art critique

Art, the corrupt business. Art has no freedom of expression or freedom of speech. It is a playground for the similar-minded jackasses who play with it as they please.

| Henna Timanttimetsä

How is it possible that sexual harassment is not dealt with but those who commit such acts keep on for example as teachers? How is it possible that such people stay as respectable artists who have a valued position within art and they continue to influence the scene? How is it possible totally incompetent people continue to teach art, have power making decisions in art, about art? Is art something that can be taught by just anybody who happens to have a name in art? How is it possible that there is no freedom of speech in art but those who oppose and question practices in use like bad habits are silenced and laughed at? How is it possible that corruption is impossible to get rid off even though there is common understanding that it is harmful to the whole community and it does not further agenda of art itself but agenda of people in power? How is it possible that your origin, gender, age, personal views and opinions effect how you are treated in art? How is it possible that those who make money with art have power in art, those who collect art have a say, politicians have interest in art when it brings tourists and fame? How is it possible that art is a tool for the powerful still and artists accept this because they have no other choice? A scene that is scared to face the severe problems it has as a community, that thinks it is teaching something to the public as something superior, is truly fucked up. To favor institutions by financing their policies and ways of acting is not in the best interest of art, artists or the whole of society.

Art which has to be found and searched for instead of it being there where you are just like that in your everyday whoever you are, there where you live and work, is elitist. Elitism is of course an old lament and to live without crossing art in everyday is normal. If you don’t want to or don’t desire see art, you can easily forget it. My question is what has to be done for art to gain its lost place as organic part of our constructed environment, not as monuments, but as something active and useable, not practical but meaningful?

Immorality, the rule, rather than an exception.

| Henna Timanttimetsä

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.

 

Art the language

| Henna Timanttimetsä

Do you speak art? Do you understand art? Do you get and like art talk? Why should art even be a spoken tongue? But it talks, has a voice, tone, presence, ideas and message. To those who are interested message is there to be caught, to resonate with and think about. Then on what kinds of things does it depend how we understand what we see and what we want to see? Do we analyse art via our bias and preconceptions? We have to care about what we see to actually see what it is we see. We have to be alert and open to cultural references, meanings, links, traditions, to philosophical and cultural grounds art and makers spring out. Where is it, who sees it, who is speaking, who speaks about it if anyone, who is given a voice? It is complicated when you start to think about what art is about, why we do art, present it in the ways we do, one particular piece of art is worth lengthy analysis, not to speak of the whole of contemporary visual art. How much of it is about taste, objectification and luxury, about cultural intellectual shifts we experience today, politics, our progress as humans and about continuation to Art History, to institution and conventions of fine art and the tradition of Modern Art.

Contemporary art can be avoided completely in everyday life. It is almost strictly isolated in institutions and galleries as a specific expertise field where hierarchy, finance and knowing people make the rules of this peculiar set where one idle person does not accidentally enter or feel comfortable being in. Reference to temples and palaces is quite accurate. How to learn to speak this language and is it necessary are very relevant questions especially when some of art is meant to be political, game changing, radical and new. How political art is inside a palace which has an entrance fee? Well one can wonder. What can be achieved by isolated snobbish fame hungry scene other than decay and a circle that does not achieve the things it dreams about in the art it likes to present.

Let’s get back to Flashdance: There is more to the movie than the plot. It is more clever than you give it credit for.

| Henna Timanttimetsä

It is a fairytale kind of spectacle or anti-spectacle in a spectacle, if that is a thing. Anti-spectacle in the sense of changing of the perspective towards gender, class, work and art, romantic is the spectacle, a pattern we expect. The spectacle we are used to seeing and thinking in terms of movies and in general how class, work, gender and art function and are, are thought to represent and be like. The American dream in this case where a beautiful young woman reaches out for her dream, a place in the sun and ends up getting more or ‘all’, a romantic relationship with a Man with a Porsche, who is also the owner of the factory where Alexandra, the woman in question, works at as a welder. One big plus of the movie is it does not highlight the work Alexandra does, welding is just work with men as co-workers, it makes the movie hugely more interesting though, and her the one who lives outside the box and is allowed to do so. She is not harassed by her co-workers, her abilities are not questioned. It is truly a beautiful setting, which her choice of work, most definitely would be seen weird still today.

To explore deeper into what the movie is all about is worth our while as it has been deeply overlooked as many romantic movies that are meant for women usually are. To pay attention to details, characters, camera shots, what is being looked at and told via tensions between women and men and why those tensions exist. What happens between the sexes, between women especially, what are sexes both expected to do, look and be like. Movie is a language as is dance as is sex, sexuality, clothing and gender. You have to focus on to read it all and actually think what are we looking at, what happens there and why all the time. It is not just an entertaining show where you can relax and forget what is going on, this is told via contrasts between sleazy bars, working men and art, how women are treated in different settings and how these settings differ, how women want to be treated and what do they desire of their lives to be. Movie is never just a movie that is meant to entertain, not even those that are made for that purpose, nor is music or the dance acts that seem to be out of place. Point is easily missed when the romantic is what stays interesting and in the focus.

In a bar where ambitious fit and talented dancers show their art, act for paying customers who are watching and are a bit amazed by the unexpected shows. Contrast is also to the other bar where dancing is not the primary interest of anyone, only nude female bodies, that move in a certain way. Women are dancing for money but in a show-your-ass-kind of way, but they still want to be discovered and dream of making it. What are people watching and why, who gets attention? Watching happens for instant gratification, simplicity of getting pleasure cheap and for fun. A bar is a world of something else than the workplace and not a place of thought, burdening oneself. Customers of the bar are not the assumed ordinary art lovers, but that is the point. Why should people be provoked to think more than is necessary, why not give them what they want? To whom is art for and why is it a class issue? What is art and where is art, who is capable of art and why it is a special occasion in a special place? High and low seem to be repulsed by each other, classes stay separated  like oil and water. The dance acts, art and artists, are really in the right place. Intention of the movie is not to depict a straightforward story in a manner of this is what happens: this is what we dream of happening to us. It is not a children’s story and it is not pink. It seems light, but is heavier when one starts exploring. That are the expectations and frame women are supposed to fit in, want, act upon and are shown in the movie, that those who dare, can change the game. There is social critique hidden there to be found.

To say Flashdance is a feminist movie is not quite what a true movie lover might expect. What do you think about the turn, that a seemingly light Hollywood movie is feminist in a very kick-ass way and about the structural difficult issue of choosing how to get ahead in life, on one’s own terms and talent, and not sleeping with the boss or buddy who has connections. What do you think about when after having seen and evaluated for example the scene where Alexandra goes and finds her friend who has gone to work as a stripper, moving herself in conventional stripper manner, she is grabbed off the stage by Alexandra and escorted out. In the scene Alexandra’s clothing and standing position compared to her friend tell a lot when friend the stripper ends up in a puddle on street wearing only panties and high heels and is cold. Money, she earned gets wet in the rain on the pavement. Alexandra’s loose pants and sneakers when she stands firmly behind the naked woman who has fallen down and sold her body for money to please men may seem easy and naive, but it is something very basic, a woman on the ground beaten down feeling there is no other opportunity for her.

After having read couple of critiques about the movie and clearly many have missed the point: When one is an art critic it is essential to see behind the expected, the image and be free of bias. What is the seen image telling us, what happens without words, what is the setting and who are the characters, what do they do. Do you need more clues, because explaining has to be done also in a very basic manner, obviously also for critics. When you are an art critic, don’t fall for the simple clichés. Such poor analysis destroys a lot, as does arrogance, assumptions and cynicism. Minimizing culture that is aimed at and is about women and girls is a normal practice. It is a learned reaction which comes without thinking. A black woman eating a banana in a scene where women talk about relationships, well sounds as cliché as anything, but it happens in couple of seconds, and is easily missed, but telling. To make it as you with your raw capabilities, without handouts and favours..

Flashdance, is a feminist movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashdance in which woman does work as a welder and pursues her dream to become a professional dancer, also in which women help each other, face sexual harassment and deal with it by acting out, consequences lurking there and threat of violence is almost a certainty. To oppose men means you have to be one and be prepared. Movie portrays different kinds of female roles, a gallery of different kinds of women. The expectations of what women should be like, playing with stereotypes with which women struggle and hold on to as coping mechanisms. They may be afraid to go against the machine or don’t know how to or should they, and those who do not fit in the accepted roles especially, seem to be out of sync or do what they need to do despite whatever. Interesting are the different kinds of female characters there, how there are systematic learned rules of behaviour that stick, codes for genders and how these codes are taken for granted. How women portrayed are in their places and obviously struggle and lack power. They try to move on up as do men, they have dreams. Men try to move inside women’s panties and sex is clearly a very basic tool of control and making it. It is the first thought, easy way out, a getaway car and motive. World of art is a dusty stagnant relic too, which needs heavy dusting. Alex, the leading women, is afraid to enter this monument of perfected trained fragile-looking fairy-like ballerinas and primadonnas. She want’s to make it on her own with her own credentials with her talent and does not need a man to do that for her.

Real life is stranger than fiction says this welder.

 

“I have a friend who has a simple test for a movie: Is this movie as interesting as the same things would be, happening in real life? A lot of movies aren’t, and “Flashdance” sure isn’t. If this movie had spent just a little more effort getting to know the heroine of its story, and a little less time trying to rip off “Saturday Night Fever,” it might have been a much better film.”

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/flashdance-1983

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085549/reviews

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/09/entertainment/la-et-cm-flashdance-musical-review-segerstrom-20130509

Reviews and critiques strongly reflect the persona of the critic who is writing. For some reason in this case feminist perspective does not shine through. Wonder why.

What is art fighting for or is it the institutions that choose the proper fight for the context for the eyes of the privileged and easily traumatized?

| Henna Timanttimetsä

https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2015/10/youth-advisory-board-discuss-censorship-of-art/ “When we reach a point that art depicting toy to depict a terrorist threat is considered too dangerous for public consumption, one has to wonder what we are really fighting for.”

Censorship is the one that has always been there for me whether it is in form of self-censoring which women do instinctively, or the authority has done the censoring and called it curating or editing or just looking away. Usually it is disapproving without discussion and show of contempt for the artist. Something that must be only perfect has a perverse side to it. Art is not about depicting a perfect world, perfect people looking perfect doing perfect things and being great, only great and wonderfully glorified. World glorified, artist glorified, art something that matches the interior and appeals to aesthetic taste is a trend which is forcing itself still as we are given big names and stars, proper contents packaged, expensive gladly, not bad light on rulers, not politics, not ugliness, not cursing, business-likeness which has taken the art world is obvious. We are here to sell and please.

So art on menstruation, female genitals, sex, pornography, bombs, terrorism, art world pretense and phoniness, cleaners, garbage, dirt, prostitution often are banned, scrutinized or at least artist’s mental health is questioned and her intentions. Those topics may be more suitable for male artists too, but still daring. He is so daring and brave, she is just odd and dangerous. To say the word clitoris aloud is difficult, so I am interested why so, to watch pornographic images which are on the net for all to see displayed in art context cause a stir. Scandal is why art scene is so conservative, still sexist and prudish, still perverse. I also wonder what kind of people art is for and what is expected of art, why these expectations do not match with desires of an artist to explore openly, discuss and show what world is like.

For artist to do what is expected is dangerous.

Cult of genius (go wax your balls or something)

| Henna Timanttimetsä
Giant, great, unique thinker, not usually small, fragile, insignificant or female but big, self-assure and male. Genius has something to do with Western success, dominance, power, knowledge, fame and obsession, adoring and idolizing. Idol who is someone special above the rest, someone who has special skills, abilities and way to present oneself in specific manner. Exceptional character who seeks to find perfection tirelessly, and truth, find something invisible which is and has been beyond most people to imagine and see. Impossible made possible, genius an exceptional person lifted up who has been able to reveal a new way of making, thinking and seeing, something unseen, unheard, unconventional, unimaginable, unsolvable and revolutionary. To be genius means one has to be creative, do creative work and go over limits that society has set. That maybe is not enough. To go further, go far and find the simplest solution usually on your own. It is a manifestation of power of one individual. One can do something new and innovative without being a genius. It has to be declared. Genius the personality trait as it is something we know when we think about it is something scary still. There is a thin line between crazy and genius, intellectual superiority that is almost too much for human brain to tolerate. What cult of genius expects is a freak of nature.
It is usually status given by experts who identify and acknowledge, have evaluated and recognized work of a genius. To declare oneself genius is a sign of lack of humility and modesty. Placing oneself somewhere where it is almost impossible to go but one has to take the step of doing so without shame for it. Who dares to challenge this person, who dares to say such a thing? No one but a full-blown narcissist, self-obsessed lunatic and megalomaniac. Success and being noticed is part of the cult, of course. One of a kind mastermind who know worth of oneself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius_(mythology) Genius has spirit, divine guidance and protection so it is not false to speak about cult or religion in the context of genius. Must be due to Christianity genius has become to embody a man, man’s ability to think, do, invent and master.
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/video/artist-marilyn-minter-is-pretty-dirty I have placed this interview of Marilyn Minter here because she refers herself to being a genius, a genius who creates something extraordinary, genius an exceptional thinker, a mind analytically and intellectually superior. What other would you say when you are asked are you a genius? First of all one has to have a lot of balls to give such a statement and yet what a banal thing to say. Is genius a bumper sticker? Interesting is how cult of genius seems to be a very American phenomenon. What kind of intellect is American genius about and is their criticism in Minter’s statement towards the royalty of intellect which is close to pop culture? How intellect manifests itself in a genius and in society today when anyone can be a genius?

 

 

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.

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.