Is it possible for the art world to critique capitalism of which it is very depended on, the system, the art world is as art is capital? Does anyone know what kind of a system art is?

It seems to me the ideal of the art making, ideal of an artist and idea of the benevolent, kind and good doing art has made the perfect shell on this thing called the art world who are those who protect and support artist on their way, that critiquing it, is close to blasphemy and an act of negative feelings. As it is a business one must behave businesslike and a scandal is truly risky, most scandals nowadays are about what kind of financiers there has been, where the money has come from. One true art scandal lies there, how about that social justice when you are taking money from oil companies and pharmaceutical corporations, not good. In fine art know the right people, right places, the ways of penetrating awareness, know the language, making awe, know the style of contemporary art, you will recognise it and then do it. Put your sign up there, so you will be seen. This is my suggestion. It is a con, a perfect place for a con artist and con art experts who do not do their homework, art institutions to con, copy in search for originality and a hit. Too much shock is too much, but this is preposterous and to talk about good things happens among friends, professionality is about cleanliness, order, finance and hygiene.

Capitalism the word is here and there a villain or an all giving and all solving godlike apparatus. Smashing it is what many yearn or wait to happen. What does the making of change in places of art mean for art, what does art do when it makes change or eventually evolves, and for the public, for the society as a whole, not just for those who consume art? Does change, a reform of any kind, and of anything, understanding, enlightenment, begin to happen after when media tells you about the game changing revolutionary art since places of art are nevertheless and regardless exclusive and they must be visible. Many people don’t dare to go in and/or are not interested, aren’t even aware of?? What is the intimidation, what is the scare? Million dollar question and acknowledging how much power lies in the art world. Making social change is very tricky in an arrogant expensive place, what does it even mean? Arrogance rejects extremes, unfamiliar, not fitting the aesthetics, the people, the interior, removing unclean noticeable flaws which makes irritating and appall laughably easy and fun. Carry your work in a common mall plastic bag does it as does choice of clothing. So much for fitting in. Trying to fit in is against art. Fitting in is design.

Question is for one who is interested in contemporary art and why, by what does this weird thinking and making get fuelled, philosophy and science? How well do places of art and artists take risks when it comes to choosing art for a show, safe bets for cashflow guaranteed? It is reputation that is on the line and financial support which has meant sanitary art is in sanitary places, safe. Trauma is behind the corner, what horror on the wall, is that art. Oftentimes art world likes to identify with social justice movements, which is interesting as the art world is known to be a place of unjust and nonmovement, progress is on the surface and in the technology, are gimmicks progress? I like to think not. Closed doors, tied down/shut up-culture, bring justice forward here is not understanding what the environment is and what is just, not seeing the problem there within or doing anything about it knowingly. I believe all happens knowingly, manipulation is in the visual, it is so strict. Social justice which is a well-meaning, good thing to have and be for: progress is that we will all be united one day, right? Well, it is truly progress. We all want seas be rid of pollution, right? Concepts like capitalism, it clearly is a concern, unity and what does it mean in capitalism, but to my mind not enough a concern. Art is probably not even touching the problems it must face, just petting them, it is there, we know it, we know but most we look at problems of others. Money is so good, isn’t it and there is never enough of money (artists are rated by money, money makes an artist) and art is never big enough… size matters as it dazzles, gives an experience. White walls are luxurious, stylish and everywhere in clean places where order is appreciated.

Art work which critiques capitalism in designer-like fashion for example by saying “Capitalism will collapse from within” conceptual artwork by Elmgren & Dragset, 2003, a painting represented by internationally recognised galleries, which is always important to mention for value, strikes as a slogan from a t-shirt. Work is placed on a wall casually hanging from one corner in front of a safe, so maybe it is simulating a demonstration and hiding a robbery, (constantly in mind to go to the streets but then run) turned into a luxury object. Hmm, so it is critiquing itself, the artists and telling what artists really want (what is in that safe)? What is in this picture that is untrustworthy? Maybe nothing but definitely something. It is funny and irritating at the same time, when I noticed the safe on the wall it dawned on me it is about the structure. Biggest joke is the white wall and all that whiteness around the work. Is it the price tag that is odd, that it is for sale, of course (you can find it on Artsy-application which is for selling art).Is this critique towards those who believe in capitalism as the work is on show in a grandiose tiptop place for art or just mere hopelessness in front of choices artists must make, place of warning of a burning world, burning from within?? Is art world a place for social justice with sense of style, a functioning one? Isn’t it biting its own leg as art world is very depended on capitalism, the system created for creating wealth and art being a very strong signifier of wealth, an asset? What does art world think of critique which is targeted on them and most importantly what does the art world do other than go on as it ever was? Only thing that moves it is the market and financial depression, where the money goes and is. What happens in this future collapse we are facing and who will go running from within, which is the place where art is, the within, and comes from, I hope. Walls and built things are the within, the within is something we rely on the most, the safe place we are afraid of losing?

I am sceptical of the amount of benevolence and altruism there. A constant concern for me when it comes to art is what are the motives there. As said art is a business and in business one does not play too much with fire, does one? Although when looking at finance world taking risks is essential and we pay for it. So it is good and safe to take risks in finance but not in art? Art world taking risks is an interesting issue as for instance those who collect art are known for not making risky choices. What does “Capitalism will collapse from within” say to a collector? How to make more money with it? How to hide when destruction strikes? How the art work will grow more valuable as there will be more banking crises, homelessness, unemployment, poverty, insecurity etc.? Is it a prophesy or lookalike hotel in a wall? Are artists functioning as oracles who know something about the system we rely on? One essential question is how does an artist work outside the art world? That is called outsider artist which is really funny. Is it even possible as the system is so tightly framed to be an artist outside? Many question that, still. You are not accepted by the right people, you are not an artist. You do not have money, you are not an artist. These rules are some I have come by and are a result of the current art system, which is fanatic for stars, visibility, greatness and excess. Massive and working in a strict manner simulating openness, an intellectual con which appears for example when art English aims to impress and experts create interesting sentences without much content: it looks good, what is it, did you bake it?

Something about damaged photos, choosing of topics.

There is something to be rejected in ‘perfect photos’ as they may look too good to be real. Staged, rehearsed and paraded photos where there is something enjoyable and nice is to cheer us up. Photography is much used in this purpose. It is a mood creator taking the viewer somewhere and good as such, with a purpose. We have stuck ideas of what is perfection and what is beautiful, how it looks, as it is a look and desired. Of course we must define what is perfection, what is the aesthetics of perfection. A perfect photo is a window to a lovely world and to personality. Perfection is to know what one wants, it is a goal to which there is a road. We will notice it very often is a matter of taste and tradition and what we are used to seeing, what we like, what moves us. How much do we dare to push buttons of viewers? What does rejection tell?

We must show others that we know what is good. What do we want to tell via preferences and the medium is what is interesting. What are you telling me and why. Perfection is in part a fantasy. Is it yours, do you own it or are you reaching out for it? It is personal, somehow naive, shallow and a thing to be had, thing of vanity and making a gap between. Perfect photos uplift the photographer to a illustrator of dreams and achievements, that something is exact, right and in order and the maker of photos must know something of order and organising. The photographer is the hero owning the medium. There is heroism in photography which is itself disturbing. Sizes, prices, glows and sounds of cameras are a thing and sight and matter of awe themselves. I am interested in what is the edge there too much to take and accept. What is unacceptable in terms of photography? Is it ugliness, greyness, fuzziness, lack of light, obscenity, unprofessional look, gender, lack of money or what?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-06/why-photography-can-t-get-woke?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social “But there was one glaring omission: All 32 of the people they chose were men.”

What is the point and issue we are not touching, do not want to see and accept, are not showing but removing, are afraid of or despise in photography. We think we know perfection, so there is a ground to be followed? Rules such as don’t burn pictures with too much light. Perfection in photography is more complex than what is there in sight at first glance. It is eye candy for some, nostalgia, arranging a set and prettiness immortalised. Is there something more that needs a deeper look, what is the story or clue behind there. What is interesting in a photograph for me is fragility via a powerful medium, tool (too powerful for me to touch? Am I too small to be holding a camera?) and how this medium and media can be challenged, as it obviously must be. What gets captured, where do we point our cameras at and what does it tell?

Damage on a photo there can be is dust, scratches, negatives ageing, sudden wetness makes paper get glued on negative. Anything that creates something on the surface other than a picture should be removed. To please the eye is an interesting demand. Something gone wrong in the process of preserving a photograph, or a disturbance during any phase of making, disruptive something is a remainder of importance of imperfection, to understand this makes one take more dimensional photos than just surfaces that instantly please. Damage and doing wrong in photography is somewhat a punishable act as it is highly seen a technical art where one has to master the equipment, light, have eye for situations and capture in seconds. How good one is, is very much a technical issue for many. It is an issue of being accepted as a photographer. In other words how much equipment one can afford, which has led me to question authority and decision-making processes within the industry. Quality and how much wealth it needs to be achieved and how much wealth dictates quality and creativity in general.

In unreal photos of reality there is awe, how it was made, how much it is about the equipment and how much it is the master behind the lens. It is not unheard of to witness men saying women can’t photograph or you can never afford this camera. My destiny is of course set by people who know better. When money is the number one authority there, getting it gives you authority or is it skill.

carpetcarpetcarpetcarpet

photos of public carpets

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

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

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

Scum

There are people of which there are several different kinds of terms and names in use to make those people feel inferior and not worthy of respect as human beings. Scum, trash, mob, riffraff, or simply the poor who somehow waste their lives doing things respectable people do not do. Respectable is an interesting term and how one becomes respectable. Quite often all it takes is a look, a suit, apple computer and network. Respectability in middle class terms does not happen by whoring and doing drugs but you can prostitute yourself and do drugs when you are rich, so what is the difference there other than what money can buy.
Those things, drugs and whoring, are not problems to you, they are entertainment, a leisure activity, dangerous hobbies, a tiny bit of rock n’ roll-lifestyle to experience. To exploit is respectable as long as the one’s that are exploited are faraway, kept a distance away. Poverty is a disgrace like there is something wrong in you and with you, a stain and a stench. Losing everything such as dignity, human worth and hope for better can happen in early age: how to find joy of making in a world that does not honor poverty? There was a time when poverty was respectable and noble. Nowadays it is respectable to mind your own business and build a fence around your wealth. It is respectable to live in a bubble of the good people and wonder what are those people like who vote for Donald Trump. To me definition of scum is the people who live from the work of the poor and pour the disgust and punishment on them, people who disrespect people who are poor, who do not have the wealth you have, people who do nothing to help the poor, people to whom talking about poverty is shameful, people whose main goal in life is to get more rich in any means possible, who gloat how respectable they are and how God is on their side. Scum are the people who think they are exceptional even though they are not even close.
True definition of scum is people who do not see further, who think their wealth make them exceptional, who hold their view of the world the only right one and that they have the right to all the riches of the world, who photograph their fucking bodies, post pictures of themselves on the social media and that is their main interest in this social event called social media. You can be a whore in the truest meaning of the word also when you are rich. Sometimes I think it is the most common occupation there is.