Yes, it is a fairytale kind of spectacle or anti-spectacle in a spectacle. Anti-spectacle in the sense of change of perspective towards gender, class, work and art. The spectacle we are used to seeing is how class, work, gender and art function and are thought to represent and be like. The American dream where beautiful young woman reaches out for her professional dream, a place in the sun and ends up getting more, a romantic relationship with a Man with a Porsche, who is also the owner of the factory where Alexandra, the woman in question, works at as a welder. One big plus of the movie is it does not highlight the work Alexandra does, welding is just work with men as co-workers. It makes the movie hugely more interesting though, and her the one who lives outside the box and is allowed to do so. She is not harassed by her co-workers. It is truly a beautiful setting.
To explore deeper into what the movie is all about is worth our while as it has been deeply overlooked as many romantic movies that are meant for women usually are. To pay attention to details, characters, camera shots, what is being looked at and told via tensions between women and men and why those tensions exist. What happens between the sexes, between women especially, what are sexes both expected to do, look and be like. Movie is a language as is dance as is sex, sexuality and gender. You have to focus on to read it and actually think what are we looking at, what happens there and why all the time. It is not just an entertaining show where you can relax and forget what is going on, this is told via contrasts between sleazy bars, working men and art, how women are treated in different settings and how these settings differ, how women want to be treated like and what do they desire of their lives. Movie is never just a movie that is meant to entertain not even those that are made for that purpose, nor is music or the dance acts that seem to be out of place. Point is easily missed when the romantic is what stays interesting and in the focus.
In a bar where ambitious fit and talented dancers show their art, act for paying customers who are watching and are a bit amazed by the unexpected show. Contrast is also to the other bar where dancing is not the primary interest of anyone, only nude female body, that moves in a certain way. Women are dancing for money but in a show-your-ass-kind of way, but they still want to be discovered and dream of making it. What are people watching and why, who gets attention? Watching happens for instant gratification, simplicity of getting pleasure cheap and for fun. A bar is a world of something else than the workplace and not a place of thought, burdening oneself. Customers of the bar are not the assumed ordinary art lovers, but that is the point. Why should people be provoked to think more than is necessary, why not give them what they want? To whom is art for and why is it a class issue? What is art and where is art, who is capable of art and why it is a special occasion? High and low seem to be repulsed by each other, classes stay separated like oil and water. The dance acts, art and artists, are really in the right place. Intention of the movie is not to depict a straightforward story in a manner of this is what happens: this is what we dream of happening to us. It is not a children’s story and it is not pink. It seems light, but is more heavy when one starts exploring. That is the expectations and frame women are supposed to fit in, want, act upon and are shown in the movie, that those who dare, can change the game. There is interesting social critique hidden there to be found. To say Flashdance is a feminist movie is not quite what a true movie lover might expect. What do you think about the turn, that a seemingly light Hollywood movie is feminist in a very kick-ass way and about the structural difficult issue of choosing how to get ahead in life, on one’s own terms and talent, and not sleeping with the boss or buddy who has connections. What do you think about when after having seen and evaluated for example the scene where Alexandra goes and finds her friend who has gone to work as a stripper, moving herself in conventional stripper manner she is grabbed off the stage by Alexandra. In the scene Alexandra’s clothing and standing position compared to her friend tell a lot when friend the stripper ends up in a puddle on street wearing only panties and high heels and is cold. Money she earned gets wet in the rain on the pavement. Alexandra’s loose pants and sneakers when she stands firmly behind the naked woman who has fallen down and sold her body for money to please men may seem easy and naive, but it is something very basic. A woman on the ground beaten down feeling there is no other opportunity for her.
After having read couple of critiques about the movie and clearly many have missed the point: When one is an art critic it is essential to see behind the image and be free of bias. What is the seen image telling us, what happens without words, what is the setting and who are the characters, what do they do. Do you need more clues, because explaining has to be done also in a very basic manner, obviously also for critics. When you are an art critic, don’t fall for the simple clichés. Such poor analysis destroys a lot, as does arrogance and cynicism. Minimising culture that is aimed at and is about women and girls is a normal practice. It is a learned reaction which comes without thinking. A black woman eating a banana in a scene where women talk about relationships, well sounds as cliché as anything, but it happens in couple of seconds, and is easily missed, but telling. To make it as you with your raw capabilities, without handouts and favours..
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 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 tehokarjatuotanto. 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.
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.
Kyseessä ei ole mikään vähäinen mylläys Urjalan ja Humppilan rajamailla – turpeenottolupa on myönnetty 80 hehtaarille.”
Napanuora, Konkeloiden raahaaminen kasasta takaisin suolle, 1998, Suon estetiikka, SuoMen-ryhmä
What is disapproved professionalism? I highly recommend a kind of disapproval which goes strongly against the establishment and status quo, against those who repeat old truths, truths of theirs. Something out of the ordinary is scary and fear is instant, out of the cult of professionalism, out of the book of solid truths, something to believe in strongly must be put under scrutiny. I strongly disapprove professionalism which sees through corruption, misconduct, sloppiness, carelessness, ignorance, arrogance, unwillingness to make progress, unwillingness to see oneself as student forever such outrage and lack of humility should be disapproved in larger scale there where power to make professionals is and people who can’t take criticism and learn from it. Pedestals oh pedestals, too much respected and feared, way too much.
Disapproved professionalism is something which has moved away from something known, corrupt and repetitious, away from something which sees itself as perfection that can’t be overshadowed, critiqued, put under microscope and be revealed as it is. Unprofessional is to behave badly against other professionals, without a good reason other than those feelings. To look down on and think you are so much better than is highly normal. You want to feel empowered and demonstrate this power position of yours with violence. Maturing is tough, admitting falsehood, doing wrong and failure is difficult, almost impossible. We all have met these kinds of people. They are the menace and sign of ruin of the power structure and themselves. Such thinking costs you, you narrow-minded fools. So never fall into the trap of arrogance and false pride. There is always someone better and other ways of doing. To find out which one’s are the best is a competition where there almost never are winners. To win is what professional competition is all about unfortunately.
To be proud of one’s work is what we should feel, be unashamed, whatever the work. For artist it is a battle especially when the most often thing to come by is rejection, contempt and hate. Art community should by default understand that artists face a lot of discrimination and negative positioning like the artist was the ultimate loser and threat. All you need is family which does not approve what you do. This can’t be too much emphasised. Be empowered and privileged is something many aren’t entitled to. Quality of work is another thing and what is it is the contents not how much your camera cost you and where you are BASED. Those who have reached position which gives them right to look down on do more harm than good. No wonder they are easily hurt, professional emotions are so vulnerable. Most damage they do is at schools. Which I have wondered why assholes and idiots get to teach.
Something which does different from the approved form of status professional? A connoisseur of practise, of thought, ideas and craft, how much does this have to do with feelings? We must feel satisfaction of doing something well and be rewarded for this. We need collective acceptance to be uplifted, respected and valued. This image and game, play or how should I call it, rivalry, fight for right to be a professional, is of course passionate and exclusionary, shutting out those who do not match credentials of the profession. Which is understandable. Sometimes, especially in art, such game of who can and who can’t get interesting proportions and this has got to do with gender a lot and where you come from.
Is there something such as professional pride? Pride of doing one’s job as well as possible, as well as one is able and knowing what it means to do job at hand well, any job? I have come to learn that such pride is not what it used to be, when work was your signature, pride and measure of worthiness in the eyes of those who enjoy fruits of one’s labor. Are we so spoiled already that work is not who we are in the meaning that it only makes it possible for us to live and express ourselves outside work? Is that what being spoiled is, to have free time to express oneself and feel free? I think it is. How does this effect the way we work and do our work and most importantly appreciate as work? Work must make a decent living, be valued as craft and expertise, worker be valued as someone whose effort is noticed and appreciated. Someone who just has a job is not enough, we want more than that because we are fully what we do for work. Job must be something which can be valued as modern and an achievement, an extension to one’s personality, fulfilling ambition, one being able to show talent, capability, proof of all this existing in this one person.
Fair enough, we are entitled to this luxury, aren’t we. Be appreciated and be paid for what we are worth, what our work is worth, our labor input. What other things follow hopefully are plusses. We are entitled to search for fulfilment via work and be tormented when this does not happen. It is unfortunate when work does not involve exchange of money, it is possibly not considered work but something else, a service. Naming is important, exchange is too, interaction. Is what you feel important in this matter? Money is there in one form or the other, work as money possibly. To work and make can be seen as means of exchange, value is in what was made and done and how the exchange happened. Our values are largely bound to money as is our way of living, making money is valuable as such, having money, looking like you have money. How is that the biggest one value there is and why there does not seem to be enough ever? Money gives value to people and money only? Is how much the most used question and basis for understanding value? Value of work done where does it lie? Important seems to be who does the work: gender has an important role in creating value.
My quest is to understand professionalism and how we understand what it is. For most the pay check is proof enough, the title, education, network and being busy, accomplishing and achieving, making progress such as getting more money and more fancy titles, getting ahead on career path. I have been wondering this issue because there seems to be a huge misunderstanding or collective mind-set, one-way path, what it takes to do one’s job well, what is achieving something, having a path, pursuing goals and why this pursuing goals which self-evidently belongs to choosing careers is important to take up and obey, choosing up one’s career. What is a career, who validates it, is it given or taken?
Interestingly rules for professional in business are tightly tangled with art which makes it curious to be an artist when to create something new constantly and being one’s own boss, at least for me, are at risk of becoming something else. Artist should be a brand, a product to sell her art. Ways of becoming a brand and product is very business culture obedient more and more. That is not good news for art. Something goes missing easily which is personality, uniqueness and following path of one’s own despite what happens, doing what I want to do contradicts the business savvy heavily for a reason. What is expected of you is to obey.
When art is an investment what are the expectations and when art pursues not fulfil expectations but move further what happens? When the interest lies in ways of presentation, what and how expensive one’s equipment is, who do you know and where you live, are based, as it is said nowadays, where are we based exactly, where do we base our priorities? What is lost in this kind of interest in showing off and thinking the tools make the art more than you ever can, professional emerges when one possesses the right kind of kit? Yuk. Freedom of making out of scratch, out of nothing without need to impress by things, places and domains, play a role in making something worthy nowadays. Sure to look nice even presentable is what you are looking for go for it, but to expect that be the professional way is corporal setting and harnessing, waste of something good and turning into mass product, likeable and following instructions for professional outlook to impress as professional. Who is the artist in this picture and why the need for grandiose and expensiveness is so important to make an awe, an effect, spectacle and produce value which is bloated ready to explode? Is it business as usual we should have?
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.
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.
The peril of hipster economics
When urban decay becomes a set piece to be remodelled or romanticised.
to listen is worth your while.
https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2015/10/youth-advisory-board-discuss-censorship-of-art/ “When we reach a point that art depicting toy to depict a terrorist threat is considered too dangerous for public consumption, one has to wonder what we are really fighting for.”
Censorship is the one that has always been there for me whether it is in form of self-censoring which women do instinctively, or the authority has done the censoring and called it curating or editing or just looking away. Usually it is disapproving without discussion and show of contempt for the artist. Something that must be only perfect has a perverse side to it. Art is not about depicting a perfect world, perfect people looking perfect doing perfect things and being great, only great and wonderfully glorified. World glorified, artist glorified, art something that matches the interior and appeals to aesthetic taste is a trend which is forcing itself still as we are given big names and stars, proper contents packaged, expensive gladly, not bad light on rulers, not politics, not ugliness, not cursing, business-likeness which has taken the art world is obvious. We are here to sell and please.
So art on menstruation, female genitals, sex, pornography, bombs, terrorism, art world pretense and phoniness, cleaners, garbage, dirt, prostitution often are banned, scrutinized or at least artist’s mental health is questioned and her intentions. Those topics may be more suitable for male artists too, but still daring. He is so daring and brave, she is just odd and dangerous. To say the word clitoris aloud is difficult, so I am interested why so, to watch pornographic images which are on the net for all to see displayed in art context cause a stir. Scandal is why art scene is so conservative, still sexist and prudish, still perverse. I also wonder what kind of people art is for and what is expected of art, why these expectations do not match with desires of an artist to explore openly, discuss and show what world is like.
For artist to do what is expected is dangerous.
If art is seen as mechanical part of society with duty to fill, money to make with, interior to decorate, glory to have by there will be those who will oppose it, artists who will challenge such system of good and bad, winners and losers, rich and poor, laborers and profit makers. An artist as someone who has to make art to fit the system is selling cheap, to fill in requirements given to make art suitable there will be something left out, unseen and forgotten. Why people do art, why there is need for art, what kind of art do we want to make and to what kind of need does it answer, who defines what is art and who is the artist. These questions will be asked over and over again as there is a system that makes it compulsory to find the grande artist, value art as possession, as there is system that makes profit via art often without the artist. Sometimes it seems art is valued but artists are not as people who also need to be paid for their work. In capitalism we do not live to make charity, to make other people rich, give value to institutions, cities and countries.