[Credits] Welcome everyone, today I have the very particular
pleasure of welcoming Annie Le Brun
at Le Média, writer and singular thinker
among all, greatest specialist of
the Marquis de Sade and of surrealism in France
today, writer of essays and pamphlets
which have become true classics, "Les châteaux de la subversion" (castles of
subversion) or "Lâchez tout"(let everything go) Today she is publishing
a new important book "Ce qui n'a pas de prix" (What has no price)
published by Stock, a powerful reflection about the capture
of human sensitivity by global capitalism. She does so with her own words, which are not
those of social sciences, which are the words of a writer,
intense, words of awakening. Annie Le Brun is almost never
to be seen on our screens, where should be her place
nowadays ? Today, she is joining us,
in Montreuil, for which i really thank her. Hello,
– Hello, – I would like to start
this discussion by reading the first paragraphs
of your first chapter so as to raise the problem
with your own words. "In fact, it is war,
a war lasting for a very long time, a war which is taking place
in all respects, a war which knows no border,
and which is getting worse as the anonymity of power
is getting greater, at the same rate as the weakness
of those who want to oppose it. Many would have been fooled. Most even ignore
who the actors are of this strange battle
being fought between what is shown,
what is not shown and what should not be shown. This is why contemporary art
plays an important part a considerable one,
even a central one, armed with all symbolic means
to lead to both what relates to the object,
the body or space. It would however be too easy to conclude
to a war of representation, while it is only one aspect
of this battle the scale and complexity of which
paradoxically result in hiding its existence. Since I could just as well talk
about a war against silence, a war against attentiveness,
a war against slumber or else a war against boredom,
a war against daydreaming, but also and mostly a war
against passion. In other words, a war being conducted against everything from which
no value may be extracted". Who is waging this war on us,
Annie Le Brun, and how does it work ? – Well, i do not believe
in the existence of a conspiracy, but still there is
a movement which results in our being embarked
in a very very weird story and hence, if I specifically talked
about a war, it is because it seems to me
that this war which, in the end, time and again,
is the war for profit and which, as of the 19th century, from the
middle of the 19th century, William Morris had detected as such,
well, it has become worse, and today, although
for a very long time, there were domains which were
preserved from it, and in particular everything
which lied in the realm of sensitivity it has made it possible
for everyone to find the weapons to oppose the flow of things, here, it seemed to me that we were
now in a new phase, which was intensive war
against precisely what has no price, and which relied on
the commodification of everything. – And so, it is one of the stakes
of this book, to show that beauty, aesthetics,
are also a matter of politics. And so, it is something
which you must today attempt to make those who are listening
to us understand because it is not the usual way
to raise this issue. – No, precisely, we can always lament
that in general social critic has somewhat avoided sensitive questions. Obviously, there always were
urgent problems which arose and which needed
to be addressed, but in doing so,
we have not paid attention to what was happening
in this particular area and, all the more so, to what is happening
for a few years in this area. – So, how are those in power
precisely trying to grab our sensitivity
and to modify it at its root ? – Well, as it is about, nowadays,
we are in this phase of capitalism, in which it is all about the commodification
of everything, and in particular of that which has been preserved
until today. So, some kind of emphasis
is placed, precisely, on what belongs to the
aesthetic order. Furthermore, in betting on asthetics,
one can win each time, meaning that the asthetisation
of the world which we are witnessing
for quite a number of years, is both a kind of
powerful cosmetics, that is to say that it makes possible
to falsify what is happening, and on the other hand, it's a weapon
to put the masses to sleep. And then, on the other hand,
we must also fight what is considered beautiful because,
at the end of the day, there is an attempt to sell shapes,
some kind of packaging, to us which make things look
beautiful, but it is in fact a profound
indictement of beauty which is always a kind of break-in, which is always something
in opposition to what exists. – So now, of course, you are raising
in this book, the question of design and the question of fashion, of brands,
of the big luxury brands, and so too, of course, the question
of contemporary art, the new official art. – That is it, yes, because,
and it is no coincidence, ever since the 90's,
which are the years when the financialisation of
the economy began, there is an incredible collusion
which took place between, precisely, the world of finance,
and the world of art and what we refer to as the luxury business,
that is to say the world of fashion. And in this, in my view, something
very important is taking place because we are witnessing the attempt
to ensure that all of this becomes equivalent. and so, the commodification of art, the aesthetisation of merchandise, which results in, there is no longer… human beings have fewer and fewer
means to find themselves. – Let's take, perhaps, the question
from this end, your book is a terrible charge
against contemporary art, the new official art,
that of the CAC40 billionaires, that of François Pinault,
that of Bernard Arnaud, so I will specify this, because you specifically
do so in your book, it is not about restarting
the famous quarrel of contemporary art, since you say that this quarrel
was essentially missing the point. So what is it exactly
all about ? – For a long time, I did not understand
what was going on. I mean that I had…
I had done, almost 18 years ago,
I had written a book called "Too much of reality"
which challenged, precisely, the overproduction of images,
of information, of objects, which resulted in our witnessing
the implementation of a new censorship through excess. And at the same time, obviously, it relied on, with this overproduction of things,
of signs and of goods, it relied on the disfigurement
of the world as we know it. But, between then and now, it seemed
to me that it was again… that something has gotten worse. And this is when I started to try
to understand what has happened and
in thinking about it, it appeared to me that we are no longer only
living in a society of overproduction of things, but in a society which
produces rubbish and which is incapable
of getting rid of it, as has been the case until now,
and as I reflected, observing what is happening
in contemporary art and in seeing also this carzy union
between art and finance, it appeared to me that the capital
had every reason, precisely, to bet on contemporary art,
which, if you think about it, seemed to have
a prescriptive value. That is to say that, all of a sudden,
something is being imposed on us through contemporary art. And in analysing what is being imposed on us,
I recognised processes which are processes which can be found in totally
different areas. That is to say, some kind of brutality,
which didn't exist until now in the history, let's say,
of 20th century art which manifests itself in the gigantism
of contemporary art. So, what is that gigantism ? Why ?
Thinking about it, I realized that it plays upon the amazement which prevents
the spectator from reacting. These are things which are so enormous,
that, all of a sudden, the resulting astonishment suspends
all forms of critical judgment. And then, as I saw all that comes along
with the accompanying discourse the writings which come along
with contemporary art, I could clearly see that this is
what it is all about thast it is about suspending
all critical eye. – So, in this regard, you refer
to mind-boggling texts of the most famous contemporary artists,
the most overrated ones, be they Damian Hirst or Jeff Koons, obscenely cynical declarations, which clearly show the intimity
of the junction which takes place through them between art and money,
what you refer to as the violence of money, all of this accompanied with a mediatic discourse
of extreme complacency of which you provide examples,
be it in Le Monde which mentions, with regards to… I think it was about
the famous LVMH dinner at the Louvre, which mentions "a clever mix
of kitsch, glamour and irony, typical of Koons". Or even worse, if I may say so, the Guardian
which writes the following: "it is not just a simple range
of luxury bags, but the meditation of an artist
on the ancient Masters", a meditation in the form of a bag ! – Yes, that's where we're at,
that's it. So, anyone who is going
to question this is, in a way, considered totally stupid of unable
to understand the irony, etc. Because, there again, through this kind
of terrorism abut how such contemporary art
has imposed itself, there is, when I talked of prescription,
there is some sort of education : You, how to put it ? , you are driven to,
you are being asked to accept the cynicism, precisely,
of these very people. And this cynicism, which rests also on some kind
of annihilation of sensitivity; and also, one can clearly see how,
through gigantism, there is a sort of annihilation,
our public space is being annihilated, as it was already by pollution
with brand names, all of a sudden, nowadays, – advertising on public buildings – advertising, that's it,
and on the other hand, there is, through the use, since we are
in the midst of recycling the past, and too through so-called irony
or humour, etc. the entire history of sensitivity
is being held hostage so it is something which operates
both on time and on public spaces and it is against
sensitivity, because in the end,
instead of sensitivity, sensations are being imposed,
powerful sensations, which reduces almost all the realm
of sensitivity to a matter of special effects. – It is well known, it is one
of the main weapons, such art, contemporary art, adorns itself
with a subversive aura. If you are not sensitive to it,
or if you reject it, you belong to these prudish
bourgeois, who rejected Impressionists, here we are, and so how can we
free people from this, from this discourse ? – To begin to convince oneself,
not to be immediately intimidated, isn't it, to distance oneself… because precisely, it also
relies on the fact that you are not given the opportunity
to distance yourself from what is being shown. Suddenly, you have to go above and beyond
amazement to see what is going on. And on the other hand,
not to admit that those who are attempting
to impose that upon you, know more than you do. And I believe it is the least we can do
to convince each one to try and perceive what is happening
within oneself, in general, not much is happening,
so we can try to… to analyse this, this kind of void. – You know very well, this discourse
which is contantly held against the adversaries of contemporary art,
obviously, any new form is a breach, and is therefore imcomprehensible
at first sight you know very well to what extent
they constantly play on this. What is different, precisely, relative to aesthetic revolutions of the start
of the 20th century, for example ? – First of all, there is no breach,
there is amazement and precisely, they play
on what is quantifiable, that is to say they play
on gigantism, and they play on diversion, on taking hostage all that
has existed beforehand, but in the end,
there is nothing new. There are uses, it is the use of technical things,
in the end, And everything is recycled,
the entire adventure of the 20th century, we are witnessing this, if we pay a little bit
of attention, that is what it is about. And then again, that is one of the things
which has been puzzling me, that is that, one just needs to travel a bit,
to start to lament that in each town, for example,
one can find the same brands, the same franchises, the same products,
the same clothes, etc. But if sadly, one happens
to visit museums, one finds the same artists,
the same works, and when one knows that such collusion
between art and money exists as a result, everything becomes
extremely suspect, and it is a school, in my view,
it is a school of cynicism. Because also, the fact, one of the facets
of the intimidation we were talking about, is also that which consists in
convincing each and everyone that one must belong to it. And I think that this is
very important because it is one of the engines
of this society. Of this society which, precisely,
explains that, well which wants to put in people's head
that if they don't belong, then they are necessarily
rubbish. So, one must, at any cost,
accept to belong to it. Without doing so, one no longer exists
and it is the same violence, intellectual, sensitive,
as the one we can see towards populations
which are being, on one hand, exploited and on the other hand reduced
to a state of rubbish, which must be discarded. – Indeed, you referred to belonging,
and you also discuss in this book, in relation to these issues,
the matter of brands which, as their name suggests,
refer to branding, branding the flock,
branding its submission to capital right down to our bodies. And you mention, in this regard,
these are very impressive parts of your book, those shopping malls,
all absolutely identical throughout the world,
those luxury malls, which form what you call
airport beauty. So, what is airport beauty ? – well, it's a kind of, one could say
synthetic beauty, meaning something which is
entirely formatted, for women in general, it's the Barbie model,
it's more or less that. Then, on the other hands,
some kind of list is being compiled of best-selling products,
or kind-of prestigious products and now, this must be
taken advantage of, and as a result, there is
some kind of aesthetic formatting which is a synthetic beauty. And what is very serious,
is that effectively anywhere you may go,
the same things are being sold. And so there, we are seeing
processes which are very close
to what La Boétie had analysed in
"Voluntary servitude". Except for the fact that, it seems to me now,
it is becoming even more serious because there is such voluntary servitude
whcih results in, indeed, one buys things
in order to acquire the brands and to belong but on the other hand, there is
this focus on sensitivity which takes place
underneath consciousness. – So, to continue to focus
on contemporary art and its influence on our sensitivity
through various channels, even though, obviously, it seems
at first sight, reserved to an elite, you show by which means
It actually infuses into everyone's eyes, those of millions and millions of people. So, with regard to numerous festivities, fairs or biennials, through which
such art gets prosperous, you quote an extraordinary statement
of Rhonda Lieberman, in an article entitled "Art hoarders",
which says as follows : "the sect of fortune exults
to see art thus transform the loot of social exploitation
into a ticket to access the upper echelons or even into a noble robe of philantropist. Effectively, in foundations
such as Cartier, LVMH, we see, let's take as an example
the case of Bernard Arnaud, we see someone who is both
in the luxury business, in that of contemporary art,
and who, at the same time has his hands in the Carrefour
stores for example, that is to say in the most brutal
form of exploitation. – And it is that which is also
new because if trickle-down there is,
it is there that trickle-down is. I mean that the poison
is coming from the top and it is about attacking, poisoning
everything, everything that… down to the most disadvantaged
groups. And that is what it is all about
because we can also see that, not only do they manufacture horrors
such as their famous Vuiton-like bags, which are all abominable,
all uglier than one-another, which in addition exist almost only
through their metal fittings, the golden aspect of which
is the flashiest thing, but then we can see
all the imitastions, down to the most remote corners, it all means that something
has been hit, that is to say that beforehand
there was everything there were every worker cultures,
these popular cultures which were, which preserved themselves,
which preserved us from that, but now, no more. And that is very concerning because,
also one thing, maybe I didn't insist enough,
one of the triggers of this book, was the thought that arose
in me, I mean that if one looks at
all the popular objects, the traditional dress,
whatever the country, whatever the region, each time,
these are extraordinary beauties, each time, there is such
an exaltation of colours, such a science also,
the materials, etc, so how is it possible that, suddenly,
whereas this beauty as William Morris so rightly said,
arises from the bottom, all of a sudden now,
this beauty from the bottom is increasingly threatened
if not annihilated by what precisely comes
from the top ? – Your book clearly shows
the standardization of sensitivities and the destruction, actually,
of specific worker cultures, popular cultures, which still existed
perhaps until the middle of the 20th century, I don't know – Yes, and now, we also witness,
since it's also about… since it goes so quickly
and one must constantly precesely, commodify
every aspect of being, suddenly now, we witness
some kind of necessity to change signs, don't we ? That suddenly, signs are… that, from one day to the next,
one can change style, in fact
it is very interesting that an expression such as "life style"
exists nowadays. Everyone, including people who are
completely who claim to be progressists,
everyone talks about "life style". Its a trick to completely
erase the class struggle. What are "life styles" ? So, effectively, one can play the game
of switching from one lifestyle to another, and that is what we are witnessing,
precisely through fashion, in effect, you can change look
overnight and as a result, nothing has any meaning
any longer. It is only a flow
of postures, of signs, and those who are in charge
of those signs and who control them,
well that's it, it is they who have such power
on our sensitivity, – So, with regard such control
of signs, you tell an extraordinary
anecdote through the way you use it,
through the scope you give it, that of the purchase of a particular
shade of deep black, you are going to explain this to us,
which is called "vantablack", by one of the best known
contemporary artists, who is Anish Kapoor,
who has privatised it. A colour, originally developped
by the military and which he has, which he, in the end,
deprives all other artists from using. So, what meaning to you give to… – Yes, at the beginning I had thought
of starting with the disfigurement and suddenly this news
popped up thast a very well-known artist,
one of the most famous in the world who belongs to this art
of the winners if I may say so, using the expression
of a german critic, who, as was announced, had bought
the colour black, the monopoly of black,
of an absolute black, – So, let's remind ourselves, it's an…
extremely deep black – So, it is an absolute black
which has effectively the characteristic that, if you paint,
if you cover something with this black colour, the topography of the painted object
is annihilated. and this is very interesting,
in such a way that, afterwards when one looks or takes a picture
of the object which was painted with this "vantablack",
since that's how it's called, one only sees a black hole. And that appeared to me totally remarkable
because of, first of all, this incredible thing :
someone buys a colour, an artist finds himself in the situation
that he can purchase the monopoly of a colour. And that is something
completely freaky. One the other hands,
the monopoly of black. that is, to me, particularly
meaningful because we all know the importance of black,
of shadows, in the History of Art, and in knowing that always,
in such darkness, from such darkness, well, each and
everyone was able to see, to see extraordinary things,
and give birth to worlds, all of a sudden, it was a kind of black
which made it possible to hide anything, it was just some kind of void,
of black void. And then finally, the very fact that it was
also the result of military research. And suddenly then,
this kind of collusion between the capital, the army,
the total blindness, what was at stake appeared
compltely meaningful to me. – Perhaps, to come to the consequences
of these modifications of sensitivity, and of their seriousness,
in your view, we can perhaps quote one of the thinkers
of the Commune whom you really like,
whom you quote several times, that is Elisée Reclus, who was
a geographer, a traveller, well… and who became an anarchist
during the Paris Commune, and who says the following :
"Wherever the ground has been disfigured, wherever all poetry
has vanished from the language, where imagination fades away,
where spirits become impoverished, routine and servility
take over our souls and prepare them for stupor
and for death." In which way is this happening to us
in your view ? – This is happening to us because
we are… all of this, everything that happens, is there to convince us that
there is no alternative. That it is impossible to get out of this world
and that we must accept it. It is that simple. And it is no coincidence
that it started during the 90s, after Thatcher. we are still stuck in this, and when I began to work
on this book, I experienced some kind
of revelation, when I discovered that
the person who had taken charge
of Thatcher's ascent and who had been the proponent
of her success, was Saatchi,
and this Saatchi had become one of the biggest gallery owner,
collector and proponent of contemporary art. Then, all of a sudden,
some kind of short-circuit, I said to myself,
everything is clear. And that is it, it is about convincing us
that there is no exit, and also because, one must ponder
about today's violence, about police violence,
which is particularly prevalent against young people, because previsely,
young people have another idea, as they just joined in,
if I may say so, they have another idea of beauty. They have this idea of beauty,
which makes them recognise themselves and that which Rimbaud talks about, which is a vivid beauty,
which must always be reinvented. But, precisely, it seems to me
that this very beauty, it is always related to,
it is always a solution to get out of what already is. It is always, in the end,
beauty like some kind of door
leading to utopia, and that is what must be prevented. The world must be convinced
that it is not possible. And as a result, this violence arises,
and at the same time too this screed of what I call
global realism, falls upon precisely today, all forms
of sensitivity, so as to say that there is no other way. – Faced with these phenomena,
you say that sadly, it seems very true to me, that social criticism,
however rigorous it might be, ends up, in our world, as just
some background music which has no real effect, and that it is mostly reduced
to give a good conscience to those who share it,
for example on the social networks. Why is it, according to you,
that it no longer affects us ? That this discourse no longer has
any impact ? – This discourse no longer has impact
because, precisely, it seems to me that there is…
that the forces which manipulate us are not the ones which some
have been identifying. It seems to me that they remain locked
in some kind of anachronism which makes it impossible for them
to see, for example, considering the complexity
of the underlying financial structures aimed at hiding from sight
the violence of money, because one switches from one bank
to another, how could I say this ? from operations as sophisticated
as can be, so that everything is designed in this world to ensure one cannot see the relationship
between cause and effect. And as a result, it is extremely difficult
to undo all of this, and also, what seems
meaningful to me, is that what is being shown
as contemporary art, is also some sort of effects without a cause
which are being shown. Something enormous is suddenly
imposed on us well, it doesn't even matter
if we know what it is, and here you are, that's the way it is,
and one must accept it. And precisely, it seems to me also that there is some kind of blindness
in the critical discourse which perhaps cannot go any further
at the moment because we are also stuck
in an order of double-denial. You are always being made to believe
that what you see is not what you are seeing and that, if you see it,
it is still… it's funny to realize it, but there is always something else,
another way out. And that is why I talk about
the incredible success of this expression, which has become known
thanks to a painting by Magritte, which had no intent to become
some kind of paradigm of capital, but,
it's a painting, depicting a pipe and above it is written
"this is not a pipe". and everything unfolds as if nowadays,
we were being imposed a world, we must be convinced that
that's the way it is. if you are not, that's also
very important because if you disagree with
what is being done, you get told "yes but,
that's not exactly this." It is also the famous "at the same time",
which leads back to the same thing, that's a bit like this, meaning also,
it reflects some kind of flattening, of neutralisation of anything
which is negative. And let's not talk
about dialectics then, which come out of this
totally shrunken, there are no more. Yes, there are people,
opposing views, but that is all fine because,
these opposing views contribute too to the movement since what matters is that something
must always be happening. We have also got to the point
whereby time must be occupied such as on the internet,
something must always be happening. And something must always
be happening, just as the Galeries Lafayette
slogan says : "There is always something happening
at the Galeries Lafayette" and that is it, everything becomes interchangeable,
indifferent, and each and everyone
feel like they are living while we are seeing,
and we are all caught in what I call
"this present without presence", which goes along with what is being done
at the cost of a great desensitization, of an erasure of the body. – So, what is striking too,
is that, in fact, I mentioned earlier the cynicism
of these great contemporary artists, what is very striking, is that they express
things in fact, but these things must not be heard,
apparently. They don't hide. As an example, I'll quote
this incredible statement, of Damian Hirst, which dates
back to 2008, it was at the time when he had himself
organised the sale of 218 works, so the artist was acting himself
as the auctioneer, in a certain way, and he declares the following, at the inauguration :
"I gamble money against art, and as an artist, I obviously wish that it is art
which will win, but it happens to be money,
and art will have to go". – Well, it is he who said that (laughs) he is well placed to say it
since he has done all he could for this, and it's a question that arises. It's a question that arises
and which was raised too in 1912, by a very interesting person
who was apart from everything who was Oscar Wilde's nephew,
whose name was Arthur Cravan, who was some kind of boxer-poet,
who passed away quite early, quite quickly, he went for a swim one day
and was never to be found again, and who said : "one day, in the street,
we will only see artists and we will have all the pain in the world
to find a man". We are in this situation,
it's a bit like that. (laughs) – the war which is being waged on us,
through all these setups, which we have just reviewed,
we were saying so at the start of this programme, it is a ferocious war,
you say the following : "a ferocious war when the slightest
demonstration of what has no price
must be promptly neutralised if no diverted, perverted,
perhaps even annihilated", so obviously, the question that arises
in light of this, is what are, according to you, the means of resistance,
within everyone's reach ? Are there any left actually ? – We're on the wrong track, but on the other hand,
I think there is always there are always possibilities,
in fact, it is this story of individual
recovery which matters so much to anarchists
at the beginning of the 20th century, that is that each one can try
to recover his own time and, I always forget the name of the person
who said that, who was close to Hegel,
if not one of Hegel's student who said "there is another world
but it is within this one". Effectively, it is true,
there is another world, it is within this one. It is about finding ways,
and these ways they are, we still have when everything
has not been completely perverted, if I may say so,
or poisoned, we still have within each on of us,
we have resources to refuse, and we have… we can still
fall in love, we can still love things
we can still feel passion but precisely in trying
from this understanding and this is a set of little individual
solutions, it is this kind of solutions which
I mentioned not to… I do not want to convey a message, but I think that within each one of us,
there is some sort of revolt, and even of… just take a bit of distance
with what is being imposed. Do not partake in this circus
because, at the same time, it is something, there is something
frightening, and there is even something too,
at some point… what is interesting
is to see that there is also a certain number of young people
who have been prepared to enter in this world
and who do not want, and who do not want. And if, within demonstrations,
there are so many young people, it is also that :
They do not want. All of a sudden, they resist and
this is very important indeed. And it is important that,
after all, there is this, and it is always also a bit… we well know that the marvelous
or things like that, so… which make life still worth living
some times, well then, it generally manifests itself
where and when we least expect it. And it is often in the corner of
the darkest part of the landscape that something may emerge,
because well, we must realize too, for example Rimbaud, suddenly,
it comes out in the 19th century at the time when it is the most repugnant, and also at the time when
the failure of the Commune took place all of this, all of a sudden,
it is still this very voice, which will, which today still
echoes within very young people,
and all those who have not accepted to submit. – Your last sentence, in this book,
reads as follows : "For now, it is for each one of us to find
the means to sabotage systematically,
individually or collectively" of course, you are referring to this system
of submission of sensitivities ? – Yes, and the fact for example,
that what happened last year too, all of this,
things like "Up all night", it is interesting because we didn't really know
what it was all about, but the fact that it took place
means that there still was a desire,
and that this utopia is still there and that
this desire for utopia is not… we are not done with it. – Thank you very much, Annie Le Brun
– Thank you – Thank you for paying us a visit, at Le Média, I recall the title
of your new book : "Ce qui n'a pas de prix", (What has no price) ,
published by Stock See you soon
for another Free Interview.
