Maisemointi ihmisen kuvana. Millainen mieli, sellainen maisema?

20 syyskuun, 201614 helmikuun, 2018 | Henna Timanttimetsä

Leikkipuistojen liukumäet ovat kaikki yhtä lyhyitä eli ei vaaraa putoamisesta, lelut eivät kovasti poikkea toisistaan. Suomessa todella tietää mitä saa. Yllätyksiä ei juurikaan ole luvassa. Hämmästyttävää sinänsä, koska ajatus suomalaisuuden ja suomalaisten erinomaisuudesta on omaleimaisuudessa. Sama kaikille-ajatus on ajatus tasa-arvosta ja jokaiselle suomalaiselle saman verran eväitä, joka ajatus on erinomainen, mutta voiko se toimia itseänsä eli meitä vastaan eli eväitä ei ole tarpeeksi kun ryhdytään uudistumaan ja tekemään jotakin uutta? Kuva on tasapäistämisestä ja turvallisuudesta, josta suomalaista peruskoulutusta erityisesti soimataan, ajatus joka saa meidät pelkäämään erikoisuutta, erilaisuutta ja poikkeavuutta? Ei saa olla erityisen hyvä, koska opettaja ei tiedä mitä sellaisen kanssa tehdään, ei saa olla erityisen poikkeava, koska ei sellaisenkaan kanssa tiedä mitä tehdä. Loppuuko luovuus samankaltaisuuden ja turvallisuuden vaatimuksessa?

Kaupunki on mielenmaisema ja kuva siitä mikä on sallittua tai kuinka kaupunkilaiset ajattelevat mitä voi tehdä ja kuinka olla. Mikä on kaupunkimaiseman funktio kun ajattelemme millaisia arvoja järjestämämme ja hallinnoimamme kaupunkinäkymä edustaa? Kaupunki, ainakin teoriassa, edustaa kollektiivisia arvojamme ja elämäntapaamme, entä muuta, orjallisuuttamme ja uskoamme samankaltaisuuden voimaan tai että jokaisella on mahdollisuus hyvinvointiin? Kaupunki näyttää siltä millaisia ihmisiä siellä asuu ja mitä he haluavat, elämältä ja kaupungilta. On edelleen osattava vaatia sellaista kaupunkia joka on asukkaita varten. Suomessa ajatus kaupunki kansalaisille toimii pääasiassa hyvin, silti kyseenalaistaisin edelleen tapoja tehdä edustus edellä ja ajatusta että kaupunki on ulospäin ulkopuoliselle katsojalle jotakin, ei niinkään sille joka on sisällä kaupungissa.

Perusarvojamme ja visioita hyvästä kaupungista vaalimme, etenkin poliittisia, ja inhimillisiä tarpeita jotka ovat kulueriä, mitä niistä. Toimivuutta painotetaan kyllä, etenkin autoilun kannalta, asioita joihin käyttäjänä, kaupunkimaiseman kuvaajana, katsojana ja pohdiskelijana kiinnitän huomiota. Suomalaisessa kaupungissa on ikuisen oloinen tiukka järjestys ja samankaltaisuus, joka taitaa olla lakisääteistä ja kovin rakennuttajien hallussa oleva. Joka kaupungissa toistuu geometrisesti säännöllinen, samankaltainen ajattelun ja tekemisen siisteys, parturoitu ja puhdistettu elämisen ja tekemisen idea tai ideattomuus. Jos maisemoidaan laitetaan ruohikolle suuri kivi ja istutetaan pensaita rajaamaan nurmikkoa. Millaisesta ajattelusta tai ajattelun puutteesta ja ihmiskuvasta toisto kertoo? Jonkunlainen säilömisen tarve ja pelko muutoksesta paistaa läpi. Mitä uudistuminen sitten vaatii että kollektiivisesti tapahtuisi muutos ajattelussa, oppimista miten nähdä toisin ja etenkin luonnollista kiinnostusta ympäröivää kohtaan? Millainen on hyvä kaupunki visuaalisesti on oletus materiaalisesta hyvinvoinnista, säännöllisestä järjestyksestä jossa perusasiat toimivat, ylhäältä määrätystä, joka on luutunut mieliimme, jota ajatusta edustavat materiaalivalinnat, suoruus, suorakulmaisuus jossa todellisuudessa vaikutelma on ideaköyhä toiston vankila. Virkamies joka ei ymmärrä että halpa tulee lopulta kalliiksi. Näkymä on toki tiettyyn pisteeseen asti tarkoituksellinen ja puhdas, häiriötön, särötön ja turvallinenkin kunnes home iskee. Voisiko hajuton ja mauton olla jotakin muuta?

20160812_122038 — Uusi koulu- ja nuorisotilarakennus Lielahdessa Tampereella, joka edustaa uutta tapaa rakentaa oppimista varten. Pisteet Tampereelle!

Analysoida jotakin mikä on tehty lähes steriiliksi on kuin ajattelisi jotakin mikä on suunniteltu tyhjäksi, jota eivät käytä ihmiset vaan koneet ilman ihmisten tarpeita. Mistään ei saa kiinni muusta kuin omasta ihmetyksestä toistuvaa tapaa maisemoida hengettömäksi loputtomasti toistuvaksi samaksi ja vaikuttamisen mahdottomuus tekee turraksi että vihaiseksi. Toisto edustaa tietynlaista jatkuvuutta ajatuksellisesti, halvan suunnittelun jatkuvuutta ja muutoksen pelkoa, helppoutta johon pyrimme ja ajattelemisen vaikeutta jota kartamme. Pelkoa ärtymystä ja ihmetystä kohtaan, raivo repeää tuon tuostakin jos jokin muuttuu radikaalisti. Nykyään asiat muuttuvat huonompaan ja kallistuvat vaikka kaikki on helppoa ja jopa halpaa, mikä ristiriita. Vaikeus toki on monen asian yhtäaikainen huomioiminen ja vastuukysymykset, vaikeus ajatella toisin uudella tavalla tai jopa palata vanhaan, lainata vanhasta jota ei arkkitehtuurissa harrasteta on todellinen vaikeus. Vedotaan siihen ettei enää osata. Kun osaaminen katoaa niinkin nopeasti kuin on ilmeisesti tapahtunut, taantuminen vaikuttaisi olevan liian helppoa. Päättelen ettei meillä ole tarpeeksi vastusta että tarvitsisi ajatella vaikeita.

_1010019 (13).JPG — 2014, Nimetön teos penkille

A performance for a group of people

15 syyskuun, 201614 helmikuun, 2018 | Henna Timanttimetsä

There is a jar, a large glass jar half full of water on the table.
Group of people are standing by the table. One person goes to the window with the jar and pours the water out the open window in silence.
Glass jar is returned to the table and everyone at one’s turn takes the jar and shouts inside the jar in one’s own way. The one who poured the water out the window will shout first in the jar.
Performance is finished when everyone has passed the jar forward to the next one,
till everyone has screamed or shouted in the jar. No words, just noise.

Case of Britney Spears is an excellent example of female oppression. It is obsession for hyper-sexual child-women who seemingly do not decide for themselves what is their image but they talk of control.

29 elokuun, 201614 heinäkuun, 2022 | Henna Timanttimetsä

Interest in how women are seen sellable objects is a curious one. First how much are we things to possess, material to be moulded and what is the purpose? How women are merchandise and for what reason? Is slave 4 u the answer? Merchandised as ever so often women themselves allow this to happen. They make the initiative and show the will to be that object. It is a wanted she-goddess, divine. To be a sex object is seen sexy as such, a deed, a statement to be had in any form possible, as long as there is picture of her it sells. Are women in control as many pop stars claim to be, active but playing passive? Have control you can have over your weight, a discipline, a routine, a way of life. How voluntary and aware of abuse of sexuality should we be and think actively about changing the repetition of gendered clichés? They seem to be effective in making millions. Isn’t it weakness to be unable to do otherwise, unable to have any other message with the whole of one’s being that one is supposed to control? It can be a powerful calculated strategy to use this tradition of stars and ultimately be able to do as one pleases in the end. To be super-rich and look beautiful in photos is one dream for many people regardless of gender. It is an idea of manipulating a mass of people by creating an idol. Are ways to get there different for men and women, more limited for women what comes to creating personal career path in entertainment?

Britney does sing about the culture of oppression around her, involving her, sheer tormenting of her by paparazzi portrayed in her song Piece of me. Is it oppression in the true sense of the word one might wonder. Imprisonment policed by what is said is nothing new. Will she be abandoned when she rebels? She is ridiculed which works well for the press. Shaming works for the tabloids, continuation of oppressive ways women are kept in their place as what is news concerning women’s lives, what kinds of things make headlines concerning women and how they choose to live their lives. Role of a nice girl she is not permitted to change and be more serious. Girliness is not serious shit? To develop further as an artist means to experiment with what one is expected to do and be and what could be escaped from to something unknown. Role that does not evolve beyond boundaries there are is very much the one for women, safety and known areas are given from early on. Outside are dangers which boys go after and test more freely. What are the dangers inside could not be more clear. Yes one can go crazy. Division to safety and to danger is artificial, essential things remain unnoticed.

Repetitious ways to act out are the ones we must speak out about, oppose. To live by what is known and acceptable stand the one barrier to climb over, to not just play the part given is basic rebellion for the young. That is the hard way to figure out what to do, how to find a way out. Ways for Britney to rebel have been to get fat, look ’ugly’ not smiling to the camera, hit paparazzi with an umbrella, scream, quit the nice girl all-pleasing act which does not take much of effort to break. For women it is a glasshouse where any misconduct shows and is scrutinized. I wonder as she does not analyze it herself to the core the problematic nature of the business towards women in particular and her in it escaping photographers but she gives us clues to feel for her still as it is clear to feel for her is not the deal. She wants to be treated like a human being while working in the business that is not empathetic of failure and weakness, looking other than pitch perfect is not an option. Punk allows women to be ugly and behave as they see fit. It would have been interesting to see Britney change genre.

Song Piece of me which is a much needed critical point of view on her life as celebrity. The song is a picture of a person living hunted which she has felt is against her human rights, rightly so. Celebrities may seem kind of super humans who should be pleased for every publicity they get. That is what they are there for. They are livelihood for many not only for themselves. As they have what many want, they themselves should give all of themselves. Where goes the limit and what stands as interesting journalism, valuable for society? Social media has given us the option of revealing all and we are watching what happens next. It is a whirlwind. That makes a mess itself, a movement of what we see social today. Superstars pose interest to the public in their wealth, position as constantly looked at beings. Question often is why are we interested? What is it we pay attention to and why criticism does not change as much as it is legal to practice this business of vulture?

There could not be more perfect example of contemporary female oppression than Britney in the sense that violence against her is totally accepted by the media and public. It is not seen as violence or oppression, or if it is, it is not important as she is just a pop singer, doing something light-headed and stupid. How could something light be hurtful? She is very privileged and lucky to be where she is which for many equals happiness and perfection and justification. In this picture women are still sold as body parts, shrunken dolls who say what they are let to say, to play the part which is thought to be sexy, desirable and alluring as much as repetition can be. Look the look and get slapped either way. This role of perfection is not what women should want, but they must want it. Does it sound tricky and contradictory? When women go and break the role-play like feminists have done, maybe they have gone crazy and are in of need help since hell has broken loose for what they have done.

When women themselves break the machine, crack down the perfect engine, it is Hysteria, it is a scandal. It is meltdown, it is out of order, a sickness. Women in need of a doctor, in need of cure to set themselves in the right order where nothing is wrong or the matter is nothing special. Correcting themselves not to make the mistake of saying and doing other than what is planned and expected of them. Britney is seen only as someone who went nuts in front of us, got teary, which is documented and ridiculed, which is headlines. Popstar who is recovering from bad behavior and mending up her career, making a comeback, watching carefully out what she says, how she stands. It is tragic the way how she is treated as someone who had a meltdown, crying in front of us, being vulnerable and hurt. There were 43 000 people in 2014 who committed suicide in the USA alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States

Tragedy is the complete blindness and indifference towards mental illness, shame and ridicule around lunacy, mental issues altogether. Ways women are monitored and policed is neurotic and making women and all of society ill. The insanity of celebrity culture itself is something to be treated. Not to mention what goes on in the world as a whole. To laugh may help but it is not a comedy show. It is still her who is crazy, recovering from her condition. Something to be hidden and be embarrassed about. To talk about mental illness is to talk of those others who are ashamed of being ill and are not like the rest who are well in the head. It is a matter of how we look at things, isn’t it?

To play a part for money is slavery, as is constant need for gossip, growing need, or would we be needing the info of the rich and famous to copy them. Gossip is there nevertheless. The much hated and somewhat controversial artist of our time as Britney is especially via gossip journalism and music she makes, journalism which more or less laughs at her and her problematic relationships and relationship with the industry she feeds from. When she makes a new album she is making a comeback. Does she evolve as a musician and is that the topic? She is making distance to her turmoil, to her problems of which she does not want to talk about in public. Problems are still hers not problems of those who watch. All she does is well, a kind of survival, behaving perfectly, playing her part. She has a part to play in this show and she is still present, acute, making money and interesting as she works, and as the journalists say, grows up, matures. Her age does not show that much, does it. She is interesting in a way how she is portrayed, how she presents herself. Is that her, are we supposed to know that? She is color of her hair, her dance moves, her unchangeable something in her.

Why I think of oppression when I think of a wealthy pop princess who has a history of strange public appearances and caused emotional trauma? Her conflicting with the image she is to keep up is interesting. Conflicting with the press she is to please with what she says and what she looks like and to be all about how she does all that floating like a feather, keeping up her appearance, her look. How she makes comeback again and has become fit again and gorgeous again. This all is about what is expected of women, to keep it together not lamenting. It is about how women are kept in tight leash and punished when they do differently, don’t obey and how that can be scandalous and something changes drastically. It is all about oppression wrapped around in a glittering image, perfected in a way there is no breath so she almost does not age, unable to breath, holding her breath. It is all very clear still she is the one who was deemed having mental problems when she shaved her hair off in public, she was hostile and showed her feelings towards the system that she was created for. All her ’terrible’ outbursts and in some opinion strange choices do seem strange only in the context of pop, especially in context of American mainstream music aimed at young girls, which itself is more or less perverted and gives twisted ideas about how to be a girl and a woman. What is desirable, what to look like to be desirable and valuable, worthy of attention, what are good things for girls to be interested in and what is the relationship between girls and boys about, how this ideal and illusion evolves or if it does not. Why such ideals exist in the first place and what do they represent?

Stating the obvious, I guess, still I wonder why there is so much trashing of a princess who loves to dance and sing? How hungry are we for gossip is very telling of mental state of our culture. What is it all about, the need to get there in to the infantile mind, to slaughter and rip apart people who do something exceptional, are in the spotlight, put there for a reason which is to make money. Pop princess is a money making machine when she does well, so any outbursts of punk-ish manner totally seem crazy, even though when she herself sings she is going crazy. Not in real life you are not meant to go crazy, it is just a song. Mental illness is for the losers and that is scary shit.

Diplomatiaa vitun apinoille?

6 elokuun, 201614 helmikuun, 2018 | Henna Timanttimetsä

Erinomaisuuden ja hallitsemisen haave että tuntee olevansa joku, on hyvin luonnollista ja tapahtuu kovin usein muita polkemalla ja halveksimalla, tärkeys ja asema halutaan saada aikaan ja toteuttaa. Siitähän kiusaamisessa on kysymys, oman erinomaisuuden korostamisesta ja jonkun toisen ominaisuuksien ja taitojen vähättelystä ja mitätöinnistä. Ajattelu- ja toimintatapa on niin normalisoitunut, että itse kutsun yhteiskuntaamme kiusaamisyhteiskunnaksi, jossa sosiopaatteilla on juuri oikeat otteet ja sosiopatia on ihanne. Oletetaan että on siedettävä huonoa käytöstä, asiatonta kommentointia, vähättelelyä, vallankäyttöä, että on joka paikassa pystyttävä todistamaan olevansa kunnioittavan kohtelun arvoinen. Kysymyksessä on kunnioituksen lunastaminen, kyseenalainen kunnioitus joka on katoavaa laatua. Diplomatia tällaisessa ilmapiirissä on väärä ajattelutapa, koska se ei muuta mitään. Se ei todista henkistä vahvuutta eikä saa ajattelemaan toisin. Kun asiat käännetään muka parhain päin rauhanomaisesti keskustelemalla manipuloija ja sadisti voi jatkaa haluamallaan tavalla, koska häntä ei rangaista esimerkiksi julkisesti häpäisemällä eikä hänen ajattelutapaansa julkisesti tuomita niin että sillä olisi muutokseen johtava merkitys. Siis mitä on todellinen muutos ja kuinka muutos saavutetaan niin että totaalinen maailmankuvan ja toimintatapojen muuttuminen eli alistamisen käyttö omien tarkoitusperien saavuttamiseksi olisi mahdotonta?

Diplomatiaa on että nauraa vitseille vaikka ne eivät ole hauskoja vaan ovat kenties rasistisia, nais- ja homovihamielisiä jne. Diplomatiaa ja pelkuruutta on kun ei puolusta sitä joka on alakynnessä tai vain vähemmistössä, vaan myötäilee ja hymistelee tai ei sano mitään. Kovin diplomaattista ja mikään ei muutu. Kun halutaan ja etsitään aktiivisesti muutosta ajattelu- ja toimintatapoihin on oltava suora, ankara ja uskallettava sanoa vastaan, vaikka se tarkoittaa että sinua ryhdytään vainoamaan ja väkivalta kääntyy sinua kohtaan. Kuten olen itse huomannut, pelkuruus ja haluttomuus puuttua, silloin kun huomaa epäoikeudenmukaisuutta, on hyvin yleistä. On kovin helppoa olla vaan samaa mieltä ja keskittyä omiin juttuihin. Mikään ei todellakaan lopulta muutu vaikka niin kuvittelemme. On pelkuruutta olla myöntämättä omaa heikkouttaan, huonommuutta ja toisen paremmuutta, etevyyttä, etenkin kun tuo toinen on nainen. Auktoriteettiuskovaisuuttamme todistaa ikuinen roikkumisemme instituutioiden antamien pätevyystodistusten perässä. Fakta on totta ja uskottavaa vasta kun virallinen taho on sen huomioinut julkisesti ääneen.

Tätä kaikkea en sano siksi, että kaipaan erityisesti huomiota taiteilijana ja kirjoittajana, vaikka olisihan se tietysti erikoinen tilanne. Sanon siksi, koska jokainen kaipaa tulla huomioiduksi tarpeellisena ja osaavana tekijänä ja ihmisenä, teki hän mitä tahansa työtä ja näin ei ole tilanne. Hyvän palautteen antaminen on ilmeisesti erittäin haasteellista etenkin ihmisille joiden on vaikea kestää toisten ihmisten osaamista, vaikea hyväksyä taitoa ja antaa arvoa. Asia tulee hyvin esille sukupuolia tarkasteltaessa, miten ja millaisia asioita toisissamme arvostamme ja mitä emme. Väkivaltainen vallankäyttö on helpoin tie helppoon erinomaisuuteen ja asemaan. Yksinkertaisin väkivaltatekniikka on avoimesti muiden läsnäollessa halveksia. Keinot voivat olla hyvin pienimuotoisia mutta toistuessaan ne tekevät tehtävänsä ja niihin on hyvin vaikea puuttua. Tietynlaiset ihmiset kerääntyvät keskenään ja jättävät ulkopuolelle ne joita ei haluta joukkoon. Tämän tapahtuessaan tarpeeksi useasti tietynlaiset tunteet saavat tulta alleen, ei ole tarvetta eikä halua olla diplomaattinen. Diplomatiaan ja hiljaiseen hyväksyntään en itse kannusta, koska ongelma on laaja, liian hitaasti muuttuva ja rakenteellinen. Auktoriteettiasemassa olevat eivät joko halua tai osaa puuttua, joten teen sen itse.

Itseänsä täynnä olevia kusipäitä kohtaan minulla ei ole muuta kuin syvää halveksuntaa enkä sitä peittele. Diplomatia vaatii kunnioitusta ja sitä mulla ei ole.

Perform a blowjob in a gallery space. Museum space would be even better.

20 heinäkuun, 201627 heinäkuun, 2021 | Henna Timanttimetsä

Perform a blowjob in a gallery space, a museum space is even better.

Instructions: You are among a crowd (friends). Get slightly drunk. Offer a man to get down on him right now in front of all these people you do not know (friends). Fall on your knees and lick his crotch. Open his belt and caress his thighs. Be graphic. If he refuses follow him on your knees. Tell you are very good at it. Ask in front of everybody, if it is ok to perform in front of everybody and perform anyway. Be loud, say please. Ask why he refuses. Don’t you like it? Don’t stop, follow him. Be persistent. Say it is good fun and that you are cheap. If he is not willing ask why. I am not cheap enough, you ask. Say you are desperate. Say that you have heard you like it, I’m sure you’ll like it. Look at my mouth, say. Tell it is good fun and you have been dreaming about doing it exactly with someone like you. I like your smile. Don’t stop until you are removed and kicked out of the place for disturbance and continue to do it outside gallery space.

Another idea: Hire a male prostitute and go to a museum opening among people you do not know (friends and colleagues). When speeches are over and people are enjoying cocktails, themselves, choose a visible spot. Go on your knees and give the male prostitute a good old-fashioned blowjob. Don’t forget to swallow. Don’t stop sucking his penis even though you will be interrupted and told to get lost. Talk dirty, shout loudly and laugh, lick everything.

Where is art when it is not seen? Artless world.

28 kesäkuun, 201610 helmikuun, 2018 | Henna Timanttimetsä

The gap in between worlds is enormous. Barriers between classes, interests, where importance lies widen the gap where even though we speak the same language in practice we do not understand each other. That is normal and it is normal to explain something which is completely self-evident and everyday to me to someone who still does not understand because worldview is stuck and non-movable. To believe one’s own bullshit comes out of belief that one is absolutely correct and has a right to believe in illusions. That that other one knows nothing, is nothing, is below for many irrational reasons. My choices and reality is incomprehensible to someone who sees only the surface of it and is not interested in seeing it deeper, does not want to know that there are more to things than what one sees. This is one important aspect and teaching in art. There are more to people and things than meets the eye. Still even people who work in art are fixed with a very thin way of looking which is astounding always again and again. Still there are those who make conclusions and assumptions because they think they know better, they know more. Learn this you never know enough to make judgments of someone, especially if you have only heard a rumor or seen her. Believe me, I do not have to say anything for the train to begin. Interesting is how similar stereotyping is no matter where one goes, how deep misogyny and hatred run.

Art is at the moment for those who look for it. You can live without any contact with art, without having to think art, see art (fine art especially). But art is everywhere we just like to label art and nonart. I have been wondering why this is although art is the very bread. It is hard work to think and that is what people like to avoid, so to avoid art is part of this pleasure of not bothering, not interested in, does not concern me- thinking. Does art have to be recognized as art and be valued as a piece for it to be art? The more segregated and monetized business art is the more it is viewed as valuable or not valuable, more separated go see wonder. Is it something which could be avoided? Yes but the need to make money and be great is bigger.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/02/david-goliath-malcolm-gladwell-review