Some Problems of Creating

Montagu, Elizabeth . The Letters of Mrs' El¡zabetlt

Göller, Adolf. D¡e Entstehung der architekton¡s' chen St¡lformen. Eîne Geschîchte der Baukunst nach dem Werden und Wandern der

Montagu, w¡th some of the Letters of her Correspondenß. Publ¡shed by Matthew Montagu'

Formgedanken. Stuttgart: Verlag von Konrad

ESQ. M. P Her Nephew and Executor. Vol.2' Bostolt

Wittwer, 1888. [RUksmuseum Library,

lVlA:

Wells and Lilly, 1825. Web.22 June 2013'

Amsterdaml Neumann, Carl. "Rembrandt und der Ohrmuschelstì1." Rembrandt' 1902' Berlin and

Graevenitz, Antje von. Das N¡ederländîsche Ohrmuschel-Ornament: Phänomen und

Stuttgart: W. Spemann, 1905. 673-83.

0rga n izing Cultuur?Barbaar!:

Some Problems of Creating Concepts Through Art

Entwicklung dargeste/lt an den Werken und Entwürfen der Goldschmiedefam¡líen van Vianen und Lutma. Diss. Bamberg: Rodenbusch, 1973.

Olmsted, Wendy. Rhetoric; An H¡storîcal lntroduction. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publish¡ng, 2006.

Groot, Maûan. "Amsterdam School and express¡on ism 1910-1930 ;' Ava nt-G a rd e Desî gn : D utch Decorat¡ve Arts 7880-7940. Bussum: v+K Publ¡shing/London: Philip Wilson, 1997.

Gerlov van Engelenhoven Preziosi, Donald, ed. The Art of Art Hîstory: A Critical Antholo'y. New Edition. Oxford: oxford

2009.

7A-732.

Ranc¡ère, Jacques. Ihe Politícs ofAesthet¡csi lhe

Haraway, Donna J. "The virtual speculum ¡n the

D¡str¡but¡on of the Sensib/e. Tmns. Gabriel

new world order." Ihe Gendered Cyborg; A

London and New York, NY: Continuum,2004.

Reader. Ed. G¡ll Kirkup, L¡nda Janes, Kath Woodward, and Fiona Hovenden. London and New York, NY: Routledge, 2OOO.22t45.

Richards, Jennifer. Rhetor¡c. Ab¡ngdon:

Hicks, Carola. The BayeauxTapestry: The L¡fe Story of a Masterp¡ece. London: Vintage Books, 2007.

Routledge,2008. Syufy, Franny. "The Rise and Fall of Cat

The History of Commercial Cat Cloning, Gene Banking, Genetically Designed Cals;' FrannY3

Hotto¡s, Gilbert. Le s¡gne et la technique. La philosophie à l'épreuve de la technique. Pa(is:

Cats Blog. N.d. Web. 2 February 2Ot4-

Aubìer Montaigne, 1984.

Thornton, Peler- Form and Decorat¡on:

Jacobson, Dawn. Chino,ser¡e. London: Phaidon Press, 1993.

in the Decoratíve Arts 7470-7870. Londonl Weidenfeld & N¡colson, 1998. Vischer, Robert, Harry Francis Mallgrave, arú

Janaway, Christopher. "Arts and Crafts in Plato

Eleftherios lkonomou, eds. Empathy, Form'

and Collingwood." The Journal ofÁesthetics and Art Crit¡císm 5O.1 (1992): 45-53.

Space: Problems in German Aesthetîcs 7873-7893. Trans. Harry Franc¡s Mallgrave Eleftherios lkonomou. Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for the History of Art and the

Jones, Owen. The Grammar of Ornament. 7856. Ware: Omega Books, 1986.

Humanities, 1994. Voltaire, M. de.TheTempte of laste. London: Printed for -,. Hazard, and W Bickerton, 1

Kennedy, George. Ihe Art of Persuas¡on ¡n

Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UB 1963.

British L¡brary, Eighteenth Century

IO April2072.

Kleinman, Kent, Joanna Merwood-Salisbury, and Lois We¡nthal, eds. After laste: Expanded Pract¡ce

Online. Web.

in Interior Des¡En New York, NY: Princeton Arch¡tectural Press, 2012.

Wolfe, Cary. What ts Posthumanism? MN and London: U of M¡nnesota 82009.

Molen, Johan R. ler. Van v¡anen: een Utrechtse fam¡l¡e van z¡lversmeden met een internatíonale

Zaretslry, Adam. "The Mutagenic Arts.'

faarn. Diss. Rotterdam: GemeentedrukkeriJ,

328

|

and Looi van Kessel

Marjan Groot

!984.

/

électronique du CIAC CIACS Electronic 23 (2005): n.pag. Web. 2February2008'

May 31, 2072, we organ¡zed a whole-day art event cared cuttuur?Barbaar! re?Barbarian!") at scheltema, a venue that hosts musicar and artistic per s in Leiden, the Netherlands. Around fifteen artists and acts from several (visual art, poetry, music, photography, conceptual art) got together to pedorm interpretat¡ons of the theme of barbarism. The event was meant as an artistic to the conference Barbar¡sm Revisitedi New perspectives on an otd concept

7,2ot2), from which the current volume was conceived. ln the confer "Call for Papers" (henceforth: Cfp) it is argued that

3GJune

[i]n the ageotd opposition between civitized and barbarian, the,barbar¡an, supports the superiority of those who assume the status of the 'civit¡zed.' . . . Today, both terms f¡gure prominenily ¡n pot¡t¡cat rhetoric, the med¡a, historiography, and everyday speech, and the¡r use carries an air of self-evidence: there appears stlent consensus

to be a on what barbarism means or who a barbarian is. (Boletsi and

Moser)

conference's goal was to challenge this apparent silent consensus by providing platform for comparative encounters, which

. . . probeld] barbarism and the bar. from diverse angres," thus offering, amongst others, a possibre reinterpretaof the notion of barbarism as a productive force (Boletsi and Moser) A problem we found in the conference's aim was grounded ¡n a seeming discrep between the purpose of this academic event and a main tenet of the definition "barbarian" based on its etymology. The oxford Engltish Dict¡onary defines the

as "[a] foreigner, one whose language and customs differ from

the

" ("barbarian," n. 1). rndeed, as stated in the cfp itserf, "[t]he word 'barbarian'

Organiz¡ng Cuttuur?Barbaar!: Some problems of Creating Concepts Through

Art |

329

is etymologically linked with incomprehensibility, stuttering, and mis- or non{ommÛ nication. ln ancient Greek, the word 'barbaros' imitates the unintelligible mumblings of the language of foreigners, sounding like 'bar bar"'(Bolets¡ and Moser). ThinkirÇ through these definitions of the barbarian, we considered that an academic confer' ence might be a somewhat problematic, perhaps even contradictory way of revisiting barbarism. One could say that a conference's major ingredient is discussion' lts goal ¡s to invite scholars to present and discuss their approaches to a certain concept Barbarism Revrsrted presented no exception to th¡s idea. lndeed, by bringing togethef different approaches to the concept, the conference's goal was to "stimulate inteq disciplinary dialogues on the 'barbarian"' and "discuss new meanings and creat'lvd or dangerous uses of the 'barbarian' today" (Boletsi and Moser). lt would

be a contradictory effort to revisit barbarism through processes discussion and dialogue, when keeping in mind that the barbarian is by unintelligible: the foreigner who falls outside the borders of

arguably

language.

It was from such considerations that our art event originated. We envisioned alternative to the conference, an event that would focus on the theme of the ence (barbarism) without reverting to the same theoretical dialogue that is to a conference. Even ifthe aim ofthe conference was to find a new conceptual guage of barbarism as a means of knowledge production, the format of a

still dictated that this barbarism is an object that is talked about. Conversely, we looking for a format in which the notion of barbarism would not necessarily be object of discussion, but the mode through which new knowledge is produced. of the questions asked in the CfP is: Can barbarism intervene in our discursive frameworks and ¡nsp¡re new modæ knowing and theorizing, as well as alternative (inter)disciplinary practices

methodologies that can help us rethink our roles as scholars? (Boletsi and An equally important question to ask-and this question motivated our art

is: can an answer come from w¡thin the boundaries of an academic Could a conference about this topic function as a space that discusses the

the barbarian without depriving it of its rebellious potential? Perhaps it could. our art event we hoped to offer a way towards accomplishing this objective: one involved contributing as well as responding to the topic from outside the

borders, or at least from a peripheral position. Our art event was conceived as a nificant part of the conference, albeit partly external to it. The idea that this

the conference would take place from an exterior position, approach¡ng the of barbarism in ways other than the methodolog¡es offered by the conference struck us as a way to introduce a 'barbaric' element in the system of the therefore, in a way, 'barbar¡zing' it.

330 |

Gerlov van Engelenhoven and Looi van Kessel

leave unnot¡ced . . . . The second perspective

is ittustrated by Lyotard's maxim that

the artist must pose the quest¡on of what art rs. Such viewpo¡nt identif¡es art¡st¡c research w¡th our need to pursue a specutative mode of quest¡on¡ng for its own sake connected w¡th the act¡vation of imagination. Topical research takes place with¡n the domain of these two axes ¡n an operat¡onal, process-based, and experi mental way. (14) The idea of the artist or the art event as a means of producing knowledge other than the knowledge obtained through academic discourse appealed to our own vision. lt allowed us to use a different language and methodology in our Search for uses of barbarism outside the realm of academia, focusing more on the experimental and tenta

tive nature of mak¡ng artistic statements. ln using a language other than that of the academic debate, the event would function as a conceptual addition to the conference. At the same time, the emphasis that Balkema and Slager put on the aspect of process and operation overlaps with one of the aims of the conference organizers: to probe barbarism as a productive mode or process. This notion of a productive form of barbarism ties in w¡th the use of barbarism in avant-garde and experimental art movements. lndeed, the ideal of a productive barbarism has a strong presence in art history. Several avant-garde art movements and artists such as the Dadaists, tho

surrealists and Antonin Artaud made explicit use of the notion of barbarism as

simUþ

taneously a destructive and a creative or productive force, which could lead to some

thing radically new through destruction. By means of radical and often 'barbarici (which in these cases often means 'shocking') strategies these art movementi¡ sought to destroy the established and bourgeois art institut¡ons that reigned over meaning and function of art in society (Bürger 89). ln this context, one could recall Walter Benjamin's use of the barbarian as a positive figure (Benjamin Following these notions, we gathered that the best response to the conference its wish to view barbarism as a productive force should take form in an artistic that iS grounded in experimentation. The event would then not only become merely response to the conference, but also an exemplification of one of the possible on barbarism that the conference proposes. lt would, however, perform this notion a different language, thus creating the possibility of adding meaning to the ence's approaches to the concept.

Creat¡ng Concepts thtough Art Looking for previous artistic research and its uses of concepts in works of artistic events, we came upon the theories of art-philosopher Hubert Damisch

commission for the Boúmans van Beuningen Museum in the Netherlands' tried to transform "the museum into a laboratory" (76). Similar to our intention to form the concept of barbarism through art, Damisch wanted to explore the conceS

332 |

Gerlov van Engelenhoven and Looi van Kessel

Thamyr¡s/¡ntersect¡ng No. 29 (201,5) 329-342

It ¡s important to reflect on these obstructions when exploring the possibility of creating concepts in art installations, as these difficulties are usually not made explicit in the final resuft. ln most cases, the audience remains unaware of any difft' culties in the process of creating the work of art. Nevertheless, in the case of our own event, the problems encountered did prove to be of the utmost importance for both the final result of the installation and the theoretical framework of the project' The first and foremost obstacle encountered in this process was the discrepancl between our own expectations from the project and those of other parties that were in some way involved. Before we could start with the project we needed funding and'

to be well accounted for. Thus we entered the bureaucratic process of fundraising, filling in forms, explaining our project in many different ways' each time alteringthe content and expected results to match the visions of the insti'

obviously, funding needs

tut¡on that would possibly provide us with funding. We planned out time schedules for those who wanted to know what would happen in detail; we made a promotion plan to show exactly how we planned to generate an audience for the projecu balanceg

with income and expenditures were created to show what our expected revenue would be and to account for the funds we were applying for, and so on and so forth' We were confronted with the problematic Situation in which we wanted to explol6 the possibilities of artistically performing the concept of barbarism, while in ordertl do so we had to propose our project as an organised and well-thought-out plan' own vision of barbarism as a destructive, yet pos¡tive and creative force would

Or

with the seeming immersion of our project in a neat structure or dominant thereby making it in a certain sense too "civilized." This confronted us with a retical problem that we would encounter time and again in our project: how can create something that poses as barbaric when it is already completely rooted bureaucratic structures from the outset? lt altered our approach to the project' as

now had

to start reflecting on the processes that lay underneath the

surface

adapt¡ng concepts to actual art installations. As we understood that no (funded) art event can be wholly without structure' or (institutional) control, we reached the conclusion that the concept of should be explored less through the experimental structure and setting ofthe and more through the visions and performances of the participat¡ng artists selves. Therefore, we asked the artists involved to create or perform a work on their vision of barbarism. The proposals we received after send¡ng out our

art covered a large number of different media, including slam poetry, dance ances, and music, all of which gave wholly different visions of barbarism. The would be taking place in an enclosed space, and therefore we anticipated on the artists' part towards performing simultaneously. Evidently, to make

participants of our project would cooperate, we had to provide them with timetable that would ensure everyone had a slot in which the audiences'

334 |

Gerlov van Engelenhoven and Looi van Kessel

a

could be fully theirs. ln this way, not onry institutional, but arso practical considera_ tions kept forcing structure on our endeavour. The Event as Laboratory Following Da misch

we envisioned the event-space

with barba rism through the mode between two d iffe rent

n which the artists cou td engage of play. This would be an idea platform for debate

methodological languages

acade mic one that creates conartistic one that is rns pired by concepts. th IS fo lows h ¡S own equation of the museum with a laboratory: a n equation that presents th a rt¡st as experimenting with concepts th rough his works of art in a controlled sett¡ng, just cepts an d a tentative

researcher expe riments with different substances within the the laboratory. The artist can experi ment

AS

h igh ly

control ed space of through his or her works of arl, while at the same t¡ me reta n¡ng a certain sen se of control over the exÞer¡ ments in question for even the a bsol ute loss of control d unng a performance or tn the execution of work of art would be condition of the work that the rtist has decided upon beforehand Wh e refl ecti ng on our event, we felt SS comfo rtable with ma king such statement- We we re not quite su re whether the artists a s experimenta research rs wou d be able to retain bsolute contro over the mea n ng of the work of art. lnstea u WC l,Vanted to assess the concept 's infl uence on the works of d rt th ro ugh the interaction 0f artworks and their possible ¡nterpretations ln this sen se, WE were inclined to agree with Balkema and SI ager's not¡on that "diffe rent from one-dimens ional academ tc research, the pe rspective of the artist cannot lbel determined beforehand,, We, AS researchers wou ld provide the arti sts with a sett¡ng tn wh ich they cou d and ente into a discussion concerning their different vis ions of bar only to ASSESS the res u Its afterwards The works themse lves proved to be of an nteresting variety, span nrng different 5 uch performance, m usic action painti ng, mask ma king poetry a nd even art of drinking abs nthe The poets of Feest der Poëz¡e provided our event with bar: offeri ng visitors a glass of abs inthe, a ong with the elaborate ritua of ¡ts Beca use this ritual so it tu rns out, ta kes exactly AS long AS the recit¡ ng a sonnet, the visitors received sonnet along with each glas of absinthe they By nviting conflict¡ng interpretations of the preparation of abs nthe-as barbaric aspect of modern society o( a forgotten highcuttu ral aspect of now Society-Feest der Poèzie explored the th n dividing ne between cu Itura customs ba rbaric rituals As the moderator of the fou ndat¡on, S tm on Mulder, puts it: IFeest der poëzie wants to eticitl

a confrontat¡on w,h those formsof art,and thoseere nenß of soc¡ety, which have been branded other through recent curturar h¡story. How does one take these curturar objects that have been ,"àr""a þ cr.hés .. . and transform them ¡nto curturar subrêcts? (curtuu r? BarbaarlFestivar, the authors, transration)

0rganizing Cultuur?Barbaar!: Some problems of Creating Concepts Ihrough

Art I

33S

The opposition between acceptance and rejection within societal structures was also an important element in the contribution of mask maker Nienke Esther Grooten'

ln her abstract, she writes that the dead insects she processes in her masks syrn bolize the fear of death: "death is something scary, which we prefer to shrug off as unimportant. We are aware that it is life's only certainty, yet wish to deal with it as little as possible." Her masks mostly covered only part of the face: either only the mouth or only one eye, and so on. The discrepancy between human flesh and the life less material covering the rest of the face caused a cage-like sensation: the sense that a part of a personality had to be covered, restricted or disf¡gured. ln this way, the masks emphasized the elements that society tries to ban from representation and which here resudaced as the return ofthe repressed. ln a similar vein, visual artist Miriam Bruijning explored the opposition between acceptance and rejection more explicitly. ln her abstract, she interprets barbarism as

"that which lies outside the imposed limits of civilization." Bruijning had enormous pieces of vinyl which she painted during the event. She invited visitors to pa¡nt along, with her and, subsequently, to cut out parts of the vinyl and take these home with them: White the parts that are cut out of the vinyt can be understood as 'wanted'ol 'accepted' art, the remaininÉ! pieces of vinyl can be understood as'reiected'atL That which remains fatts outside the boundaries of the accepted.,n this sense, á barbar¡c artwork is created. (Bruijning)

While assessing the works of art, we noticed that almost all participating artistq approached barbarism as an unambiguously positive notion. Whether barbarism wa8 interpreted as a form of rejection, fearfulness or lim¡tlessness, all artists seemed agree that this was a good thing, even something

to aspire to. ln the

o

between culture and barbarism, culture was unanimously approached as a grid that

imposed on (creative) individuals, while being a barbarian was seen as the process struggling towards freedom from this grid. Dancer Viviane Rose, for example, had herself the task of trying to interact with visitors and get them to participate in the formances that were taking place. She aimed to confront visitors with their own I fears and restraints and tried to assist them in overcoming them. This was also the of the project of visual artist Karlijn Streefkerk, who, by means of a mood board ing an entire wall), invited the visitors to express their own feelings, opinions and

tions concerning barbarism. She thereby made the audience an explicit contributor her work of art, and laid bare the¡r secrets and emotions. This latter effect enhanced by the mirrors that adorned her mood board, which ensured that the pants were constantly confronted with their own mirror image while either others' thoughts and feelings on the theme, or expressing their own. What becomes apparent through these contributions is that the artistic

tations of barbarism tended to focus on oppositions. Moreover, these

336 |

Gerlov van Engelenhoven and Loo¡ van Kessel

remain intact. lnstead of being a space in which different experiments intermingled with each other, hence yielding different conceptions of barbarism, the event felt more like a laboratory in which several researchers performed their own experimentsr separate from each other and each with their own preconceived outcome. These latter observations mark our departure from the method that Damisch uses when representing concepts in art. ln his exposition forthe Boijmans van Beuningen' Damisch reflected on the obstacles he met duringthe preparat¡on. However, instead

of reflecting on what these impediments would signify for his use of theory and corÌ cepts, he tried to solve these problems by finding other artworks that would match the concepts that he was working with w¡thout considering the consequences they had on the overall ¡nstallation. Our approach differed significantly from this' as we were well aware that the obstacles we encountered also severely altered the way in which our concepts were represented. For our event we counted on the artists' visions of barbarism to provide us with interesting approaches to the concept, rather than enforcing our vision of the concept on the execution of their works. We had to conclude that our initial idea of barbarism as a productive and creative force in art could not work out the way we had expected it to. Of course, creativity and knowledge were produced through the implementation of the concept of barbarism into our project, but we found out that this was knowledge that existed on a different level than knowledge produced in an academic setting. These two forms of knowl' edge did not share much common ground: although the event definitely resulted in A specific interpretation of barbarism, th¡s interpretat¡on was not particularly useful fol

the conference, while any theoretical conclusions reached through the conferenco were not very useful for the art event either. Of course, the fact that the eveñt approached barbarism from a different perspective than the conference was exactil what we had hoped for when we conceived the event. However what we had forgotten to consider was the possibility that the theoretical, philosophical language of the c0ÍÞ ference and the artistic language of the art event would not be compatible, and that we would end up with two unrelated events, a conference and an art event, only cott nected in the Intention of probing a productive interpretation of barbarism. A Composed Barbarism ln their book What Is Phitosophy?, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari argue that

has three daughters, depending on the plane that cuts through it: these are Chaoids-art, science, and philosophy-as forms of thought or creation" These three ',chaoids" confront chaos and its infinity in three distinct ways. science out of the equation for now, it is significant to note that, according to and Guattari, "philosophy wants to save the infinite by giving it consistency: it lays a plane of immanence that through the action of conceptual personae, takes or consistent concepts to infinity," while art "wants to create the finite that

338 |

Gerlov van Engelenhoven and Looi van Kessel

329-342

so that new concepts or renewed concepts may be created. An art event aiming t0 create successful works of art, could instead be seen as aiming Io reduce deviating readings or at least as trying to prevent conflict, in order to achieve a being or bloc of sensations that, as Deleuze and Guattari would have it, can "stand up on its own.

to make it stand up on ¡ts own" (764). ln this way, one could conclude that the discussions of barbarism during a conference could be seen as more productive than the performance of a specific interThe art¡st's greatest difficulty is

pretation of barbarism dur¡ng an art event, ratherthan the other way around, which is what we argued in¡t¡ally. A conference is usually successful when the call for papers results in widely differing papers: because in such a way new perspectives can be

formed. ln a way, a conference is supposed to invite different readings of the concept: participants will work together (and against each other) to formulate new relations between different positions, so that the concept may be revised, recreated. When an

A conference, howeveç with its reriance upon scrutiny and revision, re-invites the unintelligible constanfly into its own territory: sometimes perhaps turning

it into something inteiligibre, but often arso giving itserf up to uninteiligibirity. contrary to what we argued at the beginning of our project, (academic) discussion does not necessarily de-barbarize or 'civilize' barbarism. A conference may give structure to con_ cepts' but concepts may arso disrupt the discussions that a conference cons¡sts

These two situations take turns in a comprex process accepting as werr as trying to domesticate

of.

of both inviting and fearing,

the uninteiligibre. A conference might (the_

oretically speaking at least) not only establish new ways to conceptualize barbarism, but courd even reach this objective through process a

of constant barbarization.

art event houses too many different interpretations of barbarism, however, the orgar¡ izers run the risk of fail¡ng to provide a coherent (i.e., successful, because 'able to stand up on its own') performance. Seeing that coherence is of great importance for an art event (even if it is a coherence that wants to perform incoherence), commun¡' cation ¡s important as well: organizers, artists and audience must stand in an intelli-

gible relation to each other-even when unintelligibility is the topic of the event Contrary to what we initially predicted, through Deleuze and Guattari one could argue

that an art event is much further away from a Situation of barbarism-in its connota tion of incomprehensibility or lack of communication-than a conference. An art event, approached as trying to create blocs of sensation that can stand up on their own, does not allow for barbarization. Deleuze and Guattari form a perspective that is opposite to that of Damisch. What they argue, as we read it, is in fact: cre ating concepts through art is impossible. ln Deleuzian thought, the concept is not an

object but a terr¡tory (the terrain of dispute, of struggle and disagreement, always open to restructuring), while the work of art is a composition. lt is perhaps the result of dispute and struggle, but it is not dispute and struggle itself. Following Deleuze and Guattari one would have to say that concepts may result in art, or that art mAy incite new conceptualizations, but that art itself cannot create concepts. We realize the radical nature of this position. We ourselves do not want to deny the possibili{ of conceptual art or art as a form of expression that could challenge academie thought. But the difficulties that we encountered during both the preparations atd the realization of Cultuuf?Barbaar! made us wonder whether art that is meant as A form of debate is not in fact more often a performance that is acting out a situation of debate. Or, more specifically for our project: while our event could be said to performed a certain form of barbarism, this is not the same as arguing that the itself was barbaric.

340 |

Gerlov van Engelenhoven and Loo¡ van Kessel

Organ¡zing Cultuur?Barbaar!: Some problems of Creat¡ng Concepts lhrough

Art I

341

Vll. The Politics of Barbar¡sm

Works Cited Alphen, Ernst van. "Moves of Hubert Damisch:

Bürger, Peter. Theory of the Avant Garde. Trans.

Thinking about Art ¡n History." Moves. Ed. Jelle Bouwhuis. Rotterdam: lvluseum BoÜmans van

Michael Shaw. Minneapolis, lvlN: U of Minnesota

P,2009.

Beun¡ngen, f997 . 97 -!23. Colebrook, Cla¡re. Gil/es Deleuze. London: Balkema, Annette W., and Henk Slager, eds. Art¡st¡c Research. Lier en Boog: Series of Philosophy of Art and Art Theory. Vol. 18. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 20O4.

Routledge. 2002. u r?Ba rbaa r! Fest¡val. Cultuur?Barbaar! Festival and Wordpress. 7 lúarch 2012. Web.

Cultu

June

2O!2.

Benjamin, Walter. "Experience and Poverty." selectedwrît¡ngs. vol. 2, pt. 2: 7937-7934. Ed Michael W. Jennings, Howard Eiland, and Gary Smith. Trans. Rodney Livingstone et al. Cambridge: Harvard UB 2005 .

737-6.

Boletsi, Maria, and Christian Moser. "Call for Papers: lnternational Conference Ba rÞarism Revisited: New Perspectives on an Old Concept." Message to the authors. 8 March 2011. E-mail.

342 |

Gerlov van Engelenhoven and Looi van Kessel

Damisch, Hubert. "lvloves: Playing Chess and Cards w¡th the Museum." Moves. Ed. Jelle Bouwhuis. Rotterdam: Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, 7997.

73-95.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. What /s

Phîlosophy?ftans. Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell. London: Verso, 1994.