasion of Iraq was in many ways a “Coalition of the English-Speaking.” Are we witnessing the re-emergence of a kind of Anglophone pan-nationalism? Were the American, British and Australian governments - “the willing” – really defining their joint interests by the following phrase: “Where English-speaking armies go, English goes, and where English goes, English-speaking business people go”?  With the current climate in mind, we want to discuss two chapters relating to languages and the origins of nationalisms from Benedict Anderson’s well-known book “Imagined Communities.”

Envisioned as the first of a series of discussions about the relationships between various languages to each other and to power, this Monday night’s reading and discussion will be hosted by artists/16 Beaver participants Deidre Hoguet and Peter Walsh. The two English-speaking, New York-based, US-American artists will be traveling to Ljubljana, Slovenia in September 2003 to perform “Tongue:Jezik,” a series of street actions created for Ljubljana’s Gallery P74. As such, Monday night’s discussion is co-sponsored by P74. A related discussion, co-sponsored by 16 Beaver, will take place in Ljubljana in September (also in Vilnius, Lithuania as part of 16 Beaver’s participation in the “24/7” exhibition, also in New York in 16Beaver's participation in 16Beaver Monday Nights).

2. Text: “Imagined Communities,” Benedict Anderson

“Imagined Communities” is a classic text on nationalism originally written in 1983 and updated in 1991. It’s well worth reading in its entirety. We highly recommend purchasing  it if you’re interested in these topics. The links below are for Monday Night’s discussion.

Chapters 5 “Old Languages, New Models”

Chapters 6 “Official Nationalism and Imperialism” http://www.16beavergroup.org/pdf/imaginedcommunities2.pdf

3. About Gallery P74

Centre and Gallery P74 is the newest non-profit art space in Ljubljana, Slovenia. For the past five years it has promoted diverse programs of contemporary art and culture, supporting young and innovative artists and curators. Founded by artist, scholar and curator Tadej Pogacar, Gallery P74's programming is focused on the presentation, study and promotion of contemporary visual arts, performance and time related arts (new media, music). The mission of the Centre and Gallery P74 is to foster knowledge, exchange new ideas and promote innovative and challenging models in current art and culture. Centre and Gallery P74 supports non-profit programs and collaboration between artists, art centers and galleries locally and internationally.

Center and Gallery P74
Prusnikova 74
1210 Ljubljana

4. About ACC in Weimar + Context ('Get Rid of Yourself') + Directions

16Beaver is also in Germany (Weimar & Leipzig) for 'Get Rid of Yourself' a show curated by Frank Motz dealing with artist groups and artists working collaboratively in the US (more details forthcoming).  A few of us will be organizing activities here, among them some walks, discussions, and well, this Monday's discussion.  Hope you can make it either here or in New York.

The ACC-Galerie Weimar, a non-profit space which has maintained an international exhibition and studio program for 15 years. http://www.acc-weimar.de/ Hall 14 a recently opened art space in Leipzig in a former Industrial Complex of a Cotton Spinning Mill.

Address in Weimar: Burgplatz 1+2, 99423 Weimar
Tel. 03643/851262, Fax 851263
for questions contact:

rauch@acc-weimar.de or


Directions from Brooklyn:
Take Northside Car Service to Newark (Liberty? uggghhh) Airport -- $60
Take any airline in this case Continental to Frankfurt -- $720
Take any train to the main train station (3 stops from airport) -- did not pay
Take train to Weimar from Central Station (preferably ICE1653 Train) -- $50
Walk south from central station, til you hit a building, go to the street heading south on the right side, start veering left once you hit, Fried something Strauss, then head south again and start asking people for Burgplatz, make sure not to say Burgerplatz!!!  See you there for what should be an interesting evening.


e. Saturday – 08.02.03

For the opening of "Get Rid of Yourself" 16Beaver participants organized a space for an evening discussion at Halle 14. The topics ranged from some trajectories of 16Beaver projects to political situations in the US, Europe, Occupied Palestine, Iraq and elsewhere. One particualr point of contention and discussion was related to rising anti-american attitudes in Europe and in even the US.


    <<<return to index