The Celluloid Liberation Front
The aim of the following lines is to explain the defection from my proper name in favour of a multiple name (Celluloid Liberation Front); such defection is in my opinion an essential move in order to free my actions from the dissuasive strategies of the dominant cultural codes.
* It is not a subversive proposition but a historical necessity since the epoch of the kings' names is superseded by the (current) epoch of the Hollywood stars' names whose outcome is the simulacrum, which is by definition self-referential. * If the proposition is not subversive, it is likely that the practices aimed at its attainment will have to be subversive. We have to be able to conceive history deprived of proper names, history made of persons not of names, of humanity not of men. After all, identity is something that defines itself in relation with something different than the self, in modern times is measured in relation with the institutional domain of the state. Today we are witnessing the de-institutionalization (which is the proliferation of mutant institutions) of power therefore the single identity is not apt to this new multifaceted situation anymore. The multiple name, does not deny subjectivity . . . on the contrary it acknowledges its manifoldness. * Rather than identity, we should talk about a constellation of identities that, facing the pervading cultural invasion, grants itself the possibility of assuming different roles within the same scenario, thus catching the enemy unprepared. If in the past it was possible to express oneself via a single identity, it was because the communication mode was mainly vis-à-vis, one to one. The digitalization of communication implies that the (varied) agents of communication define the communicative space, which presents several poles superseding the traditional dichotomy producer-consumer. * Since I am a source of information, I can continuously modify the cultural space surrounding me, interacting with multiple interlocutors who will accordingly interpret my signifying inputs. * There are new communicative possibilities. To assume the multiple name is to access the different spheres of communication, hence diversifying the cultural struggle tactics. The proper name is the heirloom of a centralized society that no longer exists. * I want to communicate, not to be communicated! * Almost all the current cultural production is nothing but (and could not be otherwise) intertextuality, a synthesis of different cultural products, and it would be pretentious to claim to be the Author of something. We cannot say we are the authors of anything because we are the authors of everything. I have not used my proper name, but I did use my multiple name that acknowledges the cultural background — which is of a collective nature — influencing my cultural contribution to history. * The dominant system imposed me a proper name which I expropriated reclaiming my identity back in the form of . . . Celluloid Liberation Front . . .