Critical Reading of Alberto Toscano’s “Destructive Creation”

In “Destructive Creation”, Toscano unravels the ideology behind Marxism as expressed through politically informed art, and uses three principles of Dziga Vertov (or Denis Kaufman, 1896-1954) as examples of artistic practice to rationalize the basic principles of the political movement. There are two intermittent themes: ‘truth’ with regards to perception of the individual (sensed); and scientifically proven ‘truth’ in terms of a doctrine, developed from philosophy. This yearning of science from ideology, also accounts for the communist admiration for ‘the machine’, expressed in “Vertov’s tragically enthusiastic machinic communism”[1] .

The Heglian concept of an ideal society involves the liberation of ‘alienated’ lives. Marx took Hegel’s basic principles, and applied them to an industrial society, which had caused the fall of feudal society, and the widening gap between the bourgeois and proletariat.
Toscano directs us to four doctrinal definitions of communism, yet seems to gravitate to the “emancipation of human [and inhuman] sensation”[2] for the majority of the reading.
Since Russia’s religious alienation from Europe in both 1054 (Christian Church split) and 1453 (fall of Byzantium to Turkish Empire, and renamed Constantinople), it has been a country that has known the sensation of isolation with no outside authority. With the basic definition of a state that is in control of its own production, sensing how much was needed by the country is essential for a successful communist state, and accordingly much of Marx’s writing is based on man’s ability to sense and produce as a collective.

Malevich was head of the Institute of Artistic Culture investigating art as a psychological phenomenon, and concluded that “the new world of the masses needs constructivism because it needs fundamentals that are without deceit”[3]. Toscano notes that the constructivists used “the economy as in a sense the subject and object of art”[4] for their inspiration, but I find it more important to observe the similarities of the Constructivists concern for truth that is found in the writings of Marx, in Vertov’s films and the principles of structuralism that Marcuse devised. Though Vertov and Malevich both began used proletarian culture as a means to define their art, their later explorations / experiments are informed by an extension of those principles that detach themselves from the economy. Their autonomous art-forms were both superseded with the new regime of Trotsky, who enforced ‘Soviet-realism’ stating that “the revolution cannot live together with mysticism.”[5]

However, Toscano takes these axioms to relate them to both the economy and collective sensation through the concept of property. Comparing capitalism (that utilizes man as a productive commodity), communism regards man as the ‘social individual’ instead. An object (such as sensuous, tactile property or one made by labour) is the key to understanding Toscano’s view of Marxism, because it is portrayed as an ‘interface’ in that man can both sense it, (socially / collectively), and create it.
Capitalism actually uses alienation as an “anesthesia of man’s most intimate creative [objectifying] capacities”[6] , so that the product of labour is an object of estrangement itself. Here we see the basis for the concept of communal property and collective organs of sensation. This relates to the author’s ‘emancipation of human (and inhuman) sensation’ as we find the objectifying abilities of mankind numbed by the economy through alienation in a non-communist society. This is principally because capitalism is founded on private property, and Marxism perceives it as the way that “man can treat himself...as an object”[7].
Thus, without property, (or at least with communal land collectively sensed), man is “no longer stifled by the sovereignty of the “sense of having’”[8] . Toscano then mentions that pain and suffering are necessary to be sensed, in order to attain ‘passion’, which is “man’s essential power vigorously striving to attain it’s object”[9] . This seemingly unending quest appears similar to Vertov’s “march toward October”[10] ; an endless asymptotic direction hinting at constant revolution.

The communist concern for industry and respect for the machine is well documented and expressed by both critics, followers and artists of communism. Bertrand Russell, though a critic, agreed with Marx, that humanity could advance from mere ideology to pure science once the ideological character of the history of philosophy was exposed. He also expressed his belief that the political movement was a reaction to it’s context:
“Philosophy since Descartes...tends to embody the prejudices of the commercial middle class...[just] as Marxism and fascism are philosophies appropriate to the modern industrial state.”[11]
Vertov attempted to demonstrate through his films, eschewing beauty and acting, that they were revolutionary because they were based on attacking the “art’s tower of Babel”[12] (also known as the ‘Institutional Mode of Representation”). Despite Toscano’s attempt to exhibit a “glimpse [of] how communism could be...counter-effectuated”[13] I remain unconvinced that it could be. This is because the world is no longer industrially celebrating and expanding in the same pattern, and members of the regime would be aware of the illusion of constant revolution from outside sources via the internet; particularly so if a reactivated communist society attempted to evolve their ideology to science utilizing art-forms such as film media.

[1] Watson, Grant; van Noord, Gerrie; Everall, Gavin; “Make everything new : a project on communism”, London: Book Works, 2006: Toscano, Alberto “Destructive Creation”, p 127
[2] Ibid, 119
[3] Molholy-Nagy, Lazlo: “Construction of the Proletariat” MA: May 1922
[4] Watson, Grant; van Noord, Gerrie; Everall, Gavin; “Make everything new : a project on communism”, London: Book Works, 2006: Toscano, Alberto: “Destructive Creation”, p 126
[5] Trotsky, Leon: “Literature and Revolution”, New York: Russell and Russell, 1957, p 220
[6] Watson, Grant; van Noord, Gerrie; Everall, Gavin; “Make everything new : a project on communism”, London: Book Works, 2006: Toscano, Alberto “Destructive Creation”, p 127
[7] Ibid, p 121
[8] Marx, Karl: “Early writings” (trans. R. Livingstone and G. Benton), London: Penguin, 1975, p 352
[9] Ibid, p 390
[10] Zorkaya, Neya “Illustrated History of Soviet Cinema”, Sankt-Peterburg: Aleteĭi︠a︡, 2005, p 138
[11] Monk, Ray; Palmer, Anthony, “Bertrand Russell and the Origins of Analytical Philosophy”, Bristol : Thoemmes Press, 1996, p 751
[12] Interview with Dziga Vertov, “On ‘Kino-Pravda’”. 1924
[13] Watson, Grant; van Noord, Gerrie; Everall, Gavin; “Make everything new : a project on communism”, London: Book Works, 2006: Toscano, Alberto “Destructive Creation”, p 127

Critical Response to Geoff Park's "Theatre Country"

Geoff Park is primarily an ecological historian.  His interests lie in conserving areas of indigenous ecosystems, especially lowland forest, and striving to understand the colonial attitudes of our country that led to the plights he describes. He was a member of the DOC and DSIR until 1996 when he established the Geoff Park Landscape History and Ecology consultancy.

Under the Seddon government of the 1890’s, the role of the natural landscape of Aotearoa filled a purpose related to visual beauty. Isolated areas of this country were kept unaltered in order to “make the countryside more beautiful to travel through and be a source of pleasure.”[1] and was presented as both policy and reason. This, ‘pillar of British Imperialism’ allowed these legislations under his administration to embellish his ‘Britain of the South Pacific’, as an act that would have brought more revenue for the country, not through tourism, but through immigration and the British travelling class. However the effect is the same as a tourist operator from the United States selling New Zealand as a country with an integrated culture and natural environment. It portrays the country in an idealized manner, to suit and appeal to tourists who wish to experience this supposed integration, but in doing so, weaken it. Park assumes the position that it is not a country that is integrated; rather, a country with a heightened lack of ability to integrate and “no framework for living with the indigenous”. [2] due to these protected areas that have merely been left from extreme urban planning and advanced human activity.

I particularly find it interesting the gradual shift of importance from visually impressive land to endemic fauna, as the main reasons for protection, especially in regard to the dual translation of whenua.
The impetus for the legislation of landscape laws was informed by perception, yet those laws set in motion the ability for us to continue a different concern of today. In the 1890’s, the landscape was to be merely enjoyed, but “only when the needs of the settlement..have been amply met and provided for.” [3] Their approach is telling of the needs and concerns of their generation, where the default land type of New Zealand was wild, un-farmable and (therefore) dangerous. Deciding which areas were protected under the Seddon government was as simple as choosing the most beautiful views. These areas seem isolated only now, as civilization has engulfed these pocketed areas, surrounding them with a sea of humanity. Less beautiful areas, like swamps and wetlands, were easily transformed into farm land, and their significant part of the ecosystem, unrespected.

Another example of total shift in impetus for conservation are the principles of Gifford Pinchot. His three principles of conservation, within the context of a wild, immense country, (U.S.A., 1700’s) would have seemed sensible and necessary. However, like Seddon’s concepts, they conflict with the current concepts of conservation.
Of his three principles, one is that “the fullest use of [our natural resources] for the present generation is the first duty of this generation”[4] , which seems to contradict the contemporary concern for future generations. The last principle, “The natural resources must be developed and preserved for the benefit of the many, and not merely for the profit of a few”, brings up the theme of the Tragedy of the Commons, by Hardin, in that “...ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in the commons brings ruin to all.”[5] These two concepts from two very different generations, shows both a change in the idea of conservation, but more importantly, the importance of human life. While Pinochot aims to assist ‘the many’, Hardin warns us of the impact of the resources being used by many. Hardin continues his warnings in not only taking resources, but a huge population creating waste: “ ‘Flowing water purifies itself every ten miles’ my grandfather used to say, and the myth was near enough to the truth when he was a boy, for there were not too many people. But as population becomes denser, the natural chemical and biological recycling processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition of property rights.”[6]
Throughout his writings, Hardin makes strong cases for the interrelation between property rights and human rights, that Pinchot’s generation would have no-doubt found controversial. It is a redefinition that I believe is required of various land protection laws in New Zealand, to include more requirements for the fauna to survive, such as taking pollination (of distant flora) and insect populations (from nearby yet different ecosystems) into consideration.

I find that visually unimpressive art, such as contemporary conceptual, CAN be arguably admired as beautiful if we are to appreciate the inner-workings; to fathom it’s existence.
So too, I believe, that less “beautiful” areas (instructed by the Western European sensibilities of Wordsworth and Claude) can likewise to found to be beautiful if we are to appreciate their equation with the other parts of the natural landscape. One major concern in Finland at present is the lack of decaying woods within their highly managed and manicured forests, (furniture industry). Though traditionally ‘un-beautiful’ they contain most of the diverse areas and animals.

The major shift is that from beauty to saving fauna from extinction.
Less traditional beautiful areas of Aotearoa must be reassesed for their own protection, as the impetus for these laws have also evolved, so too have we evolved from an agricultural colony bent on export.

Our landscape should strive to become the “shockingly...wild”[7] land that McCahon suggests tourists to steer away from: a land with heart and other organ ties, such as the placenta.
When considered in terms of whenua, the land adopts not an objectifying position, but one that cradles the current crisis: the fauna within it. Our generation has centered our mission of conservation squarely at the ‘child’ that the placenta feeds: the native animals. In this refreshing metaphor, the land is reassesed not as the object to be saved, but instead as an integral organ of life-nourishment for those that rely upon it. It becomes beautiful, both the swamp and the forest; newly reassessed as part of the equation for native life.

[1] Park, Geoff “Theatre Country: Essays on Landscape and Whenua”, Wellington: 2006 (pg 197)
[2] ibid, (pg 202)
[3] ibid, (pg 197)
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/giffordpinchot
[5] Hardin, Garrett, “The Tragedy of the Commons”, New York: Science, 1968 (pg1245)
[6] ibid, (pg 1247)
[7] Park, Geoff “Theatre Country: Essays on Landscape and Whenua”, Wellington: 2006 (pg 203)