Welcome everybody. Welcome. I'm Ausa Rekastophtir, the Secretary-General of IETM and I have been given the honour of being the master of ceremony at this opening event. And on behalf of the two collaborator pathers, IETM and Riecha 2020 I wholeheartedly welcome you to the plenary meeting of IETM Riecha 2019. We will be having five short remarks by five distinguished people representing the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia, the city of Riecha, Riecha 2020 and IETM. And we will be having our keynote speaker of today Goran Serge Prastis. But first before Goran comes to the podium we will hear a few words from the five people that I mentioned or the representatives that I mentioned and the first one to that I'd like to welcome to the state is the CEO of Riecha 2020 Emina Visnitsch. Thank you. Good afternoon everybody. Dear friends, dear colleagues, people I know from my previous life when I used to be quite an active member of IETM. Some new faces for me. I'm really happy to see you all here in Riecha. Riecha the city that is proud to be the European capital of culture. For us here it's not only great pleasure but also we're really proud that we can host one of the biggest most important and one of the best European networks they are and I'm telling this not just because of the occasion but because of many years I had before in European networking. I'm also very pleased that IETM is not coming only to the biggest cities in Europe but also visit those that are not that familiar. Next year we're gonna open our official cultural program on the 1st of February and I would like to invite you all to come and if not then come anytime in the year there will be more than 250 projects there will be more than 650 events from various fields, contemporary art, a bit of classics and a lot of citizens engagement.  Thank you very much. What's IETM? And likewise it is fantastic to be in Riecha which maybe a lot of us didn't know before we arrived but I feel certain that we are all gonna come again. And with no further ado I'd like to introduce to you the second speaker of today Ivan Sarar head of the city of Riecha called Teotipartment. I'm a little bit tired about talking about how Riecha 2020 will change the world society, humanity and culture because I don't believe it but I think for your perspective as performers some brief improvised history about Riecha and performing arts can be interesting. Riecha is and was and I think I'm not biased about different genres of culture is definitely city of theaters and city of performing arts. Why? Because our history is so, I will not use that F letter word but complicated and regimes, business and everything around it changed so fast that if they can choose will we build theaters or museums? Some clever people decided to build theaters because it's impossible to organize good museum because next year next owner of city will come inside and they were very megalomaniac. We have big city theater for more than 200 years. We had that old opera Felner and Helmer house from 1890s where city had only 40,000 inhabitants which was really megalomaniac. This building was some reply to other part of city across the river because we was Berlin before Berlin and this was Yugoslavia and the other part of river was Italy and this building started construction in 30s last century and there are more other buildings through which politics was fighting for cultural identities. At the same time we had great and crazy drama adventure 100 years ago when we was first proto-fascist state in history when Gabriele denuncio organized performance to enter the city and then organized puppet state as one more performance because there really was performances. At the same time we are not typical Croatian Adriatic coast city with medieval or Roman heritage UNESCO marks. Our UNESCO marks is dedicated to carnival and carnival is performance too and I think we are the great place to think about performing arts and everything related to in this city. I think it's definitely strong part of our bidding for European capital of culture. There are few great performing art people was part of our project Oliver Frilic and Slaventolj and I think the performing is in deeply in spirit of the town on different ways. As you can see we organized very nice weather for you these days and I'll suggest you to enjoy in the best solo performing act human being can do and that is the swimming in Adriatic Sea. Temperature is around 1920 degrees and you will not be judged as bizarre eccentric because it's really nice these days in Rijeka. Enjoy your stay and welcome. Yeah now we know what we're gonna do for the next days. Midnight dipping in the Adriatic Sea. What about it? I think the history of Rijeka is fascinating and one thing that I had no idea before I came is that Rijeka was actually two cities between the first and the second World War. Rijeka under Italy and Susak under the former Yugoslavian Republic or totalitarian state or whatever you want to call it kingdom kingdom. So there's a lot of history here to be explored dear IATM members but I have the honor to present to you the third speaker of today and that is Eva Raste Soko special advisor to the Minister of Culture please. Ladies and gentlemen dear friends and colleagues I am very pleased to greet you here on behalf of the Minister of Culture Nina Obolian Korzinek as well as my own name. We all know that IATM as a network for contemporary performing arts is an important project connecting artists and professionals on international level stimulating us to rethink our artistic practices and to enhance the exchange of ideas as well as to explore a new ways and models of artistic expression. Today's presence of the participants from European but also from wider international communities and institutions show us how it is important to actively communicate within established and dynamic platforms as IATM is capable to connect, ask the questions and search for the answers. Our mutual goals still remain the same to encourage the creation and to point out the importance of cultural exchange in the domain of the performing arts. Let me just briefly remind you that in the year 2016 an IATM satellite meeting was jointly organized in Paris by IATM French Ministry of Culture and Communication and the Creation Ministry of Culture. I hope that the City of Rieke as a host to this plenary meeting would offer you a glimpse to the program and the atmosphere of cultural diversity which is main idea behind the project Rieke 2020. Port of diversity will host multiple artistic events that will celebrate the artistic excellence jointly created by the artists and local communities. At the end I would like to express my gratitude to all the colleagues that made their efforts to participate at the plenary meeting, to the keynote speakers and moderators for their expertise they are sharing with us and to IATM professionals for their efforts to identify possible solutions in the vivid exchange of different experiences and positions. Enjoy the meeting. Thank you. Thank you so much The fourth speaker of today I think many of you IATM members know but it's my pleasure to welcome Cathy Boyd the president of IATM on the stage. Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting us to your beautiful city. I think Rieke is so welcoming and cosmopolitan because it's actually being part of 12 different countries and states over the past hundred years. Not only did you invent their torpedo but I actually being from Belfast want to make one personal comment that when the Titanic was sinking it was a ship on its way to Rieke that was first there to rescue the passengers from the lifeboats so thank you. That's fantastic ship we built in Harlington-Wilf. Here at the Rieke plenary we have 330 members from 37 countries, 185 of you are members, 33 of you are new members so a huge welcome to IATM. I also want to welcome the 77 participants from the Balkan region. We hope you will join and engage with IATM and I promise you when you join it will change your life. What you give this network is what you get back. I joined the network in 1997 and every time I come I learn something. Many people have traveled very far to come here and I know many of us had to take several planes but some people even drove 14 hours by car. That shows that this network matters and matters deeply to its members. Please enjoy the coming days. I hope you leave inspired and stimulated and have learned many things. IATM is a great learning meeting place. Havala Eva and even for making us feel so welcome. Thank you and I just want to say that welcome Ausa. Hurrah. Now it's my turn. Like everybody else I feel I can speak on behalf of all of us that have come from various parts of Europe and beyond that it is great to be here in this historic Adriatic coastal city of Rijeka. I want to give the Rijeka 2020 team the sincere thanks from all of us in the IATM team. It has been a very great learning collaboration for all of us during the last months and I feel we have created the friendship which will last. IATM will turn is turning 38 years old this year which when it comes to international cultural networks does not make it the newest kid on the block on the contrary is probably one of the oldest and for a secretary general it is highest on my mind these days how to make sure IATM stays relevant. Each of us members have our different answers to that questions depending on who we are and there is no right answer. I will be taking and talking a lot about this in the coming months to be and I will be asking you members to contribute but today I want to leave you with this. IATM will only stay relevant if it manages to listen, be generous and fight for its informal nature. I hope you agree. The history of IATM is special, it's magical and it's important and in 2021 we will be 40 years old. How shall we celebrate, remember and move forward? We have gone on many journeys during all these years and for the last few years we have been on a journey of inclusion and access one which will never end and should never end and for the next four days we will concentrate on the audience. We will continue learning and share our knowledge and our responsibility as a network of members of striving to be more inclusive every day, here as a network and us as professionals in our everyday lives every day. There are other burning topics that we face that of our joint sustainability are growing as an arts community in the aids of an environmental crisis and the need to reframe our international work. This we are going to concentrate in our upcoming meetings. We have many burning issues to discuss and digest as a network as well as deal with in our everyday lives and IATM has always been a place for sharing and finding answers so let's cultivate that during the coming four days, let's share with our generous informal nature and let's remember that we are a membership organisation which stays strong and relevant because of the contributions of its members as participants as partners and as multipliers and then to a few more practicalities my dears. Use the hashtag, every single post, use the hashtag, it counts when we send in our reports to the European Union please use the hashtag. Kindly correction to the booklet, it says you cannot buy tickets at the door but for some performances you can. There's going to be more information at the tick text. We encourage you to be active and attend as many sessions as you can and we encourage you in particularly to stop by the advices corner and talk to our very important group of advices who are IATM's very own think tank. The advices corner is downstairs in the main daytime meeting space, ground floor and having said that I have the privilege to introduce one of the strongest thinkers of the Croatian performing arts community, Goran Serdej Pristars who is our keynote speaker of today. Goran is a professor of dramaturk and the Academy of Dramatic Arts in the University of Sakrep. He is a dramaturk co-founder and member of Batco, Croatia's foremost performing arts collective. With his projects in collaboration Goran has participated in the Venice Biennale in 2011 and 16, documented 12 and numerous festivals and exhibitions and conferences throughout the world. He has mentored and taught at Storken Storkom, LU Gisen, Staten Senekun skule in Copenhagen. Parts in Brussels to name of you. He was the first editor in chief 1996 to 2007 of Frakk Cica, a market scene for performing arts published here in Croatia. And last but not least, he has co-edited several books and written his own. I welcome you to the stage, Goran. Can this thing right in advance? I would be very happy to read what I will say or what would come out from my English. So thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of ITM. I was a member of ITM all through the 90s. So it was the second decade in quite turbulent times here at the Balkans. And it was a long fight at that time. And it was at the same time very happy and unhappy period of being a member. But I remember one thing at these keynote sessions. What made me very angry often was the fact that when art started to speak as a keynote, most of people left the room because drinks were there and so on. So I've been told that these things changed. So I hope I will keep you at least for some time with my talk. So I was asked to talk about the audience, not exactly the audience itself. I don't know if I know enough about the audience as such. But to talk about the critical points around the issues of audience development. I remember then in the 90s one of the hottest issues was arts development. In the last decade it was audience development. But we never really may be questioned the concept of development as such. And I think that we live in time specifically with the climate crisis when we really have to rethink what is our position towards the logics of development, logics of growth and logics of valorization, which are in a kind of harmony with all the questions around the measuring and the limits of growth. So today when I will talk, of course I can't talk about all of these things and it wouldn't make sense or at least it wouldn't produce a lot of sense to put all of these things together. But instead of focusing simply or only on the audience, I will try to talk about the fact that whenever we are producing art, we are not only producing art but we are also reproducing the relations of production and also distributing these relations of production. And to think about the audience and production and to think about the way how we work with the audience, we have to also think how do we work with the arts and how do we work in the arts and what is the status of artistic labor in the situation of production. My talk will not go into the direction of political economy, not at all. I will try just to reflect on some of the issues which deal with the fact that for a long time artists were busy with spending their own free time to make other people's free time better. But the problem is that there is no free time anymore. People work till six o'clock in the afternoon and friend of mine, when I asked him, he works in a kind of communication company, kind of average job of today of the middle class, which is generally our audience. We have to admit that. When I asked him, why did you give up theater, he said like, I didn't give up theater, I'm trying to give up spectating. I'm working by spectating throughout the day. I wake up in the morning, I answer emails, I look into the monitor, I work for my company on my computer, I work for Google, I work for Apple, I work for all the companies that are spying my accounts and in the afternoon, I don't want to watch anymore. And at six o'clock when I come home, I'm not ready to go out and to watch theater. Okay, it's a lazy answer, but there is a lot of truth in what he says. And there is nothing new in the fact that one of the major modalities of work today is work of watching or maybe more precisely to say, labor of watching, which is in huge amounts unpaid labor. That watching is labor and a kind of practice that produces benefit was already clear to ancient Greeks. I don't know, you must be familiar with that, but in Pericles time, there was a fund, national fund or police fund called Theorica. And Theorica was fund in which rich people were investing their money to help to poor citizens or citizens who were in need to pay tickets for theater and for festivals. So even at that time, it was quite clear that the subsistence of audience is one of the major things that the city or the police has to take care about. And of course, the moment when this fund was closed or finished or re-tooled, it was in the situation of war and that money went into the war funding. But we tried to experiment with that idea that audience could be paid for what they do at our performances. And a few years ago here in Theorica, in the space of new museum of contemporary arts, when it was still an abandoned factory, we invited the audience to spend 24 hours with us. We did a project of eight plus eight plus eight, eight hours of work, eight hours of education and eight hours of sleep in the abandoned factory. And then we had, of course, some audience, more or less people that we know from Theorica. But we were thinking, okay, how can we bring some other audience, people that would never come to a kind of edgy cultural project, so that we bring people that we would call average audience. And that's probably the last time that I would use that term. I try to avoid any idea that anybody in the audience is average. And we couldn't find anybody who would support the paying tickets for the audience. Okay, we could give audience tickets for free, but not pay audience to come to see what we do. So we slightly changed the project. And we engaged the two agencies that work with film extras. And we turned the project into film shooting. So we managed to hire by a very proper price, 100 people as film extras to sit and watch in our spaces what we do. And also to sleep at the second turn of the project in Split, another city on the, I mean, the second biggest city in Croatia. So there we asked the audience to sleep for eight hours as film extras. And it was really amazing experience because it's really edgy situation because audience who are film extras, if they speak while we are shooting, they have to be paid more. We didn't have these budgets, but then we had to prolong their being there and they voluntarily wanted to stay there because they wanted to have their say about the situation. And for the first time ever, we really had an audience which wanted to be there, discuss the things, feel that they are not there just to consume something, but also for some other reasons which made us to think a lot about the ways we are dealing with the audience, the ways we pay ourselves, other who are responsible or institutions that we work with pay us and how we relate to the audience. So my remarks today, which I planned to read, but I already spent one quarter of my talk with this introduction, will deal, I hope, briefly with some of the key issues that are coming as an ideas that I'm trying to understand. Parallel with the fact that audience development became a kind of specific care, and I would say it's a historical care, as we already have seen from the example of Greece, we have to understand what happens with the artistic work. And I find one thing very symptomatic. Lately, when we are discussing with the artists, they always speak about their practice. We practice this, my practice is that, this is practice of this, this is practice of that. And what disappears somehow from the discourse on the arts is discussion on poetics. I would like to make a strong distinction here. It's, again, historical distinction and you are aware of that. Poetics in classical terms comes from the word poesis or word poin, which means to produce. So to put something into existence, practice is related to the concept of praxis, which is an act of a free will, which is very much similar to what we are promoting in liberal contexts of expression, acts of free will, individual free will. But the discussion on how do we put something into existence while we are practicing something, somehow is erased. And it happens in the same time with dispersion of artistic work into very different modalities of practice, which we can, for the first time now in the history, really calculate. We can really calculate how much does it cost for an artist to live for a while in a residence? How much does it cost to do a workshop? How much does it cost to exchange knowledge? How much does it cost to, I don't know, practice body-mind practices? How much does it cost to share experiences, et cetera, et cetera? So artistic work somehow turned into practices instead of production, putting something into existence. And please, help me to make a distinction between productivity and production. Production I'm here using as putting something into existence and not an attempt to be very productive, which is economical term. So one of the results of that dispersion of the activities and different modalities of presenting artists in the public institutions or in the cultural institutions in general resulted with what I would call monetization of artistic work. So it's not, as Walter Benjamin said, exhibition value anymore that matters, but it's the value of the very concrete calculation of the different typologies of artistic labor. We know all of these metaphors from history. Some of them were used by Marx comparing architect and bee. And also we know from Lafontaine and Ezop's fables on grasshopper and the ants. And these animal metaphors about the artists are not rare, you know, but it's very interesting how they grow in a time of populist politics, you know, how the idea of artists being parasites, those who are dwelling, being busy with their own existence and not really caring resulted with us also identifying with these logics. I remember here, not here in Rijeka, but sometime ago in ITM, there was a brave calculation produced by one of the institutes in the West on the income that art produces or the outputs that are economic outputs that are coming from the very fact that art is produced, distributed, presented and so on. So the calculation went from the very haircuts that people do to go to the shows, paying taxis, buying woods and so on. So then in the 90s, we, I mean, when I say we, I'm standing on the side of the artists and curators at that time, mostly programmers in ITM, we were trying to convince those who are funding our work that we are producing value and that we are benefiting to the economy. And somebody started to believe us, you know, and to expect from us exactly that, saying that, okay, show me the results. So we came into a situation when art is valorized mostly through other spheres of human activity, either economical impact, political impact, social impact, et cetera, et cetera. I don't want to say that there is none. But I think that the crisis of valorization is such that if we don't prove that we can produce an impact somewhere else, we are losing the ground of the generic human activity, which is related to creativity and to capability of putting something into existence, not being productive. And productivity is what matters in these terms. So valorization, which is based only on the logic of audience features and internal management, which is characteristic for the most of the at least Eastern European or ex-Eastern European countries today, is just a final result of all of all these attempts of self identification with those who are producing and who are producers in terms of productivity and not in terms of creativity. Okay, word creative has its own problems, but let's not go so far. So we can say that Mladen Stilinovich, who said in the 90s in his famous text, prays to laziness that there is no art today because artists are not lazy anymore and that artists became their own producers, their own managers, their own critics, their own interpreters, and their own evaluators is very much right, unfortunately. None of the ideas of Kazimir Mladen Stilinovich about utopian laziness as a condition of creativity, neither Dishanian non-work ideas match to what we do today when we are coming to work as the artist because one of the main things that we are doing together in the institutions is presenting. And I would say that a thing which is somehow parallel to that is the fact that art institutions no longer reside in a separate sphere of circulation. They also produce conditions of production and distribution and references and ultimately or initially desire and consumption. And this is the point at which the final level of the so-called aesthetic terms manifests itself. Those who are familiar with Jacques Rancier know that he claims that from the 18th century on, we don't talk anymore about poetic regimes, but about aesthetic regimes. So regime in which the art is art to the extent that it is something else than art. So art becomes something that we can call art only when it's not art that we know. And that logic of institutions trying to be aestheticized institutions, institutions which are artistic institutions as long as they are not busy only with art somehow prevails or gives right to Rancier's claim that we have to rethink our logic of what do we, how do we understand the institution, the place where art historically was putting something into the existence. That's not a new question. I mean, even Jean Baudrillard in the 80s was saying, okay, what happened to the museums? Museums were empty spaces where we would come and we could watch the art. We could see the artworks. Today, we see only people there. So when just before the opening of Bobour, Jacques Kamat, French leftist activist and philosopher or anarchist better to say said that the institution by opening of Bobour and similar is turned into a place where credit invades art. The institution is a place of promise and not a place of production. And everything is possible, just like in the world of capital. When execution is replaced by credit, by a blank check, art finds itself reduced to the rise or resize and the extreme, the extreme disappears. It disappears by becoming almost the opposite idea of the art. So the art can finally with art institution being anticipation of politics, anticipation of the society, anticipation of life, and finally anticipation of art, but the promise of art, the promise which happens probably with presenting the watching of the art. Because art doesn't matter if it's not seen, obviously, in the logics of valorization. So Kamate says, what matters is to touch the mass of human beings. Otherwise, there would be no realization of art who still haven't internalized capital's lifestyle, who are still more or less bound to certain rhythms, practices, superstitions, etc. And who don't necessarily utilize its image and therefore leave a contradiction of jarring and are constantly exposed to future shock. And all the Karl Marx and later on, the Lois and Gattari call this logic anti-production. So production which supports partially production, but basically deals with production of conditions of production of desire and not production as such. So anti-production is not the opposite of production, rather supports and develops it, but as a result, the greater visibility, prosperity, and integration enjoyed by the arts doesn't mean they have more creative freedom, just the opposite. Contemporary artistic practice marks a particular low point in creativity and insurrectionary spirit, not least because resistance is now aggressively marketed as one of arts selling point. Frederick Jameson in his writing, it's just in an interview brief comment on the logic of curatorial and that's the moment when I would just briefly turn towards something that is called curatorial turn in performing arts says that there is a kind of curatorial unconscious and he calls it presentism. He compares the situations in the museums with the ways how, for example, work a huge political demonstrations like Tahir or some other public expositions of anger or political dislike or protest. So he says that one of the key problems of any kind of institution that claims politicality of the art it produces, specifically in the way of organization of the audience is lacking one simple thing and that's organization, which is a basis for the politics. So presentism brings number of works and number of people for a while together. And when the event finishes, all the work disappears. And there is there are no traces and specifically the post hoc reflection of what holds on after this event belongs to the archives and not to the knowledge which is then reintroduced into other sphere of people's activity. So in this specific ecology, the artist becomes less and less present by her artworks and more and more by her labor. And now they persist in various cultural institutions whose mission is no longer the production of art, but reproduction of the consumerism of artists way of living as an image of happy living or promise of living. So art institutions no longer figure as disciplinary instances whose task is to take care of the artists and production of artworks. Rather, they are like dairy industry whose purpose is not to produce the best, but rather the most desired yogurt. Art institutions today no longer produce work of art to present them to the public who then has the opportunity to valorize them. Rather, valorization itself is being reproduced and exchanged. The curatorial turn in the performing arts, the replacement of an artistic director of programmer by the curator prioritizes a point of view over poetic projection. So what we get at the door of the institution, what we offer. So I'm not distancing myself from that position. What we offer at the point of entering of the institution is point of view and not the work as such. And several decades of intensive care, Leavishton spectators who have passed through various phases from observers to participants and then emancipated spectators has finally resulted in the shift towards their subjectification. While producers and programmers use to talk about their artists, curators talk about their audience. The audience has been turned into a model of the ideal spectator of the attending function, Schlegel ascribed to the ancient Greek chorus. So in the way the chorus was confirming the situation, giving a legitimacy to what is going on, the audience somehow fills the open gap for the situation and the situation of valorization distancing off the artwork, which gives a possibility to contemplate the artwork is shrinking more and more. Because without the distance, as we know, it's very difficult to reflect or at least to make distinction towards what we are attending. So what matters is attending. And attending is a type of a performance. So in the way that John Mackenzie, two decades ago, predicted that the new ontohistorical formation after discipline and control is performance, probably proves also not only in the field of cultural performance, but also in the field of spectating or the work of watching or the work of attending. And this logic of attending is very close to what we know as a type of work, which is pre dominant type of work in the time of service economies. At the time of service economies, the concept of attendant brings with it all sorts of connotations, companion, the one who is present, assistant, guardian, caretaker, servant, etc. Although the attendant figures as an active spectator, her function is to emphasize variation. If the theater is a variation of reality, the function of a participating audience is to verify the variation, to facilitate its validation. The audience is not so important for being public anymore, or making theater public, making it official, but being inserted into a field of vision, it renders the public visible. It represents public in the very act of performance. So we know that apparatus of theater always implicates showing and watching. And it's quite clear that theater, not performance, is showing and watching at the same time. So that's how the apparatus work. But the question is, what function do we give to those who are attending, or those who are spectating, or those who are watching, or even participating, depending on how we define the point of view which is pre-programmed for the audience. So the institution, the institutions, and this is the point where the curator's excessive responsibility comes to light, have the potential to bind artistic labor as obstruction with reality. And not only with exchange value, instead of abstracting the artist's labor, whose use value is then valorized through service economies, thus erasing the difference between art and labor, the institution has the opportunity to become her transparent material basis. This would bring forward political and social, instead of predominantly economic implications of artist labor. And while the audience is constantly being conditioned to expect art to produce, or to question other worlds, the artist is confronted with a very particular expectation to fix or repair the world. Although it is important to avoid power paranoia in this context, this small difference that curators have in the distribution of power imposes on them the responsibility to more actively explicate production and presentation policies and to elaborate their position more explicitly in terms of its relation to the framework and context of their work. As Jacques Derrida put it, responsibility is excessive, or it is not responsibility. The easy equalization of the performing arts presentation policies with the deeply problematic market logic of the visual art, which happens in the last 15 years, necessarily leads to the impoverishment of production and the weakening of institutions, which are the last guarantee of the survival of artistic production targeted by neoliberal populist attacks. And the fact that we are talking about the crisis of institutions reminds me of a story about broken tool. You know, Heidegger says that we become aware of tool and what kind of object it is in the moment when it's broken, when it doesn't work anymore. So in the moment when institutions, and I like to understand institutions as tools and not as subjects, not as figures, but institutions which lost their function, and that's responsibility for the total field of specific practices, which, for example, here in Croatia is impossible to achieve because, as I said, the main logics of valorizations are management and audience features, there is no space for responsibility, taking responsibility for a wider field. Institutions are broken. The question is how do we can retool the institutions? And what do we fight for? What do we stand for? I'm standing for going backwards, going downwards for the degrowth of the amounts and for finding other economical models in which the institutions will be used by many, in many different terms, to put in proximity different human practices and not to force people by those who know how to learn how to use them. But to let people to discover how to use them, to put different organizations, different initiatives, different people together in the proximity where they might, through the encounter, understand what could be their common logics of existence. So this retooling of institution has to start from the fact that the institutions are to be fixed and not the world. The world is how do we present the point of view. Let me finish with a quote which might be unusual for me and it's a quote of a priest, even more Croatian priest. Ivan Ilič. You might be familiar with his writing. Those who read anarchist literature should know about his books on this cooling society and critique of conviviality. So Ivan Ilič was born in Austria by Croatian family, moved to Italy, became a priest and then went to South America where he was working in Puerto Rico and Mexico. He was secularized I think in 1964 and then he started to write different, I mean he wrote really a range of important philosophical books on anti-developmental logics of organization of the society. And he says, let us call the modern subsistence the style of life that prevails in a post-industrial economy in which people have succeeded in reducing their market dependence and have done so by protecting a social infrastructure in which techniques and tools are used primarily to generate use values that are unmeasured and unmeasurable by professional need makers. That was 1978. That's still a utopian task but I think that in the time when it's easier as Jameson says to imagine the end of the world and the end of capitalism, we have to attempt to practice impossible. Thank you very much.