Biennale Warszawa and the future
Biennale Warszawa is an interdisciplinary public institution active in the years 2017-2022. The focal point of its activities was the future. Such a programming choice had been informed by the need to find a progressive alternative to a dominant – both in Poland and globally – socio-political system stricken with a deep and multidimensional crisis. The institution was interdisciplinary – it combined art, theory, research, social engagement, and political activism. It created a space for building relations and establishing mutual understanding of individuals and institutions based on the foundations of progressive politics. Its activity mode was conceptualised as a form of assembly1in which a sum of actions by various people and entities comprised the institution’s programme that emerged due to collective labour on designing a better, more egalitarian future and seeking suitable organisational forms for it.2
Progressive future and the state’s transformation
The point of reference for the activity of Biennale Warszawa was found in a deep systemic crisis, which had begun in 2008 along with the fall of the Lehman Brothers. The financial crisis not only caused a breakthrough in understanding the nature of neoliberal capitalism and the character of relationships between the world of capital and politics, but it also ignited a political crisis which rapidly spread worldwide. It led to the emergence of protest movements, whose participants raised the issues of the political sphere’s dependence on capital, post-democratic procedures implemented by the authorities, the erosion of representative democracy, and the crisis of representation. The critique of neoliberal capitalism – an order created based on the Washington Consensus3 – was accompanied by demands for democratisation of the political sphere, i.e. designing a system promoting the interests of citizens and actively involving them in decision-making. The vision of the future – appearing simultaneously in the city squares overtaken by the protesters, the texts from the field of political philosophy, demands postulated in the occupied art institutions, and propositions of new solutions created by those from the field of institutional critique – was connected to transforming the state and aimed at shared participation in its institutions.
In the area of institutional critique, the crucial role was played by the notion of instituent practices, coined by the Austrian philosopher and art theoretician Gerald Raunig, who formulated the concept in 2006, describing it as traversing of fields, structures, and institutions, as well as a transformation of the art of governing.4The reinvention of public institutions – considered as a modulating, systemic apparatus – required changing its organisational model and “reinventing the state anew”.5 Eight years ago, when Biennale Warszawa started, the line of political horizon defining the scope of changes was demarcated by limits of representative democracy and a nation-state.
It is worth noticing that Polish anti-government protests in these years had a slightly different basis. They tended to break out in connection to restricting civil rights by the conservative, nationalist government of the Law and Justice or bypassing the constitution and implementing regime changes through regular bills. The particularly intense manifestations occurred in 2016 after the Sejm rejected a civic bill liberalising the abortion law and in 2017 and 2018, when there were protests against changes to the regulations regarding the National Council of the Judiciary and the structure of judicial courts, and also the mass protests that took place in 2020 after the Constitutional Tribunal’s verdict tightening up the abortion law. In these cases, the point of reference was the Polish political model, combining neoliberal dogmas of capitalism with the conservative repertoire of values. Independently from noticeable political (the local political scene is dominated by right-wing parties) and cultural (the crucial factor of the Catholic church and conservative communities influencing the lawmaking) differences in the Polish context, similarly as in Athens, Cairo, Istanbul, or New York, the protesters aimed at providing a new shape for the state and its institutions.
Global counter-revolution and the protection of life
The Catalan philosopher Marina Garcés, in her essay Excepción y contrarrevolución global,6 underlined how democratic and emancipatory movements gained significance in public spaces all over the world by demanding the authorities to refrain from neoliberal dogmas, raising the issue of democratising politics, and requiring the implementation of the rules of economic and cultural diversity, in consequence igniting a reaction in the form of global counter-revolution, which – to hold back the revolutionary wave – decided to treat the solutions based on the state of exception as a new norm. What is more, Garcés claimed that introducing exception-based solutions is not meant to resolve the issue but rather retain power and means a new ”way of governing the current social, economic, and political complexity”7 through consciously suspending problems. The philosopher wrote this text in 2020, during the state of emergency declared in Spain in response to the coronavirus threat, but in her essay, she also points to the martial law in Syria lasting since 2013, laws of the state of emergency implemented in 2019 by Donald Trump’s administration and allowing closing of the American-Mexican border, or states of exception introduced due to the climate crisis consequences.8 To update the list, one should add the state of exception declared by the Polish president Andrzej Duda in 2021 at the Polish-Belarussian border, martial law in Ukraine in 2022, martial law in Gaza in 2023, state of emergency in French New Caledonia issued due to protests against the change of constitution in 2024, and many more.
State of exception, state of natural disaster, state of emergency, martial law – these are methods of governing reality which is chaotic and destabilised by successive waves of crisis but also methods of wielding power aimed not only at providing security but mainly at imposing fear and the sense of insecurity. Provided that implementing safety measures is necessary, the threat needs to be real – and if it is real, it calls for implementing even more safety measures, even if it requires fascisation of political life and falling into authoritarianism. This currently relatively common approach is tantamount to a complete suspension of the rules of democracy and questioning of basic human rights. Yet – according to the unwritten rule of the “Beijing consensus” that authoritarian regimes surpass democracies in providing quality of life – it also conceals the promise of providing security or even comfort directed at the particular ethnic, national, or social group.
The politics of fear, expressing itself in hundreds of states of exception declared in various parts of the world, by changing societies’ approach to the issue of security, invalidated politics (citizens lose subjectivity and are now treated as a collection of individuals in need of protection) and removes from the sight the future (it poses a threat, only the present is essential). The apocalyptic vision of a global attrition conflict, images of climate catastrophe and destruction of ecosystems, warnings about gigantic waves of migration shattering fragile border walls, threats of global pandemics of unforeseen consequences – all narratives present in the public discourse, media, and culture, caused – as Marina Garcés claims in her essay “Condition posthuma” – that the only seemingly sensible activity is to protect life. Progressive politics understood as a collective struggle for social change, has been replaced by politics as a civic rescue action.9 According to the philosopher, „The heroes of our time are the lifesavers of the Mediterranean. These people, ever ready to cast their bodies into the water to rescue a life without direction – one that has left behind a past without possessing a future – represent the most radical action of our days “.10
Possibilities of thinking about the future and designing its progressive variants have been in the recent past barred by the neoliberal tale of the end of history and living in the perfect world and the conservative narrative of returning to the past, de facto tantamount to restoration and strengthening of the nation-state. This possibility is paralysed by chaos, precarity, danger, and fear. Global counter-revolution based on torpedoing any attempt at systemic change, a threat of catastrophe, and a promise of security once again moved the line of our political horizon in recent years. This time, however, it has been simultaneously broadened and narrowed down. In the field of vision, there is no state and its institutions; there is only the world, towards which we are helpless, unable to control global phenomena and processes, or an individual deprived of political influence and occupied with activities for their survival.
Planetary future and dispersed infrastructure
The global counterrevolution described by Marina Garcés could not have occurred without the rapid development of computational technologies.11 At the crossroads of technology, politics, and capital emerged a new power structure, amplifying the political position of technological companies and their owners but also providing the authorities with exceptionally effective instruments of population governance. This new structure has at its disposal digital tools of surveillance and control, such as systems of tracking, locating, identifying, and recognition, both in the form of facial recognition systems or laser scanning and military tools of satellite systems, unmanned aerial vehicles, or autonomous weapons using the newest models of artificial intelligence, tested in Ukraine and Gaza. Due to the narrative of threat and the necessity to combat the danger, usage of these measures remains practically limitless. It occurs beyond any forms of social control, thus leading to, on the one hand, the destruction of the democratic system and, on the other hand, uncontrolled barbarity.
Even if they seem neutral and objective, computational technologies have a particular ideological tint.12 Their production in the United States is supported by radical liberals and ultraconservatives, having formidable support of the military-industrial complex and federal authorities in their fight to maintain the endangered pax Americana.13 In China, computational technologies enable the surveillance of citizens through a social credit system and enhance economic expansion and political supremacy on a global scale. In Israel, the heyday of technology is strictly linked to the needs of the military and nationalist state, which, through technology, strive to secure and uphold a dominant position in the Middle East. In Russia, computational technology serves as an intelligence tool and propaganda weapon, disrupting the workings of hostile systems, as in the case of interfering in the USA elections in 2015 or in Moldova in 2024. Not only its designers and distributors are ideologically biased, but so is the technology itself, as it usually includes conservative stereotypes and prejudices.
Technological solutions, mainly social media and platforms, having global outreach, reinforce individual interests, foster segmentation or even fragmentation of the public sphere, divide it into small elements, constructing algorithm-based enclosed communities focused on a meticulously crafted message, in consequence, radicalising views and inducing a phenomenon of ghettoisation. Social media and platforms provide their users with an almost planetary perspective while, at the same time, narrowing the scope of possible action to publishing individual posts in a gigantic stream of data, which not only divests the sense of agency but also bears frustration and anger. Frequent usage of technological solutions leads to attention deficits, and hyperactivity disrupts various continuities and deprives of competencies. By disrupting categories like truth and falsehood, material and non-material, social media are used to sow fear, awaken uncertainty, undermine material proofs, and question fact- and data-based analyses.
Technologies – dematerialised in public discourse and marketing campaigns – also have their material dimension.14 It consists of servers, cables, transmission networks, aerials, satellites, and data centres, which, while they are exploited, drain millions of tonnes of water and absorb gigantic energy resources. Producing equipment requires minerals, mainly metal ores, usually extracted in places hidden from the eye of the Western public opinion, as in the case of coltan mining in Congo or lithium mining in Bolivia, which enables applying various forms of forced labour or even slavery. Unnecessary, broken, or worn-out equipment produced by global technological enterprises from resources extracted from the Global South returns to the systemic peripheries as electronic waste.
Computational technologies allow us to cross every border, yet their influence remains almost invisible. They are a giant disruption, interfering with political systems, changing power dynamics, transforming the public sphere, leading to evolving behaviours and attitudes, producing new subjectivities, and rendering the anthropocentric point of view as merely one of possible perspectives. Experiments using biological systems or living organisms to create or modify technological products and processes, just like action models of algorithmic systems treating humans and non-humans as producers of data and its reservoirs, by very definition, combine humans and non-humans in previously unknown configurations. The current approach to technology accounts for both the cellular level and the conquest of Mars; it has a planetary character as it encompasses all aspects of life on Earth. Using “planetary” does not mean reaching another level in a game, crossing yet another horizon (state – world – planet) on a two-dimensional map. The current political horizon has a third dimension, and transgressing it occurs in all directions simultaneously.
One could agree with Bassam El Baroni, an artist and researcher from the field of infrastructural critique,15 who claims that “we function in a dispersed infrastructural arena shaped by processes, regulations, institutions, technologies, networks, and operations”.16 It is difficult to comprehend them and even more challenging to capture. Their character is planetary; thus, it transgresses beyond the limits of a singular state or international cooperation networks and beyond vocabulary and notions describing the analogue world. Even a few years ago, the shape of the future was forged during political debates delineated by the structures of the democratic welfare state. In a “dispersed infrastructural arena”, the shape of the future is not decided thanks to discursive abilities but rather capabilities for creating infrastructure, which forms an alternative to the world submerged in crisis, chaos, uncertainty, and fear, the world dominated by technological monopolies and authoritarian governments. The crux of these actions lies in creating tools which, on the one hand, allow the introduction of anomalies and generate systemic disruptions and, on the other hand, propose possibilities and protocols of action for those who disagree with computational fundamentalism, as Michał Krzykawski calls the phenomenon of “the techno-liberal compound of informatics computer science and economics” which is “currently increasingly becoming techno-rightist.”17
Biennale Warszawa Foundation and the future
In January of 2023, the Biennale Warszawa Foundation was established – an independent organisation aimed at preserving, ordering, and sharing the Biennale Warszawa archive and the continuation and development of selected programme threads realised previously as part of the institution. The theme around which the Foundation creates its programme is the future. However, it denotes something different from when Biennale Warszawa came into being eight years ago. The deciding factor consists of the fundamental transformation of political, economic, social and technological that we witness with our own eyes, leading to the annulation of certain notions and redefining others. Now, a progressive future means the creation of an alternative, dispersed infrastructural arena based on democratic values, in particular, equality and solidarity (that is one thing that does not change), which seeks to merge what has been dispersed.
Translated by Mateusz Myszka
Paweł Wodziński, artist, curator, director of public cultural institutions, author of critical and theoretical texts, lecturer. Director of Polski Theatre in Poznań (2000-2003), Polski Theatre in Bydgoszcz (2014-2017) and Biennale Warszawa (2017-2022), an interdisciplinary institution operating at the intersection of art, theory, research and activism. Board member of the Biennale Warszawa Foundation. Author of dozens of theatre performances, including ‘Solidarity. Reenactment’ (2017), ’Solidarity. A New Project’ (2017), “Global Civil War” (2018), as well as texts published, among others, in “Dialogue” or the Polish edition of “Le Monde diplomatique”, “Notes na 6 tygodni”. Director of festivals and curator of exhibitions at, among others, the Prague Quadriennale and the Zachęta National Gallery. Co-curator of both editions of the Biennale Warszawa ‘Let’s organise our future!’ (2019) and ‘Seeing Stones and Spaces Beyond the Valley’ (2022). He teaches at the Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw.
