elitismi

slut walk whore walk prostitute walk hooker walk woman walk

| Henna Timanttimetsä

Manipulative force of movies: What are movies wanted to make us think?

| Henna Timanttimetsä

Are movies like malls where we can wander and pick things of our choosing up in a chart, pay and leave happily for having found what we came for? What are our reactions to movies, especially to those which get a lot of advertising and space in media. Do we expect something of movies we choose to watch? Enjoyment, escape, dreams, stories, anything else? A surprise or something specific which we are paying for not to be disappointed but leave the theater content and entertained. Movies play an important role not only as something to be shown in theaters and on TV to pass the time but something very complex, maybe more than meets the eye. The help to create an empire of merchandise, news, extra on top of the cake and it is fun to make movies, I’m sure. So I am not spoiling the fun, I am just wondering visuals among which we live, power of business and how well organized can a machinery to make profit be. Are visuals used making our perspectives more narrow? Our possibilities in making pictures, thoughts of what can be done, why something is done and what is good?

As it is always in action movies there is good vs. bad, probably the most used juxtaposition as is the all mighty solitary hero and heroine against a mass of ordinary folks who cannot keep up the speed. Heroes and heroines can make a good story with turns that interest a crowd enough to pay to see it, if that is what is enough. What interests to such extent that up to repetition story of all mighty hero has to be told similarly repetitiously with similar kind of twist as American fathers bond with their sons by throwing ball? That a movie makes a blockbuster as planned and how a concept of blockbuster movie is so luring that it over and over again finds viewers making hundreds of millions of dollars? One can question the buzz around it but one can hardly stop it. Just like that, impossible. We are in a whirlwind of media and its choosing of visuals. Is it too obvious and more importantly are we as viewers and consumers that obvious? So it seems. To see something that could actually happen but is bigger than we are, still somehow within reach, attractive as a fantasy and a dream, maybe not as every day scene in real life but saving first America and then the World. Something already may be lost.

What do viewers witness or are viewers being used?

Jurassic Park never did it for me in any way, but here are couple of interesting articles concerning women in science, role models and movies, how movies impact the viewer:
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/in-praise-of-jurassic-parks-dr-ellie-sattler ” When the park’s power fails to come back on as expected, she doesn’t sit in the emergency bunker waiting for rescue. She makes a plan and grabs a walkie-talkie, heading out to find the power switch.” 
http://www.vulture.com/2015/06/jurassic-world-feminism.html

Most sad I am when people who I assume would be the least with prejudice appear to be anything but.

| Henna Timanttimetsä
All one can do is to prove them wrong. Hardest thing must be to admit being wrong. But I drink to hoping those narrow-minded will see the light.

 

Size of art: The things you can tell by choosing size. Playing with size is to play with our eyes, perception, attention and ways we are used to looking at things.

| Henna Timanttimetsä

Importance of art, what is important art, where lies the interest when we look at art depending on what are we measuring when we measure art, what we look for, why art is there to be measured. We measure the price, fame, skill, connections, where the artist is based at and so forth. Why all the measuring and paying attention to surface is so important especially in art, or is it just the problem of this branch only? Obviously not. Seek to impress and making it get desperate when competition is heavy. Is it the social side behind desire and lust for grandiose there to be understood? Is it just pure greed and need for power? Art has to be placed or left out as are artists in or out? Question of size of art and what gets attention is always interesting. As an artist as I write about attention can mean it is I who wants attention. There is always the self-interest, suspicion, egoism which are attached to art, social aspects of doing the whole of art, business, publicity and talking about art. Big possibilities lure spineless crooks who wish to make the best profit there is possible to make.

Someone who seeks to be talked about, is that an artist? As an artist I seek that my work is talked about not me. When my exhibition is photographed do not take photos of me but of my work. I do not seek a personality cult by being an artist but rather have something to say than posing in a picture. This has been very difficult to grasp for many. Though at the moment I find internet art much more interesting to do and explore for many reasons. It lacks the stereotypes, assumptions and conventions of traditions of  fine art. I find that appealing, refreshing and new.

Same size problematics goes with architecture, thinking the bigger equals the better. The better and something good in the world of today is matter of magnitude, impact, conspicuousness, ability to make stature that impresses. To be impressed in an instant, to get an awe, be taken one’s breath away by something that has required skill to achieve is a goal by which art in traditional sense is seen and meaning of making art is to prove skill, professional and trustworthy, valuable in a world where machinery, factories, technical thinking prevail over everything as true signs of intellect, human abilities and are seen as male. Big size as a masculine feature is an all covering giant with its shadow to impress conquering attention and to win is like winning in sports. It is not unusual to own and aggressively protect that tradition in art by diminishing countering opinions. Dominance is the only way to do things in this kind of mental atmosphere. Anything small is pathetic and cute, seen as to be won, big is self-evidently good and acceptable, heavy and solid. What a horrible weakness that is to all of art and artists to seek massiveness in every way. It is to diminish and kill anything else which everything else would mean variety of points of views and ways of making.

Ladylike Sniff Sniff, ladies like it.

| Henna Timanttimetsä
 
Smell Mein Führer


Fragrance that brings instant feeling of power on your face, for you, habitus in your hands, on and around you all day. While splashing odor you can hear screaming women and children. Aroma of blood, sweat, tears, piss, leather, nails and steal. You rule, you kill, you smell.

Value of art according to G

| Henna Timanttimetsä

140 000 000
20 000 000
5 000 000
2 000 000

Round figures, something we see often in news fly by. Do we get numbed by the overdosing of numeric info, graphs of how much? What things cost make what they are worth or is it the other way round? How things are seen and handled, priced, talked about, saved or discarded. Wars are expensive, but education is precious, healthcare is too expensive. Museums are meant to shine like diamonds of the cities, priced temples of civilization, education, art, creativity of people. What else? What else do museums of art represent? Commercialism, consumerism, luxury, grandiose and status, power and what is valued? Can they critique themselves? Are they able to keep up with the change (do personnel equal the museum, bad management equal bad museum concept, bad working environment?), mold themselves for the needs of art (needs of people), not needs of museums or is it the same thing? Are art museums art embodied and creators of museum complexes, brands, franchise doing service for art? There is an awful lot of strange interaction, planning and shady promises hanging in the air which all look somewhat crooked for many reasons. Millions are peanuts for some, fairly abstract and large for many, but it is a daily routine to go through what things cost. What art costs is the shadiest of all. Small things make big things, but for some reason spectacle is the only thing that is the honey to attract tourists, art tourists. This is what is assumed. How do you measure when there is no limit but unlimited options to own and exploit, hidden and without showing true intentions, what is what, to make more money to make more value for brands for owners for rulers for player for money men with the help of tourists. Is it a question of heroism, progress of art? I doubt it.

It has been all along Western civilization has been exploring foreign cultures this civilization has refused to understand and know those who it likes to explore and exploit bringing progress and development thinking it is something better and above. It is us and them, those others whom we don’t even want to understand. They are so different. To say of not understanding culture of interacting in our country, our society, our system functioning to benefit art life and variety of it, how we maintain system of ours, how we think things should be done. To say of being naive and not understanding how we do things in Finland is more than odd for people whose nation is planning a trip to Mars. You do not understand foreign countries nor people is at the core of arrogance and stupidity of you nation. Monetary value calculated, planned winnings, honor and imperialist attitude of yours are the flaws of yours you do not want to change, because you do not see them flaws but strengths, your eternal way of life which must not be disturbed. Short-sighted ideas and plain force is nothing but surface, expensive and futile leading to chain reaction of failure with no end. It is good to learn from mistakes made. You fail to do even that. And you dare to say those who object your fucked up project are against art. Fuck you. Your anti-progress, anti-democratic system and thinking sickens me.

How to respect, what is respect?

| Henna Timanttimetsä
Does the word respect have a clang of old-school and stiffness about it in a way that there is something that needs to be changed how we see what it is to respect someone? There is respect in manners and paying attention to how we treat each other, take others into consideration, but that is not all what comes to respect. When I often call out for respect for women it is not a call for manners and opening doors or bowing your heads towards me, taking your hat off when passing by. Respect is entirely something else, which many times seems to be absent in the meaning I am after. Is respect something we earn and is given when we deserve it? Is respect presence, present when we are, not to think there is something better elsewhere, but something interesting is here where you are at? To me respect is exactly the acknowledging the importance of something and someone in that place. Acknowledging is not a trophy or a prize, it is noticing and wanting to know. It is paying attention instead of seeking something that is a higher far away goal. The better than attitude is so common I have become to loath it and places where such attitude for some reason is winning.
Respect is finding the same level and enjoying that level, exploring and getting to know it. Yes one can be ambitious and aim high. There are wrong ways and right ways to get there. Wrong way is the way of deceit and thinking about the prize.

Sky is dirty

| Henna Timanttimetsä

picnic 2001, Juhani palmun varjossa

Why art is elitist?

| Henna Timanttimetsä

This is the constant puzzle in art to me, why the bubble exists, what purpose does it serve? Excellence, success and glory that happen to small amount of people to keep standard high and the excellence paraded is known by small amount of people, experts and authorities of art, people with good taste? Part of the problem are the authorities and hierarchies which keep the walls up very tightly as they always have been thinking it is the excellence itself and they have found success, a peak of something good and solid. Do small circles make elitism? Don’t such small entities end up dead? Isn’t that what is hard to understand in elitism: why does not elitism open up and invite in? What there is to lose? Elitism is afraid of change and looking in to a mirror. It is much safer to stay closed up. What new gets made, I wonder. Why the excellence, success and glory ring a bit empty and old? People around and within art as it seems to have made it so that art has parted from reality of most people. There are people who can afford it and those who cannot or are not able to think of art as they have to survive and simply are not interested as it is so distant and unreachable. It is not for us. Part of elitism are luxury, showing off wealth, suspicion, hunger for success, wanting to take advantage of people, which all can have quite negative impact on the art scene, art displayed, people working within the arts, the whole culture of producing art which to me is weirdly enough not welcoming nor encouraging. What elitism does to art and why art is elitist is still a bit of a mystery to me, because that is not why I started to study art.

Elitism is paranoia, inequality, discrimination and desire to build a wall in between us and them just because of the idea of being better than, like those who wish to stay clean would have something to be afraid, death and poverty, shame and losing face? They already are dirty and in dirt up their necks when building the wall begun. Elitism is isolation and keeping distance from those who do not connect with the elitist way of living and thinking. It is party of the privileged. One knows when one is surrounded by elitism. Things are not said aloud, people have their acts ready and theater running which keep the props up and things unchanged. That is what is wrong with art, to repair such an idiotic situation seems somewhat impossible. So why is art elitist? It is to preserve privilege, high prices and serve interests of the well-off.

Gossip is a tale of such elitism which lurks everywhere in the meaning to shut out.