My expectation for this article was very different, maybe because I’m not at all familiar with the author. This seemed like a loose collection of aphorisms and not really like anything I’d lump in with what I generally think of as “journalism”. Take this for example:
Bureaucracy is not merely sluggish. It is a cultural scorn. It rejects the possibility of dialogue. It insists that ignorance, codified into policy, no matter how wrong and inhumane it is, remains the best resistance against social mobility, against moral motion. In such a society, hope is not misplaced. It is extinguished.
What does this mean? What does it refer to? Which bureaucratic processes specifically? This could have been a useful think-piece, but it doesn’t contain any actual information. It’s more… like a word-picture for feelings.
Maybe the ZEIT editors also had different expectations?
When I reduce the quote, I understand it as “bureaucracy is inhumane, depersonalized processes, evading individual concerns and preventing social mobility (that those worse off can get into a better situation)”.
When I reduce the quote, I understand it as “bureaucracy is inhumane, depersonalized processes, evading individual concerns and preventing social mobility (that those worse off can get into a better situation)”.
I read that as well - but again, that’s a completely disconnected statement, so what’s the point? Ai Weiwei doesn’t elaborate on what kind of bureaucracy he encounted, how that bureaucracy differs from the one he was used to or holds as ideal. There’s nothing actionable here, i.e. that paragraph didn’t teach me anything about German bureaucracy.
I live in Germany for over 6 years, and come from Russia. I don’t appreciate generalisation, but some things he mentioned just ring the bell. Some Germans I met definitely fit the description, but not the others.
I don’t think art here is complacent, but I also see how artists from outside of Germany (and generally, foreigners), often tune down their criticism towards Germany.
At work, my German colleagues are very sensitive if a foreigner criticizes late trains or long bureaucratic procedures. There’s a notion we should be grateful, and if we don’t like something, we should go back to places we like…
Germans themselves seem to be critical of their society though, so I wonder how it works from the inside.
Perhaps Ai Weiwei’s point is a perspective of an outsider who’s expected to express gratefulness and complacency.
I’ve lived in the most northern region of Germany for over 30 years now, and still feel foreign here even though I’m white as it gets and speak German better than most Germans. The mindset of many Germans is on such a basic level because many have never stepped a foot outside of their country. And if they did, it was usually in either German speaking countries or tourist destinations full of other Germans. Many Germans are afraid of new things and prefer to live in their bubble, where Germany is the most advanced and civilized nation on Earth (which is utter bullshit). The feeling of being a foreigner becomes worse the farther south you go. I’m just happy that I got to know a couple of very good people who don’t fit this description.
When public events of great consequence — such as the Nord Stream Pipeline bombing — are met with silence from both government and media, the silence itself becomes more terrifying than any atomic bomb.
It is interesting how people remember things differently - I really do not think that there was silence from the public or government in regards of the Nord Stream bombings. Yes, there weren’t any demonstrations or riots on the street, but silence?
Well, silence is not the correct word, I agree. But the reaction was kind of mild, when you think about that it was a terrorist attack on seemingly very important infrastructure and thus on Germany’s sovereignity. And that holds especially true after it became clear that it wasn’t the Russians but someone who wanted to influence Germany’s stance on Russia’s invasion. Nobody cared.
I mean, Germany is obviously not in the position, but the US basically devastates whole regions for less. Thus it can be argued, that the reaction was comparably “silent”.
How should Germany have reacted? As I see it there were two possible culprits: Russia or Ukraine. If we make a big deal out of it we have to act.
-
Say it turns out to be Russia, then we have a direct attack on the infrastructure of a NATO member. If we don’t react to that it sends a desastrous message. If we do we and the rest of NATO have to react with force, something everyone has tried to avoid at all cost so far.
-
If links to Ukraine turn out to be true (which seems more likely atm) this will give a massive boost to anti Ukrainian sentiment, with a good chance of complete collapse of public support for Ukraine. So what are we supposed to do then? Considering how Germany got bashed by everyone already for seemingly not doing enough (unfairly imo).
Now even getting into a position like that is the result of long-term strategic failure. But in my limited view keeping this topic comparatively small is a favor to everyone involved. Because in the end world goes on without the pipeline as well.
What you describe is exactly the point Ai WeiWei is trying to make in that paragraph: you let something as severe as an blatant attack just slide, because it does not fit in your strategic planning.
And that is the hypocrisy he is calling out: the reaction would have been different if it was an enemy state like Russia or Iran but “silent” when it was Ukraine or Israel for example. Take that “it is not okay to spy on friends” bullshit as another example. Like spying for Russia or China is uncovered and the perpetrators prosecuted (which is obviously a good thing), but nobody ever did something about the large scale spying by our allies.
There is obviously nothing new about it, except that in our age those hypocrisies are more easily uncovered. And that leads to frustration, when it becomes clear, that it is never about the act itself but about who is the actor. That holds true on geopolitical issues like that, but also, as pointed out, for
- When Israel genocides it is okay (and Germany even supplies weapons), when China does it it’s not
- When the US attacks or threatens another country it is okay (and Germany even might help), when Russia does it it’s not
- When rich people commit crimes it’s okay, when poor people do it it’s not
- and many more
And the cherry on top is, that nobody openly tells the truth as “yeah, obviously all of that is different for our allies than for our enemies, because it is in our strategic interest”, but always hides behind some “values”, like “it’s about international law or human rights”. No, if it were, we had to do something about that stuff equally.
-
It still is quite strange for him to focus on Nord Stream. Yeah, it was important infrastructure. But it was switched off for quite a while due to sanctions against russia before the attack. So not great, but there was no immediate impact for people.
I could understand if he was focussing on silence in regard of the Ukraine war or even Gaza, but Nord Stream is strange
I think he took it as an example, because it was basically an direct attack on Germany. So the example is crass, as in “if it doesn’t fit into the mainstream story, we even ‘ignore’ direct attacks”.
While the silence on the Gaza genocide holds just as true, it is not a direct attack and thus not such a strong example for the point.
NS2 should not have existed in the first place. Don’t you feel shame for building huge pipeline around whole Eastern Europe just so your trade wouldn’t be interrupted as russia invades everything? Because you should feel the shame. It have been built when russia already invaded Ukraine.
And yes, it wasn’t yet used, but almost finished state of it gave russia more courage to launch full scale invasion.
The shame already begins in still burning gas in the 21st century, no matter where it comes from and how it gets to Germany (or other countries for that matter) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean, when Nordstream was conceived, everybody and their mother loved it: in the public opinion of the late 00s Ukraine was basically the devil and state enemy, stealing “our gas which we paid for”. Dumb take even then, but instead of just saying “ok, let’s start an effort to not use gas anymore” somebody came up with Nordstream. Turns out infrastructure projects take longer than huge shifts in the geopolitical landscape.
You do understand that late 00s is when pro-Ukrainian president in Ukraine have been elected, and russia was using economic pressure as an instrument to make him unpopular and, as a result, installed pro-russian puppet Yanukovich?
And instantly all the gas issues vanished, 30% discount was given, in exchange for permission to extend Russia’s lease of a major naval base in the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sevastopol for an additional 25 years - the soldiers from this base occupied Crimea in 2014.
Since I don’t speak the language, I can only imagine that the young people coming to Berlin would talk about […]
Pretty brave presenting a list of pretty harsh statements without explanations about the German state and its people when not even understanding what they are actually talking…
Not really surprised that Zeit stepped back from publishing the article.
Thought the same, found the article to be pretty dull and shallow. No notable insights shared.
I like it. His art, words, challenge and provoke. I especially love the context here of asking a question when you are really not prepared for the answer.
It is perfect and should have gone to publication. Seeing this piece surrounded by lighthearted fluff about mustards would have been even more delicious.
That’s basically every westerner passing judgement about China, so I’ll take it that his artistic message punched through
I fully understand that they refused to publish this if I may say so. He is permanently contradicting himself, and this is not even the worst part.
He doesn’t speak the language, but ‘assumes’ the young people ‘coming to Berlin’ (where do they come from?) are talking about clubbing? How does he make this inference?
And the Germans ‘might’ be ‘truly the furthest from a sense of humor’ which ‘could be the result of their deep reverence for rationality’ - an inference he apparently makes from a Mercedes-Benz ad at the airport.
And so it goes on. I mean, he is an artist and may assume whatever he wants, but I understand why they refused to publish this piece.
This rings so much for nordic countries too.
Immigrant refuses to learn the language of the country he moved to and goes on to feel unwelcome. What a shame. As an immigrant living in Germany myself I’d recommend he go somewhere else.
Iirc he moved to London years ago
Good for him. I suspect he speaks more English.
When people sense that power is beyond challenge, they redirect their energy into trivial disputes. And those trivialities, collectively, are enough to erode a society’s very foundations of justice.
This is more true than usual in more places than just Germany.
Exactly. As I stated in another comment already, most of the statements feel like generic Fortune-Cookie-style wisdom packed into edgy language.
If half the world is failing in precisely the same ways at this time, it’s all the more valuable to publish the words of an artist who’s able to point it out.
But what does he actually point out?
Most of the statements are so ambiguous, generic and, quite frankly, mundane that they are almost free of deeper meaning.
And the last third is just whining about how nobody appreciates the “worthy” (meaning: his?) art any more.
Pathetic.Without having read the article yet, I expect that a Chinese person would never state criticism bluntly. Being ambiguous to make it possible to dismiss it is to be expected.
Thank you. A bad instinct is “why are you picking on me!”. A good instinct is “this is a useful case study for all to learn from!”.
The whole article consists of such truisms.
Seems reasonalble? I don’t agree with everything, but he is not exactly wrong with his impression. And yes, Chinese restaurants in Germany suck 🤷
To stay with the Chinese restaurant trope:
Many of his statements seem to me to be generic Fortune Cookie level wisdom.
Generally not wrong, but also of limited specific reference to Germany.Some are true but generally known. We would like to find a solutions ourselves to them. e.g. the excessive and often uncompromising bureaucracy.
And some statements are so ambiguous that they are ready to be used by the very enemies of democracy and freedom for their own purposes.
Right out of the AfD style book.And some statements are so ambiguous that they are ready to be used by the very enemies of democracy and freedom for their own purposes.
He called you out already: “When conversation becomes avoidance, when topics must not be mentioned, we are already living under the quiet logic of authoritarianism.”
Funny that you used that specific quote, as this was the exact one I was specifically thinking about when writing my statement.
Postulation of non-existant “Denkverbote” is a prime AfD narrative.And because they are using it, you are saying that we should not talk about how some topics are becoming more and more taboo. You are making a meta-taboo, and that’s self defeating.
I’m not talking about some silly/dangerous “debate the fascists on the topics they choose” strategy of course. We don’t debate fascists, period.
I’m talking about the fact that the fascists always use a kernel of truth to spin their house of lies from. And that kernel of truth is that indeed the liberal mainstream doesn’t talk about certain things, with the brain-dead German mainstream consensus on denying the Gaza Genocide being a prime case study.
And because they are using it, you are saying that we should not talk about how some topics are becoming more and more taboo.
That’s not what I said.
Please do so, point out topics that are not covered enough, but be specific and not so ambiguous as Ai Weiwei here.
Otherwise nefarious people will use the statements to push their own agenda.
Otherwise nefarious people will use the statements to push their own agenda.
Yes, and the presence (or absence) of said ambiguity is exactly what makes or breaks a good article imo. Because all information has a "goal rationale " ( as in Zweckrationalität, Max Weber).
you are saying that we should not talk about how some topics are becoming more and more taboo.
They did not say that.
