The image of the future is often tied to the idea of an ending. From ongoing wars to ecological catastrophes, the vision of an irreversible finale haunts us, stirring anxiety over impending self-destruction and provoking a crisis in active imagination. Although we ‘see it coming,’ we struggle to imagine any meaningful action in response to this looming doom.

Along the lines of a famous formula “it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism,” which was popularized by Mark Fisher, but shares its authorship between Fredric Jameson and Slavoj Žižek, the imagination turns out to be frozen exactly in the impossibility to see a real value of action that could have a significant impact. Otherwise put, the realism that captivates imagination addresses exactly the rational organization of power and possibility. We are deprived from envisioning real possibilities that would make a difference.

However, the question arises: who are the ‘we’ in this context? From which perspective does one confront the challenge of the climax of time? And why is the future so often conceived in singular terms?

Déborah Danowski and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro remind us about indigenous nations of the Americas who have already survived multiple ends of the world: “For these people the world already ended in the 15^th and 16^th centuries, so they are experts on the end of the world”. The question of the catastrophe, apocalypse and ultimately, the end of the world, is depicted from the perspective of dominant hegemonies.

As a response to these assumptions, Danowski and Viveiros de Castro suggest to pluralize the question of the ends of the world. The formula—one world, one planet, one end, seen from one perspective—is by itself flagging the false premises, inevitably leading the lack of imagination. Perhaps, one must start acknowledging that there were many Apocalypses that already happened, but remained unnoticed as “they occasioned by the advance of the modernization front.”

Life on Earth and its inhabitants have constantly been in danger, primarily due to imperialistic fantasies. Asia Bazdyrieva recently pointed to a colonial cooperation between Western European states and the Russian Empire. Expansionist projects from both sides, the Ukrainian art historian notes, shaped the imaginary of present-day Ukraine as “a site of inexhaustible resources that can feed the entire world.” Morphed by the narratives of geopolitical powers, these practices legitimized “resourcification”—a tendency that led to both the commodified exploitation of nature and a biopolitical apparatus.

 As the concluding event of Lithuania’s season in France, the Forum invites thinkers, artists, curators, and activists from Algeria, Brazil, Eastern Europe, and beyond to explore the possibilities of transcending colonial imaginaries and envisioning alternative futures. The war in Ukraine urges us to reconsider colonialism outside the Western framework, recognizing it as part of the ongoing history of authoritarian regimes.

 The central theme of this Forum is the concept of ‘emancipated imagination,’ which encourages us to view historical perspectives as opportunities for transformation—engaging not only with the past but also contemplating the future. In this context, Gilbert Simondon proposed a fascinating but underexplored theory of imagination. He interpreted imagination as a cycle connecting all living beings in a continuous process of interaction with their milieus. This anti-individualist and anti-egocentric approach framed imagination as an intense exchange that transforms and creates all its participants—humans and animals, nature and society, and perhaps even bacteria and robots.

 By amplifying silent voices, the event seeks to lay the foundations of a noosphere—a realm of ideas, visions, and thought that facilitates navigation across differences and fosters interconnectedness. The Forum proposes action through dialogue, blending artistic and philosophical approaches.

 In two panels, the following questions will be addressed: what are the new ways for us to imagine with and for others? How can these visions include previously overlooked perspectives? What are the alternative scenarios for social change? What ecologies might transform our practices?

And finally—what awaits after the end?

 

• 15:30 :Doors open
• 16:00 : Welcome speeches

 

Introduction

• 16:10 – 16:30 Keynote: Kristupas Sabolius (Lithuania)

 

Beyond Colonial Imaginaries

• 16:30 – 16:50 Keynote. Luba Jurgenson (France / Estonia)
• 16:50 – 17:10 Keynote. Seloua Luste Boulbina (France / Algeria)
• 17:10-18:00 Round table

Moderator: Marija Drėmaitė (Lithuania)

Respondents: Asia Bazdyrieva (Ukraine), Kristupas Sabolius (Lithuania)

Participants: Luba Jurgenson (France / Estonia), Seloua Luste Boulbina (France / Algeria)

 

Imagining after the End

• 18:20 – 18:40 Keynote. Déborah Danowski, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro (Brazil)
• 18:40 – 19:00 Keynote. Nomeda and Gediminas Urbonas (Lithuania)
• 19:00 – 20:00 Round Table.

Collective moderation by: Sasha Baydal, Zola Chichminsteva-Kondamambou, and Wiola Ujazdowska (Beyond the post-soviet)

Respondents: Sasha Baydal, Zola Chichminsteva-Kondamambou, and Wiola Ujazdowska (Beyond the post-soviet)

Participants: Déborah Danowski & Eduardo Viveiros de Castro (Brazil), Nomeda and Gediminas Urbonas (Lithuania)

 

• 20:00 : Concluding remarks.