Événements 2022-2025

“Artist at work. Proximity of art and capitalism”.

“Artistic work is the focus of my interest because it allows us to analyse some important characteristics of the development of contemporary art in the last few decades and especially the changes in the forms of artistic autonomy that appeared with the increasing closeness of art and life. The aim of my book is therefore to note that these changes are closely connected to the changes in contemporary capitalism and the entry of post-Fordist ways of production into the centre of contemporary production.” (p. 18).

“Old forms of life become obsolete even before they can actually be absorbed. This opens up the way for subjectivity, which experiences its transformation through constant existential paradoxes. This makes us live in a constant state of tension, at the edge of anxiety; it is this state that causes an increase in our investments.” (p. 21-22). “(…) In this context, I see radical consumption as the consumption of the body, presence, human actions and abilities, physical strength, spiritual power and effects; it aims to intervene into the intersubjective and productive nature of subjectivity and, in this way, also open up the relationship between performers and spectators.” (p. 22).

“The problem is therefore that in today’s capitalism, we work in the manner that Abramović calls performance mode. One’s work is intertwined with the performing and the maintenance of creativity; in this, one should ignore every disturbance from the environment or political context, as well as any antagonist disturbance that comes from the sphere of the public. (…) This loss of voice is also quite close to the contemporary ways of working; those can also be revolutionary works without a political voice, with art and the contemporary creative work closely resembling each other in this aspect.” (p. 42-43).

“But what happens with capitalists who donate their wealth to art and receive tickets to the performances art pieces of the rich, in which they not only participate, but are also critically addressed? Their pleasure lies in the critical attitude towards them; it is in the co-existence of their status as the rich and a parodic critique of their role.” (p. 47).

“Today, these social relations are at the core of generating value, with manners of production connected to the exploitation of these relations. At the same time, the dematerialization of objects and the fetishisation of open procedures and transparent relations are at the core of post-Fordist shifts in the understanding of work and production.” (p. 59).

“The museum is still a space for production, a space for exploitation; in the <<museum as a factory>>, things are still produced.” (p. 63).

“It is also non coincidence that many venues intended for the contemporary artistic events actually inhabit former Fordist factories that there were deserted after the relocation of Fordist production to non-Western countries.” (p. 64).

“Let us ask ourselves, where this accurate description of the highly ambitious performance artist actually comes form. Is this not the description of the contemporary worker, equipped for continuous high performance? That of the always critical and active labourer, whose subjectivity in entirely subjected to the modes of contemporary capitalist production?” (p. 80).

“What, then, is the community? Paradoxically, it is the constant dispossession of collaboration and its possibilities.” (p. 96)

“(…) the communities are much more coincidental and flexible and are not connected to a certain space; they are actually not united by work, but over the very specific temporal dimension of meeting.” (p. 97).

“This intriguing connection between work and future underlines the excessive use of the world “project” in the contemporary artistic and creative professions; it is linked with a specific time dimension of work and creation, which I will term “projective temporality”. (p. 157).

Conférence à l’Institut d’études avancées de l’Université de Poznan – 6 octobre 2022, 10h 00

La surdétermination économique du droit du travail de l’Union européenne

L’objet de la conférence est de questionner l’inscription du droit du travail dans le projet fondamentalement économique qu’est l’Union européenne, en vue de révéler les finalités et les fonctions de cette branche du droit.

Notre réflexion est basée sur une présentation des trois ensembles normatifs qui sédimentent et composent le «système» actuel du droit du travail de l’UE: 1) le droit du travail du marché intérieur, centré sur les libertés de circulation; 2) le droit de l’harmonisation sociale, visant la protection des travailleurs; 3) le droit du marché du travail, concourant aux objectifs de croissance et d’emploi au sein de la coordination des politiques économiques des États membres de l’UE. 

À partir de deux évolutions récentes primordiales, nous proposons d’analyser le déplacement des équilibres propres à chaque ensemble et de l’articulation entre ces trois ensembles. Nous tenterons d’en tirer les enseignements pour la construction juridique de l’Europe sociale.

La première évolution résulte de jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne au sujet de la directive UE n°2018/957 sur le détachement des travailleurs. Dans deux arrêts importants du 8 décembre 2020 rendus à l’occasion de recours en annulation de cette directive formés par la Pologne et par la Hongrie , la Cour rejette les arguments des gouvernements polonais et hongrois fondés sur une vision économique des règles du détachement en matière de droit du travail, et procède à une réinterprétation sociale de ces règles en introduisant le concept inédit de «concurrence équitable» dans sa jurisprudence. Désormais, la rémunération des travailleurs ne peut plus valablement constituer un élément de concurrence entre les États membres, leurs entreprises et, in fine, leurs travailleurs.

La seconde évolution résulte quant à elle de l’adoption en 2017 du Socle européen des droits sociaux  et sa mise en œuvre subséquente. Conçu pour renforcer la dimension sociale de l’Union économique et monétaire, ce texte peut être analysé comme un (nouveau) programme de développement la politique d’harmonisation sociale de l’UE. Le droit du travail de l’Union européenne en ressort encastré dans la politique économique, qui lui impose ses objectifs, ses méthodes et, plus largement, sa rationalité.