Money and Art: Six Artists, Two Crises (1973, 2008) Max Haiven (mhaiven@lakeheadu.ca) Canada Research Chair in Culture, Media and Social Justice Lakehead University, Canada UNCORRECTED DRAFT Forthcoming in A Cultural History of Money in the Modern Age, edited by David Pederson and Taylor Nelms. London: Bloomsbury 2017/18. Introduction While in the modern age it has usually been supposed that money and art are diametrically opposed, they are, I would suggest, mutually reinforcing. While allegedly unrelated, my argument is that they are in fact intimates brought into critical proximity by the institutional and systemic particularities of late capitalism. While both art and money predate (late) capitalism, the unique forms they take on in and as part of that system share important mutualities. If money can claim to be cool, rational, base, and worldly, then art, its alleged opposite, can be passionate, imaginative, virtuous, and transcendental. Indeed, art’s monetary value relies precisely on offering the buyer the chance to acquire a commodity whose value is in some sense non-commodifiable, resilient to money’s influence. Conversely, the great claim of modern money management is to eschew any pretense of artfulness and insist upon the scientific dispassionateness of economics and financial risk management. It is a surplus of HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES temperamentality and imagination, we are told, that throws an otherwise rational clockwork into disarray. It is not only that the single largest demographic of collectors of contemporary art are financiers, or that the heart of the art world has pulsed so enthusiastically in the great financial metropoles of the modern era. It is that money and art share a strange and fateful symmetry. In this chapter, I describe one part of that symmetry, focusing on how this entanglement has evolved through the advance of financialization. I have selected the six works by radical artists from two key moments of crisis in the history of financialization: 1973 and 2008. All six directly engage with money, either as a tangible medium or as a prompt for artistic, political and cultural critique and invention. By critically examining this work, we can see how artists understand the broader economic conditions in which they find themselves, gain an understanding of those conditions, and trace the fate of money itself. Artists like these seize upon the contradiction with which I opened this chapter: under late capitalism money and art appear as sworn enemies but in fact share deep affinities. It is these affinities that give money-art, and especially radical money-art, its aesthetic and its critical heft. Such approaches are especially important today, in our moment of financialization. I have selected 1973 and 2008 as pivotal years for reasons that will become clear. Two years after Nixon severed the US dollar from the gold standard, 1973 was marked by OPECtriggered oil crises that threw the petroleum superpower into economic extremis. Meanwhile, a US-backed coup d’etat in Chile made possible experiments in neoliberal free-market policies that would radically transform the world in the following decades. In the world of finance, 1973 saw the invention of the Black-Scholes formula for pricing derivatives, which revolutionized risk management; the construction of the digitized World Trade Centre in New York; and the opening of the world’s first dedicated options exchange in Chicago. Meanwhile, thawing of UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 2 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES tensions between the US and Russia and China signaled the softening of state socialism. 1973 is also about the year (depending on measurements) that the purchasing power of US workers reached their peak, holding steady or (in aggregate) declining since then. It also represents a high-water mark in a cycle of social movement struggles against the order of capitalist reproduction. For these reasons and more, 1973 here represents a convenient date for periodizing the emergence of financialization. Critical, activist-oriented art has much to teach us – not only about aesthetics and culture, but also about politics and economics. I have previously explored the connections between finance and the imagination (Haiven 2014). I argue, first, that the rise of “fictitious capital” depends on creating systems capable of sustaining the dominance of “imaginary wealth” – where “imaginary” does not mean “unreal” but rather, in the spirit of Cornelius Castoriadis (1997), the solidification of a shared social process of meaning-making into durable social institutions and, more broadly, forms and orders of value. Second, I argue that financialization has both fomented and depended on a more profound transformation of the discourses, affects, subjectivities, and habituses of daily life, even for those who have little experience with or understanding of the financial services industry. In other words, financialization is not only a political economic transformation; it is also a sociological and cultural one in which the measurements, metaphors, ideas, value-paradigms, logics, and affects of finance become increasingly useful – indeed, dominant – tools in governance of social institutions and the reproduction of social life. Finally, I pose the idea that “finance” is itself a technology of the imagination, a set of techniques by which capitalism as a whole and its privileged functionaries gain a sense of an increasingly complex world system (Haiven 2011). UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 3 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES This work has led me to an interest in art (Haiven 2015a; 2015b), especially critical and radical contemporary art that mobilizes money as a creative and critical medium. Such art can be approached as a crucial moment of reflexivity within financialization, which can be studied for clues as to financialization’s otherwise opaque contradictions. I approach such art as both singular works, capable of critical reflexivity, and also as symptomatic of the systems of which they are a part. Three Theories of Reproduction My analysis of the six artists over the two periods covered in this chapter mobilizes a three-pronged theorization of capitalist reproduction (and reproduction under capitalism) I have elsewhere (Haiven 2014) discussed at greater length. The first analyzes the ways in which capitalism seeks to reproduce itself; the second seeks to explain the reproductive cycles between capitalism as a system, social institutions and individual actors; the third centres the (typically feminized) labour of reproducing life and society as a means to reframe exploitation and resistance. These three theories offer critical approaches to struggles within and against capitalism, creating a triangular frame that allows us to attend to the historically and geographically specific nature of capitalist accumulation and its transformations. They sensitize us to systemic contradictions that offer opportunities for resistance, while also prompting the reorganization of capitalism in the name of its own reproduction. Finally, I find in this triangular framework an accounting of culture not as a secondary, residual, or contingent element of economics, but as an integral, dialectical force. Importantly, this three-fold approach to reproduction encourages us to see capitalism less as a total system and more as a crisis-prone and -driven constellation of shifting forces. As Harry Cleaver (2000) makes clear, these crises, while then may appear structural or internal, always UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 4 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES stem, ultimately, from resistance and rebellion. What David Harvey (2006) calls the “fixes” for these crises never solve the underlying contradictions but elevate them to a new level, posing new contradictions and challenges for social struggles. The three-fold approach to reproduction allows us to see that, in each historical moment, the tensions between different forms of reproduction can fruitfully be read as key fault lines of crisis, contradiction and struggle. The Reproduction of Capitalist Circulation The first realm of reproduction builds on Marx’s (1981, 1992) analysis of capitalist accumulation. Taking up the work of classical political economists, Marx agrees that “capital” under capitalism is not given. It is a force always in motion, based not on the stability of land or precious metals but on the society-wide orchestration of labor (Lapavitsas 1999; Nelson 1999). Marx’s signature contribution was to identify that this orchestration of labor was fundamentally based on exploitation and thus inherently riven by recurrent crises, stemming from the internal contradictions of the system or from workers’ struggles. Most of these crises are connected to contradictions that interfere with the circulation of capital, where money plays a key role (Harvey 2006). Examples include: the falling rate of profit, where competition between capitalist firms forces prices so low it becomes perilous to the reproduction of individual firms; the overproduction (or underconsumption) of goods based on the system’s productive priorities being driven by exchange values, rather than use values; the over-exploitation of the working class, leaving them without enough money to reproduce themselves through the purchase the fruits of capitalist productivity (i.e., their own productivity sold back to them); and manifold contradictions having to do with temporal and geographic limits to capitalist circulation. The list goes on – and this framework has been a centerpiece of understandings of money and finance in the modern or late capitalist era. UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 5 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES Two things are vital for our purposes. First, whatever the root of these crises, they tend to manifest in capital’s circulatory medium, money (Lapavitsas 2013). Second, as Rosa Luxemburg (2003), V.I. Lenin (1939) and others (Harvey 2003, 2006; Panich and Gindin 2012) have illustrated, capitalism’s response has been to displace or elevate the contradiction to a higher level through institutional developments or systemic transformations. So, for instance, as Harvey (2006) elucidates, the banking and finance sector emerges to help capitalism “fix” the problem of the temporal and geographic contradictions of circulation, providing an institutional basis for geographically mobile commercial paper (bank scrit, credit notes, etc.) and temporally secure investments (which redistribute profit among capitalist enterprises) (see also Lapavitsas 2013). As Luxemburg (2003) notes, colonialism and imperialism are means to reproduce capital in circulation once it has accelerated to terminal velocity within a specific country – not only freeing up new sources of labor and materials, not only opening new markets, but also offering opportunities to waste ill-begotten wealth on military expenditure, relieving the tensions of overaccumulation and conscripting the working classes under nationalism (Harvey 2006). In short, as capitalism’s inherent contradictions manifest as crises in the circulation of money, these crisis offer opportunities both for struggle and for (often violent) capitalist restructuring. The Reproduction of Class Institutions The second realm of reproduction emerges from the work of French sociologists and social critics (e.g., Althusser 2014; Bourdieu 1990, 1993 2005; Foucault 1978, 1979) and the England-based progenitors of the field of cultural studies (e.g., Hall 1996a; Hoggart 1998; McRobbie 2005; Williams 2005; see also Giroux 2001). Both schools of thought sought to break with doctrinaire Marxist interpretations of the reproduction of capital, which gave short shrift to the agency of individual actors and to the centrality of state institutions, especially in the postwar UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 6 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES industrialized West where mass media and the regulatory state had risen out of class conflict to reproduce and mediate capitalism (Hall 1996b; Williams 2005). The importance of social institutions in mediating capitalist accumulation while generating complicit, docile, or specialized subjects was of central importance to a generation of critics who likewise witnessed a new cycle of grassroots struggles by workers, students, prisoners, psychiatric patients – and artists (Katsiaficas 1987; Ross 2002). Also of critical importance was the emergence of a larger postwar middle-class, which conscripted increasingly isolated citizen-consumers by preoccupying their personal hopes and ambitions (Plant 1992). These theorists were concerned, in part, with how a traditional understanding of capitalist cultural politics was shifted by the increased availability of money to workers, without any real change in ownership of or control over production. Thus these scholars were concerned with how class identities and institutions were reproduced and how class, in turn, reproduced social institutions. For these scholars, institutions were fields of power that, while not directly subjugated to capital, nonetheless helped reproduce it and its subjects. Their analysis focused on semi-autonomous hierarchies and circuits of value at work within schools, the media, prisons, galleries, bureaucracies, the military, and public space and the various institutions of what has come to be called the “art world” (including museums, galleries, auction houses, dealers, art schools, periodicals and philanthropic foundations) Differential forms of “capital” (symbolic, cultural), in Bourdieu’s terminology, circulated semi-autonomously through these institutions in ways that could not be understood as simply due to the machinations of (“big C”) Capital (Beasley-Murray 2000). These authors sought to understand, then, how power might be exercised and reproduced outside of, or alongside, money through institutional environments and subjectivities. They also sought to UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 7 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES describe how the logics and codes of money might be infiltrating and reorganizing spheres of social life initially thought to be immune or allergic to them. The Reproduction of Social Life The final realm of reproduction surfaced out of materialist feminist critiques of Marxism that emerged in tandem with broader Second Wave feminist movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Rejecting both a liberal feminism that sought reforms within capitalist institutions and a culturalist feminism that understood gender-based oppression as a matter of attitudes and dispositions (natural or nurtured), these critics sought to understand women as uniquely exploited workers whose labor was central to capitalist accumulation and reproduction (James and Dalla Costa 1979; Federici 2005, 2012; Firestone 2003; Fortunati 1995; James 2012; Mies 1986; see also Fraser 2013). In contrast to traditional Marxist approaches focusing on the commodification of the energies of formal wage workers, materialist feminists turned their attention to the production of this laboring commodity itself – the worker – and identified the patriarchal home as the workshop. Reproductive labor – bearing and raising children, cooking and cleaning to maintain the home, and caring for and reproducing working class community, all of which have traditionally been expected of or forced on women – became a central axis of struggle (Ferguson and McNally 2015). The Wages for Housework campaign, for instance, aimed at the contradiction between capitalism’s reliance on women’s reproductive labor and the exclusion of such labor from the waged economy (Weeks 2011). This theoretical paradigm’s emergence was timely. By the late 1960s, laws and customs that had prohibited or constrained (white) women’s economic participation in capitalism were slowly diminishing, thanks to stalwart activism. The prospect of women’s economic and legal self-sufficiency presented a quandary for feminist thinkers: to what extent should women’s UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 8 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES access to money be pursued as a means towards empowerment and fulfillment, and to what extent should it be distrusted? Could capitalism survive without the exploitation of women’s reproductive labor? In recent years, as affective, care, and other kinds of reproductive labor have been increasingly commodified (through, for example, the formal and informal “service sector”), theories of social reproduction have been more widely applied to understand the changing nature of work and life in an era defined by precarious work, the decay or weaponization of the welfare state, and the subtle, unsung, unpaid, and essential micro-labors that reproduce bodies, minds, and souls within organizations and institutions (see Haider and Mohandesi 2015; Luxton and Bezanson 2006; Stakemeier and Vishmidt 2016). Three works of money-Art, 1973 Art’s special place under capitalism gives artists who work with money the potential to offer unique and provocative insights. Art is a form of labor and a commodity that, to maintain institutional legitimacy and market value, must constantly and in new ways reject its own commodification – even when this rejection takes the form of a crass, iconoclastic embrace of that commodification, as in the work of superstars like Damien Hirst, Takashi Murakami, or Jeff Koons (Taylor 2011). Money itself, when incorporated as a medium (coins, bills, credit, debt) or as a theme, can superheat these tensions in such a way that the otherwise seemingly rigid cultural politics of money become pliable or ductile. One of the “functions” of money – in addition to medium of exchange, unit of account, store of value, and so on – is as a medium of the imagination (Haiven 2015b). Coins and banknotes have long been aesthetic canvasses, although usually monopolized by the powerful and used to circulate images of rulers and nations aimed at reinforcing political legitimacy and UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 9 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES sovereignty. Yet money is available to others, too. A full genealogy of the critical artistic use of money is beyond the scope of this chapter (see Haiven 2015a). But art and artists have consistently sought to understand and in some cases challenge the power of money in their work (Crosthwaite, Knight, and Marsh 2014; Shell 1994). There have been many artists drawn to the theme (Siegel and Mattick 2004), and in the post-2008 moment, the role of art and artists as radical critics of the capitalist economy has become even more clear (see Sholette and Ressler 2013). The following three radical artists and artworks work directly with money as a means to address and challenge contemporary conditions of capitalist reproduction. Each is inspired or agitated by a central contradiction of the 1973 moment while also pointing towards changes to come. Each, I suggest, focuses on a particular realm of reproduction; between them we can create a triangular frame within which to envision the forces that shaped the emergence of financialization and the transformation of money in the modern era. Joseph Beuys, KUNST=KAPITAL (197?–198?) Starting in the early 1970s (dates are difficult to ascertain), West German sculptor and pioneer of performance and conceptual art Joseph Beuys used banknotes of various nations as a canvas and a distribution system for a series of provocative messages (Opitz 2015; Rösch 2013: 21-23). Primary among them was KUNST=KAPITAL (Art=Capital), which he scrawled in pen, crayon, marker, and paint on an unknown number of notes before passing them back into circulation. The technique was not new. Since at least the early nineteenth century, circulating legal tender has been as a medium of political expression, from the coins engraved by suffragettes with the message “VOTES FOR WOMEN” to the convict love tokens of incarcerated working class Londoners, who – convicted of petty crimes (including counterfeiting UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 10 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES or handling counterfeit currency) and awaiting colonial transportation and indenture – inscribed messages to loved ones on coins (Field and Millet 1998; Shell 1994). In fact, the Nazis also used this technique to spread anti-Semitic propaganda on devalued German Marks during the Weimar period (Sandrock 2007). It would be tempting to read Beuys’ intervention as merely a cynical reaction towards the increasing commodification of art in the 1960s and 1970s, a topic of furious conversation at the time in the US and Germany. There, thanks in part to postwar prosperity, in part to government support for abstract expressionist art as a Cold War strategy to promote “Western freedom,” art markets were booming and “contemporary” or “modern” art was becoming a known quantity and a desirable designation (Saunders 2001). Yet although Beuys in some ways embraced and leveraged the persona of the romantic artist, cultivating a cult of personality and designating himself a neoshaman with vast social UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 11 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES responsibilities, Beuys’ KUNST=KAPITAL message, also a frequent topic of other work and lectures, was not some melancholic or furious denunciation of art’s growing proximity to money. Rather, the formula represented the irreducible kernel of an expansive quasi-Marxian theory of value that Beuys thought could become the basis of a socialist-humanist philosophy capable of transcending the bad infinity (or false dialectic) of Western capitalism and Eastern communism (Beuys 2010). Beuys coined the term “social sculpture” to describe works that incorporated human actors, joining other postwar artists in dissolving the distinction between artist and audience. In this piece, each banknote is transformed into a social sculpture consummated through its return to monetary circulation. Beuys famously believed that all human beings were inherently artists, entitled to use the imagination to transform the world. But following Marx (and also perhaps channeling anthropologist Marcel Mauss), this imaginative potential, under capitalist relationships of exploitation, was not so much lost as subsumed or redirected in the interests of reproducing commodities, the same commodities the worker was compelled to purchase. The chief mediator and medium of both the exploitation of labor and the circulation of commodities was money – a substance whose value was, especially in the case of paper banknotes, largely imaginary. Yet Beuys was not making a simplistic argument that money is an illusion. He was appropriating money’s functions to critique them. As a means of circulation, he compelled money to circulate a radical message (radical in the sense that it seeks to destabilize the root); as a unit of account, he made money account for a shared humanist ledger wherein imaginative energies are transmuted into (alienated) material wealth; as a store of value, he summoned money to reveal what is encrypted within it: humanity’s own collective imaginative potential, cruelly subverted. Beuys might be said to be translating Mauss’s observation that money is the UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 12 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES “false coin of our dreams,” our own inherent imaginative power returned to us as a worldly token (Graeber 2001). Beuys leverages several contradictions inherent in the moment. For example, the nationstate’s reliance on currency as a vehicle for the reproduction of an imagined community can at times contradict the needs of capitalist interests, who – as in both the US and West Germany in the late 1960s –experience territorial limits accumulative expansion (Cleaver 2005). The late 1960s also represented a moment of profound crisis for the Keynesian, regulatory state, which had seen profits and capitalist wealth-share dwindle relative to workers’ economic power. Occupying the object (banknotes) where state power and capitalist circulation intersect was a crucial gesture for Beuys in his efforts to stimulate the radical imagination. Indeed, Beuys identified money’s vulnerability at a moment when its claims to accurately represent value were tenuous. Hans Haacke, MoMA Poll (1970) Another West German artist, Hans Haacke (2016), likewise leveraged the contradictions of capitalist reproduction to produce incisive radical work. The work in question, MoMA Poll (1970), is an early and influential part of what would, by the late 1980s, be identified as “institutional critique,” through which the artist calls conspicuous attention to the ways broader systems of power are at work in the institutional environment of the gallery or museum, in their work itself, or even in their own subjectivity or economic participation as an artist (Metzler 2013; Osborne 2002). Haacke applied to a juried exhibition of works from emerging artists to present a piece that would encourage audience participation, something relatively new and daring at the time. MoMA had become a popular recreational and educational destination, thanks to a growing UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 13 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES educated urban middle class, tourism, and the largess of the US government and capitalist class eager to promote the freedom and individualism of “Modern Art” as a form of Cold War propaganda. Visitors would be asked to cast a vote in a transparent YES or NO ballot box regarding a topical current event. After being accepted into the show Haacke revealed at the last minute that the question would be “Would the fact that Governor [Nelson] Rockefeller has not denounced President Nixon's Indochina policy be a reason for you not to vote for him in November?” and invited the audience to “Answer: If 'yes' please cast your ballot into the left box if 'no' into the right box.” In addition to being scion to the Standard Oil and Chase Bank corporate empire, Rockefeller was a major Republican politician, a three-time candidate for the party’s presidential nomination and a frequent appointee to leading security and military committees under the Nixon administration (Smith 2014). Before taking up duties in Washington and Albany, Rockefeller had served as a longtime governor of MoMA, and at the time of Haacke’s poll, both his brother and sister-in-law were trustees (Haacke 2009). The considerable pressure they UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 14 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES collectively brought to bear on the curator was not sufficient to convince him to remove Haack’s piece, but it did lead to the curator’s dismissal several months later, after the piece was displayed. Haacke kept records of the visitors to the museum and the piece, as well as the vote tallies. ”YES" won handily. Haacke’s intervention set an ideological trap: to force money to reveal itself as the sine qua non of the museum, to goad what is usually invisible to come into the light. It was also part of a series of actions that targeted MoMA during the Vietnam War, which sought to call attention to the complicity of art and culture in the reproduction of American capitalism and imperialism abroad (Bryan-Wilson 2009). Yet it was also a moment when “contemporary art” further developed an appetite for social critique; hence the inclusion of Haacke and other radical artists in the exhibition. Their ability to occupy that space and make their interventions was due to contradictions in the institutional reproduction of capital that Haack’s piece sought to illuminate. As Bourdieu (1984, 1993) famously argued, artistic taste is by no means a natural or purely intuitive affair. Especially in the modern epoch, taste is educated, refined, and manipulated as a means to generate and accumulate cultural and social capital, largely among the wealthy classes. As capitalism emerged in Europe, art too emerged as a distinct and secular category (Wolff 1984). Whereas once art might have been embedded in religion or craft, as capitalism unfolded, an emerging bourgeoisie—who, as opposed to the aristocracy they displaced, enjoyed no class legitimation outside of access to money—developed an appetite for singular, commodifiable art objects whose purchase and collection served as proof of intellectual and spiritual superiority (Haiven 2014a). Ironically, it was precisely a class obsessed with and wrought from the base and worldly circulation of money that demanded artifacts that allegedly UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 15 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES emanated from and reflected the transcendental realm of romantic imagination (see Bürger 1984). Art connoisseurship, organized around the acquisition of commodities and public rituals like gallery-going and auctions, became central to the reproduction of the capitalist class (Baudrillard 1981; Clark 1999). The rewards are not only subjective and communal. Sitting on the same boards or going to the same events offers otherwise competitive capitalists an opportunity to collaborate and make common cause, form alliances and agreements in the interests of their class (Currid 2007; Thompson 2010; Thornton 2008). Meanwhile, presenting themselves as patrons of the arts and therefore facilitators of the higher human ventures and defenders of the artistic pursuit of unalienated labour might all be seen as buying capitalists a kind of indemnity or absolution for the fundamental exploitation of alienated labour in factories and fields that begat their wealth in the first place. Further still, the canon of art, focused on the products of elite white European men, creates a field of ideological legitimacy around this demographic’s right to rule; the monopolization of the narrative of artistic triumph justifies supposedly benevolent rule over women, people of color, colonial populations, and the working class (Fanon 1963). Finally, art collecting and connoisseurship offers a number of financial rewards. While art objects are notoriously illiquid assets, they have long been used as long-term investments, as savings instruments or as collateral for loans or components of estates (Horowitz 2011). Donations or loans of works to museums not only earns self-congratulation and the admiration of one’s peers, it also offers tax breaks and opportunities for tax fraud (Davis 2015; Steyerl 2015). More generally, investment in art (especially contemporary art) offers the wealthy a sort of parafinancial game, a parody version of “real” markets, where psychosocial muscles of financial UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 16 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES speculation get to stretch in a gymnasium of the imagination (Malik and Phillips 2013; Velthius 2007). All these motivations were certainly at play for the Rockefellers and helped shape the institutional ecology of MoMA in the early 1970s. Since its founding by New York financiers in the 1920s, the museum had served their interests, while claiming to promote those of the public and of art. But MoMA was unique in ways that are highly demonstrative: from its outset it was dedicated to collecting and showcasing the “modern” (Wilson 2009). But by the late 1960s, artists had begun to realize and question their culpability in the reproduction of capitalism and imperialism, while also seeking to escape and reject the circuits of cultural capital and commodification that had begun to embrace them (Bryan-Wilson 2009). At the same moment that capitalism created new institutional frameworks for the collection and exhibition of modern and contemporary artwork, it also opened the door to forms of political and aesthetic radicalism diametrically opposed to it. This contradiction was only a particular reflection of a broader crisis of reproduction in the late 1960s, one in which many oppressed and exploited populations rebelled against the capitalist and imperialist system they were being reproduced to serve (Katsiaficas 1987). As the Civil Rights movement morphed into the Black Power movement, racialized subjects of empire rejected the reproduction of racial hierarchies in the institutions of prisons, law enforcement, schooling, health, housing, and universities. Second-wave feminism and queer liberation likewise rejected the institutions of gender, marriage, and sexuality that were central to the postwar mythos of middle-class suburban happiness. Students rose up against conservative educational institutions. This was a moment when the bluff was called on the forms of “freedom” and “prosperity” promised as part of the postwar “deal” that had supposedly saved capitalism UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 17 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES from collapse and uprising (Day 2005). Yet the compromise was falling apart. Put otherwise, the institutions and identities germane to the reproduction of capitalism were on the rocks. Haacke’s intervention at MoMA, then, capitalized on these contradictions not only to tweak the nose of power in its own temple, but also to suggest a new set of priorities for art: politically engaged, participatory, explicitly challenging social norms, aesthetically blunt. His is a reflection of and contribution to a revolt within and against institutions central to the reproduction of capitalism, insisting they serve instead the reproduction of radical democracy. Lee Lozano, REAL MONEY PIECE (1969) Lee Lozano was a path-breaking, erratic and enigmatic figure in the history of feminist and conceptual art. Central to Lozano’s practice were experimental pieces of interactive, durational performance art, based on a set of brief, strict instructions to herself or to others (Koch 2011; LehrerGraiwer 2014; Molesworth 2002; Spears 2011 ). Paradigmatic is her 1969 CASH PIECE, also known as REAL MONEY PIECE, whose physical trace takes the form of pages of her notebook that begin with the following instructions: UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 18 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES NOTE: AT BEGINNING OF THIS PIECE THE JAR CONTAINS BILLS OF $5, $10, $20, ABOUT $585’S TWO WORTH, OR COILED THREE IN PACKETS AROUND THE INSIDE OF THE JAR, UNBOUND. THE MONEY COMES FROM ROLFE RICKE FROM SALE OF PAINTING “SWITCH.” OFFER TO GUESTS COFFEE, DIET PEPSI, BOURBON, GLASS OF HALF AND HALF, ICE WATER, GRASS, AND MONEY. OPEN JAR OF REAL MONEY AND OFFER IT TO GUESTS LIKE CANDY. (APR 4, 69) These instructions to herself (and perhaps future artists wishing to replicate the piece) are followed by a day-by-day journal of the results of the experiment from April 4 to July 9, 1969, documenting the responses of visitors, friends, and other artists. These responses range from whimsical to avaricious, mirthful to furious. On April 27, “KALTENBACH TAKES ALL THE MONEY OUT OF THE JAR WHEN I OFFER IT, EXAMINES ALL THE MONEY & PUTS IT ALL BACK IN JAR. SAYS HE DOESN’T NEED MONEY NOW.” On May 1, “WARREN C. INGERSOLL REFUSED. HE GOT VERY UPSET ABOUT MY ‘ATTITUDE TOWARDS MONEY.’” On May 23, “PAULA DAVIES AND MARILYN LEARNER DROP IN UNEXPECTEDLY. NEITHER TAKE ANY [MONEY] BUT PAULA SAYS LATER SHE WAS ‘CONTROLLING HERSELF.’” On June 6, “ALAN SARET VISITS AGAIN & MAKES A PIECE OF THE MONEY WHICH IS NOW IN TWO PILES ON THE FLOOR, EACH UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 19 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES SHAPED SIMILARLY TO A ‘FOOTSTEP’ BY FOLDING & MOLDING TO HIS HAND. IT LOOKS GOOD LIKE THAT & I’M GONNA LEAVE IT ON THE FLOOR FOR A WHILE.” “REAL MONEY PIECE” developed several months after/into Lozano’s “GENERAL STRIKE” piece, which involved these instructions: GRADUALLY BUT DETERMINEDLY AVOID BEING PRESENT AT OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC ‘UPTOWN’ FUNCTIONS OR GATHERINGS RELATED TO THE ‘ART WORLD’ IN ORDER TO PURSUE INVESTIGATIONS OF TOTAL PERSONAL AND PUBLIC REVOLUTION. EXHIBIT IN PUBLIC ONLY PIECES WHICH FURTHER SHARING OF IDEAS & INFORMATION RELATED TO TOTAL PERSONAL AND PUBLIC REVOLUTION. It also came several months before Lozano’s more extreme and ultimately selfdestructive “DECIDE TO BOYCOTT WOMEN” piece (in which she refused to communicate at all with women) and “DROPOUT PIECE” (in which she not only severed ties to the art world but also sought to break herself of all artistic habits, often with the assistance of powerful narcotics). 1969 was arguably the height of Lozano’s career by conventional measurements, culminating the following year in a solo show at New York’s Whitney Museum. Yet it preceded a period from 1972-1981 during which she disappeared and after which she did not exhibit art or communicate with anyone outside her family until her death in 1999. While feminist art and art criticism was not to emerge in earnest until slightly later in the 1970s, Lozano was among a number of female-identified artists who made gender, sexuality, and the body central to radical art practice (Wark 2006). In so doing, she adopted and critiqued masculinist trends in performance, conceptual, and minimalist art, all of which had emerged in the 1960s (and prior) as approaches by which to avoid and critique the increasing commodification and imperialist uses of American postwar contemporary object-based art. For UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 20 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES Lozano, a “TOTAL PERSONAL AND PUBLIC REVOLUTION” meant more than just solidarity to particular causes or groups and also more than creating propaganda for a cause. It implied a brutally rigorous personal practice of reflexively interrogating power as it worked through everyday life, social intercourse, habitual patterns, evaluative expectations, and the gendered body. Lozano’s work was a sort of militant research into the field of social reproduction and an almost desperate seeking-out of the contradictions therein. In REAL MONEY PIECE, Lozano addressed these challenges explicitly with money, avoiding more philosophical or conventionally “political” approaches to currency. Lozano isolates money as a social medium – both in the sense of something that mediates human social affairs, creating striations and complications within the field of relationships, affects, and perceptions, and also in the sense of an artistic medium, a set of materials of creative expression (Haiven 2015a). Lozano’s quasi-scientific isolation of cash as the “independent variable” in a series of experiments makes visible its typically invisible impact on social relationality. This piece revealed that, behind the embattled comradery of the New York radical art “scene” lay vast inequalities: Lozano herself constantly struggled economically, in part because she was an experimental and radical artist fundamentally opposed to commodification, in part because gender oppression militated against her success even amongst similar artists. Meanwhile, many of the visitors to her studio were wealthy collectors and benefactors, or artists enjoying some degree of monetary success. The piece revealed otherwise-overlooked fault lines among these individuals’ relationships with money. REAL MONEY PIECE also illuminated the role of money in social reproduction more broadly. Lozano’s financial difficulties as a divorcee living alone in New York spoke directly to the reliance of women on men’s access to higher wages and more desirable occupations. While UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 21 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES money was still off-limits as a topic of polite conversation – even in the more radical realms of the art world – it continued to structure and delimit social relationships. Offering money “like candy” to visitors not only undermined its value; it also transfigured an icon of private competition into a sacrament of the gift, undercutting the conventional logic of money and setting the scene for a very different social interaction. At work here is the contradiction between money as the earthly representative of capitalist circulation and money as a medium of daily life. From a conventionally economic perspective, money’s only role is to mediate commerce in the public sphere, to act as a measure and token of value in exchange. Yet as we know, money also has multiple uses and resonances in the private sphere as a cipher or surrogate for interpersonal and cultural values (Nelms and Guyer, this volume; Zelizer 1997). For Lozano, a “total personal and public revolution” thus required interrogating money as both the medium of capital’s reproduction in circulation and the medium of social reproduction, questioning its power to orchestrate productive labor in the public sphere and reproductive labor in the private. Three works of money-Art, 2008 The three artists above all seized on – thus illuminating – capitalist contradictions and crises or reproduction that, while opening opportunities for social and artistic movements, would trigger systemic transformations in the nature of capitalism. Before exploring the work of three artists responding to the crisis of 2008, let us briefly review three seismic changes that followed 1973 in our three spheres of reproduction. On the level of the circulation of capital, 1973 was the year Fischer Black and Myron Scholes published their famous article outlining a formula for the pricing of derivatives products, a mathematical and theoretical development that was to fundamentally transform the financial UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 22 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES realm, and indeed the whole global economy(Bryan and Rafferty 2006). In brief, the BlackScholes formula, along with advances in computing and network technology, took finance away from physical trading floors and conventional investment and into a vast world of algorithmic speculative gambles, dominated by a handful of technologically-augmented corporations, investment banks, and hedge funds (MacKenzie 2006; Pasquale 2015). The Black-Scholes formula was thus a central part of the acceleration of transnational financial flows and increasing mobility of dematerialized capital, leading to the growth of global supply-chains, brands, corporations, and a suite of other forces associated with “globalization” (Li Puma and Lee 2004). Martin (2015b) suggests that financialization emerged as a means by which capitalism adapted to respond to decolonization movements that by 1973 had largely succeeded in destabilizing the world system. This adaptation includes the replacement of direct colonialism, partly in response to anti-colonial struggles, by neocolonial politics of indirect debt domination, sabotaged “development,” and covert “counterinsurgency.” An amorphous financial apparatus, headquartered in former colonial capitals, along with transnational institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, replaced costly imperialist methods – offering (the illusion of) self-rule while enriching former colonizers and maintaining colonial relations of dependency. For Martin, financialization also offered a way to respond to the “decolonial” demands of youth and marginalized people within those colonizing countries including those articulated by racial justice, feminism, student, queer, and counterculture movements, a means by which capitalism transformed to encompass, divide, and coopt these struggles by offering a more flexible, even personalized economic system, tolerant of various modalities of reproduction. Indeed, where real wages (adjusted for inflation) have fallen steadily since the UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 23 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES early 1970s, personal debt has fueled the expansion of consumerism and the production of new financialized subjectivities (Lazzarato 2012). This shift was enabled by and helped drive a transformation at the level of institutional reproduction towards the policies and ideologies associated with neoliberalism. 1973 provided a perfect opportunity for free-market advocates to test long-proposed theories on a controlled population when the US sponsored a military coup in Chile that installed the pro-market dictator Augusto Pinochet to power. Pinochet’s US advisors “strongly suggested” he employ the students of University of Chicago free-market guru Milton Friedman. The resulting wave of deregulations, privatizations, and trade “liberalizations” offered the prototype of neoliberalism, which would become globally hegemonic over the next three decades (Harvey 2005; Klein 2007). In addition to this market-oriented policy package, neoliberalism also represented a restructuring of the values, measurements, and protocols of public and private institutions towards the ideals of market-driven efficiency, instrumentalism, outsourcing and streamlining and institutional risk management (see Springer, Birch and MacLeavy 2016). More generally, neoliberalism has overseen the elevation of individual ambition, competition and self-promotion to cardinal virtues and compulsory survival strategies (Giroux 2008; Hall, Massey and Rustin 2013). Neoliberal financialization has also overseen shifts in the organization of work, reflected in new scholarly approaches to “cognitive capitalism” (de Angelis and Harvie 2009; Vercellone 2007) or capitalism’s “new spirit” (Boltanski and Chiapello 2005). These shifts are also often dated to 1973 as the apex of a global cycle of struggles among workers, to which capitalism responded by adopting a more flexiblized, individualized, and diversified orientation (Hardt and Negri 2000; Katsiaficas 2006). In tandem with the global North's deindustrialization and new UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 24 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES communication and production technologies, the notion and reality of the “masses” as the foundation of the working class gave way to an archipelago of sites of labor and consumption that are increasingly “precarious”: short-term, part-time, contract-based (Berardi 2009). Reaching its apotheosis in today’s platform-mediated “gig economy,” the new model worker is not the blue-collar “lifer” but, ironically enough, the artist whose allergy to long-term fixed relationships allow them to design their own career based on talent and passion (Harvie 2013; McRobbie 2015). The shift towards this new form of capitalism has equally demanded shifts on the level of social reproduction, subjectivity, and everyday life. Increases in consumerism are accompanied by the decay of social institutions, collective forms of insurance (such as those provided by community cohesion and the welfare state), and compulsory labor mobility (Federici 2012). As more and more tasks related to the reproduction of social life are privatized and made into commodities, the service sector becomes a generalizable model: even “productive” labor is seen as a “service” to be rented (Hansen 2015; Katsarova 2015). These transformations have required the cultivation of a new wardrobe of subjectivities that encourage each of us to address ourselves as competitive entrepreneurs who see all aspects of our lives, from friendships to hobbies to physical attractiveness to educational attainment, as a portfolio of assets to be leveraged for future payback (Haiven 2014a; Holmes 2002; Martin 2002). Even in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008, these transformations have continued to accelerate. They represent not only shifts in the logics of the three spheres of reproduction under capitalism, but also the collapsing of those spheres into one another. Whereas in the later 1960s and early 1970s it may have seemed possible for artists to intervene in one or another of these arenas, in recent years it has become hard to imagine, for instance, a social UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 25 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES institution that is not both structured by the global circulation of capital and transformative of social reproduction and subjectivity. Likewise, any such institution would also be dependent to some extent on the financialization of social reproduction and subjectivity and in turn be part of the reproduction of the global circulation of capital. Hardt and Negri (2000) adapt a classical Marxist term to describe this moment as the “real subsumption” (and opposed to the formal subsumption) of society to capitalism, wherein the system shifts away from the generation of surplus value and towards “biopolitical production,” the production of life itself. In short, capitalism under neoliberal financialization is not satisfied to ensure the reproduction of capital’s circulation by subordinating social institutions and social reproduction to this end while providing them relative autonomy. Rather, today’s capitalism blends and integrates all three spheres of reproduction in complex and shifting new ways. How artists respond to this situation is the topic of the final section of this chapter. In what follows, I address another three artists in reverse order, beginning with artists focused on the sphere of social reproduction, then on the reproduction of institutions, and finally on circulation; as will become clear, part of my argument is that such distinctions have become less durable. geheimagentur, Schwarzbank (2012) In 2012, the German art and theatre ensemble geheimagentur (“secret agency”) placed a modified white shipping container in the center of the insolvent former coal-mining city of Oberhausen (Broll 2012; geheimagentur 2012; Jalsovec 2012). Stripped by global financial flows of its fossil-fuel livelihood, the city experienced a significant economic and social crisis. geheimagentur’s shipping container was a grim monument to the forces of globalization had denuded Oberhausen of its prosperity. But it also contained the Schwartzbank (“Black Bank,” a UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 26 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES pun on the identification of dubious financial institutions in the 2008 financial crisis) distributing the Kohl (or “Coal”) a new unit of local currency. Citizens could earn Kohl by performing an hour of service for the community: for instance, taking care of children, cleaning the streets, or running errands for the elderly. geheimagentur negotiated with local businesses, social services, and other commercial and public institutions to accept Kohl at parity with Euros. This temporary parallel currency was aimed less at replacing fiat legal tender and more at opening a critical interval in an urban space otherwise seemingly destined to economic obsolescence. The Schwartzbank’s ambition was to reveal the play of other, non-commercial values at work within the terrain of urban social reproduction that, despite going unsung and unrewarded, are vital to the reproduction of cities and communities. By creating a functioning parallel currency, geheimagentur sought to revalidate forms of labor that are the bedrock of the reproduction of the capitalist order but that can usually find no value within it, especially in economically depressed zones. Importantly, geheimagentur imported to the “first world” a suit of techniques from the “third,” basing their currency on that of the Banco Palmas, a community bank established by social movements in Fortaleza, Brazil to prevent capital from fleeing precarious communities. Banco Palmas has been cited in international reports as a praiseworthy social enterprise and microcredit institution for its success at managing the accounts of local lenders and borrowers and providing capital and liquidity to grassroots businesses (Jayo, Pozzebon, and Diniz 2009). Despite the very real risks of such initiatives being vectors of grassroots neoliberal restructuring and the exploitation of the micro-financed (see Bateman 2010), Banco Palmas’ particular successes and challenges are secondary to their importance for Schwartzbank. Staging an opportunity for the notoriously fiscally prudent Germans to learn “financial literacy” and UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 27 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES financial acumen from the global South reversed a colonial narrative that elevated the German banking sector (notably Deutschebank) to global preeminence (Varoufakis 2016). Meanwhile, the lessons of Banco Palmas offered useful correctives to all-too-common narratives of economic rationality. Banco Palmas, for instance, expects and celebrates that customers will be try to cheat their systems and reflexively designs its currencies to facilitate their diverse financial behaviors, including gifts, barter, and cooperating in the common interest (see http://www.schwarzbank.org/). Here, geheimagentur picks up on questions of devalued and secret labor opened up by Lozano’s work, not only taking seriously the value of reproductive labor by opening it up to remuneration, but crafting a public ritual for recognizing and rewarding its value. Further, the art collective draws upon and subverts the present-day enthusiasm for art as a vehicle for urban economic salvation. In the mid-2000s, following the rise of Richard Florida’s (2004, 2005) bestsellers on the value of the so-called “creative class,” and thanks to a variety of urban planning and state policy orientations that saw “culture” as the key to economic growth in postindustrial landscapes, the arts were increasingly invoked to as the catalyst for urban renewal (Harvie 2013; Rosler 2013; Yudice 2003). Since the 1980s, accusations have circulated that artists seeking low rents and studio space represented the “shock troops of gentrification,” displacing the inhabitants of less affluent and racialized neighborhoods before themselves being displaced by wealthier professionals. By the 2000s, this pattern had been incorporated into official government policy (Cameron and Coafee 2005; Lees, Slater, and Wiley 2008). While public arts budgets were slashed, it was hard to find a city in the global North (or, increasingly, in the global South) that was not investing in an “arts hub” or rebranding itself as “the next” hotspot on the global cultural frontier. geheimagentur’s project reflected on this milieu, where a UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 28 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES city like Oberhausen, having abandoned all hope of economic recovery using any conventional tools of economic development, would be keen to allow artists to try their hand. Yet rather than promise that Schwartzbank would attract the creative class or national or foreign investment, geheimagentur’s bank focused on celebrating and sharing the inherent wealth and abundance of the community itself. In this sense, as in Beuys’ hijacking of legal tender, the Kohl acted as a vehicle for economic exchange as well as social meaning-making, opening onto the shared creative potential of existing economic actors. At stake here are the politics of a moment Fraser (2016) characterizes as the crisis of care, wherein the reproduction of capitalism begins to endanger the reproduction of social life. Fraser generally supports the restoration of the welfare state as a means to provide equitable and reliable forms of (fairly remunerated) care labor. But there is another approach (e.g., Federici 2014) that, while not entirely abandoning anti-neoliberal struggles, understands reproductive labor as a terrain of activism and advocates for grassroots practices of social reproduction as a platform for radical social change. geheimagentur’s field of action is the crisis of care as it affects the forgotten zones of global capitalism. But to what extent can art stimulate new forms of care and reproductive labor when the money runs out? Should this be art’s task? Zach Gough, Bourdieu: A Social Currency (2014) Turning to the sphere of the reproduction of institutions, we once again examine a work at the cusp of radical participatory art and institutional critique, but this time one that intervenes at conferences and events dedicated to this very topic. On three occasions in 2014, Zach Gough, a Canadian social practice artist, orchestrated a demonstrative game played with the Bourdieux, an invented currency, at key gatherings of fellow social practice artists and researchers in New York, Melbourne, and Portland, Oregon. The rules were as follows: UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 29 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES At the beginning, the currency is distributed in correlation with the hierarchies present at the conference: keynotes get the most, presenters and panelists get lots, artists get some, attendees get just a bit, and the general public get none at all. People are invited to exchange the currency for information and items of social value in whatever way they see fit. Email addresses, ideas, inspiration, influence, contact information, inside jokes, URL links, website coordinates, PDFs are bought, sold and traded with Bourdieux. Participants are encouraged to discuss how they generate power in an art context, who accumulates social capital in socially engaged art works. At the end of the conference, participants use their accumulated wealth of Bourdieux to bid in an auction for prizes rich in social capital. UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 30 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES Like Lozano, Gough uses money (or its proxy) to create an artificial ritual that reveals the underlying rituals of value, commodification, and neoliberal subject formation germane to a financialized moment. Gough continues: The project aims to reveal the economy of social and cultural capital already present within the discipline and at conferences for socially engaged art. It also shows how our economies of power mimic or operate under similar rules to our financial economy. Further, the project presents currency as an abstracted representation of our social relationships and explores the danger of quantifying value. Gough’s intervention resonates with recent commentary from institutional-critique pioneer Andrea Fraser (2012) that calls even critical and radical art to task for its participation in financialization. In the face of the Occupy movement and commitments of many critical artists to the struggle against the proverbial 1%, Fraser explores how the art world from which such work emerges and within which it circulates is saturated by the money and influence of the financial class. It is not simply that financiers (or those enriched by financial wealth) represent the lion’s share of art collectors and continue to monopolize the boards of museums, galleries, and funding bodies (Taylor 2011). It is that this funding, and the entanglements of the art world with high finance, exert a gravitational pull on artistic institutions and initiatives, including those that avowedly (often hyperbolically) seek to reject and escape this influence. The history of twentieth century art shows us that yesterday’s “outsiders” are today’s artworld innovators and the creators of tomorrow’s most desirable art-commodities (Rosler 1997). The commodification and marketization of feminist, performance, and conceptual art stands as evidence that the structure of the art market is a reflection of broader financial markets, which are constantly seeking out the new, the fringes, the frontier, the bleeding edge as an opportunity for future profitability (Malik and Phillips 2012). As with finance in the age of the derivative UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 31 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES (Martin 2015), in which financial techniques can be used to cultivate value based on conjectural gambles on not-immediately-commodifiable processes (the weather, for instance), the art market need not directly commodify artwork to derive value from it. Decommodified provocative performances and interventions are regularly commissioned by major galleries and dealers at transnational art fairs to generate buzz and attract attention to the art for sale, or simply to add to the prestige of the gallery. Performative and conceptual works can be cultivated in ways that increase the symbolic capital of funders, curators, museum directors, and even activists, who can then be lauded for their daring and foresight (Horowitz 2011; Thompson 2010). To note this neoliberal turn, where even the non-commodified, dematerialized artwork and art workers are conscripted, is not, however, to suggest that it dissolves all radical art’s other values. Like Beuys, Gough’s gesture is not merely cynical and derisive; it is compassionate and yearns for transformation. It does not call for the abolition of the genre but rather the refinement of strategies. As we have seen, part of art’s enduring appeal to capital and capitalists stems from its promise to escape or transcend the forms of capitalism that are the conditions of its emergence. Yet the reality is that art and money have always been entangled, and these entanglements are becoming trickier and more contradictory as financialization transforms the nature of money and the nature of art. While Gough’s game/ritual may feel uncomfortable and profane, it calls its participants to refine their strategic imagination and focus their political lens. As Bishop (2012) has noted, the turn towards “participation” and interactivity in contemporary art since the 1970s (already exhibited in the work of Beuys, Haacke, and Lozano) is equally the product of artistic radicalism seeking to break down the hierarchies between artist and audience and a neoliberal tendency towards the consumption of experience and demands that art be “accessible” for the consumption of broad publics. For Bishop, “participation” is too often UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 32 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES uncritically accepted as a political virtue in itself, in ways that render opaque the imperatives of cognitive capitalism, which demand each of us become “active” participants in our own selfmanagement. For “participatory” art to be politically expedient, it needs to be more cunning in the way it engages with a financialized moment in which money is no longer an alien power threatening art’s virtuous chastity but rather an integral element of art’s (even radical art’s) conditions of emergence. Gough’s piece, then, offers not a cynical trap but a collective exercise in the radical imagination (see Holmes 2012). It resonates with the broader corpus of his work, such as the Precarious Workers of the World Songbook, the Commoner’s Almanac or the Radical Imagination Gymnasium, each of which encourage artists to understand themselves also as workers and catalysts for non- or anti-capitalist transformation: yes, subjects of capital, but also bearing particular skills and potentials that might reveal radical opportunities to exit capitalist relations or generate resistance at their weakest points. At stake in Gough’s intervention is the curious proposition that, within financialized social institutions, the artist figures not as the unruly malcontent, but as the model worker. As McRobbie (2001) noted over a decade ago, the artist has come to signify the flexibilized, adaptable, passion-driven, and enthusiastically precarious subject of a neoliberal age where longterm, secure employment is replaced with a relentless “gig economy,” even for manual and service-sector workers. The new romance of the artist as idealized worker goes beyond the exaltation of their creative freedom and devil-may-care lifestyle; it also encompasses their virtuosic quasi-anthropological vantage on the workplace, its codes of value, hierarchies, and customs – all the better to navigate an individualized path of self-maximization. Gough’s work UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 33 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES implicitly questions how such aptitudes might be used otherwise, towards the sabotage or subversion of such institutions in the name of other values. Núria Güell and Levi Orta, various interventions (2015-present) How might the tools of financial circulation be appropriated to undermine or challenge that system? In 2015, the Catalan artist NúriaGüell, working with the Cuban artist Levi Orta, received a grant from a public arts institution, which they used to start a tax haven in Panama. The action took place amidst a tax avoidance scandal involving prominent political figures and members of the Spanish royal family, many of whom had supported the hyper-neoliberal regime of austerity forced upon Spain after the 2008 financial and subsequent Eurozone crisis. That regime led to unprecedented rates of home foreclosures, cuts to public services, skyrocketing rates of unemployment, funneling wealth to corporations, banks, and foreign investors, and draconian measures to silence and quash dissent. Güell and Orta approached a Madrid private business school whose neoliberal orientation was well known and whose faculty had been key advisors to the indicated politicians, requesting a consultation regarding how to secure the legal services to establish a tax haven allowing them to embezzle public arts funding through a secret account. Güell and Orta then offered use of the account to a Catalonian network of cooperatives and anti-capitalist enterprises. They sought to exploit the legal impunity and anonymity of offshore accounts as a means of rejecting the policies of the Spanish state. In a second, related project Güell and Orta created a Troika Fiscal Disobedience Consultancy (disobedience.eu) to provide a platform for likewise studying and appropriating the techniques of transnational capital. The TFDC, for example, uses shell companies to offer fake invoices for services rendered to social movement-aligned organizations and individuals, allowing them to avoid paying taxes to the state. In a third, Güell and Orta sent their curators at UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 34 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES two contemporary art institutions to secure €9,500 in corporate sponsorships to create a “SelfSustaining Creative Economy Award.” While Güell and Orta helped define the criteria, they did not sit on the jury, instead using their insider information to help their preferred candidate, the Freedom.Coop platform that facilitates cooperation between anti-capitalist initiatives, apply and win the prize – thus using art as a vehicle to transfer corporate wealth to activist hands. While Güell and Orta proudly announce such projects under their own names as art, they are careful to detach themselves from their administration so as to avoid criminal liability. Güell and Orta’s work is part of a wider set of techniques at the cusp of art and activism that attempt to appropriate and expropriate a globally integrated financial system in the name of other, non- or anti-capitalist values. Such art exhibits a post-cynical pragmatism in a moment UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 35 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES when the reproduction of the circulation of capital has been elevated globally, rendering it increasingly immune to democratic agency (often in ways that have corrupted allegedly democratic institutions). While this radical art may participate in traditions of “drawing attention,” “revealing” and “problematizing” the excesses of power, it does not stake its success on a moment of revelation, as if upon seeing the art, we will have the scales fall from our eyes, becoming radicalized to participate in some revolutionary movement. Artists like Güell and Orta are skeptical of the potential of the nation-state and its legacy institutions to re-regulate global capitalism, in part because they see the agencies of global capitalism too well-entrenched to be curtailed by popular will, in part because – as students of 1973 – they harbor no nostalgia for the Keynesian moment. Rather, Güell and Orta and many other young artists are interested in using the strange semi-autonomy and institutional liquidity of “art” to kick open holes in the capillaries of global capital and redirect energies and funds to living anti-capitalist alternatives. A similar effort on the other side of the Atlantic is the Occupy Wall Street offshoot group Strike Debt’s Rolling Jubilee platform, which crowdfunded money to play the secondary, discounted debt markets in order to buy and then forgive random people’s medical debt (McKee 2016). It is these alternatives, such as the aforementioned network of cooperatives and anti-capitalist enterprises, that such artists see as true interventions in the imagination, not simply because they represent models for a different mode of human cooperation but because they actually provide food, housing, information, ideas, and care within and against the crumbling system. Güell and Orta recognize that, under austerity, the reproduction of capitalist circulation has been sustained and accelerated at the expense of the social reproduction of citizens, with wealth and social resources claimed by transnational corporations, financial institutions, and elites while public services are UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 36 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES cut, tax burdens are regressively redistributed, and civil rights are curtailed. They aim to reverse those flows, redirecting resources from the circulation of financial capital into grassroots efforts to reclaim the means of social reproduction. In this sense, Güell and Orta’s work resonates less with contemporary art and more with social movements the world over who are seeking to appropriate and subvert global capitalism by creating new economic networks, methods and parallel currencies. It is significant that art becomes the vehicle for this work. Part of Güell and Orta’s success, in terms of gaining resources for these actions and avoiding legal ramifications, stems from the residual prestige and ideological immunity afforded to art in a moment of austerity. Against all odds, “art” retains a cocoon—or, better, a cuckoo—of possibility. Perhaps this has to do with the enthusiasm for contemporary art by today’s social elites, which in turn demands resources and indulgences offering radical artists some space to move and wealth to appropriate. Perhaps it has to do with the melancholia of the neoliberal nation-state, which, denied tools once used to assert sovereignty over fiscal matters, now turns to support “culture” as one of its only domains of. Whatever the case, Güell and Orta are part of a generation of artist-activists who see art, the art world, and the art market as opportunities for expropriation and experimentation with alternatives. There is little hope here in the liberating or enlightening potential of art itself, but rather a post-cynical, utilitarian approach to art as a platform for other projects of grassroots creativity, militant imagination, and anti-capitalist economic cooperation. UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 37 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES References Althusser, Louis. On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. London and New York: Verso, 2014. Bateman, Milford. Why Doesn’t Microfinance Work?: The Destructive Rise of Local Neoliberalism. London: Zed, 2010. Baudrillard, Jean. For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. St. Louis, MO: Telos, 1981. Beasley-Murray, Jon. “Value and Capital in Bourdieu and Marx.” In Pierre Bourdieu: A Fieldwork in Culture, edited by Nicholas Brown and Imre Szeman, 100–121. Lanham, ML and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000. Berardi, Franco “Bifo.” Precarious Rhapsody: Semiocapitalism and the Pathologies of the Post-Alpha Generation. New York: Autonomedia, 2009. Beuys, Joseph. What Is Money? A Discussion. West Hoathly, UK: Clairview, 2010. Bishop, Claire. Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London and New York: Verso, 2012. “Black Bank - Coal for All!” Geheimagentur, 2012. http://www.geheimagentur.net/projekte/schwarzbank-kohle-furalle/. Boltanski, Luc, and Eve Chiapello. The New Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Gregory Elliot. London and New York: Verso, 2005. Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984. ———. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Edited by Randal Johnson. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. ———. The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990. ———. The Social Structures of the Economy. Cambridge: Polity, 2005. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Hans Haacke. Free Exchange. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994. Broll, Simon. “Theaterprojekt ‘Schwarzbank’: Mäuse, Piepen, Kröten.” Spiegel Online, March 14, 2012. http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/theaterprojekt-schwarzbank-a-820850.html. Bryan, Dick, and Michael Rafferty. Capitalism with Derivatives: A Political Economy of Financial Derivatives, Capital and Class. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Bryan-Wilson, Julia. Art Workers: Radical Practices in the Vietnam War Era. Berkeley and London: University of California Press, 2009. Bürger, Peter. Theory of the Avant-Garde. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnestoa Press, 1984. Caffentzis, George. In Letters of Blood and Fire: Work, Machines, and the Crisis of Capitalism. Common Notions (PM Press), 2013. ———. “On the Notion of a Crisis of Social Reproduction: A Theoretical Review.” In Women, Development, and Labor of Reproduction: Struggles and Movements, edited by Giovanna Franca Dalla Costa and Mariarosa Dalla Costa, 153–88. Tronton NJ and Asmara, Eritrea: Africa World Press, 1999. Cameron, Stuart, and Jon Coaffee. “Art, Gentrification and Regeneration – From Artist as Pioneer to Public Arts.” International Journal of Housing Policy 5, no. 1 (August 2005): 39–58. Castoriadis, Cornelius. The Castoriadis Reader. Translated by David Ames Curtis. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1997. UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 38 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES Clark, T. J. The Absolute Bourgeois: Artists and Politics in France, 1848-1851. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Cleaver, Harry. Reading Capital Politically. Edinburgh and San Francisco: AK Press, 2000. ———. “Work, Value and Domination: On the Continuing Relevance of the Marxian Labour Theory of Value in the Crisis of the Keynesian Planner State.” The Commoner 10 (2005). Crosthwaite, Paul, Peter Knight, and Nicky Marsh, eds. Show Me the Money: The Image of Finance, 1700 to the Present. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2014. Currid, Elizabeth. The Warhol Economy: How Fashion, Art, and Music Drive New York City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. Dalla Costa, Giovanna Franca. The Work of Love: Unpaid Housework, Poverty and Sexual Violence at the Dawn of the 21st Century. New York: Autonomedia, 2008. Davis, Ben. “‘Panama Papers’ Show Art’s Role In Tax Dodge.” ArtNet News, April 4, 2016. https://news.artnet.com/opinion/panama-papers-tax-dodging-superrich-465305. Day, Richard. Gramsci Is Dead: Anarchist Currents in the Newest Social Movements. London and Ann Arbour, MI: Pluto, 2005. De Angelis, Massimo, and David Harvie. “‘Cognitive Capitalism’ and the Rat-Race: How Capital Measures Immaterial Labour in British Universities.” Historical Materialism 17, no. 3 (2009): 3–30. Fanon, Frantz. “On National Culture.” In The Wretched of the Earth, 206–48. New York: Grove, 1963. Federici, Silvia. Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle. Brooklyn, NY and Oakland, CA: Common Notions (PM Press), 2012. Federici, Sylvia. Caliban and the Witch: Women, Capitalism and Primitive Accumulation. New York: Autonomedia, 2005. Ferguson, Sue, and David McNally. “Social Reproduction Beyond Intersectionality: An Interview.” Viewpoint 5 (2015). https://viewpointmag.com/2015/10/31/social-reproduction-beyond-intersectionality-an-interviewwith-sue-ferguson-and-david-mcnally/. Field, Michele, and Timothy Millett. 1998. Convict Love Tokens: The Leaden Hearts the Convicts Left Behind. Adelaide: Wakefield. Firestone, Shulamith. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003. Florida, Richard L. The Flight of the Creative Class : The New Global Competition for Talent. Vol. 1st. New York: HarperBusiness, 2005. ———. The Rise of the Creative Class : And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2004. Fortunati, Leopoldina. The Arcane of Reproduction: Housework, Prostitution, Labor and Capital. New York: Autonomedia, 1995. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish : The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage, 1979. ———. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978. Fraser, Andrea. “There’s No Place Like Home / L’1% C’est Moi.” Continent 2, no. 3 (2012): 186–201. Fraser, Nancy. Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis. London and New York: Verso, 2013. ———. Contradictions of Capital and Care. New Left Review 100 (2016): 99–117. Gil, Isabel Capeloa, and Helena Gonçalves da Silva, eds. The Cultural Life of Money. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 39 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES Giroux, Henry A. Against the Terror of Neoliberalism: Politics beyond the Age of Greed. Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2008. ———. Theory and Resistance in Education: Towards a Pedogogy of the Opposition. Vol. 2nd. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 2001. Graeber, David. Debt: The First 5000 Years. New York: Melville House, 2011. ———. Toward and Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams. New York: Palgrave, 2001. Haacke, Hans. “Lessons Learned.” Tate Papers 12 (2009). http://www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/7265. ———. Working Conditions: The Writings of Hans Haacke. Edited by Alexander Alberro. Writing Art. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2016. Haider, Asad, and Salar Mohandesi, eds. Viewpoint 5: Social Reproduction, 2015. https://viewpointmag.com/2015/11/02/issue-5-social-reproduction/. Haiven, Max. “Art and Money: Three Aesthetic Strategies in an Age of Financialisation.” Finance and Society 1, no. 1 (2015): 38–60. ———. Cultures of Financialization: Fictitious Capital in Popular Culture and Everyday Life. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. ———. “Finance as Capital’s Imagination?: Reimagining Value and Culture in an Age of Fictitious Capital and Crisis.” Social Text 108 (2011): 93–124. ———. “Money as a Medium of the Imagination: Art and the Currencies of Cooperation.” In Moneylab Reader: An Intervention in Digital Economy, edited by Geert Lovink, Nathaniel Tkacz, and Patricia De Vries. Amsterdam: Institute for Network Cultures, 2015. http://networkcultures.org/blog/publication/moneylabreader-an-intervention-in-digital-economy/. Haiven, Max, and Alex Khasnabish. The Radical Imagination: Social Movement Research in the Age of Austerity. London and New York: Zed Books, 2014. Hall, Stuart. “Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies.” In Stuart Hall: Critical Dialgoues in Cultural Studies, edited by David Morely and Kuan-Hsing Chen, 262–75. London and New York: Routledge, 1996. ———. “The Problem of Ideology: Marxism without Guarantees.” In Stuart Hall: Critical Dialgoues in Cultural Studies, edited by David Morely and Kuan-Hsing Chen, 25–46. London and New York: Routledge, 1996. Hall, Stuart, Doreen Massey, and Michael Rustin, eds. After Neoliberalism? The Kilburn Manifesto. London: Soundings: A Journal of Politics and Culture, 2013. http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/manifesto.html. Hansen, Bue Rübner. “Surplus Population, Social Reproduction, and the Problem of Class Formation.” Viewpoint 5 (2015). https://viewpointmag.com/2015/10/31/surplus-population-social-reproduction-and-the-problem-ofclass-formation/. Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. ———. The Limits to Capital. 2nd ed. London and New York: Verso, 2006. ———. The New Imperialism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Harvie, Jen. Fair Play: Art, Performance and Neoliberalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Hoggart, Richard. The Uses of Literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1998. Holmes, Brian. “Eventwork: The Fourfold Matrix of Contemporary Social Movements.” In Living As Form: Socially Engaged Art from 1991-2011, 72–85. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, 2012. ———. “The Flexible Personality | Eipcp.net.” EIPCP, 2002. http://eipcp.net/transversal/1106/holmes/en/base_edit. UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 40 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES ———. Three Crises: Thirties - Seventies - Now. Chicago: Online, 2013. http://threecrises.org/. Horowitz, Noah. Art of the Deal: Contemporary Art in a Global Financial Market. Princeton, NJ and London: Princeton University Press, 2011. Jalsovec, By Andreas. “Oberhausen bezahlt mit einer Regionalwährung: Kohle von der Schwarzbank.” sueddeutsche.de, March 20, 2012, sec. wirtschaft. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/oberhausenbezahlt-mit-einer-regionalwaehrung-kohle-von-der-schwarzbank-1.1313925. Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 1991. ———. The Political Unconscious. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981. James, Selma. Sex, Race, and Class: The Perspective of Winning. Brooklyn, NY: Common Notions (PM Press), 2012. James, Selma, and Mariarosa Dalla Costa. The Power of Women and the Subversion of Community. Bristol: Falling Wall, 1979. Jayo, Martin, Marlei Pozzebon, and Eduardo Diniz. “Microcredit and Innovative Local Development in Fortaleza, Brazil: The Case of Banco Palmas.” Canadian Journal of Regional Science 32, no. 1 (2009). Katsarova, Rada. “Repression and Resistance on the Terrain of Social Reproduction: Historical Trajectories, Contemporary Openings.” Viewpoint 5 (2015). https://viewpointmag.com/2015/10/31/repression-andresistance-on-the-terrain-of-social-reproduction-historical-trajectories-contemporary-openings/. Katsiaficas, George. The Imagination of the New Left: A Global Analysis of 1968. Boston, MA: South End Press, 1987. ———. The Subversion of Politics: European Autonomous Social Movements and the Decolonization of Everyday Life. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2006. Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise and Fall of Disaster Capitalism. Toronto, ON: Knopf, 2007. Koch, Alexander, ed. General Strike. Berlin: KOW, 2011. Lapavitsas, Costas. Political Economy of Money and Finance. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999. ———. Profiting Without Producing: How Finance Exploits Us All. London and New York: Verso, 2013. Lazzarato, Maurizio. The Making of the Indebted Man. Boston, MA: MIT Press, 2012. Léger, Marc James. Brave New Avant Garde: Essays on Contemporary Art and Politics, 2012. Lehrer-Graiwer, Sarah. Lee Lozano: Dropout Piece. London: Afterall Books, 2014. Lenin, Vladimir Il’ich. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: A Popular Outline. New York: International, 1939. Lippard, Lucy. Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972. Berkeley and Los Angelis, CA: University of California Press, 1973. LiPuma, Edward, and Benjamin Lee. Financial Derivatives and the Globalization of Risk. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 2004. Luxemburg, Rosa. The Accumulation of Capital. Translated by Agnes Schwarzschild. London and New York: Routledge, 2003. Luxton, Meg, and Kate Bezanson, eds. Social Reproduction: Feminist Political Economy Challenges NeoLiberalism. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006. MacKenzie, Donald. An Engine, Not a Camera : How Financial Models Shape Markets. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006. UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 41 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES Malik, Suhail, and Andrea Phillips. “Tainted Love: Art’s Ethos and Capitalization.” In Contemporary Art and Its Commercial Markets. A Report on Current Conditions and Future Scenarios, edited by Maria Lind and Olav Velthuis, 209–40. Berlin: Sternberg, 2012. Marcuse, Herbert. The Aesthetic Dimension: Towards a Critique of Marxist Aesthetics. Boston: Beacon, 1978. Martin, Randy. An Empire of Indifference: American War and the Financial Logic of Risk Management. Durham NC and London: Duke University Press, 2007. ———. Financialization of Daily Life. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2002. ———. Knowledge LTD: Towards a Social Logic of the Derivative. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2015. ———. “Money after Decolonization.” South Atlantic Quarterly 114, no. 2 (2015): 377–93. Marx, Karl. Capital I: A Critique of Political Economy. Translated by Ben Fowkes. New York: Penguin, 1992. ———. Capital: Volume III. London: Penguin, 1981. McKee, Yates. 2016. Strike Art: Contemporary Art and the Post-Occupy Condition. London and New York: Verso. McRobbie, Angela. ‘Everyone is Creative’: artists as new economy pioneers? OpenDemocracy (2001). https://www.opendemocracy.net/node/652. Be Creative: Making a Living in the New Culture Industries. Camcridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2015. ———. The Uses of Cultural Studies. London: Sage, 2005. Meltzer, Eve. Systems We Have Loved: Conceptual Art, Affect, and the Antihumanist Turn. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Mies, Maria. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale : Women in the International Division of Labour. London: Zed, 1986. Molesworth, Helen. “Tune In, Turn On, Drop out: The Rejection of Lee Lozano.” Art Journal 61, no. 4 (2002): 64. Nelson, Anita. Marx’s Concept of Money: The God of Commodities. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. Opitz, Alfred. “The Magic Triangle: Considerations on Art, Money and S***.” In The Cultural Life of Money, edited by Isabel Capeloa Gil and Helena Gonçalves da Silva. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. Osborne, Peter, ed. Conceptual Art. London and New York: Phaidon, 2002. Pasquale, Frank. 2015. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Panich, Leo, and Sam Gindin. The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of the American Empire. London and New York: Verso, 2012. Plant, Sadie. The Most Radical Gesture: The Situationist International in a Postmodern Age. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. Rösch, Ulrich. We Are the Revolution!: Rudolf Steiner, Joseph Beuys and the Threefold Social Impulse. Forest Row: Temple Lodge Publishing, 2013. Rosler, Martha. Culture Class. Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013. ———. “Money, Power, Contemporary Art.” Art Bulletin 79, no. 1 (1997): 20–24. Ross, Kristin. May ’68 and Its Afterlives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Sandrock, John E. 2007. “The Use of Bank Note as an Instrument of Propaganda.” The Currency Collector. http://www.thecurrencycollector.com/pdfs/The_Use_of_Bank_Notes_as_an_Instrument_of_Propaganda__Part_I.pdf. Saunders, Frances Stonor. The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. Reprint. New York, NY: New Press, 2001. Shell, Marc. Art and Money. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 42 HAIVEN SIX ARTISTS, TWO CRISES Sholette, Gregory, and Oliver Ressler, eds. It’s the Political Economy, Stupid: The Global Financial Crisis in Art and Theory. London and New York: Pluto, 2013. Siegel, Katy, and Paul Mattick. Art Works: Money. London: Thames and Hudson, 2004. Smith, Richard Norton. On His Own Terms: A Life of Nelson Rockefeller. New York: Random House, 2014. Spears, Dorothy. “Lee Lozano, Defiant Painter, Makes a Comeback.” The New York Times, January 5, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/arts/design/09lozano.html. Springer, Simon, Kean Birch, and Julie MacLeavy, eds. The Handbook of Neoliberalism. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. Stakemeier, Kerstin, and Marina Vishmidt. Reproducing Autonomy: Work, Money, Crisis and Contemporary Art. London: Mute, 2016. Steyerl, Hito. “Duty-Free Art.” E-Flux 63 (March 2015). http://www.e-flux.com/journal/duty-free-art/. Taylor, Mark C. “Financialization of Art.” Capitalism and Society 6, no. 2 (January 9, 2011). doi:10.2202/19320213.1091. Thompson, Don. The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Thornton, Sarah. Seven Days in the Art World. New York: WW Norton, 2008. Varoufakis, Yanis. And the Weak Suffer What They Must?: Europe’s Crisis and America’s Economic Future. New York: Nation, 2016. ———. The Global Minotaur: America, Europe, and the Future of the Global Economy. 2nd edition. London and New York: Zed, 2013. Velthuis, Olav. Talking Prices: Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art. 4. print., 1. paperback print. Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007. Vercellone, Carlo. “From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism.” Historical Materialism 15, no. 1 (2007): 13–36. Wagner, Ethan, and Thea Westreich Wagner. Collecting Art for Love, Money and More. London and New York: Phaidon, 2013. Wark, Jayne. Radical Gestures: Feminism and Performance Art in North America. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006. Weeks, Kathi. The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 2011. Weschler, Lawrence. Boggs: A Comedy of Values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Williams, Raymond. Culture and Materialism: Selected Essays. London and New York: Verso, 2005. Wilson, Kristina. The Modern Eye: Stieglitz, MoMA, and the Art of the Exhibition, 1925-1934. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Wolff, Janet. The Social Production of Art. New York: New York UP, 1984. Yúdice, George. The Expediency of Culture. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2003. Zelizer, Viviana A. The Social Meaning of Money: Pin Money, Paychecks, Poor Relief, and Other Currencies. Princeton NJ and London: Princeton University Press, 1997. UNCORRECTED DRAFT JULY 17, 2017 43