Giuseppe Troiano: Could you please introduce yourself and talk about your work as a professor of art in Rotterdam? Florian Cramer: My name is Florian Cramer, and I have been working as an art school teacher and applied research professor for 17 years in Rotterdam. Originally, I studied comparative literature and art history, but my passions ultimately led me to work on transformations in contemporary art and design practices. I am particularly interested in understanding how these practices change due to factors such as digitization and new technologies, rethinking of authorship, work, and cultural canon, as well as changing notions of ownership and collaboration. I pursue this research at the Willem de Kooning Academy in collaborative projects with teachers and students who are practicing artists themselves and often closely connected to current developments and discourses in contemporary art. Our work aims to actively observe changes in international, and increasingly non-Western and multidisciplinary art practices and learn from them, exploring how existing concepts and institutions of the arts need to adapt. Giuseppe Troiano: How closely are art and design interconnected in the Netherlands, and where is the focus? Florian Cramer: My own focus of work is more on what is conventionally called "art," but in the Netherlands, art and design are closely interrelated. For example, our art school is, in reality, about 95 percent a design school when you count the study programs and their students. Therefore, I am quite familiar with design discourse, too. Giuseppe Troiano: The avant-garde discourse in art explores the boundaries between collective authorship and self-positioning. Would you broadly characterize artists as zebras in this respect? Florian Cramer: Kind of. I would argue that many artists and artist collectives start their careers with idealistic, often radically altruistic, collective projects but eventually get caught up in market mechanisms, sometimes even reversing that stance to some extent. [A good example is how almost everyone knows the artists Cindy Sherman, Jenny Holzer and Kiki Smith, but almost nobody the New York-based Collab cooperative from which they emerged in the late 1970s. Or how Russian 1920s avant-garde today is known for its individual artists such as Rodchenko, Vertov, Eisenstein, Malevich and Lissitzky, but not the collectives LEF and UNOVIS of which they were members.] Giuseppe Troiano: You will turn into capitalists or egoists. Florian Cramer: Exactly. Interestingly, for instance, Andy Warhol in his Factory also promoted collective art practices. [...] The Factory provided a home for the queer scene, bohemian figures, and underground artists of that time. Warhol's silk-screen prints were created in the Factory by people living there. And even though these were collective works, Andy Warhol's signature was placed on them for art market purposes. This principle of economic exploitation functions similarly to other industries where something is collectively produced, but ultimately a brand name is attached to the product, and the workers remain anonymous. In this sense, the "Factory" lived up to its name quite literally. Giuseppe Troiano: Are there earlier examples as well? Florian Cramer: The contradiction between capitalism and collectivity not only existed since the 1960s but was also present in earlier art movements of the 1920s. There were recurring attempts to abandon classical concepts of work and authorship, such as in the collective chance-based writing experiments of Dadaists and Surrealists, and to blur the distinction between art and design, as seen in Russian Constructivism and at the Bauhaus. However, these attempts were not long-term successful. Similar approaches were also found in the Fluxus movement of the 1960s and among happening artists [like Allen Kaprow] who had partly studied under former Bauhaus professors. The Fluxus movement of the 1960s, for example, is widely known for its integration of art and life, its playful and humorous work outside the gallery art world, and its exploration of various media and art forms, including performance, film/video, music, multiples, books, and conceptual art. What is less known is that its founder [George Maciunas] was mostly influenced by 1920s Soviet avant-garde art and aimed for a radically anti-capitalist, anti-bourgeois, and anti-imperialist art practice, wanted Fluxus artists to give up their individual signatures, and created radical economic and collective living experiments. Giuseppe Troiano: Can you provide a contemporary example? Florian Cramer: Yes, a recent example would be the entire documenta fifteen. Its goal was to rethink art practice as a collective social experiment in creating a real commons, as opposed to artists exhibiting work as their own brands. How the latter system operates can be seen in various Top 100 art system and art market rankings, where you will find artists like Gerhard Richter in the Top 10. This system closely resembles other star systems, such as in pop music, where a few high earners are their own brands, and many other artists form the proletariat. Ultimately, the way Gerhard Richter works as brand in the art world and Beyoncé as a brand in the music industry is hardly different from how Coca-Cola works as a brand in the food industry. Andy Warhol and other artists addressed this by overtly constructing themselves as commercial brands. (By the way, his "Factory" had various personal and artistic overlaps with Fluxus.) These discussions have been with us since then. Giuseppe Troiano: So, in art history, it has been demonstrated that collectives were not always successful? Florian Cramer: Yes. There are various ways in which cooperatives and collectives can end in success or failure. An interesting and alarming example is the Otto Mühl commune, which also emerged from the larger orbit of Fluxus and action art of the 1960s. Its founder, Otto Mühl, was one of the most well-known artists of the "Viennese Actionism." The commune, officially called "AAO," was an alternative living community that emerged in Austria and several Western European countries in the early 1970s, following the decline of Viennese Actionism, and existed until 1990. It was disbanded by the police at that time, due to systematic sexual abuse, including that of minors. In its final phase, the commune had morphed from an anti-authoritarian experiment into what only can be called a fascistoid system, highlighting how experiments and informal structures can gradually solidify and become more than problematic. When structures are not clearly defined, new hierarchies can emerge that may be even worse than the system one was opposing. This is evident in subcultures like the punk and post-punk culture, where [in Germany] both left-wing radical bands like "Slime" and fascist bands like the "Böhsen Onkelz" could emerge from the same scene. Both had their initial releases on the same record label, on the [hardcore punk] albums "Soundtracks zum Untergang" ["Downfall Soundtracks"] volume 1 & 2. In moments when outspoken hierarchies do not exist, new hierarchies will creep in and become problematic. - By the way, the previous example also extends to conceptualist bands founded out of artist collectives, like "Laibach," which ironically reproduced totalitarian fascist and Stalinist aesthetics, but ultimately helped to shaped an entire genre of actual neo-fascist music. Giuseppe Troiano: In Italy, alongside social cooperation with moderate approaches and a grassroots democratic orientation, there are also more radical forms. What are they? A typical example is the Italian political autonomist scene since the 1970s, a political movement that continues to hold relevance until today. Like other left-radical movements, it has an oppositional stance towards state institutions, capitalism, and conservative social order. However, unlike classical communism, it follows a decentralized "bottom-up" approach, where decisions are made collectively, and power is in the hands of local community initiatives. Again, as I mentioned before, such seemingly hierarchy-free structures often evolve into problematic power structures, end up unintentionally serving as blueprints for political opponents [or overseen reactionary aspects of their ideology become more visible and central]. For instance, the entire "New Right" of Alain Benoist in the 1970s has copied the strategy and tactics of the Italian Gramscian and autonomist left, along with other left alternative movements, leading to the Alt-Right, "Querdenker" Corona deniers, [German new right ideologist] Götz Kubitschek, and the "Identitarian Movement" today. Notably, former situationists and left radicals are also involved to a considerable extent in these movements [such as, in Germany, Frank Böckelmann and Jürgen Elsässer]. Giuseppe Troiano: What exactly does top-down and bottom-up mean? "Top-down" means that decisions and instructions are made by a central authority or hierarchical instance and then passed down. This can occur in governmental structures, corporate leadership, political parties with central committees, or even in an architecture and design committee planning urban development. It is happens in a museum where curators decide on exhibitions and which artists to invite. In contrast, "bottom-up" means that decisions and actions occur in a decentralized manner, originating from a grassroots level of involved individuals or groups. This often involves experimentation, trial-and-error, and lacks a master plan. The focus is on people acting in a self-organized manner rather than having decisions imposed upon them by others who believe they know what is best. [... It is not only a structure that is vulnerable to manipulation and hostile takeover from organized groups.] Interestingly, this decentralization has become characteristic of some right-wing movements as well. Giuseppe Troiano: Indeed, one can observe that contemporary movements like the Querdenker (lateral thinkers) are closely aligned with or at least seemingly share similar values with fascism. How is this to be understood? Florian Cramer: One fundamental issue for many antifascists is the belief that fascism is simply authoritarianism and that anti-authoritarian, non-hierarchical thinking equates to antifascist thinking. I find this perspective to be outdated, dangerously misleading and flawed. It relies on a problematic psychologization of fascism, identifying its roots in the "authoritarian character" of individuals [as Adorno did in the 1940s and after him many thinkers in the 1960s and 1970s] instead of looking into discourse formation and material causes. The American "Alt-Right" movement most clearly demonstrated that contemporary fascism can be decentralized and exhibiting anti-authoritarian characteristics. The same is true for the "QAnon" movement, the right-wing Corona denier movement, parts of the souvereign citizens movement as well as many extreme right protests that emerge out of viral dynamics on social media. [...] Giuseppe Troiano: So, these right-wing movements are also a form of bottom-up movements, and therefore, they are not inherently antifascist? Florian Cramer: Yes, that's correct. The issue does not inherently lie in organizational forms. Collectives and cooperatives can be fascist. This is not a new insight, [if you for example look into the early 20th century life reform movement]. Today, there are examples of eco-fascists running organic farms and rural communes. The 1960s/70s "alternative" bottom-up movements also had their own set of issues. Alongside Otto Mühl, a milder example would be the artist Joseph Beuys and his "Free International University" and the "Deutsche Studentenpartei" (German Student Party). Beuys' art and social activism are deeply rooted in anthroposophy, importing the issues of an early 20th-century life reformist movement that mixed esotericism with romanticist and racist elements, combined with a cult of spiritual leadership. It also incorporates elements of decentralized self-organization and serves as an early example of "alternative culture". I find the term "alternative culture" not only problematic, but also devoid of any actual meaningful position. Giuseppe Troiano: In other words, are you skeptical that cooperation within and outside of the art sphere can solve problems? Florian Cramer: Yes, [I am generally skeptical of arts and even design as problem solving. And I am not even sure whether experiments with alternative forms of living and organization can scale to larger political and societal levels.] The problem of climate change, for example, is - in my opinion - too complex to be sinmply solved "bottom-up" through decentralized, self-organized communal initiatives. In my opinion, it needs global governance. Giuseppe Troiano: What is the alternative? Florian Cramer: I'm implicitly refering here to the accelerationism of Alex Williams and Nick Srnicek[, a term that is no longer well-known and has almost completely being taken over by extreme neofascist right]. But originally, the core of their critique was against what they called "folk politics." Despite many disagreement, I personally find this critique satill relevant. It boils down to the argument that decentralist and autonomist "bottom-up" organization is too small-scale and ultimately too petty bourgeois to address the structural problems of global capitalism. [...] I met Alex Williams personally at a conference in England, found him very likable, and I'm not sure if I'm accurately representing his position, but he would probably insist that for global issues like global warming, poverty, and the climate catastrophe, a world government is needed. [I tend to agree from a purely pragmatic standpoint.] Giuseppe Troiano: You were also early involved in the Linux and Open Source movement. To what extent can Open Source contribute to a better world and even be more effective than businesses? What is your opinion on this thesis? Florian Cramer: You've given me a very good cue. I've been involved in the Free Libre Open Source Software movement since the late 1990s, and I'm a Linux user since then. In an essay I wrote a couple of years ago, I called Open Source a "Tragedy of the Commons." [Although it is a controversial concept with right-wing ideological origins,] the tragedy of the commons occurs when a community overuses its collective property out of short-term self-interest, leading to its ultimate destruction. This could be overgrazing and desertification of farm land, overfishing of waters, but also infrastructural decay and collapse of a free public transportation system or a public library through consumerist overuse. Free Software/Open Source originally emerged from the idea to spare resources by more efficiently utilizing them through collaborative development. For instance, an Open Source developer wanting to create a web browser doesn't need to start from scratch, as a commercial developer would. They can leverage numerous open program libraries or improve an existing Open Source browser. However, this original, idealist concept of Free Open Source development ultimately fostered waste of resources on other levels. In the 1970s and 80s, Free Software/Open Source began as software development projects at public universities, but today its core pieces - such as the Linux kernel - are industrial products developed by major companies like IBM, Microsoft, Samsung, and many others. Linux forms the software backbone of virtually all contemporary "cloud" infrastructure, from data centers to social networks like Facebook and search engines like Google. There is no longer a contradiction betwen free software and commercial interests. As the IT industry has transitioned from products to services, companies like IBM, Microsoft and Google have adapted their business models to the use of Linux. Consequently, Open Source software has become the technological-infrastructural backbone of digital platform capitalism rather than an experiment for a new era of a commons-based society. Nevertheless, there still exists activist and common-good-oriented Open Source software development, such as the current development of Open Source-based, decentralized, and non-commercial social "Fediverse" networks like Mastodon. However, it remains questionable whether alternative platforms like Mastodon can meet the scalability requirements of large Internet social media platforms. And even if they should manage to overcome this limitation, there's uncertainty about whether they wouldn't end up similar to Linux as a de-facto product of industrial consortia. [See the recent moves of corporate social media platforms, such as Facebook/Meta's "Threads", to interoperate with the Fediverse through its ActivityPub protocol.] Giuseppe Troiano: The achievements of Google, Apple, and Facebook also originate from academic research findings: Florian Cramer: Yes. Public investments and university research had played a crucial role for innnovation in the tech industry. Many if not most new inventions and core technologies utilized by companies like Tesla, Apple, and Google stem from public university research [which also includes the public university AI research into neural networks and machine learning of the past five decades]. Even the factories of these companies, such as the Tesla factories in Berlin-Grünheide and the new TSMC chip factory in Dresden, are built with multi-billion-dollar public subsidies. It is an illusion to believe that we still live in a system of free market economy when even highly profitable industries rely on state/taxpayer money. Companies like Apple wouldn't have been able to bring their products to market without the results of public research. Operating systems like MacOS and iOS [with their underlying BSD kernel originally developed at University of California at Berkeley], touchscreen technology, wireless technology for mobile networks, and the network protocols of the internet are examples of technologies that have emerged from public or publicly subsidized research. The real expertise of these companies lies in transforming such research results into consumer products and deciding which technologies are suitable for the mass market. Giuseppe Troiano: Can you describe a project that you are currently overseeing, in conclusion? Florian Cramer: Certainly. At this moment, I am co-supervising a doctoral dissertation by the photographer Judith van Ijken. She is known for her portrait photography, which has a very distinctive style, shot with large format film cameras. Interestingly, she discovered that one of the best-known AI image generators, DALL·E, has been trained to reproduce her photography. Really in the sense of users being able to tell DALL·E, "Please create a photo portrait in the style of Judith van Ijken." Then the generator essentially produces images that mimic the style of her photography. However, as she observed, it is only an extremely superficial style imitation. DALL·E creates a certain visual aesthetic without having any concept of why Judith uses specific techniques and elements in her portraits, their connection to what is being depicted, and how her images come together. Similarly, you can instruct the generators, "Create flowers in the style of Andy Warhol" or "Make a Fat Corner in the style of Joseph Beuys," and they do that, but reducing Warhol and Beuys to superficial visual gimmicks. Despite such blatant limitations, this technology will nevertheless have far-reaching consequences for various professional fields and the job market of image creators. Taking the example of animation films, soon it will be sufficient to only sketch a few rough images [respectively keyframes], and the AI will take care of both the execution of details and the in-between frames of the actual animation. This could lead to the demise of traditional animation studios, drastic cost reduction pressure and precarious working conditions for animators. [The same is true, for example, for copy-editors and translators, where AI bots such as DeepL already automate a lot of the work process, and applies to other forms of office work.] So the question is more and more whether our social contract regarding labor is still viable and whether the liberal understanding of labor as being part of a market isn't increasingly becoming a simulation, if we take the subsidized chip factories as only one example. Perhaps, unwittingly, we are heading towards a weird form of socialism, a socialism however that no longer yields any utopian promise [but becomes a gamified, citizen-credit machine for bullshit jobs].