Motivation
At
The
End
of
Times
Mårten
Spångberg
A
programmer
of
dance
comes
up
to
me
and
says:
“-‐What
do
you
think
of
the
program,
it’s
nice
don’t
you
think?”
What
can
I
say?
As
we
know,
within
the
neo-‐
liberal
predicament
that
we
now
live,
to
object
is
unthinkable,
to
have
an
opinion,
to
show
attitude
is
a
no
no
of
severe
magnitude.
Metaphorically
speaking
my
answer
could
only
be:
“-‐I’m
available.”
If
I
am
in
the
program,
I
can
obviously
not
not
comply
and
support
it,
and
if
I
am
not,
any
objection
would
propose
that
I’m
jealous
of
those
that
are
in
and
can
thus
only
comply.
Yet,
I
try
to
formulate
an
answer
that
uses
a
double
rhetoric,
proposing
that
the
program
is
congenial
and
at
the
same
time
saying
it’s
not.
My
argument
could
be
based
on
an
asymmetry
between
established
and
not
so
established
acts,
the
lack
of
representation
of
non-‐western
artists,
weak
contingency
in
the
program
and
so
on.
It
doesn’t
matter,
independent
of
my
response
the
answer
I
receive
in
return
is
always
the
same:
“-‐Yes,
you
are
right,
but
you
know
our
budget
has
been
very
pressured
this
year.
We
had
enormous
cuts
for
this
season,
and
I’m
really
happy
that
we
got
it
together
at
all.”
I
accept
the
argument
and
nod
understandingly.
A
few
months
later,
the
same
programmer
shows
up
after
seeing,
let’s
say
the
premiere
of
a
new
show
of
mine,
insinuating
that
it
didn’t
entirely
fulfill
expectations
or
was
simply
not
a
masterpiece.
I
respond:
“-‐Yes,
you
are
right
but
you
know
our
budget
was
very
pressured.
We
really
had
enormous
cuts
for
this
season,
and
I’m
really
happy
that
we
got
it
together
at
all.”
I
don’t
think
so!
Such
a
line
of
argumentation
is
not
acceptable
emanating
from
the
mouth
of
an
artist.
The
artistic
act,
it
is
assumed
is
independent
of
budgets,
and
if
there
are
cuts,
subsidies
missing
or
similar,
the
artist
is
supposed
to
change
the
format,
come
up
with
solutions,
sack
the
producer.
Make
a
duet
or
solo,
use
less
rehearsal
hours,
get
another
co-‐producer,
hire
faster
dancers.
But
who
would
expect
a
programmer
to
sack
some
people
in
the
organization,
do
the
cleaning
or
accounting,
double
as
a
technician
or
wardrobe
assistant?
Programmers
are
victims
of
external
circumstances,
whereas
artists
only
have
themselves
to
blame.
For
programmers
to
gain
my
respect,
stop
using
budget
cuts
as
an
argument.
So
my
response
is
always
implicitly
“-‐I’m
available”.
Whatever
the
price,
whatever
the
circumstances,
whatever
the
proposition
is,
in
the
era
of
projects
we
are
all
always
available.
In
our
current
economic
flow,
as
Boris
Groys
recently
argued,
it
doesn’t
really
matter
if
one
is
in
the
program
or
not,
what
matters
is
to
have
a
project,
in
particular
to
have
a
project
that
can
attach
to
enough
many
surfaces
and
connect
to
enough
many
other
projects.
In
fact
it
doesn’t
matter
what
the
project
is,
as
long
as
it
promotes
a
specific
identity.
What
the
artist
today
is
busy
with,
is
not
primarily
to
make
pieces
or
to
articulate
concepts
but
to
produce
identities
that
are
at
the
same
time
specific
enough
to
make
a
difference
and
conventional
enough
to
maintain
a
rather
romantic
image
of
what
the
artist
should
be
occupied
with.
The
really
clever
artist
has
stopped
making
pieces
at
all,
but
jumps
from
residency
to
residency,
from
lab
to
lab,
project
to
project.
What
matters
today
is
not
products,
pieces
or
premieres
but
activity
and
