The world is not threatened by people who are evil, but by those who allow evil. [Albert Einstein]

Right-wing populist movements are also gaining strength in Europe. At the same time, insecurity and division in society is increasing. What are the methods used by right-wing populists and what causes them to have such an impact? What role do capitalism and new technologies play in this? Are there strategies to prevent the associated undermining of democracies? What does it take to restore trust in democratic structures, promote social cohesion in society and create a sense of confidence that the omnipresent crises can be overcome in a humanitarian, participatory way?

Program
4:00 p.m.
Introduction: Ilse Weber
4:05 p.m.
Walter Ötsch: People and Elite. Language, images and ways of thinking of the New Right
4:30 p.m.
Barbara Prainsack: The Limits of Trust: Democracy and Populism in Digital Societies
17:00 hrs
Tamara Ehs: Rules of the game of democracy - or: “...a game that we want to keep playing indefinitely”
5:30 pm
Johanna Pirker: Gaming as an exercise in resistance
18:00 hrs
Daniel Lohninger: epicenter.works for digital rights
6:30 pm
Discussion round with the participants
Moderation: Ilse Weber

Followed by concert performance Game Over by Christof Ressi and finissage of our exhibition WHO IS PLAYING WITH US?

The game with democracy

Artificial intelligence, fanaticism, digitalization, global migration movements and local refugee crises, corruption, fanaticism, inflation and global warming are the key concepts of a frequently invoked threat scenario. Systemically linked to this, capitalism is up for discussion, with critics apostrophizing the Anthropocene as the possible final era of humanity. If art is concerned with democracy, then with one of its conditions of existence. And if art is illuminated (and appears) in the context of democracy, then both as an indicator of democracy and - with reference to Ernst Cassirer, for example - as an operative project of democratization.

Culture of democracy

A largely shared understanding of democracy is based on the responsibility of citizens to support, shape and renew it in everyday life through encounters and exchange, thereby keeping it alive. This requires a broad consensus on fundamental principles that go beyond the mere constitutional order - above all, that there is no such thing as THE democracy. In that it must always be updated anew and from within itself, democracy is similar in principle to culture in its characteristic conditions, as Walter Benjamin pointed out: it is not fixed, both literally and figuratively, but arises “from human activity [...] as the provisional and incessantly moving context of mentality and action, as the open space of communication that it is.” In addition to common markers such as co-determination, solidarity and equality, freedom of will and opinion, democracy consists first and foremost - not in the unconditional sovereignty of the people, from which all power emanates, although it is internally committed to this idea and aims to realize it. Especially not in a dictatorship of the majority. Democracy consists first and foremost in protecting those in need of protection - (also) from the power of the majority; it consists in a critical attitude towards the state (which is functionally implemented in the state, for example through the separation of powers); and unlike a majority that derives its power from an ethnic, national, cultural or religious affiliation, the understanding of demos in democracy is based on a group of people who have set themselves rules that determine a common practice and common institutions. In other words, democracy is basically characterized by the fact that it remains (or should remain) stable even when turned against the will of the people, and even more so, that it asserts itself. In the case of migration, for example, the liberal democratic state is bound by a higher ethical authority (European Convention on Human Rights, international law, Geneva Convention ...) than the mere will of the people. Or, for example, in the case of maintaining art institutions (theaters, museums, artistic production and distribution sites ...). Their “cultural mandate” to pursue their own agenda practically ranks higher than in the majority canon of values.

Art (in the interest of the public)

Democracy requires continuous democratization; in this, democracy itself is both a goal and an instrument - a project of the future, if you will. Democratization means promoting the self-image of a secular and enlightened democracy, the principles of freedom, equality and individuality institutionally and in civil society. One of the conditions under which this project can be pursued - together with education and science - is art. And art needs the support of the state, of society - not only financially, but ideally and practically in a purely pragmatic sense and purpose, namely as an instrument for the democratic development of (democratic) society. In other words: “independently” of achievements in the respective disciplines and the preferences or theories associated with them, art has an instrumental quality in the development of its culture (its free unfolding) that is aimed, for example, at the self-organization of society.

The cultural scientist and philosopher of history Ernst Cassirer made this “principle of democracy”, which is expressed institutionally through art, a central subject of his reflections. Cassirer emphasizes democracy and art as interdependent forms of knowledge for shaping the world. Only the free appropriation and perception of the world (by means of certain cultural techniques and disciplines, symbolic forms) can lead to a social plurality, which in turn is a precondition for the development of a political culture that actually reflects society and not a ruling “elite”. As a source and method of knowledge and understanding - art means the discovery and intensification of reality at the same time and is therefore a factor of knowledge and action (impact) - art therefore plays a prominent role.

Indicator and instrument

If we adopt Cassirer's understanding of art as an indicator of democratic conditions and as a form of knowledge and action, then also in the sense of an instrument or a means, if you will: a medium or vector of democratization.

It is no coincidence that art, as it is practiced (today) by the researching artistic community, is an adopted child of democracy and its state formation of the public sector, a parafiscal (as it is written in the book; or in the Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon); admittedly, a neglected child. However, without a guarantee of freedom and financial security at least to the extent that this freedom proves not only to be a cynically proclaimed state, as it is far removed from life, but also possible in principle and in reality, its existence would be completely called into question. The state must fulfill its liberal-democratic promise and commitment to the freedom of art in the form of a possibility for action, i.e. it must create the conditions for freedom to be lived out in a way that is reasonably adequate to the subject matter. It does this by means of academies and universities as well as individual project subsidies, operating subsidies for cultural and art initiatives, producer galleries and laboratories or studio houses, etc.

Neither Steirischer Herbst nor Ars Electronica or the esc medien kunst labor etc. would exist (in their current form) without support from the public sector. Conversely, art's status as an adopted child of democratic politics at least gives it the task of contributing to political culture (democracy) in the sense of a way of acting and living within its own agenda. One and probably the most important consequence of this concerns the milieu in which art is ultimately first realized, namely public perception to the effect that publication - in the interest of the public - goes hand in hand with its opening up to social discourse: Not because society has a say over the subject of art, but because it has the right to be spoken to (about and through art) in a way that is effective for the public, i.e. accessible to art as a form of knowledge. Thus, what applies to democratic forms of life in general also applies to art in particular: a democracy that neglects its cultivation (or even develops a policy that primarily advocates efficiency and performance, controlling and benchmarking) accepts that the cultural preconditions of liberal democracy will dissolve.

[Heimo Ranzenbacher]