Suon estetiikka on edelleen ajankohtainen, se mitä ajattelemme suosta. Suo, joka kasvaa alle millimetrin vuodessa, on hidaskasvuisuudessaan kiinnostava ekosysteemi. Ajattelemme, että meillä on tätä runsautta niin paljon, että sen voi käyttää pois kuljeksimasta ja tavallaan hallita tätä kauheutta, joka luonto on totaalisesti. Vaikeakulkuisuudessaan ja upottavuudessaan sinne ei tee mieli mennä rämpimään, muuten kuin työn puolesta. Se vaikuttaa kaupunkilaiselle jättömaalta, jonka voi käyttää nykyihmisen mielen mukaan. Mikä on maapalan merkitys ihmiselle on myöskin ongelmallinen ajatus, jossa ajatellaan, että kaikella on oltava meille hyötyarvo, kaikki on meitä varten, koska osaamme ja voimme valjastaa olemassa olevia asioita omaan tarpeeseen, joka on loputon. Samaa logiikkaa käytetään monessa asiassa, jossa ajatellaan, että on olemassa joku, jolla on lähes loputon valta ja ne jotka kritisoivat kitisevät turhasta, koska eivät ymmärrä hyvän päälle eli hidastavat ja hankaloittavat putkiajattelijan elämäntehtävää ja -tarkoitusta.
Kun suo valjastetaan tuottavaksi, muutamassa vuodessa se on tasainen pelto, jossa ei kasva mitään todella pitkään aikaan. Mikä on soiden merkitys Suomelle nyt, kun voimme ajatella muita energian luontikeinoja? Mikä on sellaisen merkitys, joka on vaan jossain kaukana, mutta niin lähellä? On ajateltava, mikä on suojellun ja puhtaan luonnon merkitys meille tänään? Mikä on lähitulevaisuudessa kovinta valuuttaa? Tähän kysymykseen kun vastaa oikein, voittaa jättipotin. Se on varsin korvaamaton ja kasvaa itsekseen. Ihminen tarvitsee sitä kipeästi, kuten on tullut kovin selväksi. Miten voimme elää sen kanssa, tapahtuu kesyttämällä ja litistämällä, ajamalla yli. Tämä ei ole kovin harmoninen tapa.
Ilman luontoa me emme ole mitään ja meitä ei ole. Tämä asia kannattaa painaa hyvin syvälle kalloihin, koska kaikesta kieltämisestä ja vähättelystä huolimatta, olemme jo tulleet huomaamaan, että ilmastonmuutos, luonnon saastuminen, puhtaan veden saanti ovat elintärkeitä ihmisen ymmärtää ja osata ottaa huomioon. Ymmärtää näiden pieniltä ja vaatimattomilta vaikuttavien asioiden painavuus. Kun näihin osasiin tulee korjaamaton vika, olemme kusessa. Ne kettutytöt ja -pojat, puidenhalaajat ja huuhaatieteilijät, jotka ovat puhuneet luonnon ja eläinten puolesta, ovat varsin kipeällä tavalla olleet oikeassa. Mahtaa sattua riistokapitalistiin, fasistiin ja antifeministiin. Vähättelyllä ja suoraviivaisella ajattelulla tekee hallaa myös itselleen.
Kun ajattelemme lyhyellä aikajanalla tuloshakuisesti, kuten on ollut tapana ja on edelleen, on huomionarvoista muistaa, että niin ajattelee suurin osa ihmiskunnasta. Miten muutamme tätä koneelta vaikuttavaa tapaa tehdä ja ajatella, jossa oma etu on määräävä? Tarvitaan esimerkkejä jotka selvästi osoittavat, että toisin tekemällä voi pärjätä ja että on olemassa toisenlaista rikkautta kuin taloudellinen. Talous on se mittatikku, jolla kaikki mitataan, raha. Painotamme taloutta ja taloudellista kasvua juuri luonnon ja ihmisten kustannuksella. Luonnosta riistämme arvon, mikä siitä irti lähtee ja se tapahtuu tehokkaasti lyhyessä ajassa, jonka jälkeen siirrymme toiseen kohteeseen. Ajattelu on niin yksinkertaistettua, että on kummallista, ettei toiston haitallisuus aukene siellä missä sen pitäisi. Samaa taloudellisen hyödyn kautta ajattelua tehdään kaikkialla missä hyödynnetään eläimiä ja luontoa. Ne ovat täysin ihmisen otettavissa vailla muuta arvoa kuin se, mikä niillä on ihmiselle. Miten arvo ihmiselle mitataan, miten jonkun arvo havaitaan ja saadaan käyttöön? Mitä ihmisen on hyödynnettävä ja mikä on hyvä jättää hyödyntämättä?
Ihminen arvostaa eniten välitöntä hyvää oloa, joka on koukuttavaa. Pyrimme elämään hyvässä olossa, karttaen huonoa oloa. Olemme paljon mielitekojemme ja kuvitelmien vietävissä. Voittajia ovat ne, jotka kykenevät käyttämään systeemiä parhaiten omaksi hyödykseen. Tätä kiiltoa silmissä pidetään älynä ja oikeutena. Sillä perustellaan turkistarhaus, tehomaatalous, yritystuet ja tehokarjantuotanto. Onko otettava kaikki, mikä on otettavissa, vai voiko jotakin jättää ottamatta? Kaikki tehdään niin tehostetusti kuin on mahdollista puristaa kuivaksi. Puristaminen on hyvä sana tässä kohtaa, tiristäminen. Niin paljon kuin ihmisen voimilla irti lähtee ja sitä kutsutaan edistykseksi. Meidän olisi ajateltava hyödyn ajatus uudelleen. Mikä on tarpeellista ja kaikkia hyödyttävää perustavanlaatuisesti, ei antamalla välitöntä mielihyvää niinkuin sokeri, vaan pitkäkestoisesti pitää kylläisenä. Oikeutus kaikelle on edelleen raha ja oma etu. Edistystä olisi huomata tekojen vaikutukset pitemmällä aikavälillä ja ymmärtää tulla vähemmällä toimeen. Se olisi todellista edistystä.
Terveisiä KHO:lle
”Kaikki nämä kaunokaiset henkäilevät jalkojemme juuressa viimeistä syksyään. Pientä kaistaletta lukuunottamatta koko Kaitasuo muutetaan rahaksi.
Niin että oikein kylmiä terveisiä (etenkin kihokilta) Riitalle, Mikalle, Vesa-Pekalle,Tainalle, Jannelle, Ollille ja Tuirelle, näille Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden veijareille, jotka 18. elokuuta varmaan toisen kampaviinerin jälkeen päättivät myöntää Viipurin Turve ja Multatehdas Oy:lle luvan turpeenottoon.
Kaitasuon lähes 10 000 vuoden taival päättyy kaivinkoneiden möyhennyksessä mustaksi maaksi, jossa ei kasva mitään pitkään, pitkään aikaan.
Beggars are an everyday sight in bigger cities. Feelings towards beggars are negative which I can understand as there is no pride left when you beg. You are on the street and are very vulnerable. Poverty is seen a fault of your own, not a virtue. It is a stench and a shame to not have money. Opinions range from disgust to pity. As an artist I can relate to this. A poor artist is a bad artist, which thought has as much sense as the art scene in general. But still I am rich. I look rich because I have my teeth left and my clothes are new and I have a home. I can relate as I do not come from money and I make art at shoestring budget. There is creativity in being poor and I can afford to think this way. Having no money makes you innovative. I do not consider wealth a measure of man and I do think we should start consuming less. To learn to think having less a virtue is what I’m hoping to see. Biggest wealth is what a nation can do to its citizens and help them think that there are options for them to try out, that they are not destined to be beggars or what someone else tells them to be. Our destiny is not set by other people and where we come from.
Merciful and allowing kindness, non judgmental attitudes towards beggars resonate with our overflowing concern over the third world countries. Their state is what we feel guilty for, it is our doing in part, but how long should this guilt go on? How responsible are Finns for example for what happens in the world now? Our consuming of goods and lifestyle is a constant threat which includes facts about slavery and child labor, how much do we contribute to and how well can we be aware of exploitation? To be able to get ahead in life is not luxury it is a human right, to evolve on your own. Not be the child to be abused but taken care of, our responsibility is grave and dark. Of course we must be concerned, but what kind of help is the best kind? Do we support corruption and oppressive traditions when we give monetary help? For those who are oppressed and poor begging must be allowed, but it cannot be a without an end kind of method of earning. How much mercy there is and what does it mean when you give money? Are you doing something good for that other person or for yourself, you save yourself and the other perhaps? In Finland there were not many if at all beggars on the streets ten years ago, living without a permanent home in the cold on the mercy of others is a short life to which in Scandinavia some party will intervene. To intervene to destructive ways of living is one aspect of welfare state. Abandonment can happen by families but not by state. The Roma people are tightly dependent on their family structures and hierarchy there which cannot be questioned as harmful. Beggars beg for reasons we can guess what goes behind there is a matter of knowing and suspicious, a well grounded question. Begging is especially cruel for children for which I am most concerned about. The most important duty of any nation is to provide a basic education for its children and get them out from the streets. This child labor, abuse and a human rights violation is very acute all over the world. Despite all the natural and other riches nations may have child poverty is on the rise and they are the ones who suffer most. I do not have any empathy for people who put their kids on the streets to work may the work be prostitution, begging, playing music, washing car windows etc. Child labor is one of our major problems still even though there is clear evidence that educating all children is the benefit of all society. To give education is the safest bet and an investment for the future. People who have been working on the street since childhood probably will continue to do so in adulthood.
Poverty is a though one to escape and to change destitute life is unbearably hard but not impossible. To think it is impossible is to think fight is only for survival and that options are for the rich. In Finland punks beg money for beer in the summer and I can laugh about it. The Roma people come here to beg throughout the year which gets very cold and is not a healthy way to make a living. When families with children occupy the streets at the centre of the city, the busy corners reflect ways of life and how distant people’s lives can be from each other as distant as understanding of life and its purpose are. One wonders is this really how the Roma want to live, shouldn’t their kids be at school, and there comes someone telling me they have no option. So I conclude they are refugees. Why do they not see themselves as refugees? To criticise their way of living is for them cruel and unjust because they escape from oppression, this a repetition and the story, but it is vital for their survival, is always the answer, the same unchangeable. What else could they do and it is easy for me to say what I think. You beg money from me I can have an opinion. They do not think and see other options for themselves and their kids as they are a different class as the Roma of Finland seem to think of themselves as well, a race, a tribe. They see it difficult to live as the majority of people do and mutual respect is scarce. The best help sometimes is the understanding of facts and rules, admit that the world changes around, but you do not. What are you going to do about it?
It’s true to my mind to give money for them is supporting oppression Roma themselves are guilty of, a culture that forces its members to live in a certain way. Handout is giving ground for begging. Begging is about serious destitution, a culture where humans live without tomorrow and as it is allowed to happen is as such difficult to approve of. People are free to beg and continue to beg but not change their predicament in any way, there is something wrong with that and I can say it. The Roma clearly do not think or do not find any other way to make a living. Destitution shrinks one’s thinking and views on oneself. Among the Roma there is a thought that their lifestyle is sacred and they involve religion to begging which there is no business others to intervene or judge, people must help those in desperate need if they are true Christians. Forcing is not a Christian thing to do as is not stealing, lying and being incapable of helping oneself. To force someone to beg is slavery. Those who do not contribute and show compassion are cold-hearted and cruel, the Roma say. Education, evolution and change demand a certain degree of cruelty and pain. Those who stubbornly want to stay the same blame other people for their situation. Such denial is common anywhere. Feminists are blamed for making men feel inadequate and destroying families. If you are so useless what is the use of you? What people should learn is to help themselves not depend on other people to make them happy and give money. That is the way to go. This idea of making a living doing what they have always been doing is very telling of how stuck people are in their old ways of living without education. People who are oppressed in their own countries can apply for asylum. Surely options seem few under oppression, but they are few partly because there is not a seed of hope or thought for anything else. Thinking destiny is set because of your sex, origin, colour, religion etc. is yesterday’s doctrine that must not be obeyed today by anyone.
Denmark already has a very strict law against begging which is seen as fascist by many. Beggars who go to jail may have a chance for change. To my mind tradition of begging which continues from generation to generation is fascist. It is forcing a whole of community under one truth and one kind of way of living where women and children must obey and do what they are told. The Roma people are oppressed and rejected and begging is not helping their case, nor is living in vans or stealing from shops. As shocked as I was when they entered Finland a couple of years ago, the shock may be due to me having enjoyed the welfare state and possibilities it has offered. To remind you state providing its citizens is the best way for poor people to get ahead in life, such as myself, I have never had money to call myself rich. I do not get used to the idea there are people who base their whole existence being beggars. Roma people who usually beg in Finland ground the whole of their identity via this act of asking for daily income from people who pass them by. Communities that stay the same are doomed. Resistance is the only way. It has been the way for the poor to change the world and themselves.
1.Heart of a superstar. A dream, an obsession, what is the impact, what is the thing wanted. Introduction to sex-filled culture that is not able to shake sexism off. 2.How can a woman be powerful: Her figure, waves of her. 3.Marketing her forcefully, emancipation to have it all. Personal problematic of womanhood, race, size, voice, body parts, attitudes towards feminine and intellect. Diversity there, what kind of voices do we hear and what is silenced?
1.Heart of a superstar. A dream, what is the impact. Introduction to sex-filled culture that is not able to shake sexism off.
A popular more than agreeable person called a star when she is in the spotlight is something to idolize, envy, look up to and imitate. To be looked at is a curious place. What are we looking at? What is in the person we see first? How our conceptions and biases work and get formed via celebrity culture which highlights talent which sometimes seems a bit thin. Is it a persona or an image what is wanted a person to be and what is the self we like to emphasize but to my understanding do not fully accept or comprehend? What is the mystery here or is the issue that there is no mystery? A place of high expectations and to die for. Womanhood is like a corridor where goals are set according to how much adoring and sex appeal one is able to achieve. This feminine mind is a tunnel where prize is the perfect life defined by images, so tunnel vision is not only a male characteristic. To want that image given on you, to be you as it is something professional and authentic-like, seems to be within reach when your body is shaped into ideal form with all means possible, making a woman a package who still pleases those who watch her, pleases herself because she is liked after what she has done to herself and that there are people watching her as nothing is wrong which is pleasing to her, everything is right. No mystery here, how do we prove the pointlessness of all this torture and culture of pleasing the eye which is sanitizing the female? Only thing mysterious is how addictive and thorough sold ’perfection’ is as it is seen as an individual choice, which it of course is, creating persona that is interesting and truly amiable but dislikes herself. Sanitizing women is about getting rid off ugliness on women’s bodies which is hair, fat, colour, asymmetry to find harmonious body. The whole process is anything but harmonious, it is a battlefield which does not lead to harmony or symmetry it just looks that way. For human mind to find harmony in variety and the thought that flaws we see are part of harmony is difficult to accept. We want to demolish visible flaws which we think are ugly. The very idea of how aesthetics of the contemporary people gets made is disturbing or when do we begin to control ourselves and look for fitting in and why we think we should?
It is voluntarily to want the place of an object as it is lucrative to be one, to be a desirable product but human, vendible living machine, cash apparatus whose income is one cause and effect, money followed, listened to and listed. One after another constantly appearing to keep the entertainment industry happy, happiness being the ultimate goal which both happiness and unhappiness and how did it get that way is the interest of the media. For instance how unhappiness/life comes across successful people and how we like to know all about it. Does our curiosity reach further than voyeurism and poking, does this result self-reflection or just posing a mouth to feed as we are curious for a reason and this is entertainment. My interest lies in the desire, what brings us joy in the visual and what kind of visual are we creating which is the joyful or otherwise something we like so much? Also, it is interesting how we judge people according to their gender and what gets revealed of them who judge and of those who are judged, it is the thought that someone under evaluation and judging is weak, vulnerable yes, but weak very possibly not. It takes a lot of strength to want to be judged, or even unwillingly endure judging from day-to-day.
How men are manly and women are feminine in this picture, how they make theatre of their gender and media presence or desiring that spotlight. What makes a stupid cunt is only to follow instructions. A victorious businessman or woman who can be accomplishing and making a fortune, being a mastermind of his, her plan, has also been following instructions to culture and has exploited them to his or her benefit, this is what is admirable in celebrity culture for many. How does this exploiting happen? Celebrity still has something of his or her own left which is their power. The stereotypes are there to abuse as media is more conservative than it should be, change there is also quite deliberately slow. Do gender roles and stereotypes wear off as women have to behave like men to achieve the gold medal pedestal? Can we rise above of what we see gender is and think it through to be more flexible and imaginative? To want to see the same over and over again is something happening, change is there in a way and something we might eventually get rid of is the narrowing of human tightly and neatly. Or is this the very issue the simplifying of us which we like, a hero but still an everyday person, unproblematic with opportunities? Women who do not play according to the script and assumptions in real life or within celebrity culture are categorized crazy, unmarketable, the word mental is often in use, stupid, weird, difficult bitches who deserve their ill-treatment. But to see difference an opportunity is the it thing.
Of course, ill-treatment comes for all, it is seen a possibility to abuse someone who is stepping outside the box doing out of the norm thing, a weakness or illness to exclude. Being gay or being caught with a prostitute are delicious topics as they still pose something to hide, be ashamed of and be secretive about. What is prostitution in comparison to entertainment industry as it is one wonders. It is very much about sex and selling it.
To understand the scope and meaning of sex in our culture is to live as a woman. It knocks out the easily thought suggestions of rapid change. The thinking or not thinking, calculating and manipulating behind there is felt and what is not lived because of unwritten rules women must follow in fear of punishment. Change is not celebrated or variety, open-mindedness can be found less and less and art for example scandalizes sex although naked body is its number one topic and sexism is very much alive, denying it does not remove the problem. How important sex is to us and what it stands for reveals itself in how obsessed and flammable the topic is and how hypocritical and blinded our thinking can be. For example, YouTube has a ban policy against nudity and sexual content but obviously this does not apply to music videos. A force in our culture which we must face and feel is the denial of pleasure and on the other hand indulgence as much as is possible and afforded. How do we do the facing of our urges, acts, pleasure-seeking, right and wrong and what do our desires mean for us and make us do create a whole cultural backbone or book of codes to know. What is the moral guide and authority there, what is our own knowing of sex and sexuality, our attitudes towards this undeniable thing in us, what about it must be respected, restricted, understood and what do we fear about it. Fear is to be exposed and violated, humiliated and abandoned, left without, ignored, hurt. Into what do we grow knowingly and unknowingly as it seems there are patterns that repeat as one is born female one is born into assumptions which are extremely difficult to alter and fight against. Having tried answers found do make one go bonkers as assumptions are as stupid as they can get. To go with the flow is a safe bet, maybe, but is it the right one, definitely not. To go far gets interesting meanings for women, how far can women go and what are the goals for women, why are women any different from men in regard to capabilities and interests?
Woman or girl walks down the street, she is looked at in a certain way. Why can’t you be happy about how you are wanted, is the question asked. I bury my face in to my hands and I can’t believe this is happening. Woman and her role is vitally important in understanding humans, the violence she faces because of her gender, because of this violence and constant knowing of that she is a target woman should be happy. My definition of happiness is different. Everything on her is a message, she is a moving message. How these messages are read and what does a miniskirt mean makes living as a woman complicated. It can mean that man can put his hand in between your legs and think you must like it because he likes it. Having your hair open can mean you are in a good mood and enjoying your blessed freedom. Sex is violence and aggression, it is to take over and own, define to death. To be vulnerable is to get hurt and grow sick of all this. System justifies men to be the wanting part by which women are seen as servants. Sexism in Finnish culture has been hard to tackle because coherence within the male group is not against it. In a group, males cherish sexism of theirs, it makes them manly. It is their right, tradition, fun and nature. Female point of view is laughed at as it is weakness. Calling women and girls whores is normal. It comes effortlessly without shame for the male, shame is always on the female part. Woman is invalid and handicap who is not defended especially when alone. A woman invading spaces for men is a mistake of hers. This attitude is clearly taking place at workplaces where women go and do men’s jobs, they steal jobs from men. Naturalness is emphasized, natural power and physicality of men, the unnatural gay culture is openly hated. Feminine male is weak and not a true man. True man is nevertheless a myth and cover-up, fragility is too much to bear and be shown, but it is there, of course we are not machines, yet. To make it simple cover-up is a lie, a pretense to keep alive the myth. It represents the things that can’t be seen in daylight and admit to.
What do women contribute to changing this? It does not happen by taking sides of men as women can use sexism for their ends. To take on beauty ideals that please male gaze is part of this sexist culture, that is weakness when it is the only way to find confidence. Lack of support is telling misogyny is rampant and female body is factory goods. What women could be giving to each other than the hate? When culture is more into hating femininity finding your way gets lonely. How do we own femininity if it is for pleasing purposes? Banning openly sexual feminine might be working against women. How could female sex be celebrated in any other way than sexual and open? Hating and loathing the feminine women because they stick out and are unashamed. Damage is to celebrate and make more damage as damage is what is the threat here, to be damaged goods. For many being born female is the ultimate damage and disappointment as we have our individual preferences and rules for feminine. How is this hate possible today and continues to live? I have been wondering as male dominance is enforced and chances for women’s voices reduced which voices are to make a difference favourable to women and children.
When woman is not having sex, she is a nun or there is something wrong with her, she is repulsive, frigid, cold or pathetic. Sex defines her, how she rejects or welcomes and what there is to reject and welcome. Something negative is there and must be found. Woman who is not utilizing her asset her femininity in the normal discreet way is weird and can be openly shamed a whore. Woman still must want a man but not too much, you’ll be seen a nymphomaniac, again via illness. She is the weak one who wants to be penetrated and must like it and this is like a joke. This is what you want, isn’t it, is the question, when man sends a picture of his penis to a woman online. Obviously, many think they know what woman wants and that is the obvious flaw in their thinking. The total misunderstanding, underestimating and misjudging of the female sex is in reducing her quality only sexual. If she is not wanting this she is ignoring the best thing life has to offer her and denying male pleasure makes men angry. The fucking is very much that is male but it can be imposed on females as something women desperately want and can be left without and there, women are weak again hanging on to men for rescue. Her place is the place of being desired by man, wanted, look at, evaluated and rejected. Ignoring or opposing this mind fuck is nearly impossible, aggressiveness and sadism is thorough and justified. Her fuckableness being the currency she uses, she is evaluated by women and men equally and that evaluation she must also do herself on herself. She must know what is expected of her. Do the right thing but nothing is right.
To find perfection there must be something done wrong, as Žižek puts it: you might think to lose couple of Kilos you would be perfect, but what then what is the perfection. If woman does not look like every-woman, a role is invented for her by which she is ailed, it is almost impossible to accept her as she is. She must be moulded. Nevertheless, the wrong is in her with her it is not in the culture, how woman is treated and viewed, how she treats and views herself. She makes us look at her and it is her fault, she looks at her and what happens when she looks at herself? To think what is love and where sex fits in, the beginning or end, does love justify sex and why harassment is an operation which is also justified and questioning is seen hateful. Why make women feel threatened, just because they are women and not men? That is what is done to women, made them feel scared, timid and unmovable. Paradoxes and contradictions there get lost for many, as well as for me. Repetitious mind games that genders must play strike as really odd, cruel abuse of power and vulnerability.
2.How can a woman be powerful: Her figure, waves of her.
Faces are changing but something more important is not that much. Standards for beauty, what is success or good entertainment or what it is to be good, how far can we go in being spectators of public figures and how we perceive our position as spectators as it is justified as a right to have. A trend to keep up with, speed and a sparkling idea, embodiment of a kind of perfection which must be matched or if not it will be noticed and talked about, flaw is horror. Neuroticism is part of this system and it shows which rises questions. The same questions are asked over and over again which concern eating, dating, weight loss and marriage. Exceptional people whose blooming sexuality and eroticism are at the core of this event even though there might be art there these famous people do for work. It is their sexual preferences, sex appeal and lives which are seen as more important to headline. A tale of her that needs to be told is how she maintains that image of hers and what goes on behind. That is one kind of shuttle into vast space of a market where all the stars may shine for us and share their blessings like refreshments we cannot live without.
Legends to look up to, astronomical positions of stars making fashion, future of what moves us or does not. What the mass of people like to see and hear, will see, hear and like, remember if making memories and moments worthwhile is the business. Stars lead the way as entrepreneurs, talents found, visionaries, makers, wisdom there is popular culture banalities, truth tellers, maybe, storytellers, wise men and women who taste the sweetest fruits of mankind and capitalism and get our constant attention provided by media, kindly. Fame and fortune, full house and flush, flash of spotlight, hurry for a new trend to make a difference, business and action in the middle of it all, moving forward. In the middle of it all are Swarovski crystals on stockings, strings and on toned bodies moving as moments of pleasure happen for the audience, creating the moment of now, witnessing and being part of nowness, a kind of freedom experience where everything is possible, which reflects this day, fantasy and values of ours, rush of ours to get instant gratification, importance and joy. Fun of having a tiny grip of life’s nonsense, lightness and puffing breath of meaninglessness, heaviness in a way and away with it. Circus of big money performers pays off bringing moods and something to dream about. Celebrity culture is all about recycling clichés, idols, idiosyncrasies, stereotypes of gender roles and body language, dance moves, sticking to straight sex and relationships, secrets, weddings, surviving break-ups. Picturing a fantasy of a perfect life in music videos taking a stand, interviews and paparazzi shots and portraying happiness and what is success: it is to be seen and being paid for it. Things people wish to hear about and dream of on a very infantile instant gratification kind of way, a primal level of penetration of what?
Who is the most outrageous, who reveals most, in a way groundbreaking but not innovative, revealing the most, sexiest and fuckable babe who can sing, oh. That is something spectacular. Nothing too difficult, stay simple. Who is the most wanted piece of ass is easy to understand, it is the very basic urge. It is a modern world sickness and therapy in one package, without healing. At best art of entertainment offers contemporary society a possibility of studying mind itself if we were willing to take a better look at ourselves. Limits of what is tolerated, how women are treated, how they want to be treated and seen, pinpointing the achy spots there on display if you know how to look. Taboos and prohibitions there are concerning womanhood and sexuality and are inescapable, practically force-fed. Sexism, rape, violence, diminishing, teenage pregnancy, abortion, racism, inequality and in Beyoncé’s case modern-day feminism to tackle hard issues sure, and to make love for all. She loves her husband,(which is good to know, note since feminists are known of hating men). Strength of women is in their sexuality and how they are in control of their bodies and how body is presented is the message. Human rights of women, which are the same as everybody elses’, are important. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are almost there behind the corner. How critical big money entertainment allows its stars to be depends on how successful they are. How critical big money artists actually dare to be – not very or not at all. To be critical towards the business world and society does not prevent from being successful, or does it? Feminism surely is the strong hate word, banned ideology. Controversy and heavy critique can make tsunami-like response in sales. Who would want to change a world that moves with such easy recipes. Place for criticism is easily found. It is there by feminists, anti-capitalists, socialists and anarchists and is targeted against the full-blown pornographic imagery of entertainment, which also represents all of the business world, all of economy. One can see erotic self-expression as freedom or exploitation, admiration for notorious crime-filled underworld, prostitution, drugs, guns and fast cars and hot babes in furs in tiny swimsuits sucking their fingers. Power of female entertainers is much boosted with explicit contents, leather, pvc-outfits, clear references to prostitution and other dangerous living. Not much is left for imagination. In a way music videos work as short movies and they should be viewed as such. The art of video is art of advertising. All of the movie is an ad. Direct tutorials of how to live, narratives for youth of today. We are what we consume. Maybe power of this kind which reaches tens and hundreds of millions of people can be questioned rightfully as it should. Are we worried who is under influence and how do those affected take the impact, message and cultural load given? It seems so very light. Or should it be called cultural task of figuring out moral codes and what to do.
Luring pictures of a way of life with riches and enjoyments make an odd parallel universe and it leaves the millions of individuals wondering how to get there and should we. Main subject to argue being the objectification of women and that telling that they are in charge, misogyny and discrimination of women is a hard one to solve. Conversations can and must be taken over, over and over again what is done to women and femininity if anything, what happens to it? What is control in this picture? What can and must be expressed in terms of sex and gender? What remains unsaid, what is too touchy a topic? Why there still is such naivety about expressing sexuality as music video prove, which stereotypes reveal and why am I bothered by this as change there is more happening in body shape than anything else? Naivety that brings out immature brutality is the issue. Why those who put sex in front rely on naive lust and fantasy and call it liberation? Woman crawling on a beach like a horny animal means she is free (Beyoncé on her video Drunk in love)? What is she portraying is a famed woman on her way to her husband saying she has been drinking and thinking. Some kind of everyday imagery which I can like or dislike? If anything, the ordinary is there.
To create monetary value of this magnitude we have to define perfection, frame it, follow the idea of simplicity stereotyping characters. Perfecting money-making machinery is to take and make explicit content for all viewers. What do we want and how do we want it is what we need to know how to get it? Define sexy, sexy defining, everything as wealth and possession is what we want. That is what we need to be, in charge and owning. We have to define the body and get it, measures to get it for ourselves have a cost.
Stardom is all about the journey and how it is made and told, a trick of posing, trick of luring and possessing. Beating and eating one’s opponents and to become imitated and imitate is to admire. Is there place for truth in this competition and know what is good? How about virtue? Not to worry, virtues are well represented in the tough field of music industry, women there are Madonnas and Holy Marys. The thing is how to define them, their ecstasy. That is the way to look good in the public eye, have respectability of not revealing it all. How to monetize everything and that is the biggest virtue of all, other is secondary, unless it serves becoming rich and famous. There is truth to human nature here which puts self-interest at first. It is truth of theirs who make the contents. Truth of one’s own is a kind of secret issue, which no other completely knows about but is guessing. It is everybody’s own truth which people live by? That is the ideal, to live a lie but be confessional. There is some truth to that people can identify as confessional TV is the reality. We get our morals and ideals as we are educated by this the society and this strange family we belong to. Virtues get redefined as much as do lives we want to live. Fairytales and dreams do come true reflecting reality which is harsh. This is all old news and repetitious patterns of what is human desire, folklore to continue, cruelty we possess and the infinite mess of human psyche of wanting to be adored, successful and listened to and is a never-changing tune. It is to avoid boredom by having lots and things to do. Celebrity and pop culture change all the time, but what is the change other than new faces, gimmicks and beats. People, who want to move away from silence and loneliness, away from being forgotten, seem compulsive escapists who are dictated by fear of FOMO.
Do celebrities now have other things to say than the stars before them in history? There definitely are more of them, of stars. Exposure is extreme as is the need to be there. That life is more than just work seems impossible because we are brands. It is an ideology moulding our existence effectively but to dare break that mould is a must. That we are allowed to enjoy ourselves in this way as we are is ludicrous, embrace ourselves and do whatever we want is of course a seductive motto to live by: we can do what we want and know what is enjoyment. Are celebrities looked up to because of their message and the fact that dreams do come true, because they bring real amusement, are truly approachable, intellectually interesting, calculating and aware as we should be, produced objects as we should be, themselves and natural, or is there just a palette of plenty which is overflowing of whatever might sell and whatever urge qualifies? A give and take, a shot in the dark as we are desperate. Fair bargain is not the deal and amusement for one’s soul can get boring, to have fun, to dance and sing along, enjoy for a while.
A successful pop diva is in control without anybody’s permission doing her thing. She likes what she does and is good at it, what is the good? Is she in search of something new, original expression, invention of hers? To invent again something that works so beautifully in repeat, to invent beauty and energy. Feminine seduction via curves, clothes, videos and flying hair, fierceness and walk infant of everybody. Is she looking for a perfect match which is her husband, ecstasy between her and the audience, expressing herself through erotic (exotic) dancing, tiny wardrobe and emotional lyrics. Is her desire to be penetrated in public by her husband? Is she being raped by looks revealing more than gossip pages do? She penetrated, the one who works a penis as she appears to be and is in charge. That is a domino act. She has multiple roles to choose from and she does work both ways, being pleased and being a pleaser. She is a receiver and provider of pleasure so honey and bee is accurate metaphor. A bitch and public whore speaking her mind, saint mother, a wife and a business woman who roles all professional pop stars must master and state on stage and in real life. It is mastery of womanhood and presentation. Mastering and toying with ideas and ideals. You cannot do music with your clothes on. All that she can be is what she is, what you can see. It is expected of her to have layers to peel, veils and canvases to fly with her hair with the help of a wind machine. Multifaceted public image to talk about make an interesting personality, who is she we wonder and want to know. Someone, who is not emptied at one stroke, with one look, pages of magazines. There is desire to fill up the world and airwaves.
3.Marketing her forcefully, emancipation to have it all. Personal problematic of womanhood, race, size, having a voice, how body parts are us, attitudes towards feminine, talent and intellect. Diversity there, what kind of voices do we hear and what is silenced? Why do you dye your hair blond?
What is talent? What kind of talent has value, whose talent is noticed? I ask because talent for artist, to become an artist, talent is something person has to know having and it must be something which definitely evolves all the time. Knowing what to do with what one has no matter what anybody says and everybody will have an opinion, I guarantee you. Also, society places talents into categories important and less important meaning money-worthy and not, primary being the tech and mathematical skills, those are to make a career that produces trustworthy employees in the eye of society, respectable, money-making career-focused citizens that benefit the economy. Artist is on very shaky ground as it is the irrational, emotional, even sick and an untrustworthy character who is expected to fail, and money comes or usually doesn’t. What kind of package is needed to be in the talented category? Does an artist need to have a statement of her own to be sold or is it rather no statement at all, at least a political one? What kind of message is the sellable one? A PR strategy which leads to success is a curious one and it varies within arts. Provide stories and solutions, behaviour, coverage and narratives of lives lived preferably by divas, destinies and making the world a better place.
Times of moral crisis: Explicit contents, sexuality for sale and how it adds up with feminism and art. What does feminism represent for a pop star and for the music industry? How can feminism be implemented in any other way than refusing to work as a sex goddess or is the role of sex goddesses included in feminist frame as choice? It is good to question patriarchy from that widely seen and admired position, it is not useless. Question still is what changes in that process and using words that scare people such as feminism. When an idol who is also a sexy product and begins her feminist practice in her work it raises attention and questions, or has it been feminist all along without possibility to declare it?
To begin a dive into the world of Beyoncé is to begin with what it is that she represents and what is the place she is at. Her skin is the first issue, her voluptuous body supports her music as she is very much visual as vocal. To analyze Beyoncé is to analyze the whole of pop celebrity culture from a female and a black singer point of view, from race, origin, scenic point of view, art and sex combined. She is part of something and has brought a lot of new with her such as her extravaganza and not giving a toss will the political effect, her sales. She brings in the political side without it being strange but organic although it is flammable, explosive and pushes to look at her making others to do the same as it now is safe to do so, at least safer than before. She is with the whole of black community, she is not alone in this. Safe is what pop stars are usually all about, a comforting voice and sight, message and vision to dance to. To engage in feminism which threatens all of the values entertainment stands on and men especially, causes all kinds of reactions as is expected. As pop wants only the adoring wave of consumer love feminism is not the place to cash in. Popular culture which today strongly parades out from the United States is political. Music business is still sensitive to women being political demanding their rights. It is the one industry that thrives despite financial lows but how much experimenting is allowed for artists must be asked. Glitter and gossip stick like glue and scandals sell and are for many the blissful ignorance people like to grant themselves taking peeks in to grand lives with voyeurs’ victory and thrill. To give a remark or thought on anybody is a right to have to feel better than, critique is different from ranting. Culture of ours, nature of ours is to be interested in other people’s affairs and have an opinion. Entertainment making people famous, celebrities and brands are money-making culture which many want to be part of. Fame is obsessive, addictive and tempting, it is a perfect stage to be outrageously political and critical. Culture of prestige and opulence is so attached to our daily routines as spectators on the side of all that is everyday, our commercial capitalism being vividly flat, that it could be strange not to have the phenomenon of far away beautiful people and their luxury to watch. Stardom obsessed with the surface, the spectacular shining thing making money and preserving eternal youthfulness, it would be foolish not to use the opportunity and have an agenda of political.
The US and GB probably have the most followed musical scenes world-wide with massive PR and machinery that produces selection of stars made possible by endless media coverage, competitions, gossip and chit-chat and social structure that makes people pursue grand dreams which do not take note to class issues, to be grander than themselves. Interviews, documentaries, photographs, imitators, fans, fan art, gossip, stories, dreams, shows and how to become a star tutorials: how to be like a famous person with healthy appetite and an attitude. Stardom cult is defining the whole of America and Europe and has a significant meaning economically, psychologically and culturally. Religion with gods and goddesses is a significant phenomenon for the whole world in good and bad. The essence and idea are our need to be adored as spectacular and unique and the ability to fall in love with an image, persona, character, actress and to know that image, relate and feel free. To make the image your own, know it by heart, own it. Our need to worship images tells how much our thinking is guided by what we see. Today we are shown a lot of visuals and it is a fanfare. We are quite fragile in the sense what comes to being manipulated. We are put in a fragile situation, inescapable, unavoidable. Easy to manipulate is what we are desired to be (lack of confidence is an easy target) and wanted to stay that way. That is what Hollywood and music business is about, manipulation of souls and minds. Where does the industry want to lead us or push us? Is it the logic of business and politics today, take the public by leash as people need to be led? We are told to be nice and you’ll get candy.
Entertainment disguises itself as rescuer of hearts and souls with message girl-you-are-sexy when you do this and you can do whatever you want when you are like this girl in this picture. One has to want the right thing, be the right kind. There are particular right things that we pay attention to, sex, money and fame, popularity, positivity and love with tiny inch of philosophy of how to be a good person. We like to want what we see that glorious person has and be like her for a moment. To get her like me, to get to be like her. How much people control their desire to identify as a pop star and what does it tell of a mass of people who want to identify with a singer and image of her. Is it a secret desire, a fantasy, sexual or ideological, or is altogether naive to think people are that dissatisfied with themselves that they want to replace their identity with someone’s on a magazine and on a stage? Someone heroic, who teaches a mass of people to be heroic and stand up for themselves, be creative. Maybe, but when one takes a look at what kind of influence celebrities have on what people wear, eat, drink, how people like to live and do for living, how much gossip sells and is followed, the image of what is going on in people’s minds is crooked and infantile. Question is how creative can one be in frame of such order of strict perfection? What does it do and why does it do what it does. How has it become the way it is? What kind of women succeed in that particular business and what could be called success? Success cannot be minor. It has to be grand. Music industry is one of the most lucrative businesses if one manages to hit the jackpot as Beyoncé has done. Should we start with her passion for her art and what she has to say. She has a very similar kind of message as many other female superstars in music: female strength, expression of her sexuality and why is it important one may ask. To pose and act female strength in a manner it does not fall flat, but has a figure, a form in a thin world, not a pancake. Body that wobbles in right places as it is shaken in a dance. Furious, decisive, girly with attitude to illegal scale. Spread your legs, show your legs, shake that tush, reveal your skin. We imagine your bush. It is now internet’s basic method, a celebrity procedure, image galleries all over show this so what is new? A production line of lookability, likeability, profile managing, success managing, a celebrity survival game, which is also our survival game and we appropriate the methods of the most successful.
Who will make it to be seen. Essence of celebrity culture is to be seen and desire that, to stand as an ad post. To stand in front of all on a wall covered with company names, in between of photographers and a fence who snap pictures of these ladies and gents on red carpet. How and why someone is powerful, more powerful than most is a tricky issue but this is power. To come up with conclusion and decision on influence that a person has. How that influence is measured is an interesting case of visibility and earnings, which are public information largely on display stating the fame. Is it due to what that powerful person has to say, possibly some. What do celebrities who now get the most coverage in media have to say. What is their message? What is the message of celebrity culture as a whole? Its influence is massive. Financial winnings made within the culture of entertainment for the artists and their creators can be whopping. Industries flourishing out from movies, sports and music such as fashion, magazines and other merchandise do well with right face. What is the real power here is an interesting thing to go through. Could the answer be as simple as who does best financially and what kind of message does that person have. What kind of story and continuity person’s career has had and will have. Future prospects and who is listening. The list of the most powerful celebrities by Forbes from year 2014 introduces Beyoncé the most powerful celebrity. Grounds for her number one spot lie on her 95 concerts, the released new album called Beyoncé, her fragrances Heat, Pulse and Rise, clothing collection, which all contributions have been financially very successful. Estimated 115 million in earnings during one year is according to Forbes is an extremely powerful thing. Since 2014 her earnings have kept growing. She is made of gold, is golden and a high school dropout who has had since early age support for her talent and dream, so I don’t know what the self-made means at this point. No celebrity is self-made. https://www.forbes.com/profile/beyonce-knowles/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2017/06/12/why-diddy-is-no-1-on-the-2017-celebrity-100-list/
Forbes is a magazine focusing on finance which is very male centered field, focusing on businesslife providing entrepreneur insight such as quotes of the day. Its specialty are lists of successful people, information for the world’s business leaders how success is made and what it is. Figures are mentioned daily million and billions. Beyoncé defines herself as a businesswoman and through that image and role a strong independent woman whose strength is large part of her agenda. ”It’s a good year to be famous. Over the past 12 months,the world’s 100 highest-paid celebritiespulled in $5.15 billion–more than the combined GDP of Belize, Liberia and Gambia–led by Diddy,who clocked a career-best $130 million. Beyoncé and J.K. Rowling round out the top three with $105 million and $95 million, respectively.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2017/06/12/full-list-the-worlds-highest-paid-celebrities-2017/
Gender, sexual orientation nor racial issues do not show to be such a large stepping stone. At least what comes to making entertainment for the masses. It has become an advantage to be part of a group that once or still is seen weak. There has been empowerment and strength. Idols do empower and encourage, so maybe they are worth all the money they make. That could be one point Forbes is making by its list and yet again only point is to be as rich as is possible. This is how one succeeds nowadays. How does glamour, luxury and beauty businesses benefit from all the bling accessory advertising and music videos represent is one thing. It is a lifestyle presenting moves and rhythm. It is clear since the beginning of her career independence and strength of the feminine have been core issues in her music but that is the case for many successful female artists to focus on showing their capability as women. What comes to celebrities Beyoncé is the one of the few who publicly state and promote feminism and calls herself a feminist. In her videos and music she is openly sexual, feminine and posing her assets to the world as any pop star. This way looking she is very similar to Rihanna, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Nicki Minaj who all are artists and personalities creating in a business where women to have a voice of their own is new. Feminism in this landscape is a curse word banned and feared until now. Beyoncé has made it sink into the world of plastic and money in a new way. Even though it is clear feminism has never been absent as women have had to struggle their way up to the top. Women breath feminism whether they like it to admit it or not. We are bound to reasons behind feminism and what it has accomplished in over a hundred years and continues to accomplish.
The United States offers a peculiar scene to dream for many and reach out the impossible, but very few do make it big of course. Yearly listings of financially the most successful people in entertainment are part of making that dream a sensational happening and news worthy. To be part of something admirable and huge, that happiness, feel the hard work, luck, visibility and talent. How does power manifest itself by women, via women, via visibility and what is the stage women can be powerful on? What is female power and do women have it in the end? Do women make decisions and decide for their work when to catch the eye is one aim? Who is the weak in this image of making it? Who is stepped over in this business driven world as it is a struggle for survival? Women have battled with those who have power over them, who have justified their power with God’s word and justice from above. That woman is not capable of taking care of herself, making decisions not even over her own life is deeply build-in. The repetitious mantra of having control and power over one’s body, life, work and art is rightful, but it is still a mantra, if women do not know what it is to have control and know for yourself. The opposition is bigoted patriarchy and religious tradition, God’s word. How are we affected? Part of entertainer’s job is to entertain. The more it gets noticed the more political it is. The more people listen the more there is reason to put out a message to be heard. To share is political act, to act for all the oppressed couldn’t be more needed. The more people do not pay attention the more they have to be shaken and woken up. How does entertainment shake the world other than making sexual advancements, opening a blouse, taking it off and showing genitalia. Nothing out of the ordinary. We have seen it. The most ordinary landscape on the scene. Do they who create this visual spectacle for us speak for free sex, for prostitution and sex trade, sexual expression and what it is to be a woman? Is that freedom to be able to show skin, sexual freedom to be taken over and had?
Beyoncé showing her buttocks in her show becomes a hit in YouTube. It does not make the society more approving. Our obsession over sex could still not be more obvious. A matter talked over in talk shows and by journalists it is the very scandalous topic and interest for all. Scenery on many music videos of female pop singers is exactly from a red light-district, a stereotyped sex worker image who is a fantasy for an everyday woman and man, as dancers wear the same all showing outfits, posterior-revealing lingerie. It is the latest superstar fashion on stage, wearing very little. Position as standing back against the audience, bending one’s back and looking the crowd, gazing behind one’s shoulders and singing holding the microphone almost licking the microphone, it is naughty. This said sounds if I disapprove. I disapprove the cliché, the repetition. I dislike the ongoing similarity and unwillingness to move ahead, unwillingness to push any envelop despite saying so. That envelope has been opened and seen, stamped and sent. Lack of any kind of self-criticism nor effort to do differently. Is that power, to be a repetitious? Is that showing the world how to be wanted in a right way? To portray women singing about relationships, having sex, breaking up and being still strong independent women is almost all there is to this empowerment. Sexual expression, what is it exactly? And why is it empowerment and not sexism? Empowerment through sexism taken over is a strange thought, but there is no other way as sexism is power. Sexism which is a force used against women to have them, to possess them as silent bodies. Sexual expression is in a way an idea of getting by pleasing in the right way and doing wrong, being a bad girl. To express this is to state that one is a sexually free, an open-minded being with desires and willingness to use these desires for one’s benefit still willing to please the other, be at service of the audience.
It is a one thing that women are noticed exclusively because of their sex, having a closer look into their wardrobes looked at as deep as it goes. Watched over, guarded but not kept safe, gazed curiously, jokingly, teasingly. Entertainment is the ultimate pleaser of the senses and flattening of them. To please is to get the wanted thing and impact is to make one’s way. Pop singers and performers like to state that they are in control of what they do. What does it mean exactly to be in control of one’s work as a performer is to have an idea of why one does what one does and how to get attention. Is it possible to know the amount of control one has? Isn’t it an illusion of having power when it is actually other people who make you by choosing to look at you, think about you, idolize and evaluate what you do, liking or not liking it, judging, remembering or forgetting. So to talk about control is a modern capitalist dream and necessity to live by as one wishes but control is not having freedom. It is interesting to explore the idea of control which especially several celebrities comment and state having. Rules they think they make, that they see are set for them and they are changing those given rules of the business. Much of what we can take and understand must be lined inside ideals. Outside are left the things unwanted.
1. Desires of the power elite: Us under the phallocentric order
2. Dominance and seduction, five looks, one accessory
3. What makes a classic, what makes a movie?
Introduction: Nevertheless the impossible mission one must make an effort and tackle the copy-paste culture where there seems to be unbreakable circle of tradition in how gender, talent, abilities and possibilities are seen and dealt with. To see opposing, questioning and anger justified not apologised for, one’s own art and body of work worthwhile, necessary and valuable and because someone has to lead the way and do it what few dare to do. This is an article trying to understand what is the feminine in movies for especially in Hollywood. Role of women in movies, in art and place of ours is to go against, not play along but question. I know you will be called difficult. Be difficult in demolishing and constructive way. To be difficult and demanding is to build something new. Becoming movie critics, producers and directors, active makers in the business ruled by white men is of vital importance. Importance is also there who evaluate the films made and how, what issues are emphasised when talked about making movies and distributing them to the audiences. What is the sellable item? How pushing the envelope even though it is difficult makes a difference no matter how small and powerless you feel. This means women should write and put in action new rules how we are to be viewed, displayed, portrait and talked about. Our roles are to be active not playing according to the old comfortable ones. One problem being lack of finance, demand and support is one women face which is telling women should support each other.
1.Desires of the power elite: Us under the phallocentric order
Movie is a continuation to something experienced in real life. It is an interpretation of how we can experience and see, but it is up to the viewer to grasp what to make of the seen movie. How movie can explain an experience and tell what to look at or for, what there is to see and experience further. Truth of a movie is truth of the movie maker, an illusion, make-believe, coloured tale or fact-based illustration, a portrait and depiction. Whatever movie is to fulfil it is also image of the makers. We like to think reality is fixed, there is normal and the weird, to go weird doesn’t take that much of effort. To break this illusion of normalcy movies function beautifully partly it is why movies get made, to imagine again for us in a new way. Some movies are made to strengthen our fixations and feel powerful via them which patriotic movies tend to accomplish forcefully, they often don’t offer any kind of new perspectives but repeat the same story with some extra boosting and hyper-hyper. The experience needed to break down the normal wire and comprehension of what is and what movies can be marginal plays an important role. Mainstream moviemakers are given the glorified position of telling large-scale fables and larger than life stories. How these stamped ideas can be altered is a matter of art and courage. How much about the reality movie tells is up to the makers and what we think is reality, story worth telling. What have been the stories told for those who make films and what remains untold. What have been discovered before and during the making of a film, and after movie was released, to make a movie is to unearth and research. Interesting is towards what kind of issues moviemakers have their curiosity focused. What can be told via the medium, there probably isn’t much which cannot be depicted via film. Moving pictures are hypnotizing, whether holding a camera or sitting in front of a screen.
What lies hidden but is told via clues, what is not shown but is still there in the expression and how that invisible can be the most interesting part of films, the most realistic and humane part and forces us to imagine beyond the seen. What is the perspective there, decisions made how to tell, whose points of view are we looking at, whose truth or lie, what a movie is telling us, is it about the viewer as we choose what we watch, do we have to know about the makers as in excess we are curious about the stars as they are the heroes, they are those with means and visions, capabilities to make their ideas happen there where it is almost impossible to get. Movie continues in mind as it is at best a full body experience depending where and how movies are watched, how personal the story is, how relatable and what is universal in human experience. What kind of interests the viewers have in seeing films. Why do we watch movies is the easiness of just watching, the forgetting and sinking in to a world, and some of us watch very many movies of all kinds. This easiness is thought often not having much value, just sitting and watching. Movies feed the mind but in what way is the question we should be asking. Is it just less thinking needed, is there blame and guilt be felt for this indulgence.
Interesting is how we experience a movie, even a movie poster is an experience. What is the liking, time span, being influenced by and thinking about a movie, its messages, images, stories, artistic decisions and perspectives. Images and scenes of a movie stay there in our heads. The more curious the more puzzling. Too weird, surrealistic does not make a blockbuster but it can make a classic. We need familiarity which also can be totally unrealistic and adventurous. Films making euphoric and thrilling or otherwise felt sensations, cultural, artistic and political statements need a fruitful and fertile ground to live in. There is candy for thought and candy for the aesthetics which must be taken and somehow had, felt. At best movie has a mystery in realistic way which leaves space for thinking and puzzlement of not knowing. Feeling of learning about important events watched from a safe place as a spectator may be enough for some. Do we know more via films, definitely. Is movie experience comparable to life experiences? What raises our curiosity, is it the personal and something new? What makes a movie brilliant? How to define a movie, how is it defined? Technically it is how many pictures per second flashes before one’s eyes and make a moving scene, the running horse, a dancing woman, bullet from a gun. Films have different durations, different qualities, scales of evaluation, films have position in society which today play a big part. Movies are places of extravaganza and a huge part of entertainment industry, a way of life such as TV, it is everywhere. Definitions and genres for films are maybe already irrelevant. Films that are and have been made are endless in the amount and technic. Tiny piece of what is being made make it to the consciousness of the average consumer or anybody via controlled system. Internet makes watching and making demographic. When life feels like a film we think we have captured something historic and worth filming and sharing.
Film has a position in advertising and often nowadays mainstream films look like ads, function like ads and ads in turn are like movies. Movies are the most powerful tool to impress, catch the eye and attention, make an impact on large amounts of people, to influence and manipulate as something sweet and meaningful, breath of fresh air in a dull moment. Cultural and personal importance of movies is what counts. We like the fun part of films. Moving image is like a car, an object to move with and in which as an object is male dominated vehicle but treated like a lady or named a woman. It has a status to impress, possess, take us from one place to another, seduce. Cinema is above us, a fantasy, untouchable, holding power in size, containing vast amounts of capacity to influence our thinking, vision and appreciations therefore to talk and write about what is shown for us is at critical importance. To write only on surface about the surface is not doing us much good or for film as art.
Films make stars, films are the stars, writing gives at best more depth to what was seen and another perspective than our own. Moving feature is what has a hold on us, energy and lightness of it is felt. Could a movie have any other definitions other than something moving forward and towards us? Is it always the personal taste telling what plays importance in a film or something else, a shock, a strong emotion, a surprise? Society rules much via what is shown, where and how we watch. General opinion, or probably is better to talk about what we are used to seeing, what is convenient, pleasant and interesting to us, is still a guide to what we are having. We reflect our desires in an interesting way through movie culture and the culture is us? Many are attracted to speed and not being bored, to be entertained and to have a feeling of something fantastic being witnessed is to feel alive as we watch living pictures that are more alive than us, size and amount count. To avoid being left out is in focus and one main interest is to give birth to desires and needs. How much of this is not make us think for ourselves, distract us from looking what is behind the glittering luring images and why we must want what is given to us, sold to us? What creates brilliance or circumstances for sensitiveness, a thrive to create beauty and meaning, how this creating is restricted or guided, banned or manipulated? Is it related to what is sexy and desirable in a straightforward manner, where we come from, what we are afraid of, what we know about the world, what we have read and seen already? How does gender dictate what we see as beautiful? I’m interested in which are the ways people get their work on the spotlight, what kind of work is put in the centre of attention, given media focus which focus forcefully is narrow and gendered. What kind of publicity movies and moviemakers get, are there girl movies and boy movies? What kind of voice do moviemakers have, are given, how are they heard, what is asked of them and from what kind of world do they make? What kind of things journalists focus on in interviews and stories about movie scenes? What creates interest in a certain movie nowadays? How brave can and should moviemakers be? Is it still restricted what can be issued and manifested in movies nowadays? Is it limited what kind of people make movies, what kind of people are shown in the movies, act in movies, talk about movies? Is there something to be afraid of other than lack of variety and making an echo chamber for ideological purposes? Are there certain kind of people who seek attention through the movie scene, attention seekers? How all this structure of creating moving pictures dictates and who dictates the structure? Is it basically corporation-based solutions that work in this business? Which are the interests of those corporations, interests of the investors other than winnings and cinematic fame? What kind of role do film festivals play in all this? Or press and media as a whole? I’m asking because they are all linked under a dome and mostly what get mentioned are the galas, trophies, celebrities, faces, bodies, lives of the famed and clothes they carry. Any irregularity is reported and scandalised. Everything moves along the direction of relations, scare of losing and where the money is, how the money is and should it be followed. What does it mean to be an independent movie maker in this picture? Does it mean marginal or original, having voice of one’s own? What is originality in movies, in this context of making, who has a voice? Is there any place or demand for independence, independent thinking and breaking the habit?
It is a question of demand, what is in demand, who has control. What kind of people consume mainstream movies and what revolves around this mainstream ideology of spending and living a habit. It would be interesting to see how strictly audiences are analyzed. Anything that isn’t produced in Hollywood is basically marginal in the west. Hollywood movies or movies imitating Hollywood style get the most public space, attention and funding. Should we be concerned? Yes and concerned of what exactly? Some kind of monotonous Americanized view of the world perhaps, lack of complex views of the world and how things happen, lack of perspectives to difference, lack of imagination, having one-eyed view and one political perspective on good and bad. Consuming being the main focus of films is alarming, consuming being the good, the more as well. The way movies manipulate people to think and act, or not to act and think as the easiness is nice and a relief in complex everyday.
One answer to a couple of my questions come from an internet magazine The Gateway sponsored by Morgan Stanley article written by Matthew Reeves: ”The producer is the money person who buys the scripts, hires the director, actors and crew and organises the making and selling of the film. The producer is usually employed by a production company. Production companies are often referred to as “independent”, but all this really means is that they don’t have a distribution deal with a major studio, that is, Sony, MGM, 20th Century Fox, Paramount, Warner and Universal. While studios can buy scripts the usual way, they also have the power and money to decide they need, “a kids’ fantasy movie, with an A-list actor, for release in the summer holidays in 2011”, get a writer to craft it, attach a producer, put up the funds themselves, make the movie (in their own studios), and distribute it themselves.”
”But what if no distributor is interested in your film, which may have been made with nobodies, on a nothing budget and with no room left for marketing. How can you get the word out? The answer is film festivals. Cannes, Venice and Sundance are free marketing Meccas. You can enter Cannes, the most influential film festival in the world, for €50. There’s no guarantee your film will get chosen to feature, but it will get watched. If it does get chosen, thousands will see it, newspapers will review it and many distributors will be circling, looking for a bargain. Paranormal Activity was shown at Slamdance Film Festival, http://www.slamdance.com and a year and a half later it was released across the USA. It’s arguably the best $70 the producer has ever spent.” http://thegatewayonline.com/articles/content/how-does-the-film-industry-work
Continuing with more answers: Structures of Discourse and Structures of Power TEUN A. VAN DIJK University of Amsterdam ”In the news media, this strategic control of knowledge is exercised through restricted topic selection, and more generally by specific reconstructions of social and political realities (Hall et al., 1980; Tuchman, 1978; van Dijk, 1987b, 1987c). This process is itself governed by a system of news values and professional ideologies about news and newsworthiness, which happen to favor attention for and the interests of various elite actors, persons, groups, classes, institutions, nations, or world regions (Galtung & Ruge, 1965). Preferential access and coverage (whether positive or negative) of news actors is one factor in the mass medíated reproduction of social power (Brown, Bybee, Wearden, & Murdock, 1982). The same ís true in education, where the curriculum, textbooks, educational materials, and lessons are also governed by educational objectives, subjects, topics, and learning strategies that mostly happen to be consistent with the values or interests of the various power elite groups (Apple, 1979; Lorimer, 1984; Young, 1971). Therefore, we see that the symbolic elites that control the style and content of media and educational discourse are also those who have partial control of the mode of influence, and hence of ideological reproduction in society. The symbolic elites, we suggested, are not independent of other” https://archive.org/stream/IdeologicalDiscourseAnalysis/Ideological%20discourse%20analysis_djvu.txt
2.Dominance and seduction: five looks, one accessory.
The patriarchal society makes it easier for men to take the lead which is for them compulsory and what manly men are supposed to do: direct, command, lead, have the answers, know. It is compulsive and violent for both sexes, toxic masculinity. It is given and forced on us as natural. Women have to fight for being heard, be taken seriously and a powerful skilled woman is easily a bitch, witch, weirdo, difficult and an outcast. It is a male feature to dominate with physical force and scare, to direct others with threat and it has been easier for men to imagine being a director and to become one, the role falls on them more easily, naturally. To my knowledge women like to dominate and do it maybe in more complex and subtle ways or imitating men, but nonetheless feminine domina play is normal everyday act in patriarchal society, meaning women use their power to destroy as well and to direct, question is why they cannot do it in business and in art. What happens more subtle doesn’t make it less hurtful or less powerful.
A lot did change what comes to equality during 20th century in the Western world but what is the change other than technical and in terms of production? What will the ultimate change and progress within movie industry be in the 21st century? Hopefully more about morals, art and justice of the business than technicalities. It still does not mean things are happening for women to the extent of men or that things change fast. Speed is in the renewing the machinery not human condition or doing away the patriarch. That is why it is very important to show movies from all kinds of makers, sexes, backgrounds etc. in schools, in movie theaters and TV. What comes to equality internet is showing the way, moving images are at the core of our internet experience. At the moment women directors are treated like marginal makers as emphasis is on the gender and it is said out loud male or female. Scripts written by women usually are different from men. Directors are treated like it still is a wonder a woman is a director or a producer, although there are many women in the business and have been for a long time. It is much easier to watch females pose on a red carpet wearing a designer gown asked how they feel expectation being the viewer wants to hear it and see this. Emphasis is on the assumptions what does a photogenic person look like and who can be filmed, who attracts the eye and why.
Movie people seem to live a fabulous life, images give us impressions. Narcissism is questioned in any media strongly but celebrated at the same time. Narcissists are interesting people as they entertain and know what they want, get what they want and make scenes. To want such spotlight life is praised and encouraged, idolised. Photographs of someone entering a gala of something are shown in every magazine that have a gossip column or want to comment the movie world or talk about movies in any manner. Movies nowadays is a very stereotyped world. Everything goes around the money-making machinery and what brings in the dollars. Biggest moneymakers are talked about and again idolised. Imaginary is highly glittered, narrow and thin. Shallowness can be turned interesting when reasons for it are investigated and studied. Such industry is massive and the biggest categorizor of people world-wide, advertising and movies are part of our visuals which we eat and consume. Most people watch movies, see the ads which are creating the world we live in and look at, and films get inspiration from the world we live in. To go outside that box can turn out to be more than just an image.
To make movies requires ability to tell stories, will to succeed in a very male-dominated world and money-oriented atmosphere. Stubborn belief in one’s ideas and abilities is needed and room to make ideas happen, also to make others believe in ideas of yours, to get attention is what we seek, all of us nowadays. What else is there to have? Luck? Moviemakers must be completely passionate about their craft just as any artist, making movies and seeing movies, making that particular film and story which totally extraordinary sounds like a dream. As a woman does one have to be a man to make it in this frame is an interesting question, to make a feature film as a woman but act like a man? Such a woman is easily considered a difficult person. It is much easier to be filmed and look beautiful, do as you are told but be unique. Womanhood posing as a fragile flower, young, polished in ads, in flashlights, photographers calling your name. And why is it important to talk and bring this issue in front, is there a problem?
Needless to say, but I’m saying it, women make different kinds of films than men, they have different points of views and interests. When women play roles that have been played by men there is totally new level to it, something lived by men is lived by women too, story gets vastly layered context and understanding of gendered experience, it is power which resonates within the powerless. Women see the world differently than men, experience it differently, do differently, walk and talk differently, are treated differently. Women should be given equal chance to bring their knowledge on to the screen, be active and create as they create, thinking instead of being looked at and they should understand it themselves too. Do men get their clothes examined on the red carpet? Aki Kaurismäki was drunk and danced at Cannes 2002 which was making appalled headlines in Finland. Men can and must disturb the scene in a moving way as well as business requires certain behaviour. Scene is asking to be cut open and questioned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcs3sottHm4
This is of course my observation and a bothering issue, horrifying actually when you look at the picture at hand. What a world. What are male points of views then? Is it so that men do different kind of movies than women as I claim. I already dislike the topic at hand, I dislike that I even have to mention it, sex and gender and what they mean. What does gender got to do with anything what and how people make professionally? In making movies or making art? Unfortunately quite much. Everything revolves around it. Comes back to our bodies. Why is it so? What is sexy here? What is sex other than a toy? Why is it sold? Because it is the easy way and an obvious want, obvious defined and dominator. An act, the difference, organs, emotions, chemistry, molecules, desires, reproduction, repetition, perspective of the wanted and the ones who want. It is the power-issue ruling our behaviour which is in the visuals. It is regulated by religion, politics, traditions, rules made to give us frame to act upon and know where the limits go. Major topics in film, in anything and the leading couple kiss is the anti-climax in an action film but it has to be there. Image of movie industry, of its people, how it works and what for, it all goes back to sex, human sexuality and how to profit from it, use it, it using us.
Feminist film theory has opened up reasons behind film industry, given a voice and chance for women to analyze film as an art, our point of view and why it should be there on film. How women are on film, used, abused, cut open. ”Feminism is a social movement which has had an enormous impact on film theory and criticism. Cinema is taken by feminists to be a cultural practice representing myths about women and femininity, as well as about men and masculinity. Issues of representation and spectatorship are central to feminist film theory and criticism. Early feminist criticism was directed at stereotypes of women, mostly in Hollywood films (Haskell 1973/1987, Rosen 1973). Such fixed and endlessly repeated images of women were and are considered objectionable distortions which have a negative impact on the female spectator as well as on males.” Claire Johnston (1940-1987) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Johnston was among the first feminist critics to offer a sustained critique of stereotypes from a semiotic point of view (1973/1991). She puts forward how classical cinema constructs the ideological image of woman. Drawing on Roland Barthes’ notion of ’myth’, Johnston investigated the myth of ’Woman’ in classical cinema. The sign ’woman’ can be analyzed as a structure, a code and convention. It represents the ideological meaning that ’woman’ has for men. In relation to herself she means no-thing (1991: 25): women are negatively represented as ’not-man’. The ’woman-as woman’ is absent from the text of the film (26).”
http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol8-2004/n17sloan Is it problematic for cinema as a whole to talk about women’s cinema? ”This concept of minor cinema is quite fruitful for the purpose of concluding the debate on the strong political ground that most interests Butler. Since a ’minor’ cinema is one that politicizes everything, women’s cinema well qualifies, generally finding struggle in all aspects of life, and value in confronting it. Further, a minor literature is written by marginalized authors, and so focuses on the challenges of belonging to an out-group.”
The important theoretical shift happening was and is that women started taking up as voices and act out from places of power, from an understanding of cinema reflecting realities of variety of women, realities of many instead of one. Having a view to cinema as a constructing method, ideological and politically engaging on individual level. Classical cinema was not to show its means of production, or was it? It should be defined what we mean by classical cinema and why classical cinema is what we think it is. Characterised by veiling over its ideological construction and under restrictions rather than free expression? Thus, classical film as we think the classical presents the constructed images of ’woman’ as naturally desirables, unrealistic and attractive for the male. This is the illusionism of classical cinema. www.feministezine.com
It feels like a concrete wall, the notion that a woman in film is not the man, not as able as the man and is always in need of assistance. She lacks something. She is there to be looked at, in relation to herself to her being no-thing. To continue the misogynist tale Budd Boetticher (Hollywood film director during 1942-85) has put it: ”What counts is what the heroine provokes, or rather what she represents. She is the one, or rather the love or fear she inspires in the hero, or else the concern he feels for her, who makes him act the way he does. In herself the woman has not the slightest importance.”
3.Desire of the power elite; Us under the phallocentric order.
Do women objectify themselves by putting their bodies into a certain light where their body and sexuality is openly under gaze and played with, in a certain repetitious positions to gain profit and be seen as that is the way still to get seen? Of course, and I would say, it is not passive. It is a very active role to play and toy with, the game where women win in one way only and are therefore used for a certain time, as long as their looks grant it. Women are slaves as much as they must put themselves in that position to be looked at, in a way it is slavery, yes. There must be something more to it as it is voluntarily done. Victim is a spectator of her fate. She still must imagine what happens to her when she chooses to act in a certain way and like it. Film industry is an abusive machine which abandons those who are no longer useful which is seen tragic. This must be seen beforehand, calculated and be known, understood and accepted. Industry obeys only capital and how to get it. It gives models of how to be, become, what to be, where to be, what to wear, what is talked about and how etc. Seduction is deliberate, unforgiving and cruel, to seduce the audience, a mass has its psychology and logic. Movie industry is a brainwash operator where meat is power and murder. Movies are made to seduce the consumer. Movies to give goals in life. Movies to give dreams. How audience is seduced? Or are we really that stupid? What is seduction? From Wikipedia: ”In colloquial language and fictional literature, seduction is the process of deliberately enticing a person, to lead astray, as from duty, rectitude, or the like; to corrupt, to persuade or induce to engage in sexual behaviour.” The Internet has lately given rise to more open discussion on seduction and how to master it: The Rules for women and The Game for men.
MUCH ABOUT JENNIFER LOPEZ:
”Actress, entertainer, music artist, film & TV producer, fashion designer, entrepreneur and humanitarian Jennifer Lopez has been called one of the most powerful and celebrated celebrities in entertainment. Forbes Magazine named her the #1 Most Powerful Celebrity in the World of 2012. Known for her beauty and fashion sense Lopez has been the face of many advertising campaigns— L’Oreal, Louis Vuitton, Ford, Fiat, Subaru, Lux, Brahma Beer, Gillette, Kohl’s and Pepsi just to name a few. In 2012, Forbes ranked Lopez number one on their list of “100 Most Powerful and Influential Celebrities in the World” ”and she has appeared many times on The Hollywood Report’s list of best paid actresses. Also known as a fashion icon, her appearance at the red carpet events always garners considerable media attention.” www.jenniferlopez.com
”While Hitchcock goes into the investigative side of voyeurism, Sternberg produces the ultimate fetish, taking it to the point where the powerful look of the male protagonist (characteristic of traditional narrative film) is broken in favour of the image in direct erotic rapport with the spectator. The beauty of the woman as object and the screen space coalesce; she is no longer the bearer of guilt but a perfect product, whose body, stylised and fragmented by close-ups, is the content of the film and the direct recipient of the spectator’s look.” www.feministezine.com
Watching her going in to an exiting event wearing Versace smiling and looking happy. The most beautiful woman on Earth, hugely wealthy and desired, influencer on the beauty market. She has her hands leaning her waist. She is a business woman, it is said she is in control of her image, meaning what exactly? She is strong and independent, her own boss and ruler of her art. Poses telling so and the interviews strengthening our perception. But she isn’t saying much concerning entertainment business or how it could be something other than it is and should it be different as it has served her so well? What other could it be and what else is there. Industry serves her as she serves it. I wonder the machinery behind creating the phenomenon like JLo. Is it pure and simple as I think in businesslike? This is awesome. I love you and your arse, your body is part of your art. The publicity is moving around the globe. Beautiful women sell enormously well, so conducting from that there is incredible power in women which remains on image level as it is not completely let go, released. Wildness is ok up to a point. Too much rock and roll is too much the devil.
How it functions building an image for one person around her or his sex symbolism, luxurious life, incredible life story of being discovered and how the story continues, relationships, children, houses, clothes, movies, making music and money, going around the world dancing, having pictures taken, videos being made being followed. The amount and quality of imagery is about style + beauty, body+mind says also her website, a place for worship and to know her a bit better: Lopez’s dedication to assisting children in need and to the empowerment of others is far-reaching. The Girls & Boys Club of America has named her their national spokeswoman. Gucci is featuring Lopez in a national advertising campaign along with her twins Emme and Max launching its children collection. The campaign will benefit UNICEF. Lopez set the branding standard for celebrity fragrance, apparel and accessories. Her latest fragrance, Love and Glamour, marked 17 successful launches, taking in over $2 billion combined. A new fragrance, Glowing, was launch in 2012. In 2006, Lopez was awarded with the prestigious ACE Fashion Icon of the Year for her contribution to accessories and the fashion industry. www.jenniferlopez.com
It’s good publicity to be a humanitarian. Cynically put, but mentioning one’s humanitarian work after all business and entertainment deals and PR is as cynical as business can get and only in couple of sentences her humanism is clear, she is clean and good. I would like to know more about the results of her humanitarianism. What is being made exactly? What is done? What comes to being powerful and influential? She is hypnotizing and playing on many arenas, sure. She attracts men and women that is called power, she makes people wild and dancing, that could be called freeing. The queen bee, a person as a classic beauty to imitate, movie personality with looks to kill, movie star who gathers people to watch her perform, a role model. There are many out there who play this particular part and use their gained position to make a difference as well. She has acted in several Hollywood movies which gives her a platform where she is listened to. Still such story is not the most important issue in a Hollywood feature film, in Hollywood, to be humanitarian it is a side trail, something rich people feel compelled of doing. What kind of sexual vibes arise from the making it. It is a Hollywood cult of icons, stories behind and what actually makes difference in the world. The industry is like a religion with angels and demons, money as the only God. Is philanthropy a distraction, a cleanse? What are movies then? Tools to become rich and famous?
” The paradox of phallocentrism in aIl its manifestations is that it depends on the image of the castrated woman to give order and meaning to its world. An idea of woman stands as lynch pin to the system: it is her lack that produces the phallus as symbolic presence, it is her desire to make good the lack that the phallus signifies.” Laura Mulvey Visual Pleasure NarrativeCinema http://imlportfolio.usc.edu/ctcs505/mulveyVisualPleasureNarrativeCinema.pdf
Hollywood film is a monolith, what I have seen, watched and as I see, it is leaving much out and sticking to the very narrow tones of humanity and sexuality, posing sexual stereotypes, showing a look-a-like magic tricks with a lot of bling and bang. The thing I don’t understand is why is it doing so when it could be doing so much more? With a lot of noise to get so little is strange. Hollywood as a factory would have an enormous potential to do better quality, interesting, experimental, progressive cinema offering the masses variety and actual change. To me their way is more and more commercial humbug offering ecstatic experiences which other art forms also try to achieve, mass appeal and instant ecstasy. Musical sounds are the same, people look the same, has every fucking thing become a clone, an ass and pair of tits? And the world has become an image of the movies. We are coping what is being copied, becoming copies of each other. Copy that.
Series of photos taken on film in June 2001 on a conference trip to the US, so couple of months before 9/11. Maybe proper name is 2001, Age of innocence, joy of travelling and photographing the journey. Element of Americana is in the photos of course, artist as a tourist, intimate portraits of performance artists. They resonate today in an interesting way.
What kind of pictures do we take nowadays in comparison to the time before the digital cameras and camera phones? I got my first digital camera 2008 but digital started to boom after 2001. How has our focus changed as a photo is instantly seen and quickly manufactured, spread and shared. What makes a good photograph and a good photographer as we all practice photographing and have cameras in our pockets? Have we managed to achieve skill and eye for perfect photos and how we perceive perfection in a photo and what we choose to publish? Is it the lighting, complicated technicalities, background and flawlessness that is almost artificial which is paid attention to? Maybe issue is the sense of authenticity in a photo, finding something rare, what is a valuable moment and target to film and be made into an object to look at, does it not require skill to manufacture meaning, feeling, ideas of one’s own via photography and what is the one’s own made visible with a method which is mass production. Photography is a method for all to use, it is exploration in a same way as travelling, to know about and master but what does image tell us and what kind of images do we pay attention to, what is the interest today, of today? What are the clichés in picturing and do we recognise clichés we fall for? What are the most photographed places and people? Are they things we like, are amazed by and which qualities have a mass appeal, cuteness, sexiness and size? Repetition is telling. Interest in and imitation of something which doesn’t lose its fun, value or something we want to be, be part of and what we look for in life? Interests of modern people remain curiously unchanged. Important question is how cameras and social media have changed the way we travel and take pictures? How much do we do the going away from everyday and the immortalising of extraordinary or ordinary out of impulses we get via social media, what is the seen there that raises interest and what is value there? How tourists look the same with their luggage, sunglasses, shorts, cameras, they sound the same, do the same very predictable things; tastes and desires don’t obviously vary that much and secure choices have a lure of easiness in them.
Publishing of travel photographs is banal, an everyday thing but it does not lose its charm as doesn’t shopping or partying. Here I am, look where I am and have been to. The further the trip goes the better, but how far are we willing step, what is the ultimate purpose of tourism is the obvious fulfilment and pleasure, intimacy and revealing of self. Is there something extraordinary in this ordinary practice other than the thought of it being special, being free to go, the opportunity and chance. The trip that was one of a kind exploration whatever the destination, relaxed or stressed out, found out something new or something that was expected. Travel photo is an interesting category where beauty of the seen view is emphasised, the experienced weather, location and what we were supposed to experience, surprises, disappointments, troubles or effortlessness of making the trip. Witnessing distant far away beauty and locations is the expectation, people, sights, wonders and happenings. Being part of something distant, new, maybe untouchable and rare but nonetheless not quite unknown. Are the stereotypes of travelling the same as stereotypes of living as we know what we want and want to show the best in us, be the best kind, be in control, having the best light, the fun moments to remember, displaying our interests which are normal and proper, but still we go search something else? To beautify for a photo is something we like doing, tidy up and look your best, pose with others or alone, in front of something. Controlling our image is important, what we show of ourselves. The unescapable banality of posing, looking, looking like the modern lifestyle we own. Travelling today is a sport, a cliché as a whole, how we do it, why we do it, what we make of travelling. As an industry and as leisure activity it amplifies and enhances our personas and lives bringing quality and debt via what it is worth and what can be learned via travelling. It is extraordinary and ordinary at the same time, grand and small, luxurious on one hand, poverty in action and thought: how could something so rich and giving be so poor and lacking?
The things we want of a photo and of a trip is interesting. There is something similar to them which is about fantasy and realising dreams, becoming and reaching out. The word cliché can mean the whole of human existence which we want to picture as it repeats the similar desires over and over again and we like to do it in a mass movement. What does this cliché of ours make of us as we repeat it, hold on to it, like it, share it, think it as something worth while, that something unchanged is safe and good. How does originality come to show in contrast to mass tourism and mass of photos?
How do we measure growth and what is the goal? To grow for us or in the eyes of others? Growth is measured via having gained more, growing bigger, understanding, learning, having, owning, expanding. We like to think there is no end to our growth, there is no end to our needs either. Travelling is a big part of modern life, it signifies the good life, enjoying ourselves, expanding horizons and paradoxically personal growth. To having been there where it is different than where we usually live, having found something exotic and new, something to tell about and compare. What are the things to expand from and how big is enough when nothing is enough? Personal growth we perceive and examine via where we come from and what is the essence of us that is to be cultivated. Travelling is a place of change but what changes? What is the starting point and what are the possibilities, individual potential and interests, how we perceive our own individual growth as human beings, how necessary it is, what is it and how we appreciate it. What is the needed change there? What is personal growth worth to us and which qualities we like to see grow in us and us growing towards the world?
What happens when we move and take up going? A relief, a release, sense of self letting go, achieving and going through a process. It is a process to which we usually must prepare for, a state of mind which is chosen. We think about going, we get ready mentally and take care of official matters that must be in order for travelling to be possible and we will not be turned away, be without money, accommodation and information about our destination. Plans must be there ready so we know where we are going and what to do when we get there. We don’t want anything drastic to happen but we are prepared, aren’t we. To get lost in a strange place is scary. Interesting is how we either can just go but rather choose not to, fear is keeping experimentation at its minimum. Preparation for safety is a ritual where one takes care of oneself before, during and after the trip. Also place where one is based must be in good order to come back to. We don’t want to go back to problems, mess and stress, unpaid bills, uncleaned home, messy relationships. That is an ideal place to get going.
Jonkun on kuoltava, mut kaikki sankareita. Lopulta kaikki on yhtä sotaa, mutta sodan keskellä voi urheilla ja se merkitsee rauhaa. Urheilu on universaali kieli, koska säännöt ovat samat.
Slow motion replays, Super slow motion, Super slow slowmotion replay and superfast it was over in couple of seconds http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19726898 Shared language of sports and politics.
Maali!! Mieskasa mieskasa, mieskasa, (onni) syleily, tukehtuminen, maali! Urheilu tv:ssä tuo pakahduttavia kokemuksia. Eläydymme täysillä omiemme tappioihin ja menestyksiin. Ravit, jalkapallo, jääkiekko, talviurheilulajit, mitä niitä nyt on. Jotenkin eläimellistä (pärinää). Massa, se on se formulakuski. Ne tienaa paljo, kuskit. Naisten urheilu, naisurheilu kuten vammaisurheilu saavat vähemmän huomiota mediassa, tosin tilanne kenties muuttumassa hitaasti. Etuliitteet nais- ja vammais- karsinoidaksemme varsinaisesta miesten urheilusta poikkeavat, miksi niin. Eivätkö naiset urheile tosissaan vai liekö hitaampi tahti vähemmän kiinnostava. Mitä tehottomampi meininki, sitä vähemmän katsojia, sen vähemmän tuloja vai mikä logiikka? Mikä on urheilun etiikka? Onko se rahan tekemisen, menestyksen, kilpailun kautta tuleva nopeat syövät hitaat ja voittajat ovat voittajia niin kauan, kun eivät häviä. Entä urheilun seuraamisen logiikka.
Katsomisen kohde on lopulta katsoja itse. Onko maali katsojan halujen ja tekojen kohde? Tapahtuma, joka ohjautuu katseen kohteena olevan luotua jotakin haluttavaa? Pointti on se, ettei tiedä mitä saa ja joutuu jännäämään tulosta. Mikä on kiinnostavaa huippu-urheilussa ja miksi. Ihmiset tekevät äärisuorituksia, itsensä ylittämisiä, tuloksia, yhä nopeampia ja kovempia. Sitä ei voi tarkalleen koskaan tietää kuinka, mutta analysoida voi ja sitä vasten kalkyloida kuinka tulevaisuudessa ihminen pätee, jos haluaa pelata varman päälle kuten tv:ssä halutaan ajatella. Tulos ja katsojaluvut tekevät asiasta hyvän ja pätevän. Onko johtotähtenä innostus, palo, tunne, pyrkimys johonkin parempaan. Niin kai. Vaikea uskoa tai sitten meillä on TV:n kanssa eri näkemys mikä on hyvää. Entä mitä ajattelet, kun katsot urheilua tv:stä? Onko ajatuksesi, etteivät asiat muutu ja seuraamme samaa tapahtumaa paremmilla välineillä yhä uudestaan ja uudestaan? Onko urheilun seuraamisessa oleellista, että ei keskity enää omaan arkeensa? Onko tunteenpalo riippuvainen kansallisen edun saavuttamisesta, voitosta ja kunniasta täydellisenä hyvänä, kansakunnan näkyvyydestä, saadusta positiivisesta tunnesaldosta, joka kestää ja yhteenkuuluvuudesta, joka syntyy yhä uudestaan? Voiko samoin viihtyä ja jännittää urheilun parissa ilman varsinaista omaa puolta? Miksi on niin, että urheilu on valjastettu kansalliseksi edustuskoneistoksi? Miksi juuri urheilu koskettaa niin monia tällä tavoin maan kaataen tai nostaen? Kilpailu ja voittaminen että häviäminen ovat jotakin perusihmisyyttä, jota toteutamme. Pärjäämmekö me? Olemmeko hyviä verrattuna toisiin maihin. Kansallistunnon nostattajana urheilu on ylittämätön, siis usein vielä ihmisten kesken, jotka eivät itse urheile. Onko urheilu teatteria, reality-ohjelmaa vai molempia, ilman valmista loppua, ainoastaan toiveita paremmasta. Sopupelithän eivät käy. On oltava tosissaan oikealla tavalla. Elettävä voittaakseen muttei vilpillisesti. Lopputulos on arvoitus, siitä jännitys, arvaamattomuudessa ja yllätyksessä. Haluamme jännitystä ja dramatiikkaa, nopeutta, vaihtuvuutta, verenmakuisia kohtaamisia kuin sodassa vihollisten taistellessa ja jommankumman voittaessa mutta kaikki elossa ja kaikkensa antaneina. Siitä myöskin vaihtoehdottomuus ja kamala pettymys, kaikkensa antamisessa. Jonkun on näennäisesti kuoltava. Mut’ kaikki sankareita.
Mestarien liigan finaaliottelua odotellessa on alkuhappening, noin puoli tuntia. Siis kyseessä jalkapallo (eng. soccer). Studio on hyvin asiallinen. Kommentaattorit ovat virallisesti puvut päällä. Alustavat ottelun, esittelevät pelaajia. Valmentajia kuullaan kansainvälisessä tiedotustilaisuudessa. Mitä he sanovat? Kertovat pelaajien ominaispiirteistä pelaajina kuten, hän ei ole koskaan vihaisen näköinen ja hän on ensimmäistä kertaa finaalissa ja on nälkäinen, millaisen panoksen joku antaa kokonaispelille. Olen ollut seuraamatta kansainvälistä jalkapalloa tähän asti, joten yllätyin kuullessani mestarien liigan virallisen hymnin 2013 (kuin kansallis-). Kuinka vakava hartaus muovautui pelaajien kasvoille kädet munilla.
Perinteisesti pelin alussa pelaajat seisovat rivissä katsomoon päin tervehtien katsojia, tuomareita ja esittäytyen. Peliä ennen tällä kertaa on näytösluonteinen keskiaikainen taistelu (2013 mestarien liigan finaali). Mahtipontisuuden päälle liimaaminen Lontoon Wembleyn areenalla tuntui kummalta. Kaksi saksalaisjoukkuetta saivat kuninkaalliset ja näytelmälliset puitteet. Kuninkaallisuus tässä yhteydessä vertautuu oksennukseen housuilla ja kuinka kauan oma kuva näkyy. Bayer Münchenin fanit saapuvat kolme tuntia ennen ottelua areenalle. Dortmundin kannattajat ovat hitaampia. Fanijoukoillakin on ominaispiirteitä. Pelin aikana meteli on huikea harras messu. Oooooaaaaaaoooooaaaaaaooooooaaaaaa + koreografia stadionilla. Tahtiin taputuksia (antaumus ja hauskuus), hyppyjä tahtiin. Hyppelehtiviä halauksia miesten kesken, homoeroottisuutta ei lienee, mutta yhteiset asut ja meininki. Väreinä mustakeltainen ja punamusta. Pelottavan samankaltainen joukkolaulu ja mölinä kuului myös vastikään homo-avioliittoa vastustavien ranskalaisten http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-politics-gaymarriage-idUSKBN12G0T9 (150000 ihmistä otti osaa 2013) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/world/europe/thousands-march-in-france-against-gay-marriage.html mielenosoitus-mellakassa, jossa otettiin yhteen puolialastomien feministien sijaan poliisin kanssa. Tarpeetonta lienee mainita, että jalkapallo on fanaattisuuteen asti suosiossa Ranskassa. Jalkapallo kuten jääkiekko ovat vahvasti hetero-mieskuvaa vahvistavia, vahvalla miehisyydellä pelaava kulttuuri, joka pitää jotakin muuttumattomana. Samainen mielenosoitus toistui myös tänä vuonna 2017, siis homo-avioliittoja vastaan ja keräsi suuren massan.
Olen minäkin asenteellinen. En kannata fanaattisuutta, perinteisiä sukupuolirooleja, nationalismia, jonka johdosta urheilumenestyksen eteen tehdään asioita, joista ei voi puhua ääneen, syrjintää, joukkotappeluita, rahan syytämistä huippu-urheilulle lasten ja nuorten sijaan. Puhumattakaan muista urheilun lieveilmiöitä, kuten massaturismia, prostituutiota, urheilun kulutuksellisen ja viihteellisen puolen korostamisesta mediassa, kaiken median mammuttimaisesta täyttöasteesta urheilulle. Kiinnitetään valtavaa huomiota huippupelaajiin, tiettyihin lajeihin erityisesti ja urheilun mieskeskeisyys on edelleen omituista. Se on miesten juttu, aivan kuten sota ja taide perinteisesti. Asiat, jotka etsivät, nostavat ja tekevät sankareita. Toki katsojien sukupuoli määrittää mitä näytetään, kuten on loogista, paitsi taiteessa. Kuten tavallista tunteet joukkourheilutapahtumia kohtaan ovat joko puolesta tai vastaan, inhoa, ihailua ja innostusta ja on hyviäkin puolia yhteenkuulumisen tunteesta puheenaiheisiin. Kuten aikamme on urheilu myös narsistista oman edun tavoittelua, joka ei kuulosta siltä mitä urheilun odotetaan olevan: innostusta, iloa ja mukavaa tekemistä, jossa ylitetään itse. Enkä puhuisi reilusta pelistä etenkään huippu-urheilun kohdalla, mutta massatapahtumat puolustavat paikkaansa juuri karnevalistisen hurman ja ilon kokemusten kautta. Siksi olisi entistä tärkeämpää pitää peli puhtaana. Sanonta pelata omaa peliä kuulostaa myös niin homeiselta kuin mikä tahansa sisäänlämpiävä yhteisö. Pelitermistön ajautumisen yleiseen kielenkäyttöön voi toki nähdä hauskana kielenkäyttönä ja toisinaan itsekin revin pelihousuni, kuvainnollisesti.
Laulu, liput, värit, makkara ja olut. Katsomo hiljenee, pelaaja itkee. Näytetään itkevä mies ja julkiset intiimit tilanteet, joihin voi tunnetasolla ottaa osaa, tuntea empatiaa, herkkyyttä, kanssaihmisyyttä ja ihailua. On meneillään maskuliininen performanssi, joka ottaa askeleita feminiinisyyteen. Kuinka määritellä urheilu maskuliinisuuden kautta ja miten urheilu määrittää maskuliinisuuden muuten kuin voiman ja kestävyyden kautta? No kaikilla on oltava lihakset nykyään ja kuka kehon määrittelee yhä uudelleen samalla tavalla mutta vietynä ääreen, joten jotakin muuttuu. Maskuliinisuudella on tiukat rajat, joka on nykymaailmassa edelleen iso ongelma. Puhutaan myrkyllisestä maskuliinisuudesta, machoudesta, peräänantamattomasta itsepäisestä miehisyyden mallista, jossa fyysisellä voimalla pidetään hallinnassa heikkoja ja ajetaan pois näkyvistä ne, joista ei pidetä. Miehessä ei saa olla hiventäkään naisellisuutta eli heikkoutta ja haavoittuvuutta, paitsi että pitkät hiukset, timanttikorvakorut, muotivaatteet, tapa puhua tuovat lisäulottuvuutta karskiuteen ja jäyhyyteen, kuten kaunis vaimo, tyttöystävä, ostetut asiat lisäävät ulottuvuuksia persoonaan. Uhoaminen, pullistelu ja voittaminen merkitsevät rajojen vetämistä, nykyään kun on menestynyt voi olla herkempi. Sellaiseen voi samaistua, kun tuntee olonsa heikoksi. Ulkonäöllä koreillaan, koska miehisyys on muutoksen tilassa, mutta millaisessa onkin kiinnostava pohtia juuri urheilun kautta.
Homous ja heterous urheilussa ovat vielä perinteisissä asemissaan. Hikisyys ja homous sopivat kenties liian hyvin yhteen miehisessä skenessä jossa miehisyyden epäileminen, liika naismaisuus ovat suorastaan rikollisia tekoja. Sellaiselle tyypille nauretaan, häntä kiusataan ja hyljeksitään. Kuinkas voi pärjätä muuten kuin oppia puolustamaan itseään, kova maailma on miesten maailma. On oltava samassa pukukopissa ja suihkussa. Lihaksikas keho on seksikäs, puoleensavetävä, kehon esittäminen voimakkaana tahdonalaisena veistoksellisena haluttavana saavutuksena, työn tuloksena, jonka avulla voittaa kilpailun on jotakin erinomaista. Työtä kaihtamattomuus, raadanta menestymisen eteen, halu voittaa, kehon hallinta ja lihaksikkuus ovat haluttavia ominaisuuksia huippu-urheilun ulkopuolellakin. Ne edustavat pärjääjän habitusta. Kuinka kantaa itsensä, kuinka tehdä itsensä ja menestyä. Se on vaihtoehdottomuuden maailma, se, jossa on vain häviäjiä ja voittajia. Kilpailu voitosta on raadollista, ehdottomuus on raadollista ja kuluttavaa henkisesti. Kakkossija voi olla pettymys. Pettymys on se, joka tuotetaan itselle ja kannattajille kun hävitään. Pettymys on kuin kunnian menetys tässä tapauksessa, heikkous ja huonommuus.
Kentällä valmentaja Diego Maradona suutelee pelaajia. Pelaajan suoritukseen liittyvää kehumista ja teatteria. Erotisoivassa lukutavassa eli kuinka katsoa kuvaa, jossa mies suutelee miestä ei silti ole homoerotiikkaa vaan innostusta. Erotiikka on ulkopuolella niissä naisissa, jotka esiintyvät väliajalla. Kuka erotisoi ja ketä, suutelevathan miespoliitikotkin, mutta miksi. Mikä on eroottista, on treenattu mieskeho, hikinen, voittoisa, yritteliäs ja kuinka pitkälle urheilun eroottisuus viedään tai kuka sitä vie, kun suurtapahtumien nais-miesasetelma on aina sama. Haluaahan mies olla halun kohde. Naisen ja miehen eroottisuus ovat aktiivinen ja passiivinen pysyvästi vastakohtina. Moottori-urheilussa jako on selvä. Nainen poseeraa kimmeltävän ajokin kyljessä vähän vaatteita yllään ja tekee halukkaasti niin. Ajajista hämmentävän harva on nainen, vaikka voisi kuvitella, ettei ajotaidoissa ole kysymys sukupuolieroista. Eroja toki on, mutta onko vauhdissa. Millaisia ominaisuuksia vaaditaan rallikuskilta ja kuinka paljon rahaa vaaditaan, että voi ryhtyä kuskiksi? Mitä tallit, jotka kuskeja palkkaavat odottavat ja kuinka paljon ajajan sukupuolella on merkitystä? Onko ajaja pelkästään voittoisa rohkea mielikuva, jota nainen ei voi olla? Kuva, joka tallista halutaan antaa, on suuri sankarillinen mies tekemässä suuria tekoja. Ostavathan naisetkin autoja, mutta erilaisia kuin miehet. Mikä on ralliautoilun kantava voima ja syy kilpailla on vauhti, ääni ja laitetestaus. Tallit kehittävät mahdollisimman kestäviä ja nopeita autoja. Onko muita syitä kuin mainostaminen ja uuden teknologian testaus? Millä tavalla autoilu liittyy seksiin, mielikuviin, jolla ralliurheilua myydään, tai siis mieskuvaan, prostituutioon, vedonlyöntiin, kaahailuun, auto- ja viihdekulttuuriin, jossa elämme. Kovaa ajaminen vertautuu ns. kapinallisuuteen, aivojen narikkaan heittoon, vapauden tunteeseen ja holtittomaan elämään eli luodaan täydellinen kiiltokuva tekevästä miehestä, jostakin tavoittelemisen arvoisesta sankarillisuudesta ja rahan tekemisen kulttuuri, jossa mikään ei ole tarpeeksi.
Urheilijan kävely areenalle, vilkutus, keskittyminen, juoksu, juoksentelu, hengittely, puhina. Valtava määrä kovaa työtä muutaman sekunnin tai tunnin kliimaksin tähden. Eikä se riittänytkään.
Kuvaa urheilusta tv:ssä ei ole vaikea pilkkoa osiin. Se on “täydelliseksi” luotua ohjelmaa täydellisyydestä, täydellisyyden tavoittelusta ja sen palvonnasta. Valmiiksi pilkottua, teatraalista, hulluuden partaalle, joka huipentuu katsojajoukkojen karnevaaleissa peliareenoiden ympärillä. Niin olisiko urheilua ilman katsojia. Yhteisöllisyyden tuntuna, kuulumisena, oman puolustamisena, tunteiden jakamisena, ilona, kenties sekasortona. Usein urheilusta kiinnostumattoman kysymys on, miksi seurata jotakin, jossa potkitaan nahkakuulaa tai pientä mustaa lätkää jäällä, jota isot miehet ajavat takaa eli viitataan aikuisten lapselliseen käytökseen ja vähäjärkisyyteen. Urheilussa ei kliseisesti käytetä aivoja. Toisen kummallisen toiminnan vähättely ei menoa haittaa, yhteenkuulumisen tunne on niin voimakas ja tekeminen, mikä on tärkein pointti lasten ja nuorten urheilussa, joka kehittää ihmistä kokonaisvaltaisesti kollektiivisena tekevänä olentona. Ei urheilu noin yksinkertaistettuna kuvauksena järkevältä puuhalta kuulostakaan, mutta järki on mainitsemissani asioissa, joista yhteisöllisyys kenties tärkein, kuuluminen, tunne ja niiden esittäminen. Avoimet tunteet urheilussa ja autenttisuus eli suora lähetys ja sen odottamattomat onnen hetket. Mitä on siinä pyhän hetken tunnussa, kun kansalainen tuo mitalin olympialaisista. Sankarillista kuin oman maan puolustus vihollista vastaan. Kuinka avoimia tunteita ja kuinka avoimia kommentteja lopulta voi tässä kontekstissa ilmaista. Epäisänmaallista käytöstä on tuoda maalleen huonoa mainetta, häpeää – tällaisiako te olette. Joo, tällaisia me ollaan.
Urheilijan ylenpalttinen feminiinisyyden esille tuominen ponnauttaa urheilijan valokeilaan: juoksijan pitkät kynnet ja erikoinen seksikkyyttä korostava pukeutuminen, paljas iho, vahva meikki, pienet bikinit. Siinäpä erotisoivalle katseelle paikka. Sama koskee myös miehiä, seksistyminen, ja pohdinta, miksi jääkiekkoilijoiden tyttöystävät ovat usein missejä. (Kauanko sitä jaksaa pohtia.)
Pelaajien näytteleminen eli tuo toinen löi ja sattui niin hemmetisti, vaikkei sattunutkaan ja seuraa vapaapotku, kivun esittäminen. Opetetaanko näyttelemistä jalkapalloilijoille erityisesti? Tai annetaanko pelaajille ohjeita, kuinka kentällä pelataan niin kokonaisvaltaisesti, että kieroilu ja suoranainen valehtelu ovat sopivia keinoja voittoon? Ilmeisesti, koska pelaajien näytteleminen on yleisesti tiedossa oleva asia ja epäilyn kohde. Siis teatteria, onko teatteri urheilua? Äänet, etenkin jalkapallossa yleisön mylvintä on iso osa peliä. Fanit osallistuvat ottelun rakentamiseen luomalla yhteisen tilan, jossa voi ilmaista itseään melko vapaasti. Se on suoja-alue, atmosfääri. Kameratietoisuus – temput, joita tehdään siksi, että peli kuvataan ja omalla käytöksellä halutaan ilmaista tukea, kuulumista joukkoon ja näyttää se mahdollisimman monelle, halu esiintyä, olla esillä. Jokainen voi nykyään olla esiintyjä median ansiosta. Sananvapauden ja luovuuden kannalta hyvä asia.
Entä kuinka urheilija voi lähetyksessä käyttäytyä ja miksi urheilijalta kysytään suorituksen jälkeen, kuinka suoritus meni (eikö se ole jo selvä, kaikki näki) ja kuinka hän itse analysoi urheilutekonsa. Miten arvioida suoritus, joka on tavallaan aina samanlainen, mutta urheilija pyrkii ylittämään sen? Hän teki kaikkensa, parempaan ei pystynyt tällä kertaa jostakin syystä. Rajallisuutemme luo tuskaa. Kuinka suoritustaan voi analysoida ylipäänsä. Mistä sitä tietää miksi se meni niin kuin meni. Analysoinnin tähdentäminen on keskiössä, puheessa täydellistäminen, kuinka kohdistaa ja tarkentaa kun on juuri ponnistanut äärimmilleen. Kuinka tärkeää on kuka analysoi? Kuka on luotettava analysoija muu kuin entinen valmentaja, entinen huippu-urheilija. Kehen muuhun katsoja luottaa? Kuinka luottamus synnytetään, on huippusuoritusten kautta. Onko luottamuksen osoitus, että katsoja palaa katsomaan samaa ohjelmaa uudestaan? Vai voidaanko puhua luottamuksesta? Ehkä se on kokonaan väärä sana tai ilmeisesti joihinkin odotuksiin on osattu vastata. Paluun aikaan saamiseksi, katsojan paluu, tai kun ei tullut töllöstä muutakaan, jupinaa. Mielenkiintoista on millaiset piirteet puhujassa ja millaiset sanavalinnat luovat luotettavan kuvan, mitä sieltä suusta tulee, kuinka paljon ja missä tahdissa. Myös lupa puhua kameralle on jonkinlainen luottamuksen ja uskalluksen osoitus, kaverillisuus, selkään taputtelu. Mielipiteesi on tärkeä. Hetkellisyys, hetken tallentaminen muistoksi, elin sen hetken, josta puhutaan.
Kuinka urheilun seuraaminen tv:n kautta on muuttunut, selostajan käsien huitominen, punainen naama, pelleys, kerronnan sujuvuus, ylitseampuva into voitosta, joka saa katsojan nauramaan, mutta eläimellisyys ei käy, siltikään, on oltava asiallinen. Mutta eivätkö fanijoukot mylvi, hulinoitse, apinoi, karju, näytä muutenkin tunteitansa avoimesti joukkotappeluun saakka? Formulakisojen yhteydessä on käsittääkseni säännönmukaisesti prostituutiota varten tietyt paikat, miehisiä tarpeita täyttämään, naiset ovat vähäpukeisia, ja olut virtaa. Säännönmukaisesti ajajien tyttöystävien kuvat käsilaukkuineen ja aurinkolaseineen kuvittavat iltapäivälehtiä. Urheilukisojen seuraaminen antaa luvan olla vapaalla, hurrata äänekkäästi, tuhlata rahaa, kännätä, huorata, nimitellä, tapella, käyttäytyä muutenkin holtittomasti, imitoida ihailemaansa urheilijaa kaahaamalla, pukeutumalla joukkueensa paitaan ja väreihin, toisin sanoen karnevalisoida arki äänekkäästi, sotkea julkisia tiloja kuseksimalla ja roskaamalla. Tehdä asioita, joita ei muuten tekisi tai ainakaan julkisesti. Karnevaalisuus myös häiritsee niitä, joita urheilusuoritus ei sytytä, joko häviäjäpuolta tai naapureita. Jääkiekon maailmanmestaruus antaa luvan käyttäytyä näin Suomessa, ei kovin moni muu tapaus.
Median muuttuminen joustavammaksi/suvaitsevammaksi käytöskoodiltaan on suupalttien ja verbaalisesti taiturillisten selostajien ja sosiaalisen median televisioon tulon myötä käynyt luontevasti. Sosiaalisen median kommentointivirran ja mahdollisuus seurata livenä, olla livenä, ottaa osaa – En tiedä mitä tuo muutos, joka on jatkuva, lopulta on tehnyt ja tekee sille mitä tv:stä näemme ja kuinka maailma näyttäytyy. Kankea ja asiallinen tyyli on kaikkoamassa pikkuhiljaa. Tuloksellisuus antaa tilaa urheilun viihteellisyydelle ja urheilun muassa puhutaan lieveilmiöistä, hyvistä ja huonoista eikä ainoastaan keskitytä suoritukseen ja kuinka siihen on päädytty.
Mieleen jäävimmät “urheiluteot” ovatkin olleet niitä, joissa on ilmennyt urheilijasta jotakin persoonallista ja omaperäistä esiin, usein skandaalimaista käytöstä urheilijalta urheilun ulkopuolella. Tähän moni urheilija jo pyrkiikin, näytöksellisyyteen, spektaakkelimaiseen esitykseen maalin ja pelin jälkeen. Uskallukseen ja tunteiden näyttämiseen. Näihin tilanteisiin kamera(-mies) kiinnittää huomiota. Tuuletuksia, että maalitilanteita verrataan ja katsotaan hidastettuna useaan kertaan, kuinka se meni. Näin saadaan aikaan kertomus herooisesta urheilijasta, joka antaa kaikkensa pelille, jota rakastaa sitä mitä tekee ja elää täysillä.
Selostajan on tunnettava peli, pelaajat, joukkueen huoltajat ja manageri, että valmentajat, jotta voi kertoa heistä katsojalle. Kuka valmentaja sai potkut, koska joukkue ei menestynyt. Uusi kehiin. Näytetään pettyneen valmentajan kasvot, kuinka ne ovat tuskasta hikiset tai käsi hän on kasvoilla itkua pidätellen. Tunteet ovat pelissä, miehiset ja suuret. Millaiset kuvat toistuvat, kuinka useasti maalitilanne näytetään, millaiset äänenpainot selostajalla on käytössään, mikä on kuvan, toiston ja äänen suhde? Selostaja on ammattipuhuja. Parhaimmat, ne, joilla on mukaansatempaavimmat jutut ovat huippusuosittuja julkkiksia, joiden ansiosta urheilun katsomiselämys on kihelmöivämpi ja hauska. Joka taas kehittää koko tv-urheilun presentaatiota, ja tulevia lähetyksiä, koska koko ajan on muututtava, oltava kenties hiukan edellä muutosta kuin vain olla osa sitä. Onko muutos viihteellistyminen? On selviydyttävä tilanteesta kuin tilanteesta. Tiivis tunnelma on aina maalilla, hiukan odotteleva ja viipyilevä, tarkasteleva kerronta seuraa. Kuinka tilanne etenee maalille, kuinka maalille päästään. Mitä kentällä tapahtuu, mitä kentällä tapahtuu. Eläytyvä selostaja on kuin pelaaja, pelaten molempien puolella.
ENTÄ KUINKA SUOMI PÄRJÄÄ?
Urheilukisa alkaa jo ihmisten mielessä odotellessa h-hetkeä, arvuutellaan kuinka pelissä käy. Veikataan ja pelataan rahapelejä, keskustellaan. Odotetaan, jännitetään. Urheilu on juhla, median ja mainostajien maisemoima kulutusjuhla, jossa kuluttavat kansakunnat eli katsojat. Pärjäämisestä onkin kyse kokonaisvaltaisesti. Olympialaisten saaminen kotikisoiksi on jo voitto. Maan valmisteluja seurataan, koska ne kestävät vuosia eikä budjetissa säästellä, koska näkyvyys on maailman suurimmissa kisoissa a ja o. Siis mitä näkyy ja mitä ei. Urheilu-alueen siisteyden ylläpitoon käytetään runsaasti voimavaroja. Kuten olympialaisten tieltä poistetaan kaduilla asuvat köyhät omiin slummeihin. Turistien ja katsojien ympäri maailmaa on nähtävä parhaat puolet ilman sosiaalisia ongelmia painamassa tunnelmaa. Suuri urheilutapahtuma on egobuusti maalle ja tuo mainoksen lisäksi turistien rahavirran. Urheilussa liikkuukin valtavat summat, jotka kerätään katsojilta ja mainostajilta
.
Huippu-urheilijoiden palkkiot puhuttavat juorupalstoilla, kuten urheilijoiden yksityiselämä. Kauniit vartalot ja kasvot myyvät urheilu- ja luksustuotteita. Ihailtujen sankareiden oletetaankin olevan esillä. Terveys-, kuntoilu-, laihdutus-yms. business kukoistavat urheilun avustuksella. Terveyttä, kauneutta ja nuoruutta on helppo myydä ja urheilija kehollisuuden kautta helppo erotisoida, saada kaupaksi. Juuri vastikään naisrantalentopalloilijat saivat luvan käyttää peittävämpiä asuja bikinien sijaan. Seikoissa, yksityiskohdissa kuinka miehiä ja naisia kuvataan urheilutilanteessa, on eroja. Pyllistävä naistakamus on helppo kuvauskohde ja katseenvangitsija lehden sivulla. Naisten oletetaan olevan seksikkäitä urheilun ulkopuolella. Lihaksikas nainen on itsevarma, terveennäköinen ja vahva mutta onko hän naisellinen. Kuinka moni seuraa urheilua seksikkyyden takia? Edellisissä Olympialaisissa beachvolley katsomot olivat aina täynnä. Herättääkö urheilija luottamuksen juuri terveellisellä elämäntavallaan ja voittaakseen maalleen? Miksi juuri urheilija on luotettava?
Kävely muuttuu lihasten kasvaessa miehekkäämmäksi, otteet urheilussa ovat riuskat, on voitettava ja oltava koko ajan parempi. Ihmisellä on tavoite ja keinot saavuttaa se. Pärjätäkseen, noustakseen huipulle on oltava narsisti ja haluttava sinne ja myös esille. On kyettävä olemaan katsottavana ja luomaan tarina myös verbaalisesti, joten huippu-urheilu ei vaadi ainoastaan urheilullista lahjakkuutta. On osattava viihdyttää ja puhua. Jos ei osaa, on oltava hyvännäköinen ja palvottavissa. Luotava itsestään idoli, jollaiseksi moni nuori haluaa, katseen kohteeksi. Tulla katsottavaksi, seurattavaksi. Tuota narsismia tukee ralliautoilijoiden kauniiden tyttöystävien ja vaimojen koristeenomaisuus. Piipahtaminen varikolla, käsilaukku ja aurinkolasit.
Suomessa urheilijat ovat vielä sangen vakavia eikä idolikulttuuri ole samanlainen kuin esimerkiksi jalkapallossa muualla maailmassa. Suomalaiset mainostavat maitoa ynnä muita ns. terveystuotteita kiltisti kilteillä urheiluhahmoilla, ehkä joku avioero ja kaahailu-uutinen tai kännissä toilailu tai omituinen kannanotto Twitterissä, on jo vakava paikka. Harri Ollin keskisormen näyttäminen miljoonayleisölle hyppykisojen yhteydessä oli lööppikamaa ja huonoa mainosta. Mielestäni se oli parasta urheilua. Sopimatonta urheilun puhtoisessa pinnassa, josta kaikki tietävät, ettei se nyt niin puhtoista ole. Urheilijalle ei sallita julkista juopottelua tai muuta itsetuhoista käytöstä, mutta sitä jotenkin odottaa ja olettaa tapahtuvan, kun on juhlittava. Ura voi olla ohi hetkessä. Huippu-urheilijan ura on riippuvainen valmentajista, mediasta ja mainostajista. Kuinka urheilijan lopulta käy tarkoittaa sitä, että hän itse on pelinappula ja asettaa itsensä siihen asemaan, mainoskyltiksi. Millaiseksi hänen julkisuuskuvansa muodostuu, ja kuinka se jatkuu urheilu-uran jälkeen, kenties riippuu kuinka suhteitaan on hoitanut. On osattava pelata annetuin tiukoin säännöin ja tässä pelissä.
Vallan määräytyminen, vallan käyttö ja katsojan ohjailu, psykologinen kontrolli on saada katsoja jännityskoukkuun, tunneloukkuun, kollektiiviseen tarinankerronnan huumaan, joka jaetaan ja jota jatketaan iltapäivälehdissä. Urheilulle pyhitetään lehdistössä useita sivuja etusivua myöten. Kiihkeätunnelmaisen pelin tähtihetket, tulokset ja tunnelmat, molemmin puolin sekä syyt voittoon että häviöön. Loukku sinänsä negatiivisena sanana ansana, pyydyksenä, ahnaana suuna, joka puhuu, pulputtaa sopii asetelmaan. Se on vangitsevuus ja tehtävä tv:ssä, koukuttaa. Täyttää tila, katsojan mieli, näkökenttä, tulevaisuus ja suunnitelmat. Television tarjonta herättää haluja, unelmia, mielitekoja ja antaa valmiita virikkeitä, luo tyylin, jonka voi ostaa omakseen. Niin voi tuntea omistavansa saman gloorian kuin tähtikultin päähenkilöt. Vielä enemmän niin kutsuttuna interaktiivisena aikana, jolloin sosiaalisen median kautta voi ottaa osaa ohjelman tekemiseen kommentoimalla. En ole varma keksinnön suomasta lisäarvosta ohjelmalle tai yhtään millekään. Chattailu, kevythumpuuki, kokeiluarvo, Twitter-kommentit, joo. Kuten taas, kulutusarvo ja tunne on melkoinen eli yhteistsemppi päällä. Toisaalta ihmisten käyttämän kielen tutkimuksen kannalta mielenkiintoista, kuinka nopea puhevirta tuo esiin jatkuvan ajatusten vaihdon merkityksellisyyden, median määräävyyden ajassamme, muutoksen nopeuden tai hitauden ja voi pohtia, kuinka aikaansaamamme muutos lopulta on tarpeen ja mihin se johtaa ja mikä muuttuu. Päädymme samoihin pisteisiin, kuin mistä olemme lähteneet kyllästyneinä jatkuvaan hälinään. Vähemmän on enemmän, on vain osattava valita vähemmän mitä.
Kun on puhe viestinnästä ja kommunikaatiosta on hyvä, että virallinen viestintä on selkeää, puolueetonta ja ajanmukaista. Voi tietysti kysyä mitä ajanmukaisuus tarkoittaa, kuinka ajanmukaisuus saavutetaan, onko se ajankohtaista ja kiinni ajassa vai tavoissa ajatella, koska tavat ajatella muuttuvat naurettavan hitaasti? Kuinka ajattelemme nykyään verrattuna aikaan 20 vuotta taaksepäin? Voiko sitä edes käsittää? Kun on kysymys viestin ymmärtämisestä, ketä voi syyttää jos ajatus ei aukene? Ydinajatus menee ohi tai jää ymmärtämättä laisinkaan. Kun on esimerkiksi kysymys feminismistä tai taiteesta, että löytää pienen ymmärryksen välähdyksen on selitettävä asia aivan perusasioista lähtien miksi ja mitä, mihin tämä perustuu ja miksi on niin vaikea hyväksyä feminismin saavutukset ja vaikutus koko yhteiskuntaan.
Kommunikaatio on haastavin alue ihmisenä olemisessa. Eläimillä tiettävästi viestikoodisto on toistuva ja aina sama jotta tapahtuu ymmärrys kuka kukin on ja mitä tapahtuu. Koska kaikki on kommunikaatiota on oltava huolellinen. Miten ihmisillä kommunikaatiotavat muuttuvat kun väitetään aikojen muuttuvan ja onko kyse edistyksestä? Huonosti hoidettu viestintä kostautuu jos kuulijalle, joka nykyään on usein myös ostava osapuoli, tulee olo että jotakin jätetään kertomatta, kuulijaa manipuloidaan ajattelemaan tietyllä tavalla ja hän on sivistymätön moukka jos ei ajattele niinkuin pitäisi. Kuulija ei ole viestin antajan mielestä tarpeeksi älykäs ymmärtääkseen annetun viestin piilomerkityksiä tai sitä miksi siellä on piilomerkityksiä. Ylimielisyyttä voi olla ajatus siitä millaista tietoa voi antaa ja mikä jätetään antamatta, tiedon pimittäminen, vaikealla kielellä puhuminen, keskustelun ulkopuolelle jättäminen tavalla tai toisella ovat tapoja kertoa jotakin. Tiedonvälityksessä on ylimielistä kertoa asioista erikoiskielellä jota asiaan vihkiytymättömät eivät ymmärrä, kielellä joka on olevinaan parempaa kuin jos tapaa kertoa yksinkertaistaisi ja havainnollistaisi. Mitä halutaan kertoa, miksi, kenelle. Mutta mitä tarkoittaa ajatus monimutkaisuus jää yksinkertaisuuden jalkoihin ja mikä osuus koulutuksella tässä on? Maailmaa yritetään tehdä helpommaksi mutta se on edelleen hyvin monimutkainen tiedon, käsitysten, mielipiteiden ja kommunikaation sekamelska.
On ilmiselvää että vaikka taiteen kanssa työskentelevät ihmiset työskentelevät kommunikoinnin parissa, juuri kommunikointi on haastavin osuus. Kuinka puhua ihmiselle, joka ei tunne taidetta, taiteesta, kuinka olla kiinnostunut jostakin mikä on omasta mielestä täyttä hölynpölyä. Äly ei ole taiteissa vahvin alue on tullut selväksi, joten miksi ääliöitä pitäisi yrittää ymmärtää. Ei tarvitse. On eri asia kuvitella olevansa älykäs kuin olla älykäs. Älykäs ei vähättele sitä jolle kertoo jotakin, etenkin jos on tarve saada asiaa eteenpäin. On älykästä hallita ammattinsa niin, ettei työ jota tekee eristäydy ja eristä muusta maailmasta. Näinhän ei nykytaiteessa ole. Älyn puute on karua seurattavaa ja kuinka ylipaisunut ego korvaa sen mitä kutsumme älyksi, defenssit ovat korkealla. Kun tulee sokeaksi omalle itselleen ja sille mitä todella teet, olet sinä se jonka voi olla vaikea ymmärtää todella mitä tapahtuu ja miksi. Teot puhuvat puolestaan esimerkiksi. Itse mittaan älyä juuri siinä kohtaa miten hyvin tapa kertoa asioita uusiutuu. Kuinka ajattelu kehittyy ja muuttuu, miten tavat tehdä muuttuvat ja niiden annetaan muuttua ja miten ulkopuoli ja sisäpuoli kommunikoivat ja kohtaavat. Viestinnässä on paljon sellaista me- ja he- ajattelua. Kuinka me viestijät voisimme saada asiamme kerrottua heille toisille kun välissämme on ammottava kuilu, jota kukaan ei halua ryhtyä kuromaan umpeen, koska se tarkoittaisi oman uran ja itsen laittamista likoon täysin ja tekemisen muutosta. Totaalista uudelleen järjestelyä ja asioiden uudelleen ajattelua. Kun oma ura on tärkein syy tehdä mitään, on viesti jonka antaa mahdollisesti puhutteleva ainoastaan hyvin kapealle määrälle ihmisiä. Maailma joka juuri nyt on läsnä, on vain sellaisille kuin sinä. Asioita kerrotaan omasta navasta, omasta kokemuksesta, omasta piiristä ja kuinka kukaan omassa lähipiirissä ei tunne ketään joka äänestää persuja.
Majakollektiivi Timanttimetsä 