To observe, analyse and then what? What changes between people? Power relations, who wins and who loses?

Energy street

 

Miss Beach having fun 2001

Art hires bullies and incompetence: my well-educated analysis which is based on experience. Experience is bad which I have been wondering how I am so unlucky, or there truly is something seriously wrong but not enough leverage to make that needed change. Some parties do not look for change in art because stagnant state of things works better for them.

When one first begins studying sculpting and your teacher is sexist chauvinist, strongly biased male to whom pedagogy seems to be an unknown concept, one gets a pretty good idea of what to expect when one graduates. So it all is educational after all. There are no illusions whatsoever of what lies ahead and how slowly things change in the arts, which hugely relies on tradition, what comes to gender roles, social and career mobility, position and power of institutions and money, what is good art, what can be shown and said. Mostly art looks back so keenly because it likes the male heroes. Needless to say I have argued and questioned a lot at art school and was deeply unliked because of that. Old fashioned are also ways to do business, put up exhibitions, funding, how artists and artistry are seen and treated, how much there is preconception and thinking you know even when you do not know shit. That is of course when you need the consultants. You can always rely on knowledge of a consultant but artist is an underdog if he or she is not well-known and well-networked. What else is there other than self-interest and all one can do is work for only one’s own benefit, why else do it. Business in which one has to be an expert and know a lot there are many doing the work who do not have the needed capabilities: understanding, courage and knowledge, capabilities to spark change, unbiased, only talk is what happens, which does not change anything, just like politicians do.

As curious as it sounds when you start looking at the issue of what kind of people are drawn to business of art, it could not be more clear: it is made to those who strive to win, be best at posing or at least look like they are good at something, mostly the latter. The importance of image cannot be emphasized enough. To work in art you have to have a big ego to stand behind your work, be confident enough to stretch as far as possible with ideas of your own, try out ideas which you believe in and very often only you, fail or succeed, and accepting the result to move on with all the enthusiasm possible. What kinds of results we accept as a community and in what kind of environment we want to work plays a big part of how to choose one’s perspective, on which side to stand and look into the scene where one is to create, be creative. How creative is the art world? What is the scene where art is shown or made to exist and why is it so narrow and unwelcoming? It is not new that narcissism is a regular trait for artists and in the arts in general and need to be admired for one’s position, networks and art must be one thing probably. All want to have the fame, which is one thing essential in art, admiration, grandiose, infinity, eternal art and eternal unforgettable artists, heroes. Artists are admired when they get fame and fortune. Fame is much talked about as it is the gold pot which might be found when one is talented and lucky enough. What is luck, how one gets lucky and what is part of talent there? It is a weird business where money circulates, art gets centered to certain places and artists have to be presented in certain places to have a name, be seen by right people and be noticed within the system. So to be stepped over is not irregular, to be sexually harassed either, minimised, discriminated, talked about in ill manner happens regularly. There are things to be expected but still they strike always as surprise because one wants to believe in kindness and good intentions. Cynicism is the first impression I get, always. It is no wonder, I am always up against a crowd of fanatics who think they know better and are better because art is about finding the truth, being good and admired, and those who are on pedestals think, they have found it and are deserving of their status.

There are those who like to repeat over and over again one idea, imprint it where ever they can because it is theirs and it represents the good they have come up with, themselves, something unchangeable, an era, an -ism, history, tradition, spectacle, experience after which tourists are expected to travel and spend money for. When we starve the idea of art into movable modules that function as branded palaces for money, it is art for money and art for business’ sake. It is tourism that dictates and the tourist is offered an art awe grandiose to witness and experience, remember, photograph, be educated by. An art awe is.., sensation, uplifting, knowledge, learning, the act of looking and feeling the once in a life experience, time to touch, something grand again, special, new or old and spectacular, always bigger and more expensive. To find the spectacular it has to be imported. Interesting is when new art is made it often is made in the marginal and by those who have rebelled the establishment, education, hierarchy and traditions, those who have made the most interesting art and have had the lasting changing impact on art are the dissidents. Always there is a clash and crush necessary for that necessary change to happen. The procedure of producing art is machinery of media coverage, expensiveness, size, names, what catches the eye, mind and heart. To preserve quality and process of the creating progress and the new which can be exciting, cynicism is not good at all.

Artist, captor of light http://www.words-to-use.com/words/art/

Mixed messages, do you know what I mean?

What is art consumer supposed to think when making of an institution reveals to be one case after another strange of mishaps, strange errors of thought and intentions appear to be more or less suspicious? Is there room for thinking when criticism is unwanted and clearly the institution is wanted to be set without questions asked? Critical views against and for and about quality of art must be freely discussed as must be deals done by officials and representatives which deals obviously have got political ends. Does art exist without politics one may ask? Anyway who could be against art? It is fair to ask how art is produced, what and why something is trendy or famous and stays that way, what is the progress made within art and how does it show? Why does art itself has got an image of a good-doer, a charitable well-spirited voice waking up and bringing light into darkness? Partly that is what art does in places where the normal is grim. Art has potential to lift up in many ways, uplift the maker and the viewer. Does it lift up the institutions that work with art, is art for art and institutions for themselves? Of course. Art has value of a tool, if you ask me, as it should and must since it is not above people but for people. When art scene does something it usually always is a cause which is a good for all promoting human interest in general, whatever human interest may be, interest is and can be defined in many ways but we assume cause is something like human rights are for everybody, environment must be preserved, public spaces should have more beautiful art, art heals etc.

When there is confusion, denial and clear misunderstanding of what is racism, sexism, discrimination, hate speech, exploitation, class division and where goes the line to abuse in there where artists are to work, then one can wonder how do these people who work in art understand what is good art, what are suitable working conditions, how ethics is applied and how art should be implemented in the world today because it is a very different world than for example ten years ago, still change happens in art very slowly even though it claims otherwise. In situations where sexism, discrimination and racism are widely tolerated but unseen and are spoken against via art, that there is institutionalized way of interacting which includes sexism, discrimination and racism, it is too risky and difficult to make a difference to speak out. It is a fact that art is elitist, to be an artist is elitist but that elitism disappears when one refuses to work with fascist dishonest system. System in which without recognition artist is unknown. Art is therefore done for the system to recognize and artist to establish one’s position must play by the rules of the system.

Art spectator can expect to see the surface without much depth.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/arts-and-books/how-words-shape-our-world ”He argues that all ethical outlooks share a common structure in which we experience a kind of call, divine or inner, which requires us to seek with varying success to overcome our limitations and blindness. To be open to this call requires that we can recognise “something as right or worthy, and this recognition cannot be dispassionate.” Emotion and empathy are thus central to moral reasoning.”

Immorality, the rule, rather than an exception.

It could be an interesting topic to go through how morals should be and are applied in art. Does high morals or more over lack of have anything to do with the current state of the art world? Current state being rampant sexism, discrimination, favoring of gentrification and institutionalized art and institutionalized look on art, favoring of famous and named artists on the expense of quality, progress, variety and multi-layered culture, on the expense of perspective to different kinds of realities. Art is generally seen as something pure requiring skill and talent, intellect and ability to think outside the box. Art is or should be allowed to push boundaries of proper, art officials and personnel do not take the part of the artist in this. They do not bend moral rules, break the law or do hazy business within art to benefit themselves and institutions which are to serve art and doing so serve the public. To stay on the level of politics where many decisions concerning art projects are made seems to be usual and practices of business are applied to art where artists must behave and act as businessmen, this often means morals of business become morals in art. What does this do to art displayed one can ask, or one way to look at the dilemma is to wonder how big money affects art and the art scene, where the interest lies? Politics and power which stay interested in art as a tool and means of propaganda, art as honey for tourists, tourists bringing income and prosperity. We can be of many opinions about trustworthiness of politicians and art projects connected tightly with political decision-making and aims do not look that pure, intentions stay on surface and art functions like plaster changing nothing there where change is necessary. That is in how deals and projects are dealt with, to decorate. What are the main motives for investing in art and how much those motives matter in the big picture, in the picture of art playing the part adding more than statues and grand museums? History of art is history of power silencing others placing proper ones on pedestal, mostly white males with connections.

What is interesting and impressive aesthetically must it be observed and looked via morals? Why something which is morally right is also right in art? Because art is used as object of power it essentially has to have high morale to stand on and will of its own which cannot be twisted to serve those who use finance and power in society. Morals refers to good and right and immoral is without morals even one without morals is making choices which demand judgment and thinking of how and why. Conflict in art context occurs when it is giving assumptions on art standing firmly on the right and good and therefore those who make art are admirable knowledgeable wise men and women to whom people can turn to and be given comfort, shown beauty and told tales of morally high aims or of low ones. Ethics is one of the most important issues art deals with and when art is not done ethically it loses its credibility. This applies to institutions, to those who work in art and for art, who say art does good and is good for all. Then we can start talking about what is good art, valuable and meaningful art, where lies value in art. It is the same asking what are good deeds and what are bad ones, what is gained with those deeds may tell something of the value of those deeds.

 

I like to think non-place is a place where people have to visit or live where they voluntarily don’t wish to.

Place is experienced emotionally and with our senses, partly made personally, one by one individually, place existing on personal and on public level within human reason and randomness for human activity and always with nature, in harmony or in disharmony. Places for lives of people to function for our benefit, we sensing, using, monitoring, analyzing places we go to, we like and dislike, live at, walk through, work at, see, avoid via movement, need and human consciousness we connect or disconnect with places. We have a need to make our marks to places we visit to show that we have been there or take marks or pieces from places, out of/from places with us to remember and prove having been. Imagining a place and experiencing, remembering, reliving, becoming part of a place, making an emotional connection/contact to a place and what that place is all about, what this place means to you, is for and why are you thinking about it, going there, staying there, why are we where we are and what kind of things do we pay attention to in a place, what make places of ours on emotional level, in negative and positive way. Can we own a place in negative sense, feel that it is ours and be part of that ugliness, belong there making something new out of filth, that an ugly place is part of us in all its ugliness, uselessness, coldness, disconnectedness and powerlessness? Is a desire of making a non-place connected to our need of making an impression of what we are, to show strength in despair, despite despair, what we long for but fail trying to forget what we are not, or is non-place made to not be used as we try to be useful and seem effective but be abandoned to remind us how alone and desperate we are? We want to impress by being at a luxurious place, beautiful and rare, difficult to reach, expensive and extraordinary and by doing so state the wonderfulness and specialty of ours but still it is only the surface of things when it is to show off and a place is an extension to our personality and identity as part of us but better than most.

http://www.dezeen.com/2016/03/09/interview-sophie-flinder-refugee-camp-calais-france-jungle-architects-planners/

The Origin of the Species

Why whistle? Why not.