We are watching the tsunami coming…
Which swimming costume are you going to put on?


It was at the 2002 Switzerland's world Fair where Haral Szeemann showed his exhibition, "Money and value, the last taboo". At the center of it, under a hole carried out in the roof of the building, there has been placed a currency-destroying robot. Conducting what only banks are allowed to do by daylight deep down in the bellies of security vaults. As Szeemann stated, the project was exploring the edge of what could be called an art exhibition. This collaboration with swiss banks, exposing some of their veiled secrets, must have left a weird sensation to those spectators who could still remember the history of this particular institutions.

Déjà vu (KKuK, 2012)is an infrastructural intervention. Banknotes of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are transformed into theater tickets at the entrance of the event Untergangart, only to be torn apart as the entrance validation process takes place.

When an exhibition portrays the relationship between art and currency or between art and the market, assertions about a critical interaction, irritation or treacherous distortion are usually being made. Against that, the heroic validation of an independent position of undergroundness, is also cast. Here, in our opinion , something different tries to explain the title "money and value, the last taboo". Szeemann is stating the equivalence between the creation of value in art and his economic counterpart.

The myth of creativity is not very different to the limitless value-creation growth in the economist utopia. Original creation is grounded on the same individualist foundations of the self, where branding and marketing could also be placed. The capitalist entrepreneur and the eventually successful artist or curator who attends or takes part in exhibitions are in no way different sort of people, as they try to make us believe. Their sometimes specular ideologies, tend to overlap perfectly (with what? The outside world we perceive?). And usually their very names (from the artist as well as from the artwork titles) operate as logos and brands.

We believe there is not a race taking place between the economy and the arts, where the victimized creation is escaping from the insatiable hunger of the archiving capitalist, they both have the same goal of mystical value creation. Archiving is only the consecutive of value categorization.

So which is the alternative, should we stop making works of art altogether? Should we invert the paradigm and begin the process of value destructive art?

Déjà vu is taking place too near from the sinister shadow of Joseph Schumpeter to take into consideration the inversion of value creation. And the concept of creative destruction which this Austrian economist developed, still resonates mockingly in the abyss of this ongoing crisis.

But we are still very much against creation. A concept which is not so innocent as one could believe. So let us use Déjà vu as thinking experiment. Let us here avoid to be conclusive as we still are in the beginning of imagining a different paradigm. This humble exercise of ticket validation is not much a banknote destruction performance as it is a transformation, a metamorphosis of the paper money. But is this not again the magical and mythical reappearance of the new, of the foundational?, should the reader reply. In this case the transformation is taking place not in the direction from the old to the new (from the banknote to the theater ticket) and not even in reverse. It seems more an infant play of "what if..." As a child imagining the boiler room of his parents apartment, as the engine room of an U-boat. Playing what if, playing in place of.

Metamorphosis could be understood in a way that very much falls on the reign of creative destruction and even as a mystical illumination of the enclosed self. But we speak here about a different transformation. A transformation that involves a shared use, and not always a totally pleasant one. The shared destruction fetish related to money creates inevitably a moderate unpleasant liberation or shared irritation.

We propose neither a new creative paradigm nor a destructive euphoria. We propose a relationship. It is not an easy or lovely relationship. It is the relationship of the unpleasant as Pessoa would put it. May be an aparallel relationship an aparallel mimesis as Guattari-Deleuze. Shared transformation with a hint of discomfort and even violence. We are speaking about the aparallel transformation between the wasp and the orchid as Rimy Chauvin put it: "the aparallel evolution of two beings that have absolutely nothing to do with each other." Where a number of orchids mimic the form of the female wasp making the male copulate with them and indeed having an orgasm. The orchid uses the wasp as a apart of its copulation organs (spreading the polen) and the wasp uses the orchid as a pleasure object with the inconvenience of the loss of bodily fluids...

This is a transformation were at least to living beings are involved. It is a transformation without a clear or even shared objective, because most of the times these beings have totally different natures and objectives. As it exist for example between human beings and plants where drunkenness could be interpreted "as a triumphant irruption of the plant in us." We invite you to change ourselves through dissent. We invite you to share our in(ter)disciplinarity.

And you would ask yourselves, then why use this Croatian Serbian and Bosnian currency...Well, this is a story we will tell you may be, another time.