art of the wealthy

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

| Henna Timanttimetsä

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

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

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

David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants by Malcolm Gladwell – review

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/feb/15/delacroix-and-the-rise-of-modern-art-review-national-gallery?CMP=twt_a-artanddesign_b-gdnartanddesign

http://www.forbes.com/sites/valleyvoices/2016/02/04/why-the-internet-will-loosen-the-iron-grip-men-have-on-the-art-world/?utm_campaign=Forbes&utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_channel=Technology&linkId=20967411#b763a7010ce7

http://filmmakeriq.com/2015/12/art-and-masturbation/

http://networkcultures.org/geert/2016/02/12/merijn-oudenampsen-on-the-hermetic-contemporary-arts-discourse/

 

Immorality, the rule, rather than an exception.

| Henna Timanttimetsä

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

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

 

The part art plays in creating screens in front of ideological constructs, politics, conflicting interests and problems so that issues won’t be dealt with but swept under the carpet, forgotten and washed since the cause is obviously good as art is in the picture. That truth is not visible but toyed with, manipulated in the name of good for all. PR and visualization at the expense of quality and equality. True interests of big players stay hidden and artist is merely a button.

| Henna Timanttimetsä

It is not news many people with conservative leanings have a tight relationship with art. To hang out and know artists is somewhat of a cliché in which posing and supporting is a merit to have. I have wondered why such culture holds on so persistently and why there are artists who allow art to be used for politics and a means for hype of public relations. Some artists are in desperate need for recognition and funds. It is almost a default and expectation for an artist to think and be in need, assumption of what artist wants, is for and must do is to lure money. What is the advantage there to be had for one with means and a cause to promote? Power of art is quite mighty because of many illusion made by Art History and how art is still portrayed as a saving force, struggle and possible win, a trophy. Social status, intellectual smoke screen, intellectual dishonesty, advertising and pretending go hand in hand, grandiose can appear pretty hollow. It may be an easy-looking path to be an art lover but what does it mean to really love art? Lovers of art are uplifted by art, moved but are the changed by it? Meaning of art is and can therefore be huge.

Turn your world into a canvas, turn it into marble and you are the one with chicle, imagine yourself as a maker. It is such chocolate box romanticized image as is the grande artist who creates extraordinary visions to marvel and admire. To glue this vision on which is the dusty load from Art History used over and over again as it does not grow worn out: Divinity at play. Cult of genius lives on since it is appealing to many. To be an important visual artist is still a pedestal many wish to be on and many institutions like to abuse. Isn’t that the most important job for art especially for people who have power to use art to boost themselves, power positions and causes for which art is used as an extension to mark character and public image as art friendly and cities as cultural capitals and centers. Art signifies intellect for some, civilized and uplifting ground which supposedly lifts up, makes something new constantly and is looking forward, is looking into the future with new eyes, ideas and supposedly new kind of cash flow. Money stays in the hands of the few no doubt. Money and art go together in some cases like the crook and possibility for a blow up, too much talk, promise and a grin, yes we are so happy up here. It is often made to look like that art is for all people when it is to create power position and strengthen it. There are many reasons to love art and all kinds of love. Sounds cynical doesn’t it, and it is. Or what do you think when Guggenheim report to investigate is museum profitable in Helsinki is only in English and translated only when protested, that the museum is told to be experimental and focus on development of something, I’m not quite sure of what, Helsinki art scene? Well it sure does need development, more on the attitude and idea level which do not show to be as experimental and new in real life especially when bureaucrats do the shady-looking business behind citizens’ backs and wish to make it look like something new and dazzling. Yes it is a grande WTF.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guggenheim_Helsinki_Plan#Conflicts_of_interest

The rich patron the arts when public funding is not sufficient or otherwise lacking or for many reasons. It is almost duty of those with means, a good deed, a shield with which to fight against all evil, against banality to show extraordinary, against bad taste. Critics who may and will give unpleasant and so unearned criticism may point out what art is for. Substantial wealth created with suspicious ways and those ways hidden with help of playing a patron of arts seemingly a good thing is the normal that belongs to culture of charity done by the super-rich, ideology of trickle down is a good thing there like ever. Therefore I am as all should be very suspicious when the art and business world play the part of being on the side of good as a whole. Guggenheim is a good example of rhetoric in which imported culture is worth more than local G having an uplifting effect on a small operator, an international influence and contacts which supposedly are always a good thing.

Error establishing a database connection: Question since I am puzzled: Why did Nazis steal all the art treasures during WW2? Was art like money in bank or did they love art?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/business/economy/for-the-wealthiest-private-tax-system-saves-them-billions.html?_r=0

The peril of hipster economics

When urban decay becomes a set piece to be remodelled or romanticised.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/peril-hipster-economics-2014527105521158885.html

 

Art in Diplomacy and Conflict | Episode 34

http://covertcontact.com/2015/12/26/art-in-diplomacy-and-conflict-episode-34/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

to listen is worth your while.

Value of art according to G

| Henna Timanttimetsä

140 000 000
20 000 000
5 000 000
2 000 000

Round figures, something we see often in news fly by. Do we get numbed by the overdosing of numeric info, graphs of how much? What things cost make what they are worth or is it the other way round? How things are seen and handled, priced, talked about, saved or discarded. Wars are expensive, but education is precious, healthcare is too expensive. Museums are meant to shine like diamonds of the cities, priced temples of civilization, education, art, creativity of people. What else? What else do museums of art represent? Commercialism, consumerism, luxury, grandiose and status, power and what is valued? Can they critique themselves? Are they able to keep up with the change (do personnel equal the museum, bad management equal bad museum concept, bad working environment?), mold themselves for the needs of art (needs of people), not needs of museums or is it the same thing? Are art museums art embodied and creators of museum complexes, brands, franchise doing service for art? There is an awful lot of strange interaction, planning and shady promises hanging in the air which all look somewhat crooked for many reasons. Millions are peanuts for some, fairly abstract and large for many, but it is a daily routine to go through what things cost. What art costs is the shadiest of all. Small things make big things, but for some reason spectacle is the only thing that is the honey to attract tourists, art tourists. This is what is assumed. How do you measure when there is no limit but unlimited options to own and exploit, hidden and without showing true intentions, what is what, to make more money to make more value for brands for owners for rulers for player for money men with the help of tourists. Is it a question of heroism, progress of art? I doubt it.

It has been all along Western civilization has been exploring foreign cultures this civilization has refused to understand and know those who it likes to explore and exploit bringing progress and development thinking it is something better and above. It is us and them, those others whom we don’t even want to understand. They are so different. To say of not understanding culture of interacting in our country, our society, our system functioning to benefit art life and variety of it, how we maintain system of ours, how we think things should be done. To say of being naive and not understanding how we do things in Finland is more than odd for people whose nation is planning a trip to Mars. You do not understand foreign countries nor people is at the core of arrogance and stupidity of you nation. Monetary value calculated, planned winnings, honor and imperialist attitude of yours are the flaws of yours you do not want to change, because you do not see them flaws but strengths, your eternal way of life which must not be disturbed. Short-sighted ideas and plain force is nothing but surface, expensive and futile leading to chain reaction of failure with no end. It is good to learn from mistakes made. You fail to do even that. And you dare to say those who object your fucked up project are against art. Fuck you. Your anti-progress, anti-democratic system and thinking sickens me.

Hei Veke, Aikamoinen Messias, poika Pirkanmaalta. Wow. Mut hei, sehän on asiantuntija-apua. Mitä haittaa siitä on?

| Henna Timanttimetsä

Kenen etua ajaa valtakunnallisen päivälehden kuvataidekriitikko, joka on (vai oliko se?)(Muuten melko hulvatonta rahan käyttöä..) voimakkaasti mukana Guggenheim-projektissa. Toimittaja, jonka lusikka on Helsingin taidemuseon, usean gallerian, taidetapahtuman sekä vihreiden muusseissa. Milloin toimittaja on jäävi? Mikä on toimittajan vastuu? Entä kritiikin todellinen painoarvo, kun puhutaan henkilöstä, joka kirjoittaa arvostettuun lehteen ja pitäisi saada puolueetonta asiaa ilmoille? Muuten työskenteleekö hän myös Kiasmalle ja Emmalle? Joo mäkin olen kiinnostunut sun rakkaudestasi taiteeseen, tuntuu olevan melko syvällinen suhde. Näin kysytty taide-asiantuntijuus on hämmästyttävää. En oikein tiedä, onko se ymmärrettävää saati hyväksyttävää pienessä maassa, jossa muutenkin hyvä veli-verkosto on tunnettu. Mielestäni yhden ihmisen suurimittaista valtaa taidekentässä voi pitää korruptiona. Millaista valtaa muuten käytät omasta mielestäsi? Näkyykö se palkkapussissa? Etenkin kun ajatellaan taidetta markkinana, busineksena mitä se hyvin pitkälle on. Kenen etu on kyseessä lopulta?

Korjaa ihmeessä, jos olen väärässä. Mitä epäilen. Siinä on kato tämä luottamuskysymys aika tärkeä pointsi. Tällä hetkellä mun luottamukseni kaikenlaisiin taidetahoihin on aika nollassa. Ja miten pitkälle museohenkilökunnan valinnat ovat poliittisia, saati muuten taidealalla politiikan valta, kuinka se näkyy? Jos toimittajalla on kytkös puolueeseen niin, varmaan sillä jonkinlainen merkitys on?

Aika vitun lutusta. Niin sivistys, mikä vitun sivistys? Onko sinne perkeleen Buffaloon menijöitä?