« Perpetrator glorification »? Violent criticism of the actionism museum at the festival weeks-Diepresse.com
Can you still exhibit Otto Mühl’s pictures? Or do you have to remove them from the canon of art in the face of its crimes? Can you separate art and artists? The Viennese festival weeks’ “Wiener congresses” were sometimes heavily debated.
« The pictures look nice, but are horrible; you don’t see the suffering, but it is in them »: Psychotherapist Ruth Bourgogne, the « scraps » of Otto Mühl, who are still traded. Because the girls whose bodies were pulled over the canvas to create these pictures were sexually abused. Bourgogne, questioned as a « information person » at the « Wiener Congresses » of the festival weeks, should know: From 1981 to 1990 she was a member of the Friedrichshof community Otto Mühls, which at that time was glorified by many as advanced community for so-called action analysis (loc. Cit.), But is now considered criminal sect.
Allegation of the « Pink Washing »
The first meeting on the second weekend of the Vienna Congress was about Otto Mühl, and about the questions: Should or have to be stroked Mühl’s work from the crime of crimes from the art canon? Whether and how should you exhibit your pictures? The private Viennese action museum opened by a group around the art dealer Philipp Konzett in February 2024 only shows works that were created before the establishment of the AAO Communions (1970). Nevertheless, the congress in the Odeon was heavily criticized by many. It does « Pink Washing » by trying to connect queer initiatives with Viennese actionism and thus upgraded, jury member Sophia Süß milk accused him of the beginning.
The museum does not operate a « perpetrator glorification », explained its director Julia Moebus-Pucker Actionism. It also does not sell pictures « by hand ». When asked by the philosopher Robert Pfaller, how to deal with works of art that arose in the context of abuse, but she replied that it could be issued, but only if you contextualize them.
From a legal point of view, the spread of such works of art can be prohibited if affected persons are clearly depicted, explained lawyer Georg Zanger, who defended Mühl and himself has Mühl-Werke. You could not banish all the works from convicted criminals, the totalitarian interventions would come into freedom of art, so you would have to banish. At Mühl’s work, the connection with his life is central, replied juror Fariba Mosleh.
« Big tongue of an old man »
Terrifying reports reminded of life in the aao sect. An affected person whose report was only read out anonymously described the « overwhelming tongue of an old man » – that is, Mühls – in her mouth that she had already experienced sexual violence with three years. Later she had to experience that a nude picture was auctioned by her as a twelve -year -old – with her name – in the Dorotheum. She was outraged that « the entire left of Mühl had stood behind ». In fact, Mühl was even invited to a reading in the Burgtheater, about his estimate.
Such sympathy was no longer noticeable in the Vienna Congresses: nobody defended the Mühl sect, disagreement only ruled about dealing with Mühl’s works. « Art that is associated with a criminal offense belongs to the criminal museum, » said art curator Gerald Matt, otherwise, otherwise he believes in the dichotomy of art and artists.
In the Actionism Museum you see no processing of the crimes of the Mühl sect, said representatives of the Mathilda group, who even lived as children at Friedrichshof, they see an « complicity with rape culture ». The final word of juror Süßmilch: Concett, the founder of the Actionism Museum, buy « art of violence ». « And to upgrade them, he builds a museum around it. » It also calls for a late reappraisal of the alleged relationships of Burgenland SPÖ politicians to the Mühl sect.
Even in the second treated causa, the case of the former Burgtheater actor Florian Teichtmeister, the spook of the case Otto Mühl was present: In contrast to the Teichtmeister case, he asked Süßmilch lawyer Rudolf Mayer, who defended the pond champion. « It depends on the person, » he replied dryly. A prominent actor is simply much more present than a visual artist who lives withdrawn. In any case, he is against the fact that media reports about an alleged crime before a susceptible indictment. This is media justice.
Child pornography with AI?
Otherwise, there was largely unity in the debate about the former Burgtheater actor. Only the question raised by Robert Pfaller triggered brief excitement: How should one deal with child pornography that was created purely by a AI without the participation of children? Such representations cannot be incriminated if they do not fall back on real material, my Mayer – and also pointed out the change in moral ideas.
In any case, fault is « the capitalist, patriarchal system », which we all suppresses, diagnosed director Asli Kislal. And the cult of genius. Separating art and artists was « neurologically impossible, » she said. The entire debate remained open why this is obviously even more difficult with Otto Mühl than with Teichtmeister. Why hardly anyone finds it outrageous to show films with Teichtmeister on ORF again. A simple explanation would be that this is basically reproductive artist when actor represents other people, while artists like Otto Mühl, admittedly, want to express their own ideology. In any case, no one defends this anymore. Perhaps that was the most gratifying at the second meeting of the Vienna Congresses. At the third session on Sunday, the case of the German band Rammstein – who was never convicted by a court – followed.
