Photo: M. Heidingsfelder

Der Spiegel writes in its current issue: “Economic integration alone can no longer steer world events in the right direction, neither politically nor morally.” Isn’t it amazing that people still talk like that – they know what is politically and morally right and what is wrong?

Such sentences are truly ‘opinionated’. I don’t like mere opinions like that.

Our ally Pörksen claims that constructivist and systemic thinking is a long established paradigm and ‘normal science’. These Spiegel authors have obviously never heard of it …

If that is so, you are in the vapour spheres of middle-range theories. I believe that hardly anyone shares non-controllability – this idea. Polycontextuality, heterarchy, hypercomplexity … only a fraction of our species can relate to such terms. But Pörksen is, after all, criticising this when he puts it like that.

He warns that epistemological Biedermeier is looming.

Fortunately we have permission for theoretical curiosity. Besides: Biedermeier, that was quite cosy, wasn’t it? Something like restrained passions, bourgeoisie in fact. But Pörksen is right: Paradigms denote the need to resolve them.

Politically and morally right, says Der Spiegel, is ‘freedom’. So and so many states are free, Germany for example, but many are ‘not free’.

You know that I think ‘freedom’ is a clever pathos formula. I don’t know anyone who is free – in general, as it were. Billionaires are also subject to harsh constraints, I guess.

How is it, I wonder, that these people still so naturally and confidently carry a banner in front of them that says ‘right’? And point to others – mostly China –  who are supposedly wrong?

When someone behaves like that, it’s obvious that the opposite is the case. This reminds me, as if by chance, of: Power is like being a lady if you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.

What could they mean by ‘painful realisation’? Der Spiegel says: What hurts so much is the realisation that one was wrong – no change through trade. The rest of the world is not becoming ‘free’, ‘democratic’.

Incidentally, the word ‘democracy’ is, as is well known, a harsh paradox: ‘the POWER of the PEOPLE’. And if one appeals to the power of reasonable argument – also a power -, this is, in my view, already empirically untenable.

Change of subject: Kassel. Did you follow the debate about the ‘anti-Semitic artwork’? What were your thoughts on it?

I only know it from photographs. But my first thoughts were simply that it’s about the revitalisation of old schemes of art, for example the form of the ‘grotesque’, the ‘topsy-turvy world’ … roughly as if someone had painted the ‘magic of war’ or ‘an ‘idyll’, or was oriented towards the fact that evil in any guise is simply evil – interchangeable.

According to Der Spiegel, Germany is ‘free’, after all. But not so free as to endure the freedom of art. What’s going on?

Let’s just let Der Spiegel be Der Spiegel. But one should know what ‘art’ is. It is sometimes said that its function is to make the invisible visible. I tend to think of it differently: its function is to ‘make the visible invisible’. That succeeds or fails. That’s that. Freedom is another dance floor.

As a systems theorist, how would you approach the subject of ‘anti-Semitism’?

The term is self-explanatory. This wound has not closed for ages.

Finally, the question of ‘deglobalisation’. What are we to make of this idea? Can globalisation be reversed, as Spiegel suggests: ‘The age of international interdependence is now coming to an end. It is being unbundled.’

We could be dealing with the de-differentiation of functional society. But talking about this presupposes a massive amount of theory.

On 01 July 2020, Wolfgang Hirn launched his free newsletter CHINAHIRN – a private low-budget project, financially and content-wise independent. Intended as a newsletter for the German-speaking China community, it is also of interest to the international public, which is why I will publish English translations of Hirn’s editorials here from time to time.

This is the latest one that deals with the astonishing fact of ‘blindness in one eye’ that German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has been cultivating since she took office.

Dear reader,

Annalena Baerbock recently held an hour-long video conference with her Chinese counterpart Wang Yi. She emphasised “in view of the numerous global challenges, the importance of international cooperation”. However, she said, this could only happen on the basis of the fundamental norms of the international order, which must be respected and defended by all. She therefore rightly called on China to abide by the rules-based world order. So far, so good. But does the West or its leading power, the USA, adhere to this currently much-cited rule-based world order? No. Three examples: First, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has been virtually incapable of acting for years because the USA does not fill the vacant judges’ positions in its court. Secondly, the USA does not recognise the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is supposed to prosecute and punish genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The USA wants to drag all kinds of despots (Putin & Co.) in front of this court, but does not accept its judgements. China, by the way, is not part of it either. And thirdly, the USA has not yet ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). This Convention on the Law of the Sea regulates the complicated ownership relationships in and around the world’s waters. For example, the USA accuses China (which has signed UNCLOS) of disregarding UNCLOS in the South China Sea. In important respects, the USA is outside the rules-based world order, but urges other states to submit to this set of rules. When someone demands something from another that he himself does not live up to, there is only one appropriate expression for this: double standards. And this is exactly what many states – not only China, but also many developing countries – accuse the West and its leading power of doing, which loses credibility as a result. Perhaps Ms Baerbock should ask her American colleague at the next meeting how the USA feels about the rule-based world order. She can certainly give a competent account of it, since she comes from international law, as she once said flippantly in an NDR programme.

Wolfgang Hirn


Liebe Leserinnen, liebe Leser,

kürzlich konferierte Annalena Baerbock eine Stunde lang per Video mit ihrem chinesischen Amtskollegen Wang Yi. Dabei betonte sie „angesichts der zahlreichen globalen Herausforderungen die Wichtigkeit internationaler Kooperation“. Diese könne – sagte sie – jedoch nur auf der Grundlage der fundamentalen Normen der internationalen Ordnung geschehen, die von allen geachtet und verteidigt werden müsse. Sie forderte deshalb China zu Recht auf, sich an die regelbasierte Weltordnung zu halten. Soweit, so gut. Aber hält sich der Westen bzw. dessen Führungsmacht USA an diese derzeit viel zitierte regelbasierte Weltordnung? Nein. Drei Beispiele: Erstens ist seit Jahren die Welthandelsorganisation WTO quasi handlungsunfähig, weil die USA die frei gewordenen Richterstellen beim dortigen Schiedsgericht nicht besetzen. Zweitens erkennen die USA den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof in Den Haag nicht an, der Völkermord, Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit verfolgen und bestrafen soll. Die USA wollen allerlei Despoten (Putin & Co.) vor diesen Kadi zerren, dessen Urteile aber nicht akzeptieren. China ist übrigens auch nicht dabei. Und drittens haben die USA bis heute die United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) nicht ratifiziert. Dieses Seerechtsabkommen regelt die komplizierten Besitzverhältnisse in und um die Gewässer dieser Welt. Die USA werfen zum Beispiel China (das UNCLOS unterschrieben hat) vor, im Südchinesischen Meer das UNCLOS zu missachten. In wichtigen Punkten stehen die USA also außerhalb der regelbasierten Weltordnung, mahnen aber andere Staaten, sich diesem Regelwerk zu unterwerfen. Wenn einer von einem anderen etwas einfordert, was er selbst nicht einhält – dafür gibt es nur einen passenden Ausdruck: Doppelmoral. Und genau diese werfen viele Staaten – nicht nur China, sondern auch viele Entwicklungsländer – dem Westen und seiner Führungsmacht vor, die dadurch an Glaubwürdigkeit einbüßt. Vielleicht sollte Frau Baerbock ihren amerikanischen Kollegen beim nächsten Treffen in aller Freundschaft fragen, wie es die USA mit der regelbasierten Weltordnung halten. Sie kann das sicher kompetent vortragen, denn sie komme ja vom Völkerrecht, wie sie mal in einer NDR-Sendung flapsig sagte.  

Wolfgang Hirn


The double standards mentioned by Hirn are reflected not least in the International Monetary Fund, where China’s share of voting rights in no way corresponds to the actual situation, as Paola Subbachi points out in a recently published text for Table China. China’s share here is 6.1 per cent – slightly lower than Japan’s 6.2 per cent and clearly below the US share of 16.5 per cent. And that’s not all: in the World Bank, China’s share is 5.4 per cent (Japan: 7.28, US: 15.5). Subbachi: “While this is clearly not commensurate with China’s economic weight, the pace of reform is slow, not least because of the US blockade …” To what extent does this correspond to the appreciation of international cooperation norms?

If Baerbock’s peculiar policy of values prevails, the constant reminder of a set of basic values and principles that the partner has to obey – quite apart from the question of whether the West itself lives up to this claim, then reasonable cooperation with countries that represent other values and principles is simply no longer possible – a highly problematic idea in the age of international interconnectedness. Subbachi: “How can the global institutional fabric survive if countries limit open engagement only to those who see the world the same way they do?” Not at all, is the answer. Yet cooperation is also possible beyond a consensus on values. Subbachi: “Invoking shared values is far from the only way to convince countries to engage in common goals; practical considerations are also very effective. In dealing with China, the West should try to build international dialogue and political cooperation on a basis of concrete common interests.” It is precisely this urgent need to deal with each other in a pragmatic way that is blocked by recourse to values and a supposed moral superiority. M.H.


Anyone interested in independent, knowledgeable, unbiased reporting on China should consider subscribing to Chinahirn: You can get interesting news from the past week in the fields of politics, economics, science and society, references to interesting essays, books, documents, films, podcasts and studies, and information on China-related events in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Even tips on eating out and travelling can be found here.

Wolfgang Hirn

Business journalist Wolfgang Hirn has published numerous books, including the bestseller “Herausforderung China”, which was published by S. Fischer Verlag in 2005. Most recently, he wrote about “China’s Bosses” (Campus Verlag, 2018). His new book on “Shenzhen – World Economy of Tomorrow” was published by the same publishing house on 11 March 2020. Hirn lives and writes in Berlin.

Das Medium Sinn ist in der Moderne der Gesellschaft diabolisch geworden – im genauen Verständnis dieses Wortes: als ein Durcheinanderwerfen aller Gültigkeiten. Ein Befund dieser Art führt zwangsläufig in die Diskussion um die Form von Sinn, Unsinn, Nicht-Sinn.

Im Zentrum von Peter Fuchs’ jüngsten Arbeiten steht in diesem Zusammenhang die (paradoxe) Frage nach einer Phänomenologie des Nicht-Sinns. Die Chance zum Ausloten möglicher Antworten bot sich aber nicht theoretisch an, sie stieß ihm zu – als neun Monate währendes postoperatives Delir. Fünf davon war er bewusstlos, vier verbrachte er in einem Pflegeheim, geschüttelt von Halluzinationen. Jede empirische Belastbarkeit der Realität von Sinn ist während dieser zweiten Phase getilgt worden. Das Gespräch mit Markus Heidingsfelder ist der Versuch, das perplexe Erleben des Wahns zu verarbeiten.


The medium of meaning has become diabolical in modern society – in the precise understanding of this word: as a muddling of all validity. A finding of this kind inevitably leads into the discussion about the form of meaning, nonsense, non-sense.

In this context, Peter Fuchs’ most recent work focuses on the (paradoxical) question of a phenomenology of non-sense. The opportunity to explore possible answers did not present itself theoretically, however, it came to him – as nine months of post-operative delirium. Five of them he was unconscious, four he spent in a nursing home, shaken by hallucinations. Any empirical resilience to the reality of meaning was erased during this second phase. The conversation with Markus Heidingsfelder is an attempt to process this perplexing experience of madness.

About a week ago, Politico magazine published a draft opinion from the US Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation. In it, justice Samuel Alito declares Mississippi’s restrictive abortion law constitutional and the existing law, based on the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions, overruled and thus overturned.
I asked my friend, the legal expert Z. Klaus: What is your opinion on this sensational ‘opinion’ – which is admittedly not yet the final judgement? How important in this context is the fact that Trump had stacked the SC with two of his nominees? What does it tell us about the US legal system? And what can be said in general about the us-American understanding of law? Here is his answer.

Dear Markus,

It’s very nice to get a sign of life from you again.

This eagerly awaited revision of Roe vs. Wade closes the round of historical reminiscences in ahistorical societies (i.e. societies in which nothing changes) and which only revolves around the one theme.

Your astonishment is understandable, but can be put into perspective: Once again, this forthcoming judgement only confirms my suspicion (which you already know) of a construction error in the US Constitution, or at least of a “botched construction”. No wonder, the “fathers” of the Constitution were lawyers and slaveholders.

The “republican” constitution has given the people no power, the senators some and the president quite a lot; law and state fall through the net, whereby “law” of course is not law but legal decision by courts, i.e., according to the construction of the common law, advocates appointed or elected (!) as judges. The clever founding fathers’ advocates/senators (hence the republican-Roman model) have thus obtained enough “wriggle room” via the constitution to have their fingers in the pie everywhere and to legitimise this through a judicial decision. The constitution is above the law – that’s not okay at all; in a constitutional state this does not exist, and so it remains – at least functionally – questionable (= no operative closure of legal communication) whether the USA actually has the “rule of law”.

The “stacking of courts” you refer to, i.e., appointing the “right” advocates as judges, especially judges of the Supreme Court – is in my opinion not even necessary to get a “right” decision. The Constitution is open like a barn door – you just keep complaining until you get the right decision and then it’s “the other’s” turn. This is exactly what we are now seeing again with the upcoming withdrawal of the abortion decision. With the reference to the constitution, everything is possible or impossible: law and “American Creed” flow together there. And in the next case (which may be the same, but prepared differently and then interpreted) it will be decided differently again.

The inability of societies to change, to become modern societies, was already observed by Max Weber in a comparison of Russia with the USA, where he noted a startling uniformity. Weber justified this at the time in his analysis of the (im)possibility of a bourgeois revolution in Russia, among other things with the relatively touching thesis that, after all, many Russian immigrants had popularised the vastness of North America at home. However, he also argued, rather robustly sociologically, that it was precisely this vastness of space (communication!) that led to indifference to disdain/contempt for the state and state institutions, indeed for all institutions in general, among the inhabitants in Russia as well as in the USA, and that it was and is thus impossible in Russia as well as in the USA to establish viable institutions and also to produce the ferment of an entrepreneurial middle class. Even the religions are disappointing – in the USA fragmented into Methodist choral societies, in Russia among Orthodox Christians degenerated into liturgical cop-outs from depressing everyday life.

Well, do you hear the “American Creed” ringing? And do you see Putin dreaming of the Tsarist empire and lighting Orthodox candles? Translated into a somewhat more elegant systems theory, Max W.’s observations only say that both the USA and Russia (preserved in the permafrost of the Soviet Union and the KGB) lack the structural possibilities to transform themselves from a little differentiated, traditional society into a differentiated, modern society. And it is the old men, not the law, who decide what is permissible in terms of change.

As far as Roe v. Wade is concerned, I’m not really that upset and see this cheeky rush to judgment as more of a personnel policy scramble for rank positions (pecking order) – old men, once more. The verdict remains to be seen – but won’t change anything either way. Throwing the Roe vs. Wade verdict into the dustbin of history and Putin’s war “are opposite ends of the same stick”.

All the best and best wishes from Mölln,

Yours Z. Klaus


Lieber Markus,

sehr schön, einmal wieder ein Lebenszeichen von Dir zu bekommen.

Mit dieser heiß ersehnten Revision von Roe vs. Wade schließt sich der Reigen historischer Reminiszenzen in ahistorischen Gesellschaften (i.e Gesellschaften in den sich nichts verändert) und der nur um das eine Thema kreist.

Deine Verwunderung ist verständlich, aber kann relativiert werden: einmal mehr bestätigt das bevorstehende Urteil meinen Verdacht (den Du nun schon kennst) eines Baufehlers der US Verfassung, oder zumindest des “Pfuschs am Bau” (die “Väter” der Verfassung waren ja Advokaten (lawyers) und Sklavenhalter).

Auf jeden Fall hat die “republikanische” Verfassung dem Volk keine, den Senatoren einige und dem Präsidenten ziemlich viel Macht zugeteilt; Recht und Staat fallen dabei durch das Netz, wobei “Recht” natürlich nicht Gesetz sondern “Rechtsentscheidung durch Gerichte” (i.e. entsprechend der Konstruktion des common law zu Richtern ernannter oder gewählter (!) Advokaten). Die schlauen Gründerväteradvokaten/Senatoren (deswegen eben das republikanisch-römische Modell) haben sich also über die Verfassung genügend “wriggle room” verschafft, um überall die Finger mit im Kuchen zu haben und das durch eine gerichtliche Entscheidung zu legitimieren. Die Verfassung steht über dem Recht – das geht gar nicht; in einem Rechtsstaat darf es das nicht geben, und so bleibt es – zumindest funktional – fraglich, ob die USA die “rule of law” haben.

Das von Dir angeführte “stacking of courts” – also die “richtigen” Advokaten zum Richter zu ernennen, vor allem Richter des Supreme Court -, ist meiner Meinung nach gar nicht nötig, um eine “richtige” Entscheidung zu bekommen. Die Verfassung ist offen wie ein Scheunentor – man klagt einfach so lange weiter, bis man die richtige Entscheidung bekommt und dann sind „die anderen“ dran; jetzt also wieder, wenn „der Neue“ (Ultrakonservative) in den Sessel gehoben sein wird,  das Zurückdrehen der Geburtenabbruchentscheidung. Mit der Referenz auf die Verfassung ist alles möglich bzw. unmöglich: Recht und „American Creed“ fliessen da zusammen. Und im nächsten Fall (das kann der gleiche sein, aber anders präpariert und dann interpretiert) wird wieder anders entschieden.

Das Unvermögen von Gesellschaften, sich zu ändern, moderne Gesellschaft zu werden, hat schon Max Weber in einem Vergleich Russlands mit den USA beobachtet und dabei eine verblüffende Gleichförmigkeit festgestellt. Weber hat diese damals in seiner Analyse der (Un-)Möglichkeit einer bürgerlichen Revolution in Russland, u.a. mit der relativ rührenden These begründet, dass ja viele russische Einwanderer die Weite des nordamerikanischen Raums heimatlich populiert hätten. Er hat aber auch eher robust soziologisch argumentiert, dass eben diese Weite des Raums (Kommunikation!) bei den Einwohnern in Russland sowie in den USA zu einer Gleichgültigkeit bis Miss-/Verachtung gegenüber Staat und staatlichen Institutionen, ja allen Institutionen überhaupt geführt habe und es so in Russland wie in den USA unmöglich war und ist, tragfähige Institutionen zu etablieren und daneben auch das Ferment eines unternehmerischen Mittelstandes hervorzubringen. Selbst die Religionen enttäuschen – in den USA in methodistische Gesangvereine zersplittert, in Russland bei den orthodoxen Christen zum liturgischen cop-out vom deprimierenden Alltag verkommen.

Na, hörst Du den „American Creed“ läuten? Und siehst Putin vom zaristischen Grossreich träumen und orthodoxe Kerzen anzünden?  In eine etwas elegantere Systemtheorie übersetzt besagen die Beobachtungen von Max W. ja nur, aber immerhin, dass sowohl den USA als auch Russland (im Permafrost der Sowjetunion und des KGB konserviert), und natürlich auch Deinem Laden in fernöstlichen Weiten die strukturellen Möglichkeiten fehlen, sich von der wenig differenzierten, traditionellen Gesellschaft in eine differenzierte, moderne Gesellschaft zu wandeln. Und darüber, was an Wandel erlaubt ist, entscheiden allemal die alten Männer und nicht Recht.

Zurück zu Roe v. Wade: Besonders aufgeregt bin ich deshalb nicht. Ich sehe in diesem vorlauten Vorpreschen mit einer Meinung eher ein personalpolitisches Gerangel um Rangpositionen (pecking order) – alte Männer eben. Das Urteil bleibt abzuwarten – aber wird so oder so nichts ändern. Das Urteil in Roe vs. Wade in den Abfalleimer der Geschichte zu werfen und Putins Krieg „are opposite ends of the same stick“.

Alles Gute und herzliche Grüße aus Mölln,

Dein Z. Klaus

Posted in Law

Merve celebrates the publication of the first volume of Friedrich Kittler’s Complete Works

I.B.4: Zu Lebzeiten Veröffentlichtes. Aufsätze, Artikel, Rezensionen und Miszellen (Published during his lifetime. Essays, articles, reviews and miscellanies). 1981–1983

Edited by Luisa Drews and Eva Horn

Saturday, 07 May 2022 19.30

diffrakt | zentrum für theoretische peripherie

Crellestraße 22

10827 Berlin

Wir laden ein zum China-Streitgespräch

Die Winterolympiade steht vor der Tür. Doch statt sportlichen Erwartungen ist die Rede vom politischen Boykott, von Menschenrechtsverletzungen und Internierungslagern. Anlass für den Verband für Wirtschaft und Umwelt ein Streitgespräch zu organisieren.

Prof. Björn Alpermann, Sinologe an der Universität Würzburg, hat gerade sein Buch “Xinjiang – China und die Uiguren” veröffentlicht, in dem er auf die Geschichte und die aktuellen Konflikte in der Provinz Xinjiang eingeht.

Jürgen Kurz, langjähriger Unternehmer in Shanghai, ist mit einer Chinesin aus Xinjiang verheiratet. Er bereist regelmäßig die Provinz und postet seine Reiseberichte.

Beide Diskutanten sind in der Partei Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen engagiert, plädieren für ein differenziertes Chinabild, gehen aber von unterschiedlichen Positionen an die im Westen diskutierten Fragen zu der Menschenrechtslage in China aus.

Wir erwarten ein spannendes Streitgespräch zum Jahresbeginn und wünschen ein gesundes und erfolgreiches Jahr 2022.

Mit klimafreundlichen Grüßen
Guido Dahm

We invite you to a China dispute

The Winter Olympics are just around the corner. But instead of sporting expectations, there is talk of a political boycott, human rights violations and internment camps. Reason enough for the Association for Economy and Environment to organise a dispute discussion.

Prof. Björn Alpermann, sinologist at the University of Würzburg, has just published his book “Xinjiang – China and the Uyghurs”, in which he discusses the history and current conflicts in the province of Xinjiang.

Jürgen Kurz, an entrepreneur in Shanghai for many years, is married to a Chinese woman from Xinjiang. He regularly travels the province and posts his travel reports.

Both discussants are active in the party Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen, plead for a differentiated image of China, but take different positions on the issues discussed in the West concerning the human rights situation in China.

We expect an exciting debate at the beginning of the year and wish you a healthy and successful 2022.

With climate-friendly greetings
Guido Dahm

Meeting registration

Following up on her obsession with photography and film, Yuka Sato curated this exclusive online screening program for Place M, featuring Japanese artists (including herself). It goes on until the end of this month. Here is what she has to say about it:

“Crossing Boundaries Between Photo and Film brings together the work of four of the most dynamic contemporary photographers, filmmakers and artists of our time: Osamu Kanemura, Shigeo Arikawa, Shinya Isobe and Mami Kosemura – plus myself. This selection aims to explore both the possibilities of photography and film as well as the creation of innovative expressions at their intersection.”

Please find the details below:

May 20, 2021 at 7 pm, Livestream on Facebook and YouTube.

The works will be accessible for free for 10 days following the May 20th screening.

Featured image: © Shinya Isobe.

Very much looking forward to this: The second Place M film festival!

Place M is a photography gallery located in Shinjuku, Tokyo, that serves as a venue for hybrid, boundary-pushing forms of photographic expression. Two years ago, with the establishment of their film department, they started their own film festival. This year, due to the current pandemic, the second Place M Film Festival will be held online. My good friend Yuka Sato will be directing it, presenting films from diverse cultures and backgrounds as well as enlightening videos of the participating filmmakers as they discuss their work.

Yuka is herself a stunning ‘boundary-pusher’, which is why I am very curious about her version of the festival. I love and admire her ability to combine experimentation and poetry in her films, a combination that I only very rarely come across – which, by the way, I also find in the work of one of my other friends, albeit in a completely different medium, namely the improvisations of saxophone player Frank Gratkowski. (What Wikipedia says about Frank can certainly also be applied to Yuka: on the one hand, the beauty and purity of her images is striking. At the same time, she is an image researcher to whom the expansion of the arsenal, the exploration of image possibilities is very important.) So I hope to find a little of her artistic vision in the works presented, too.

Please find more information on their website:

Here is already an overview of their schedule:

A section of Sanki King’s contribution to the Karachi Biennale 2017: “Mind Palace – Freedom of Thought”. Photo: M. Heidingsfelder

Sanki: “Pleased to announce my new group show and my first-ever international exhibition, Abstraction & Calligraphy: Towards a Universal Language, at Louvre Abu Dhabi in collaboration with Centre Pompidou, sponsored by Montblanc.” Curated by Didier Ottinger (Deputy Director, Musée national d’art moderne, Centre Pompidou), Sanki is showing his work next to Vassily Kandinsky, Jackson Pollock, André Masson, Anwar Jalal Shemza, Paul Klee, Lee Krasner and many other renowned artists – he is now one of them, and at 30, both the youngest artist in this show, and the first Pakistani artist to be working with the Louvre Abu Dhabi.

Show opens on the 17th of Feb and continues till the 12th of June.

To obtain a copy of the press release for yourself; email his assistant at

Press release:…/lad-abstraction…

See also: