You owe Bolsheviks your freedom. For what it is worth.

So run, although owing something to someone means you should stop and pay your dues, stop running about and do what you’re to do for those who did something for you. We are indebted to the idealists.

It is a halting thought to be linked as if hanging on to those who you thought did not count or matter for whatever reason. The distance is so lengthy, the legacy is so smudged. Filthy Bolsheviks. Those hunted and despised having changed everything from the bottom up. It is a haunting thought that does not let go.

I wanted to be a poet. Now I am. Isn’t that freedom?

In the time of perfect images there is something about photos that are damaged.

 

Kronstadt 2001

Hate is a feeling. What else is it?

How do we justify hate? How do we know hate, recognise it, talk about it and what do we do when we hate, more importantly, what does hate do to us? Culturally for example misogyny is structural and embedded in the culture tightly. We grow to know it but not necessarily understand it or be able to change it just like that, so it feels like a natural thing which is there for a reason. We are part of the hate machine which hides away this bad thing hate because good people do not hate. It is bad people who do hate crimes, talk foul and do misconduct. We learn to act and behave by the norms of the culture and we learn not to talk about the demanding shameful issues like hating. So how does the culture change if we are so bound by its laws? How do we change if we are afraid of what we feel, we are incapable of recognising our emotions, talk about them and are afraid to look in the mirror?

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
We learn to control our feelings to a certain extent in a certain way. Hold them back give them forward in suitable doses and packages so that there are boundaries which we do not dare to cross unless we must. Culturally bound ways of how women and men are expected show their emotions and how they are to act upon feelings keep us repeating patterns of behaviour and ways to exist in a society, succeed or fail. We can be hugely restricted, restricting, unable, neurotic and afraid. Feelings can make one go crazy and lost. Anybody who objects and questions the normal by way of living and doing is odd, an outsider, behaving out of ordinary by disturbing the status quo of coded balance, safety and order of things which have been done and should be done in a certain way.

It can be good to disturb and it can be bad, it can be bad to have strict rules and it can be good. Who gets to decide what behaviour is justified and when things go out of hand? Where to go when feelings are making one a wild out of control freak? Is it a place of hiding or going to a doctor? We all use judgement over ourselves and over other people. We think we know and we think we know better, we think we can hurt because we are better. It is a very efficient way to control behaviour by collective judgment and punishment, shame and losing something vital if.

Negative emotions and who are allowed to show them and act upon them are an important path to collective consciousness. What do those feelings make us do, how do feelings make us and tell of us? Who is the target of our hate and why we hate someone we don’t even know? Why feminism and feminists are constantly targeted and female emancipation seen a threat to male dominance? Men must dominate because they always have? Intellectually they do not, so I don’t understand the need to master people whom cannot be put to that old know place anymore. Why is it important for one group to dominate all others and hinder progress because that is what is still happening. Men’s rights activist further only rights of men, usually rights of white men. Feminists further human rights. The most demanding task for men is to let women decide for their lives and for their bodies. Proof of weakness is the thought that women are possessions that need to be guarded and kept unchanged.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

 

River of no return

River of no return

How many takes? She was very sweet. She was a comedian. She was very shy. She was fuck me. She was very uncomfortable. She was convinced, she was not very sexy and pretty. She didn’t have an aura of sexiness about her. There was some magic about her, she would play at it. She would burlesque it. She seemed like a lost child. It seemed to her like Alice in Wonderland and she could not believe it. Anybody was very serious about her. She really felt she didn’t have the inner qualifications to fulfil the image of a sex goddess. She thought that the whole thing was a lie, because it was not her. She would never feel worthy. She was very very difficult. She was vulnerable. She was weak. She was teary. She was struggling. She was falling apart. She was hurt. She was an addict. She was needy. She was difficult. She was in pain. She was adorable. She was drunk. She was nice. She was childlike. She was late. She was lovely. She was hanging on. She was calling me. She was calling everybody. She was caring. She was unprofessional. She was sexy. She was beautiful. She was funny. She was doing the thing that was wanted of her, she was not doing what she wanted.

My interest in Marilyn is interest in how the dilemma of gender culminates in one person so perfectly

What is spoken of her and why. What do people want to know, what is of interest for anyone in a beautiful woman. What do we pay attention to and why she is seen via her sex which seems to dictate all she can do, how she can be and must do, how she must do to make an effect. She is an effect, a special effect on the set. That is her purpose. Her value seems pretty infinite despite she is ripped off her value as a multi talented person. Her value is partly in the tragedy of not having achieved enough professionally that she is diminished no matter what she accomplished and modelled to be something  to which she contributes voluntarily because it seems she had no other choice. This no other choice to succeed but via the sexual part of a blond shell is part of the puzzle for me. To have a lot but be limited as an artist by the system and the way women are seen.

Those are the terms to succeed is like a plan given. Do as you are told and this is what is wanted of you. This is what the public wants to see, you are for yes only (I mean eyes), to pleasure others. Why is this what is thought the public wants or are we so simple-minded it really is what we want? It puzzles me still although it is clear in a way that the public is infinitely narrow-minded and seeks to be entertained in the simplest of ways. That is also what gossip is all about. That is also the trap in to which entertainment industry constantly steps: repeating the same imagery and narrative which is luring, attention seeking, fabulous visually and repeating the gender roles and stereotypes as if nothing ever changes, and yes things do change slowly. Something else than the real life and not so much.

My interest is in how someone is talked about. What becomes of this tale which is continued, passed forward. What is the story people like to give, they believe it themselves, what are their motives, what is the truth and what are the reasons for telling the story. Who knows the truth and who is a reliable witness. Because what is being said and what is the reality can be very different from each other so much so that surreal is the reality. What people believe is the truth is bound to bias and what is wanted to be seen as the truth. How personal experience of someone is true and what is the value of telling this personal view forward.

A person who is dimensional but does not show all of her dimensions is infinitely interesting obviously applies to women. To believe women are able to achieve excellence takes work for some men and women. Simplicity and less are easier to believe to be true and accept than someone who is much. Much is difficult to control and tolerate.

Whore art

Vaikeita asioita

Niin mitkä ovat? Lähtien syömisestä, kirjoittamisesta, puhumisesta, lukemisesta, olemisesta, kävelemisestä, ihan kaikki asiat ovat näennäisesti yksinkertaisia ja jokaisen hallittavissa, eikö niin? Mutta lähtökohdiltaan ja moninaisuudessaan hankalia kun ryhdymme tarkastelemaan kuinka asiat tapahtuvat esimerkiksi solu- ja hermostotasolla, kuinka ajatuksesta syntyy liike ja tapahtumaketju, eli todella vaikeita asioita, joita meidän ei välttämättä tarvitse jatkuvasti ajatella, mutta hyvä olisi, että pysähtyisimme hetkeksi miettimään tätä kaaosta, josta elämämme koostuu. On esimerkiksi vaikea opetella uudelleen kävelemään, on vaikea muuttaa opittuja ajattelu- ja käytösmalleja, on vaikea sukkuloida tuhansien erilaisten palvelumallien, lomakkeiden ja tekemisen tapojen suoranaisessa sotkussa, vaikka näennäisesti ainakin yritämme hallita kaaosta. Jos ei tarkalleen tiedä miten asioita käytetään, miten joku asia käytännössä tapahtuu, miten uuden asian kanssa ajatellaan joku asia uudelleen. Vaikuttaa että ajattelumme ei muutu samaa vauhtia kun teknologia muuttuu, josta on tutkimustietoakin olemassa. Miten yhteensovittaa tämä ristiriita, että olemme henkisesti yhtä avuttomia kuin ennenkin, mutta meillä on mahdollisuuksia moninkertaisesti enemmän olla vähemmän avuttomia ja miksi emme ole vähemmän avuttomia? Koska mahdollisuuksia on moninkertaisesti enemmän. Teknologia lisää oman elämän hallinnan mahdollisuutta tai luo enemmän kaaosta ja hallitsemattomuutta eri tavalla kuin ennen, uudenlaista asioiden kerroksellisuutta ja monimutkaisuutta jota emme osaa ottaa huomioon. Elektroniikkaa mainostetaan elämää helpottavana asiana, kun taas itse näen valtavan romuvyöryn jossakin kaukana meistä ja vastuun siitä kuinka materiaalit tavaroiden valmistamiseen saadaan inhimillisesti eikä epäinhimillisesti. Kauas voi mennä lomalle ja sieltä voi tulla pois parin viikon päästä rentoutuneena.

Kuten esimerkiksi menen kauppaan jossa on mainos, että UPS kuljettaa pakettinne, mutta minun täytyy tietää, ettei se kuljeta yksityishenkilöiden paketteja kuten posti. Toiseen kauppaan tulee Matkahuollon kautta paketteja aivan kuten Postiin, mutta lähikaupastani voi nostaa rahaa kassalta, koska pankkiautomaatti poistui. Eli minun on tiedettävä tarkkaan miten mikäkin yksikkö toimii yksityiskohtaisesti ja mitä se tarkoittaa, koska kaupassa joutuu omituiseen tilanteeseen, kun siellä kuljetuspalvelun toiminta on itsestään selvästi selvää toisin kuin minulle, vaikka asiasta aikaisemmin tiedustelin kassalta, että täältä voi lähettää paketteja kuten ikkunassanne lukee..Joo, tämä on vain yksi esimerkki maailmasta, joka on aina ollut arki tasolla itsestäänselvyyksien ja oletusten vallassa ja minulle ei itsestäänselvyyksiä juuri ole, koska pilkon kaiken osasiin ja taas takaisin. Että totta-kai-asiat-menevät-kuten-niiden-oletetaan-menevän-ajattelu voi aiheuttaa yllätyksiä, sekaannuksia, väärinymmärryksiä, kohellusta, oletuksia, turhautumista, huonoja fiboja jne.

Kuten oletetaan, että nuoret ovat valmiimpia ja osaavampia kuin kaksikymmentä vuotta heitä vanhemmat ymmärtämään, uudistumaan, soveltamaan, oppimaan jne. uusia tekniikoita ja tapoja tehdä digitalisoituvassa maailmassa, voi epäillä monenkin todellisuudentajua ja ymmärrystä elämästä. Että nuorilla on valmiiksi jotakin mitä vanhemmilla sukupolvilla ei ole, jotakin osaamista ja ymmärrystä enemmän, mikä on varsin suuri harha, koska mitä itse ymmärrän nuoruudesta ja ajattelun kehityksestä, vie varsin pitkän tovin oppia ymmärtämään syy- ja seuraussuhteita, miten asiat toimivat, kuinka omaa osaamistaan hyödynnetään rakentavasti ja syvällisesti ja kaikki eivät aikuisenakaan pääse ymmärryksessä kovin pitkälle. Asioiden ja itsen syvällinen ymmärtäminen, suhde toisiin ja tiedon hankinta vie tietyn ajan, omaksuminen, oppiminen ja sen kautta osaamisen käyttöönotto ei ole edelleenkään itsestään selvästi helppoa eli monimutkaisten asioiden yksinkertaistamisessa, olevinaan yleispätevien totuuksien hokemisessa viisautena on tietty vaara johon on jo astuttu. Sitä voi pohtia, miksi tietynlainen kieli ja ajattelu viettelee monia niin kovin etenkin poliitikko-markkinointi-konsulttiväkeä. Sellainen, että kuulostamme tietävämme mistä puhumme kun toistamme yhtä ja samaa sitä kyseenalaistamatta ja todistamme tätä sanomaa positiivisesti ja ’kiihkottomasti’ hyvänä asiana. Minulle se puhuu yhä enenevässä määrin epätoivosta liian suuren ja mahdottomalta tuntuvan tehtävän edessä, tietynlaista käsien levittelyä ja jotakin on pakkoa sanoa kun ei voi olla hiljaa, huulten heiluttelua eli olemme romanttisesti itseämme suuremman vuoren edessä, jonka kuvittelemme tuntevamme ja valloittavamme tuosta noin vain. Ongelman koosta kertoo avuttomuus, joka monella on kun seuraa esimerkiksi politiikkaa ja lukee uutisia: me emme tiedä mitä tuleman pitää, mutta vauhti on hurja.

Impact of any government and state on art institutions and their officials is in my mind undeniable.

”Wielga-Skolimowska’s conflict ultimately highlights the danger and vulnerability of cultural institutions that rely on national funding during extremist regimes.” http://hyperallergic.com/344609/a-polish-curator-is-fired-in-berlin-exposing-two-countries-political-blind-spots/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5%20Books%20to%20Read%20About%20Artists%20Under%20Nazism&utm_content=5%20Books%20to%20Read%20About%20Artists%20Under%20Nazism+CID_78c1412d068d8738c7a6a144c370e8cf&utm_source=HyperallergicNewsletter&utm_term=A%20Polish%20Curator%20Is%20Fired%20in%20Berlin%20Exposing%20Two%20Countries%20Political%20Blind%20Spots

A Polish Curator Is Fired in Berlin, Exposing Two Countries’ Political Blind Spots

How should we observe, see and think about institutions that are financially dependent on finance coming from the government and other parties, who very often have needs they want to be fulfilled by supporting culture and be seen in a good light? Art is very vulnerable to manipulation and censoring. It depends on money coming from outside to function.

Do we have to please to get art be seen? Does art need to be pretty or beautiful? As it became obvious during Guggenheim debate in Finland, the one main reason to have the museum on the spot was that it would have had a beautifying effect.

Plastic rose, wearing my garbage

 

 

 

http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/33808/1/why-artist-deborah-de-robertis-flashes-her-vagina-in-museums-and-galleries